Connect with us

Intelligence

The Religious Foundation of the Homicide Bombings

Published

on

Jihad, as physical warfare, features prominently in the earliest Islamic writings. This term is universally understood as war on behalf of Islam against all infidels, and the merits of engaging in such jihad are described plentifully in the most-respected Islamic religious works.

Western and Arabic dictionaries stress that Jihad means a holy war. Bernard Lewis finds that “the overwhelming majority of classical theologians, jurists and traditionalists…understood the obligation of Jihad in a military sense.” S.K. Malik, in his The Qur`anic Concept of War, points out that the Qur’anic injunctions cover the causes and the object of war; its nature and characteristics, its limits and extents, dimensions and restraints. The Qur’an even goes into strategy and tactical matters. Therefore, the elevation of Allah’s word cannot be achieved without Jihad.

It is declared that Muslims have recognized two kinds of Jihad: the small Jihad (al-Jihād al-Saghīr) and the greater Jihad (al-Jihād al-Akbar). This differentiation is mostly used by contemporary Muslim propagators as if Jihad is only spiritual, the devotion of the Muslim believer to Allah and his worship. But a subtle analysis of the Scriptures and most respected exegetes clearly reveal that al-Jihād al-Saghīr is the holy war of Islam against the infidels, and only when infidelity disappears from the world and Islam controls the entire world, the Muslims will turn to al-Jihād al-Akbar as the spiritual elevation of Allah.

Islamic jurisprudence has also distinguished four different ways in which the believer may fulfill Jihad obligations: a) by his heart (faith: combating evil and the temptation of sin and abiding by the true religion); b) by his tongue (preaching for Allah’s religion, bringing it to the attention of all human beings, and convincing to join Allah’s way); c) by his hands (good deeds: supporting the right and fighting the wrong); and d) by the sword (fighting the infidels, the enemies of Allah).

In practice, the first three are part of the Da’wah, the propagation to Islam, and should be considered as assisting the wars of Jihad against the infidels. This means that Da’wah has become the right-hand instrument, the chief organ for executing and promoting Jihad. The Islamic incitement by the religious leaders; the cry-out of Muslim leaders to be good Muslim by fixing new criteria how to achieve this goal – these are an integral part of the Jihad campaign to occupy the world.

As a doctrine, Jihad is aimed at establishing Allah’s rule on earth through military efforts against all non-Muslims – until either they embrace Islam (as a result of Da’wah), or agree to pay the tax poll (Jizyah), or they end up being killed on the battleground (as a result of Jihad war). This was applied by Muhammad, and constituted one of the main ideological bases of the caliphate dynasties. This is the reason why some Muslim scholars regard Jihad as the sixth pillar of Islam, like the Shī’ah. Muhammad Abd al-Salam Faraj call it “the neglected duty”,’ and important contemporary exegetes, like Abu al-A’la al-Mawdudi, Hasan al-Banna and Sayyid Qutb and have dealt with it very thoroughly.

Jihad against Polytheism (Shirq), Hypocrisy (Nifāq) and Apostasy (Irtidād)

The Muslim legal theory states that Islam cannot exist together with idolatry, asserted by almost all Islamic jurists, since the first article of the faith is the denial of associationism: la ilah illa-llah (there is no god but Allah). This is Shirq or Ishrāq, meaning association other gods and idols with Allah, which is the worst form of infidelity. The Mushrikûn are Kuffār and must be eliminated, since they commit the worst and gravest sin possible. The world would be reserved only for the Muslim believers (Wayakûn al-Dīn li-llāh), by the power of Jihad.

Muslims are under the obligation to slay the idolaters, until sedition and opposition come to an end, and the religion of Allah prevails and be the only legitimate (Sûrat al-Baqarah, 2:193; Sûrat al-Anfāl, 8:39; Sûrat al-Hajj, 22:39). This is a war against evil, and the infidels will be burned in the fire of hell: infidels will be

“fitted out with garments of flames. Boiling waters will be poured down over their heads, which will dissolve everything within their bellies and their skins…as often as they try to escape from its anguish, they will be put back into the fire and taste the torment of burning” (Sûrat al-Hajj, 22:19-22).

…the infidels (Alladhī Kafarû) subsist like beasts, and hell will be their residence (Sûrat Muhammad, 47:12).

Surely the infidels (Kāfirûn) among the people of the book and the idolaters will abide in the fire of hell.

Jihad is a means of establishing the religion of Allah. Believers should kill the idolaters even if they are their nearest relatives. This is Muhammad’s way to eradicate blood and social ties to be replaced by religious ties of the Ummah:

O you, who believe, do not hold your father and brothers as friends if they hold disbelief dearer than faith; and those of you who do so are iniquitous (Sûrat al-Baqarah, 9:23).

You will not find those who believe in Allah and the Day of Resurrection, loving those who oppose Allah and his Messenger, even though they be their father, sons or brothers or their kin… (Sûrat al-Mujādilah, 58:22).

Yet, the old Arabian kinship ties did not die out, since they are deeply rooted in the Arabian traditions, and even survived in the community of believers with great vigor and gave rise to the science of genealogy.

Apostasy, Irtidād, refers to the forsaking or turning away from Islam by expressing infidelity, or by refusing to accept the articles of Islamic faith, even without joining Dār al-Harb, or rejection of Islam either by action or by word. Islam tolerates absolutely no secession from it, for there is no freedom of religion in Islam or rejection in conscience in the faith. Such an act is a grave sin and deserves death. This punishment has been also unanimously agreed upon by all four schools of Islamic jurisprudence.

How can Allah show the way to those who, having come to the faith, turned away, even though they had borne witness that the Messenger was true…for such the requital is the curse of Allah and the angels and of men (Sûrat al-‘Imrān, 3:86-7).

The same is with the hypocrites (Munāfiqûn). They are viewed as apostates, since they are clearly dissenters from the Ummah. Along with the idolaters (Kuffār), they will never be forgiven and will be punished by eternal hell-fire. Since hypocrisy is viewed as equivalent to blasphemy and treason, Jihad is to be waged against hypocrites. They are vehemently condemned in the Qur’an and Hadīth, because they proclaim that they are believers and arein fact with the devil. They are like the infidels. This is the reason why the believers are commanded to seize them whenever they are found and to do away with them. They will abide in the fire of hell forever.

