Marc Sageman, author of the book Understanding Terror Networks, says that London is a crucial nexus in al Qaeda's ongoing war against the West. Sageman is a forensic psychiatrist who has studied biographical data on 172 Islamists. Using network theory to analyze the way that al Qaeda regenerates its membership, Sageman says that the Jihad's center of gravity in the West has moved from Montreal to London. And now that London has been hit by multiple bomb attacks, it appears that Sageman's analysis deserves our attention.
"The rise of London as the main center of the jihad in Europe," noted Sageman, "was probably due to its tolerant laws allowing for sanctuary and its large pool of potential mujahedin." Under the subheading of "Geographical Distribution," Sageman theorized that al Qaeda regenerates spontaneously through friendships and casual contacts between agitated communities of Islamists (worldwide) and those with ties to bin Laden's "Central Staff." The connecting personalities are described as "bridges" that facilitate a meeting of minds between al Qaeda's leaders and those who are predisposed to follow. "Salafi mosques in Brooklyn, Milan, London, Montreal, Madrid, Hamburg, Roubaix, and Khamis Mushayt in Saudi Arabia have produced large numbers of mujahedin in the past decade," Sageman explained. "Traditional institutional settings have been the locus of the emergence of social movements...." The jihad is about Muslim revival. Ironically, mosques located in Western cities may figure more prominently in al Qaeda's recruitment than mosques in the Arab world. Radical ideas are formed and spread within a social context - within a community of shared values. The West respects freedom of worship and freedom of speech. The radical Islamist has greater freedom to explore and build his faith under Western democracy than he does under an Arab dictatorship. The mosque itself is a meeting place. But few mosques "are sites of emergent terrorism," noted Sageman. One must know which mosques are terrorist incubators.
Sageman believes that London's tolerance has nurtured a stinging serpent at England's breast. The influence of London Islamists, he wrote, "has implications for [al Qaeda's] ability to accomplish its mission." Having emphasized the one place where al Qaeda was bound to flourish, Sageman added that Jihad "does not have a large pool of members able to operate clandestinely in the United States, and thus is limited in its ability to wage war on U.S. soil." (Quite obviously, the ability to wage war on British soil is not similarly constricted.) This theory, if true, has profound implications. It suggests that no country can afford too much liberalism or too much tolerance when the spread of violent ideas are the issue.
And what of the more alarming analysis of Steven Emerson, author of American Jihad, who gives the impression that jihadists in the American mosques have a significant following (that could be expected to join bin Laden)? Sageman apparently dismisses the threat posed by Islamist groups in the United States. "I found no evidence of any comprehensive recruitment drive in the United States," he stated.
Of course, finding no evidence is an admission of incomplete knowledge. Sageman says that Pro-bin Laden Muslims in the United States might join the jihad if bin Laden sent representatives to "blend into American society and operate on American soil." Sageman prefers to believe, however, that U.S. security measures have successfully prevented al Qaeda infiltration into the United States. Radical Muslims are distinctive, and the world's security services are watching.
If Marc Sageman's analysis points to London as al Qaeda's Western nexus why haven't British authorities recognized the danger in their own back yard? London is a large city with a significant Muslim population. British colonial guilt may be a factor, leading British officials to tread lightly. After Thursday's bombings the United Kingdom will be forced to view its Muslim population with greater suspicion. The attacks on London are a direct challenge to Prime Minister Tony Blair. He must manage ethnic tensions with diplomacy and tact. At the same time he must assure security. Given London's mixed ethnicity, Blair's position is far from enviable.
Al Qaeda is not a typical terrorist organization. "Osama bin Laden's most brilliant stroke," wrote Sageman, "may well have been to allow the global Salafi Jihad network to evolve spontaneously and naturally, and not interfere too much with its evolution...." The spontaneity and robustness of this "small-world network" might be described as "laissez-faire" terrorism. According to Sageman, "it seems that terrorist leaders thrive on power and control of their organizations. Osama bin Laden seems to be the opposite. He is publicly self-effacing and seems content to relinquish control of an organization for the sake of efficiency." While other terrorist movements are rigidly controlled, al Qaeda is flexible and highly adaptive.
Sageman's book is worth reading.
