Targeting terrorism

Reports that Russia may have killed Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi have raised hopes that the Islamic State is finally unravelling. Without providing confirmation, the Russian Defence Ministry has suggested that Baghdadi was one of several senior IS leaders killed in an airstrike close to Raqqa on May 28. But even if the speculation turns out to be true, Baghdadi’s demise, while important, may not prove as decisive a blow to the future of his movement as foreign observers would like it to be. IS itself was founded just four months after an American airstrike killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian who founded a branch of Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Zarqawi’s contempt for Shiites and his indifference to civilian casualties was so extreme – he was narrowly prevented from detonating a chemical weapon inside Jordan – that Al-Qaeda severed its relations with his group. But instead of marking the end of the savagery associated with his leadership, Zarqawi’s killing created a power vacuum that was soon filled by the much greater violence of the Islamic State.

While losing swathes of territory to the overwhelming military forces ranged against it, the Islamic State appeared to escalate attacks on ‘soft’ foreign targets, especially in Europe. But there is evidence that these were planned long before IS found itself hopelessly overmatched. The group has also shown unexpected resilience to attempts to disable its cyber operations, reportedly regrouping within days after its servers have been hacked or closed down. This decentralised organization makes it hard to target the network with a silver bullet and almost impossible to defeat by military action alone.

This resistance to easy fixes is important to acknowledge because Russia’s increasingly destructive intervention in Syria has been carried out in the name of fighting terrorism. In fact, its most significant outcome has been the shoring up of the Assad regime and the entrenchment and prolongation of the civil war at the cost of tens of thousands of lives. Russia’s attitude is uncomfortably close to the new stridency in US foreign policy, with its religious undertones of pursuing the fight of good against evil.

Speaking in Saudi Arabia, President Trump urged his audience – a roomful of despots with questionable human rights records – to “drive out” terrorists and extremists: “Drive. Them. Out. Drive them out of your places of worship. Drive them out of your communities. Drive them out of your holy land, and Drive Them Out Of This Earth.” President Trump delivered these remarks as though unaware of any of the contexts that give rise to the extremism he was condemning. Yet just a few weeks earlier his administration had launched missiles against a Syrian airfield to punish Assad for a monstrous gas attack – a war crime enabled by a similarly Manichean narrative. If President Trump is not aware that the self-righteousness of arguments used to justify extreme measures against terrorists tends to foster even greater self-righteousness among the extremists themselves, then his advisers and speechwriters ought to be.

Terrorism has always drawn its power from deep-seated political crises – such as the sectarian hatreds that erupted after years of misgovernance in Iraq. To believe that these crises can be solved only by bombs, assassination, or other militaristic forms of ‘driving out’ evil, is to yield to the political blindness that originally produced them. At a time when acts of nihilist violence seem to occur randomly all over the world, on an almost weekly basis, it has become more important than ever to recall that all lasting solutions to terrorist violence have included political dialogue and none has been reached by military force alone.


Disrespecting professionals

At a recent hearing of the Pubic Accounts Committee (PAC), members learnt, or rather were officially informed, that Region Seven (Cuyuni-Mazaruni) has a significant staff deficit and that the 204 vacancies included teachers, nurses and doctors.

Misplaced machismo

By now you must have experienced the roar. Chances are, once you leave your home you will hear it.

Mercury emissions at the Guyana Gold Board

It really ought not to have been this way. Successive political administrations, ignoring their own repetitive articulation of the virtue of safety and health at the workplace, inexplicably failed to practise what they continually preach resulting – by the admission of the present administration – in damage to the health of a still unknown number of workers at the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission (GGMC) to an extent that remains unclear.

The invested signing bonus

It now seems clear that the APNU+AFC government has no intention of placing the US$18m signing bonus in the Consolidated Fund as required by Article 216 of the constitution.

Your browser is out-of-date!

Update your browser to view this website correctly.

We built using new technology. This makes our website faster, more feature rich and easier to use for 95% of our readers.
Unfortunately, your browser does not support some of these technologies. Click the button below and choose a modern browser to receive our intended user experience.

Update my browser now