Khadduri states that “in early Meccan revelations the emphasis was on persuasion (Da’wah), but in the Medinan revelations, Jihad is expressed in terms of strife and there is no doubt that in certain verses the conceptions of Jihad is synonymous with war and fighting.” As regard to Medinan period, the words are considered to have an entirely new meaning, a religious war of aggression against the infidels wherever they are.

Sanctioning Jihad and Its Rewards

The reward of Jihād fī-sabīlīllāh, by sacrificing in wealth and soul is the salvation of the believers and a direct way to paradise without any further reckoning of their doings in their worldly life and it wipes out all their sins. They are the best beings ever created, and deserve by their sacrifice to obtain all the pleasures of paradise. The supreme achievement of Jihad has been mentioned to include the spiritually and the material: the gardens of eternity in Eden with the close presence of Allah:

Believe in Allah and his messenger and fight (wa-Tujāhidun) in the cause of Allah, wealth and soul…he will forgive your sins and place you in paradise…paradise of Eden (Sûrat al-Saff, 61:11-13).

Allah has promised men and women who believe gardens with streams of running waters, where they will abide forever…and the blessings of Allah above all (Sûrat al-Taubah, 9:72).

…he will not allow the deeds of those who are killed in the way of Allah to go waste. He will show them the way…and will admit them into gardens…the semblance of paradise promised pious and devout…and rivers of milk…and rivers of wine…streams of purified honey, and fruits of every kind and forgiveness of Allah (Sûrat Muhammad, 47:4-6, 15).

Who fought and were killed (Qatalû wa-Qutilû) I shall blot out their sins and admit them into gardens with rippling streams, a recompense from almighty Allah (Sûrat al-‘Imrān, 3:195).

The best proof and reward to encourage the believers to fight the infidels with Allah’s way, to join and act in Jihad war, to become Mujāhidīn, Muhammad promised them the black-eyed virgins in paradise, as the total reward, being Shûhadā’:

In the Gardens of Paradise… And with them will be chaste females, restraining their glances, with wide and beautiful eyes (Sûrat al-Sāffāt, 37:40-4).

…a place of peace and security, in the midst of gardens and springs… we shall pair them with virgins with large black eyes (Sûrat al-Dukhkhān, 44:51-54).

Those who fear Allah and follow the straight path will surely be in gardens and in bliss, rejoicing at what Allah has given them…with virgins bright of eyes (Sûrat al-Tûr, 52:17-20).

There will be two gardens…with two springs of water flowing…every kind of fruits in pairs…in them maidens with averted glances…houries cloistered in pavilions… (Sûrat al-Rahmān, 55:47, 50, 52, 56, 70, 72)

…and virgins with big beautiful eyes, like pearls within their shell, as a recompense for all they had done (Sûrat al-Hadīd, 56:22-24).

…We created the houris and made them virgins, loving companions for those on the right hand… (Sûrat al-Hadīd, 56:37-40).

As for the righteous, they shall surely triumph… gardens and vineyards, and high-bosomed virgins for companions (Sûrat al-Nabā, 78:31-34).

There are also young boys in Paradise, to serve the Shûhadā’ and all their needs”

And there will go round boy-servants of theirs, to serve them as if they were preserved pearls (Sûrat al-Tûr, 52:24).

They will be served by immortal young boys (Sûrat al-Hadīd, 56:17).

And round about them will serve boys of everlasting youth. If you see them, you would think them scattered pearls (Sûrat al-Dahr, 76:19).

The Muslims should not fear any loss, for those who had been killed in the way of Allah, are not dead. They are living with Allah. This is the most important issue to understand for Western policymakers and public opinion; the homicide bombers do not see themselves as dead. They are transported into a parallel and a perfect world, living with Allah, seeing and feeling everything on earth. The Mujāhidīn not only rejoice at the bliss they have themselves attained. Their families and the dear ones they left behind are in their thoughts. It is part of their glory that they have saved them from fear, sorrow, humiliation and grief, even before they come to share in the glories of paradise. The last important note is that they are the symbol, the torch that leads the way, the model for imitation for all the others who will follow their act of Jihad.

Do not think that those who are killed in the way of Allah are dead, for indeed they are alive (Ahyā’), even though you are not aware (Sûrat al-Baqarah, 2:154).

Never think that those who are killed (Qutilu) in the way of Allah are dead. They are alive (Ahyā’) with Allah…rejoicing at what Allah has given them of his grace, and happy for those who are trying to overtake them. (Sûrat al-‘Imrān, 3:169).

If you are killed in the cause of Allah or you die, the forgiveness and mercy of Allah are better than all that you amass. And if you die or are killed, even so, it is to Allah that you will return (Sûrat al-‘Imrān, 157-8).

There they will not know any death, apart from the first death, and will be kept safe from the torment of hell (Sûrat al-Dukhkhān, 44:56).

It is Jihad that divides the world into two irreconcilable groups: the Dār al-Islām region, subject to Islamic law, and Dār al-Harb region, destined to come under Islamic rule and jurisdiction, as a universal mission. Jihad is the link between the two, the Islamic permanent state of war instrument: Every community has its form of monasticism, and the monasticism of the Islamic community is jihad in the way of Allah.

Jihad in the Hadīth

The Hadīth collections, the second important source of the Sharī’ah after the Qur’an, devote considerable material to Jihad. Bernard Lewis put it loud and clear, in the Hadīth, Jihad is used to mean armed military action against the infidels, and most Islamic theologians and jurists understood and practiced this obligation to be in a military sense. Bukhari’s nine volume collection is the most respected of all collections of Hadīth, and it has been unanimously agreed that his work is the most authentic in Hadīth literature. In almost one-third of his fourth volume, Bukhari focuses on Jihad as physical holy war against the infidels. It is a genre known in the Hadīth to be “the merits of the holy war” (Fadā’il al-Jihād), which serve a diversity of political, social, and ideological goals.

The main motif of Jihad in the Hadīth is death on the battleground in the way of Allah, which leads to paradise, and intends to cause a “sacred wedding” to black-eyed virgins (Huris al-‘Ayn) as heavenly reward for the believer upon his heroic death. From among 262 traditions that are mentioned in Ibn al-Mubarak’s book, 13 share a common motive, that of paradise virgins as heavenly reward for the Shuhadā’.

The Shahīd is one who is killed and achieved martyrdom in the battle in Jihad. This is very different from the Jewish and Christian notion of martyrs, as those who voluntarily endure torture and death rather than renounce their belief. According to Islamic exegetes, the Shahīd is granted seven gifts: a) he is forgiven at the first drop of his blood; b) he is dressed in the clothes of an Imām and sees his status in paradise; c) he is protected from the punishment of the grave; d) he will be safe from the great fear of the Day of Judgment; e) a crown of glory will be placed on his head; f) he will intercede on behalf of 70 members of his family; g) he will be married to 72 houris.

Those who have fallen in the battle (Shuhadā’ al-Ma’rakah) have special burial rites. They should not be washed and they are left with their blood-stained clothes as a proof of their status on the Day of Judgment. The spirits of the Shuhadā’ reside in the claws of green birds near Allah’s throne, and during the resurrection they will be returned to the earthly bodies of the Shuhadā’.

Bukhari brings a Hadith that there are one hundred stages in paradise for those who fight for in the way of Allah. Only those who participate in Jihad deserve paradise without any checks and reservations. Taking part in Jihad with body and soul is recommended as the utmost action for the Muslim believer. The Mujāhid’s best prize is paradise, a supreme reward:

Muhammad said: Nobody who dies and finds good from Allah would wish to come back to this world even if he were given the whole world and whatever is in it, except the Shahīd who, on seeing the superiority of Jihad, would like to come back to the world and get killed again.

Mohammad said: Nobody who enters paradise likes to go back to the world even if he got everything on the earth, except the Mujāhid who wishes to return to the world so that he may be martyred ten times because of the dignity he receives of his actions.

Muhammad said: No doubt I wish I could fight in the way of Allah and be a Shahīd and come to life again to be Shahīd and come to life once more.

Jihad is the best option for the believer. Whenever they are called upon, they must be ready to wage a Jihad war at any time. They must prepare to fight against the enemies of Islam with all their force and means. Whatever they spend in their commitment to Allah, will be paid back fully. Jihad is the monasticism of Islam and an act of pure devotion.

Apostasy is considered as much abhorred and loathed and is as deserving of annihilation as infidelity (Kufr). There is a saying related to Muhammad, that he said to kill he who changes his religion. Muslim jurists in all four schools of Jurisdiction have agreed that the apostate (Murtadd) was given three days to repent, and if he did not, he was to be killed by a Jihad war.

Muslims are also commanded to kill anyone who leaves Islam. Whoever leaves the Islamic religion must be killed. Their punishment is execution, or crucifixion, or cutting off of hands and feet from the opposite sides, or exile from the land. Muhammad also burned out eyes with hot irons, and deprived people of water until they died.

Narrated Ikrima: ‘The statement of Allah’s messenger: ‘whoever changes his Islamic religion, then kill him.’

Narrated Abu Musa: ‘A man embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism. Mu`azz said: ‘I will not sit down unless you kill him, as the verdict of Allah and his messenger.’

Narrated Ali: ‘I heard the Prophet saying… whenever you find the Murtaddûn, kill them, for there will be a reward on the Day of Resurrection.”

Narrated Anas bin Malik: ‘The Prophet ordered (the Murtaddûn) to have their hands and feet cut off. Then he ordered nails, which were heated and passed over their eyes, and they were left in the rocky land in Medina, till they died.’

These quotations from the Qur’an and Hadīth are only a small portion of the huge amount of references concerning the issue of Jihad and the motivation to fight the infidels with all sorts of violence and terrorism. Indeed, Jihad as a holy war against the infidels and as one of three arms to occupy the world and to subdue humanity, together with Da’wah and Hijrah, constitutes the Islamic grand strategy.    

Continue Reading
Comments

Intelligence

Islamic Caliphate is dead, but its dangerous and infectious ideology is alive

Published

on

The year 2019 witnessed the rout of the Islamic Caliphate – the pseudo-state entity created on the territories of Iraq and Syria by the terrorist organization Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, a.k.a. the Islamic State or IG, ISIL, Daesh (Arabic), a terrorist group outlawed in the Russian Federation.

On March 1, 2019, just three or four years after the Islamic Caliphate terrorized the entire world, Kurdish units of the Syrian Democratic Forces in Syria launched an offensive to flush out 500 jihadist fighters holed up in the city of Baguz, ISIL’s last stronghold in the country.

Does this mean that Islamist terrorism is now done for?

During the first decade of the 21st century, ISIL emerged as the biggest threat to international security and world order. On June 29, 2014 ISIL terrorists announced the creation of an Islamic Caliphate with claims to global domination.

As seen on the map , the Islamic Caliphate, comprising numerous provinces, was to extend from China to the Atlantic Ocean, and from Central Europe and Siberia all the way down to equatorial Africa. The Caliphate encompasses all Muslim states without exception, including Iran and non-Muslim Israel, the territories “occupied by infidels,” as well as the whole of the Middle East and North Africa. Moreover, the Caliphate lays claims to Western Asia and Europe, including Spain, the Balkans, Romania and Austria.

The Islamic Caliphate went on to make the Syrian city of Raqqa its de-facto capital in 2014.

Although still far from achieving global dominion, the jihadists started building the basis of their future Islamic Caliphate by enslaving between 8 million and 10 million people in the occupied territories of Iraq and Syria, and virtually annihilating Syrian and Iraqi Christians, Yezidis, Shiites and Kurds.

In addition to Syria and Iraq, the Islamic State and its affiliates controlled parts of Afghanistan, Egypt, Yemen, Libya, Nigeria, Somalia and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

ISIL also used its substantial financial resources to increase the number of “sleeper” terrorist cells in Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Indonesia, the Philippines, the North Caucasus and various European countries.

During its criminal heyday in 2014-2017, ISIL was one of the most numerous and well-armed terrorist groups in the Middle East, boasting over 100,000 fighters active mainly in Syria and Iraq.

Add to these 27,000 to 31,000 mercenaries from 86 countries who, according to the Soufan Group analytical center, fought in the ranks of this terrorist organization.

Equally noteworthy is the distribution of foreign ISIL militants by region and country (2016 – 2017):

Former Soviet republics 8,717
Near and Middle East 7,054
Western Europe 5,778
Maghreb countries (North Africa) 5,356
South and Southeast Asia 1,568
Balkans 845
North America 444

Countries –main suppliers of fighters for ISIL:

Russia 3,417
Saudi Arabia 3,244
Jordan 3,000
Tunisia 2,926
Turkey 1,910

Equally noteworthy is data pertaining to the number of ISIL mercenaries from former Soviet republics (2015)

Azerbaijan 216
Georgia 50
Kazakhstan 300
Kyrgyzstan 500
Moldova 1
Tajikistan 386
Turkmenistan 360
Uzbekistan 500

ISIL owes its temporary success in Iraq and Syria to these countries’ weak militaries, the seizure of their arsenals of advanced US-supplied weapons, and to the considerable financial resources looted from Iraqi banks.

And also to its militants’ religious fanaticism, the professional skills of former Iraqi and Syrian military officers who joined ISIL, to foreign mercenaries, the cruel and fear-instilling daily activities of this quasi-state, the ideological brainwashing of jihadist fighters and to professionally organized advocacy work.

ISIL’s bloody and ruthless way of dealing with opponents and the medieval laws it imposed on its subjects shocked the world. Even the ill-famed al-Qaeda that ISIL spun off from has come out against its “daughter,” with al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri officially announcing in February 2014 that he did not recognize ISIL as a member of his group.

In their effort to secure the locals’ support, ISIL members tried, within the framework of their quasi-state, to restore the cities’ economic life by rebuilding their war-ravaged infrastructure. Imitating state authority, they paid salaries and benefits to the unemployed, collected taxes and paid monthly salaries of $700 to their militants. At the same time, in their brutal imposition of Islamist medieval order, they surpassed even the Afghan Taliban.

Propaganda and PR feature prominently in the ISIL leaders’ activity.

ISIL has “revolutionized” the field of online promotion of jihadist ideology by creating a powerful social movement and recruiting thousands of fighters from around the world, Russia included, through a web of social networks alone.

According to Yekaterina Sokiryanskaya, director of the Center for Analysis and Conflict Prevention, a leading expert on the North Caucasus, ISIL created a highly professional and ramified propaganda machine for recruiting online, consisting of “central” media organizations, such as Al-Furqan and al-Hayat, and “regional” ones. In addition, the AMAQ News agency provides coverage for the Caliphate’s military operations and its everyday life even without having the status of its “official” media outlet.

Propagandists enjoy a privileged status in ISIL. According to the propaganda researcher IG Charles Winter, during the organization’s halcyon days (2014–2015), spin doctors were paid seven times as much as regular fighters.

Since its outset, ISIL has put out over 41,000 media releases, with an additional 2.3 billion releases made by its supporters (The New York Times).

“The loss of territory, resources, the retreat and evacuation of fighters, compounded by problems with the Internet has significantly reduced the flow of jihadist propaganda,” Yekaterina Sokiryanskaya writes.

“Daesh will not be able to maintain the previous level and quality of its propaganda materials any time soon. Realizing that with the loss of its ideological machine the whole project of the Islamic Caliphate will eventually be doomed, the ISIL leadership is adapting to new realities with affected references to a high mission now making way for more down-to-earth calls for one-off attacks with knives and axes on unarmed people. This change of tactic began in late-2015, after security agencies of various countries had seriously complicated the process of bringing in new fighters to Syria. ISIL initially advised its supporters to look for workarounds, and later – to move to other “provinces” of the Caliphate. Finally, last year, ISIL said that those who could not reach the Caliphate proper should stage attacks back at home,” she continues.

This is an extremely important trend. Just as the Caliphate ceases to exist as a quasi-state, its subjects, who have survived the antiterrorist battles, remain. Islamist terrorism is taking a new shape.

The Islamic Caliphate created by ISIL is perhaps the highest organizational quasi-state form of modern-day Islamist terrorism. Terror (“Fear,” “horror” in Latin) was used by ISIL as a primary method of warfare. Therefore, it could be compared (in function, if not in scale) with Nazi Germany or militaristic Japan, where international terrorism was part of official state policy.

Even though chances of a complete reincarnation of either ISIL or the Islamic Caliphate are pretty slim, dangerous options thereof can’t be ruled out.

That terrorism is often used by non-state actors – whether left-wing, right-wing or nationalist – and religious groups, is well known. In the 19th and 20th centuries, hundreds of political parties and groups were known to have used terror in their work.Their activities covered virtually the whole world: from small settlements and countries to continents, and were often supervised and financed by individual states to achieve geostrategic ends.

It is highly probable that the routed ISIL will still be trying to preserve its remaining terrorist groups, rebrand old ones, and recruit new fighters. Moreover, what has remained of the Daesh forces will spread throughout the world.

As BBC columnist Frank Gardner writes, “At the recent Munich Security Conference, Alex Younger, the chief of Britain’s secret intelligence service (MI6) said this: “The military defeat of the ‘caliphate’ does not represent the end of the terrorist threat. We see it therefore morphing, spreading out… within Syria but also externally… This is the traditional shape of a terrorist organization.”

Speaking at the same event, German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen said that ISIL was going deeper underground and building networks with other terrorist groups.

General Joseph Votel, who runs US Central Command, also said that even though the ISIL network is dispersed, pressure must be maintained or its components will have “the capability of coming back together if we don’t.”

Indeed, much of the ISIL militant force has not been destroyed and is now breaking up into small terrorist groups, which is only natural since ISIL is a plethora of jihadist groups fully capable of acting autonomously. .

With the rout of the Caliphate now a hard fact, ISIL is desperately looking for a way out of the situation. There are several such “exists” to speak of.

The first is the dispersal of jihadist fighters among the local population in Syria and Iraq, and the creation of “sleeper cells” waiting for an order to resume the fight.

A second option would be to redeploy militants to remote areas of Syria and Iraq, and the formation of guerilla units there.

Thirdly, this could be gradual infiltration into other countries where ISIL already has a base, or at least has supporters necessary for the organization to function further, perhaps under a different name, but with similar ideology and military-political doctrine. Primarily into Libya, where ISIL controls the cities of Derna, Nofalia, Sirt, and the Al-Mabrouk oil field. Moreover, in Libya, ISIL could become a third party in the ongoing confrontation between Tripoli and Tobruk.

In Afghanistan, ISIL has already become a third party in the long-running standoff between Kabul and the Taliban. However, the ongoing negotiations between the international community, primarily Russia and the US, with the Afghan Taliban (though in a separate format) could eventually ease tensions in that country which, in turn, would seriously undercut ISIL’s ability to influence the situation there.

In Egypt, local jihadists, taking orders from ISIL, control parts of the Sinai Peninsula.

Also, the Boko Haram group, which controls the north-east of Nigeria and is making inroads into neighboring Chad, Cameroon and Niger, has recently subordinated itself to ISIL.

There are certain opportunities now opening for ISIL also in Yemen, Somalia and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Another “exit” option could be the return of the remaining jihadist fighters to their home countries, either individually or as part of small but closely-knit groups.

In the wake of the Islamic Caliphate’s downfall, many militants have recently returned home. About 30 percent of the 5,000 ISIL fighters (1,500) happen to be EU citizens. Of these, 300 have returned to France, about 900 people – to the former Soviet republics (including 400 to Russia), 800 – to Tunisia, 760 – to Saudi Arabia, and 250 – to Jordan.

This process is characteristic of all 86 countries Islamist volunteers once set out from to defend the ideas of radical Islam.

Clearly, the presence of experienced and battle-hardened ISIL terrorists, sometimes even armed, in the countries of their current residence is dangerous, even disastrous for these and other countries’ security. Small wonder, therefore, that the world is getting increasingly aware of the real threat posed by this jihadist-terrorist contagion.

Religious leaders are united in their denunciation of Islamist terror.

Saudi Arabia’s Supreme Mufti Abdulaziz bin Abdullah Al-Sheikh has branded the al-Qaeda and Islamic State jihadists the main enemies of Islam. He also quoted a verse from the Koran, which calls to kill the perpetrators of acts that “have a disastrous effect on Islam.”  Any compromises with bloodthirsty fanatics are simply out of the question. They must be eliminated once and for all.

Pope Francis has approved the use of force against Islamist radicals. The Pontiff believes that coercive methods should be used to protect religious minorities from militants.

The World Jewish Congress (WJC) and the Russian Jewish Congress (RJC) has urged the entire world community to stand together against the “disgusting wave of violence” against Christians in the Middle East.

In Iraq, the Shiite leader Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani has reiterated his call for the Iraqi people to resist ISIL militants.

Important as religious leaders’ rejection of terrorism and its perpetrators is, however, the same can hardly be said about the world community. Indeed, even in the midst of the fight against ISIL in Syria, the antiterrorist forces failed to present a shared understanding of the danger posed by their common enemy.

It is really unforgivable that a universally accepted definition of international terrorism has not yet been worked out. The term is often used as an instrument of political struggle, because each country actually decides for itself whether a certain group is “terrorists” or “freedom fighters.” In Russia, 21 Islamist organizations are recognized as terrorist, and 33 in the United States . Moreover, actual definitions of “terrorism” often vary.

Coordinated fight is the only possible and effective way of ridding the planet of the scourge of terrorism. Unfortunately, there is no international legal basis for a collective solution of the problem. The experience of the past few years shows that a slow-moving and bureaucratic UN is not capable of providing quick and effective response to the threat posed by international terrorism. The world needs a fundamentally new and mobile international mechanism, structured to counter the terrorists’ extensive and diverse criminal activities.

The proposed idea of creating a supranational system uniting antiterrorist forces that would include administrative, information, analytical, intelligence, financial, counter-propaganda and power structures – well-equipped counter-terrorist units ready for quick deployment to troubled regions looks pretty viable. However, this international antiterrorist system must be established under the auspices of the United Nations, with its blessing, and rest on a solid legal foundation.

 First published in our partner International Affairs

Continue Reading

Intelligence

Cyber Warfare: Competing National Perspectives

Leann Maloney

Published

on

The threat of cyberwarfare is a growing fear among all intelligence communities. “In June 2009 the U.S. Cyber Command was created and in July of 2011 Deputy Secretary of Defense William J. Lynn III announced that as a matter of doctrine, cyberspace will be treated as an operational domain similar to land, air, sea, and space” (Colarik & Janczewski, 2012, 35). Cyber warfare is conducted by infiltrating the country’s computer networks to cause damage and/or disruption to various infrastructures. This could be as minimal as spying on another nation or as in-depth as implementing acts of sabotage directed towards specific targets such as military operations or the power grid. The threat of cyber warfare is not specific to one country. This is a potential threat that effects each country across the globe.

China is a dominant power within the global arena and is consistently evolving with potential threats especially cyber technology. Chinese colonels Liang and Xiangsui claimed advanced technology gave the country’s adversaries a significant advantage, and proposed that China ‘build the weapons to fit the fight. Recently, the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) confirmed the existence of its Online Blue Army (Colarik, &Janczewski, 2012, 35). China’s fear of the impact and devastation that can be caused by the internet has forced them to implement strict policies governing the freedom and use of the internet within the country and creating strong security measures against infiltration by outside sources.

In 2014, China implemented the Central Internet Security and Informatization Leading Group to oversee all internet security. “This leading group is to deepen reform, protect national security, safeguard national interests, and promote the development of information technology. The group will have complete authority over online activities, including economic, political, cultural, social, and military” (Iasiello, 2017, 5). This group disseminates and monitors all information found on the web to ensure that there are no security breaches and the people are not in violation of the law.

In 2015, China drafted a national cybersecurity law.“The chief goals of its 2015 draft national cybersecurity law are (1) ensure cybersecurity, (2) safeguard cyberspace sovereignty, national security, and the public interest, (3) protect the legitimate rights and interests of citizens, legal persons and other organizations, and (4) promote the healthy development of economic and social information” (Kolton, 2017, 126). Whereas the United States promotes a free internet, China’s main focus is on establishing an internet that is secure from all potential threats both external and internal.

In 2016, China passed the “Cyber Security Law” that focused on the security of the internet and information systems and extended the ability of the government to oversee the information that was being shared to determine if it was done within accordance of their strict cyber security laws. This law helps the government to monitor any potential breaches of security by outside or internal sources. By implementing a stronger grasp of control over the internet, the government is able to reduce the potential of an attack or intrusion. Within this law, government agencies would be able to implement more guidelines for network security within industries to include energy, transport, military, defense, and many more (Iasiello, 2017, 6).These restrictions increase the control of the government over cybersecurity but also limits the freedoms of its citizens to explore the internet.

China has created new training for its military to be prepared against potential cyber warfare attacks. It has “developed detailed procedures for internet warfare, including software for network scanning, obtaining passwords and breaking codes, and stealing data; information-paralyzing software, information-blocking software, information-deception software, and other malware; and software for effecting counter-measures” (Ball, 2011, 84). It has also increased its number of training facilities to focus only on network attacks on cyber infrastructure and defense operations. The amount of money China is investing in facilities and training of military personal increases its ability to remain secure within this global threat of cyber warfare. One fear for China is its dependence on Western technology. “China’s capabilities in cyber operations and emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence are becoming more sophisticated, the country still depends largely on Western technology. Beijing is hoping to break that dependency through the Made in China 2025 plan” (Bey, 2018, 33). This is a mutual fear for both the US and China as they both rely on each other’s manufacturers with the fear that they will implement a trojan horse to intervene.

Like China, Russia has increased its abilities in combating the potential threat of cyber warfare. However, Russia has taken a different approach to this threat by going on the offensive. Russia has focused on non-linear warfare within the cyber world, which is defined as “the collection of plans and policies that comprise the state’s deliberate effort to harness political, military, diplomatic, and economic tools together to advance that state’s national interest. Grand strategy is the art of reconciling ends and means” (Schnauffer, 2017, 22). To assert its dominance in the global arena, Russia has been utilizing its own forms of cyber attacks to collect information and become a dominant cyber power.

Russia began its experiments with cyber warfare in 2007 in the clash with Estonia. This was done to determine its cyber capabilities as well as create a stronger resilience against future attacks. “Russia’s cyber experiment effectively shut down day-to-day online operations in Estonia’s cyber infrastructure for weeks, from news outlets to government institutions” (Shuya, 2018, 4). After this successful movement, Russia began to expand its focus to Georgia and Ukraine in 2008 and then in 2015, to offset local initiatives there which it considered to be against Russian national security interests. Russia has “developed multiple capabilities for information warfare, such as computer network operations, electronic warfare, psychological operations, deception activities, and the weaponization of social media, to enhance its influence campaigns” (Ajir& Valliant, 2018, 75). Russia has had a strong focus on using the tool of propaganda to disseminate key information to its citizens with the hope that they will abide by it as the real truth.

Russia’s investment into technology and the freedom of speech allotted by the West has made the West not only extremely vulnerable to Russia, but also has expanded the reach of the Russia globally. Ajir and Valliant (2018) highlight several key points of the Russian strategy:

Direct lies for the purpose of disinformation both of the domestic population and foreign societies; Concealing critically important information; Burying valuable information in a mass of information dross; Simplification, confirmation, and repetition (inculcation); Terminological substitution: use of concepts and terms whose meaning is unclear or has undergone qualitative change, which makes it harder to form a true picture of events, Introducing taboos on specific forms of information or categories of news; Image recognition: known politicians or celebrities can take part in political actions to order, thus exerting influence on the worldview of their followers; Providing negative information, which is more readily accepted by the audience than positive.

This approach allows the Russian government to remain in control of information that is filtered to its citizens. The restriction of freedom reduces the capability of deciphering fact from fiction.

Russia has also taken a defensive approach to cyber warfare by implementing strict laws that govern the use of the internet. The agency Roskomnadzor scans the internet for activity that is deemed illegal and detrimental to the Russian government. It has also implemented new laws to regulate internet activity. “The laws which came into force in November 2012 provided provisions for criminalizing slander, requiring nonprofits receiving funding from abroad to declare themselves “foreign agents,” and provide additional financial information and a final law sanctioning the blocking of websites featuring content that “could threaten children’s lives, health, and development” (Cross, 2013, 14). Many have deemed these laws as means to censor the internet, but the Russian government argues it is for the protection of its citizens.

An opposite example of failing to employ measures to protect the country from a potential cyber warfare attack is Mexico. The main focus for Mexico has been on drug cartels and eliminating internal threats within their own government. Mexico has begun to implement its own version of cybersecurity due to its substantial growth in cyber-attacks over the years. However, its overall success has been limited due to a lack of understanding and outdated systems. “Incidents in cyberspace pose a challenge to Mexico due to a lack of institutional structures and there is a need to strengthen capabilities since it does not have any specialized government or public sector agencies certified under internationally recognized standard” (Kobek, 2017, 8). Without the establishment of a specific agency dedicated to cybersecurity, Mexico will continue to struggle against cyber warfare threats. Mexico must implement new security measures that are applicable to all main threats beyond the drug cartels.

Currently, the government presence in Mexico is focused solely on actionable and tangible threats. There must be a reform to its current laws for “the armed forces require a law that reframes and modernizes the concepts of public safety, internal security, and national defense; clarifies the role, conditions, terms, and limits of the armed forces’ engagement; and establishes mechanisms to hold them accountable” (Payan& Correa-Cabrera, 2016, 3). The lack of accountability and oversight by the government to control key aspects, such as the military, and impose a stronger presence in the more demanding field of cybersecurity opens up the potential for a catastrophic event to occur within Mexico.

China and Russia are prime examples of how strict policy governance of the internet will help to reduce the potential threat of an attack. They are micromanaging every aspect of the internet from restricting specific websites (social media) or establishing specific agencies to monitor and analyze all information that is being viewed from all sources. “With the United States and European democracies at one end and China and Russia at another, states disagree sharply over such issues as whether international laws of war and self-defense should apply to cyber-attacks, the right to block information from citizens, and the roles that private or quasi-private actors should play in Internet governance” (Forsyth, 2013, 94). The failure of this policy is the restriction of freedoms to citizens. As stated above, one of Russia’s main focuses is promoting propaganda that is anti-west and pro-Russia. The control over the internet does not allow their citizens to research the truth or have global interaction. This increases the risk of upheavals among the people, especially as technology continues to improve and loopholes are found to circumvent existing policies and hidden content is exposed.

Another approach to cybersecurity is seen with the actions of NATO. It is focusing on improving its relationships with private security companies and “developing a Cyber Rapid Reaction Team (RRT)19 to protect its critical infrastructure, much like U.S. Cyber Command’s Cyber Protection Teams (CPTs)” (Ilves et al, 2016, 130). One downside to this approach is NATO is only able to apply defensive measures. It does not have the ability to implement an offensive attack. Creating a partnership with private companies provides it greater access and resources to potential cyber threats. Private companies have more funds available to pursue a stronger cyber security defense. A recommendation would be to create a joint European Union, United States, and NATO partnership against cyber warfare. Each has its own strengths that can be applied to a joint force against one common threat. A stronger partnership among key global powers will help to create a multifaceted approach to the threat of cyber warfare. The end goal of cyber warfare is the same for each country targeted. There is no specific adversary, but rather the substantial disruption or sabotage of key infrastructure.

Although facing intense criticism and skepticism, it would be beneficial for the US, China, and Russia to form a partnership against cyber warfare. As each country is already connected via their technology companies, they are each a global power that encompasses a vast majority of the world. A collaboration of information and resources would provide a stronger protection amongst common non-state threats. However, the chief obstacle is the ability to trust each country to act within the realm of security, instead of using it as an opportunity to gain substantial access to an inside look of the country. Since the US often accuses China and Russia of being the biggest state perpetrators of cyber actions, this criticism may be near impossible to overcome, despite the possible advantages. According to the World Economic Forum, the table below lists the top countries best prepared against cyber-attacks.

Table 1: World Economic Forum Countries Best Prepared Against Cyber-Attacks

The United States is ranked number one with a significant margin above Canada. China and Russia who have implemented a very strict cyber security policy are not listed within the top 20. This is determined by the Global Cybersecurity Index, a partnership between private industries and international organizations that analyze all aspects of cybersecurity. This argues that the approach by countries such as China and Russia is geared more to the control over its citizens rather than executing a strong cybersecurity policy focused on legitimate external threats. Although, the table above does show that the United States is ranked number one in being able to protect the nation from potential cyber threats, it is only ranked at 82.4% effective. Russia and China have employed a different approach to cyber security that could be utilized to increase the overall effectiveness globally if each side was able to work together towards common threats. Ideally, such partnership would not only create new channels of connection and collaboration between adversaries, but would also set the stage for the more heavy-handed and restrictive policies of China and Russia to be loosened to the benefit of its citizens’ virtual freedom.

Continue Reading

Intelligence

Cybersecurity between Enemies and Allies

Desta Bailey

Published

on

Operational success, whether state or non-state, begins with a solid strategic plan that encompasses key objectives or targets. In today’s globally connected world, cybersecurity is holding the forefront space of challenges, vulnerabilities, and growth (Barrinha 2018). Success, in a globally connected environment, requires an understanding of the environmental systems and connections to appropriately identify the gaps in security and potential points of entry from adversarial actors (Barrinha 2018). Understanding the connected nature and networked capability of potential adversaries’ drives a need to analyze social networks as they relate to the interrelated environmental systems (Tsvetovat and Kouznetsov2011). Therefore, the ability to effectively engage within an interconnected and globalized operational environment is to understand the cybersecurity policies, trends, and vulnerabilities across western and non-western states like Russia, United Kingdom, China, and Israel.

Internationally, states are viewing cyber as the fifth domain of operations, added to air, space, land, and sea.  In 2013, fifteen countries agreed with a need for international law for the elaboration of measures, norms, rules, or principles over the cyber domain.  Today, military cyber capabilities exist in more than 40 states and of those 12 have explicitly offensive cyber capabilities.  Despite the growing application of cybersecurity strategies and advancements in the development of international laws, a standard definition of cybersecurity does not exist (Greiman 2015). 

Regardless of the state’s abilities or interest in cybersecurity, the intent is to create an ability to protect domestic networks against domestic or foreign intrusion and attack (Fischer 2016).  Cyber-attacks come in many forms. Though attacks vary widely, they generally have a geopolitical, diplomatic, or economic interest, causing business and economic organizations to get involved with political structures to consider policy-setting and strategic capabilities (Jaquire et al. 2018).  The difference is that instead of defending against states physically, the defense efforts are against actions exclusively housed within the cyber arena (Duvenage et al. 2018). 

National cybersecurity strategies in general tend to possess three main components: strategies with intelligence and counterintelligence capabilities, personal security on information held in databases, and corporate security (Vancouver 2018).  As Adamsky (2017) described Israel’s cybersecurity plan, the three interrelated vectors work together to provide robustness, resilience, and defense.  The overall intent of national cybersecurity strategies is to provide a means by which the state can protect local networks from adversary threats.

The criticality and concern coming from the international community when dealing with increasing threat potential and vulnerabilities within the cyber domain is reflected by the more than 40 countries working to establish cyber policies.  The United States and the United Kingdom both view “terrorism and cyber-attacks as the two greatest threats to national security” (Greiman 2015).   As states look at the threat posed by the cyber domain, they must consider non-traditional ways in which foreign non-state actors are leveraging networks to spread their messages — to incite fear, spread support for their anti-state ideologies, or the ability to use virtual space as a meeting location to create extremist support (Cross 2013).  

In efforts to standardize, Russia, China, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan joined forces to submit an international code for information assurance (Grieman 2015). Australia, Canada, New Zealand, United Kingdom, and the United States banded together to create a stronger shared level of intelligence, known as the “Five Eyes” Community (Walsh 2015).  However, Israel is still leading the way in the cyber policy, strategy, and successful operations (Adamsky 2017).  Though all countries possess a mix of security interests and priorities, there is not a single consensus on how to internationally address threat conditions (Crosston 2016). In an attempt to address those conditions, countries must seek innovative and creative means to establish operations and policies to protect against globalized threats (Cross 2013).

Israel has the lead in leveraging innovation and creativity to develop tangible results and an example for other countries to emulate.   In 2002, Israel established the goals and means by which it intended to secure its portion of the cyber domain.  Seeking to find a balance between commercial and private needs with a need for national security, Israel established policies to “protect vital computerized systems of selected public and private civilian organizations.”  Not wanting to fall short on future threats, Israel included concepts of “education, R&D, security, economic development, and international cooperation” into their policy design (Adamsky 2017).  In 2015, the government established a concept of operations (CONOP) to regulate cyber mechanisms and operations focusing on cyber defense, capacity building,and structure.  Using an interrelated framework of robustness, resilience, and defense, Israel can operate, sustain, and defend their local cyber domain from intrusion and attack better than most (Adamsky 2017). 

Russia and China have similar approaches and practices.  In their efforts to collect intelligence, neither country relies solely on confidential sources or methods, nor does collection tie singularly to state-sanctioned collection requests.  More importantly, collection in Russia and China does not focus on collection against foreign agencies alone (Crosston 2016).  As part of the policy process in Russia and China, the government opts to control exposure and risk by limiting the availability of sites that threaten the influence their control over the population (Cross 2013).  While similar in their approaches, Russia and China developed individual strategies to protect their networks (Fei 2010).

China opted for a strategy with a longer-term outlook and sought to respect other nation’s objectives while fostering mutually beneficial cooperation.  China’s strategy emphasizes multilateral ties and dealing with both traditional and non-traditional threats.  China’s strategic approach consists of four prongs: the inclusion of complex, non-traditional aspects; issue-orientation over country interests; economic development to be independent of foreign technologies; and, a supposed practice of good governance and transparency.  

United Kingdom announced, in 2010, a plan to spend $1 billion US dollars over a four-year period to launch a “transformative national cybersecurity program” focused on closing the expanding gaps between current capabilities and emerging technological advancements.  The UK outlined its plan with the intention of leveraging private-public partnerships to create a single point-of-contact for cyber-crimes and security issues.  The strategy also outlined a plan to develop international cooperation with like-minded nations (Hammond 2010).  Not unlike Israel, the United Kingdom is focusing on policy development to protect privacy and reduce crime, while establishing a resilience capability.  Through private-public partnerships, the UK aims for capacity building and to implement a risk-based approach to defending against cyberattacks (Greiman 2015).

Private-public partnerships, coupled with dynamic state policies, contribute to the state’s ability for capacity building.   This is particularly important with the understanding that the private sector mainly owns and operates activities within the cyber domain for most states (Grieman 2015). While Russia and China understand this phenomenon, they opt to block sites and access as a means of controlling the internet.  The efforts of Russia are generally politically inclined, focused on the interest of making the president appear stronger. In China, the state leverages cyber abilities for economic maneuvering.  Israel selects a more comprehensive and holistic approach to managing the cyber environment.  

Tsvetovat and Kouznetsov (2011) explained the connected nature and networked capability of potential adversaries as driving social connections and purposes.  Within the cyber domain, states are able to leverage the connections and networks to shape policy, offensive operations, and international relationship development.  As Russia and China continue to work through their controlled approaches to cybersecurity, there is a need for international consensus towards cybersecurity.  In an effort to standardize an approach to cybersecurity, the international community should seek to follow in the steps of Israel (Adamsky 2017).As a soft power instrument, Israel is leveraging opportunities and threats to harness the potential of cybersecurity.  Over the last decade Russia, China, and many others have reached out to Israel. Additionally, the more success Israel has in leveraging cybersecurity to promote international ties, the greater likelihood it will lead an effort to normalize cyber across the globe (Adamsky 2017). 

As academics and practitioners continue to work toward a standard definition and understanding of cybersecurity, there is a distinct need for various states to come together in an effort to establish international norms and standards for the execution of cybersecurity.  This effort should be much the same as joint operations govern telling time or tracking targets. It is crucial that the United States continues to find ways to lead the effort to establish agreements that focus on commonalities that can benefit the reduction of cyber dangers between China, Russia, and Israel.

The effort to understand the cyber environment and its various network of connections is vital in working through concerns faced by countries emerging as a new power (i.e.,Brazil, India, Argentina, and Australia among others).  The importance of this understanding links back to Brafman and Beckstrom’s (2012) starfish and spider concepts, demonstrating the capability of groups to operate from geographically dispersed locations without a centralized leader.  Improved security within the cyber domain will assist in mitigating political, economic, and criminal activities that are counter to a state’s security strategies. Perhaps most importantly, he ability to increase cybersecurity and cooperation in the cyber domain internationally creates a possible platform to work against other threat issues such as transnational organized crime, terrorism, human trafficking, and migration from failing states. Understanding critical elements and the approach other countries use to navigate through their domestics and external threat will continue to prove to be as crucial for the United States and the interaction with other countries in the future.

Continue Reading

Latest

Newsdesk5 hours ago

Partnering for Africa’s future: Exhibition on UNIDO-Japan cooperation

An exhibition highlighting cooperation between Japan and the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) for African industrial development has opened...

International Law8 hours ago

“The Rights of the Nations, National and Ethnic Minorities for Self- Determination”

The new article of the Charter of the UN “The rights of the nations, national and ethnic minorities for self-determination”,...

Style10 hours ago

Breguet Classique 5177 Grand Feu Blue Enamel

In its current collection, the new Breguet Classique 5177 presents the Breguet blue for the first time in a grand...

Newsdesk12 hours ago

Vietnam needs to embrace “Doi Moi 4.0” to sustain high quality growth

Vietnam should make a strategic shift towards a more productivity and innovation-based economy while making the most of the ongoing...

Human Rights14 hours ago

Gender equality, justice in law and practice: Essential for sustainable development

Fundamentally linked to human development, gender justice requires ending inequality and redressing existing disparities between women and men, according to...

Hotels & Resorts16 hours ago

A pearl on the Black Sea joins Radisson Collection

Radisson Hotel Group announced that one of its flagship hotels – the Radisson Blu Paradise Resort and Spa, Sochi in...

Environment18 hours ago

Hands-on e-waste management training

Over 30 representatives of 13 Latin American countries and international experts have gathered to learn and share experiences on e-waste...

Trending

Copyright © 2019 Modern Diplomacy