Initially, intelligence sharing among nations dealing with Islamic terrorists has been crucial for pre-emptive action. The counter-terrorism landscape has transformed in several ways since 2014. There has been a shift in focus with more emphasis on dismantling networks and organized beliefs that support and sustain terrorism. There are also greater efforts to support communities where signs of Islamic terrorism are emerging. A decade ago, online recruitment of new Islamic terrorists was a problem. That has declined due to territorial losses, leaving Islamic terrorists fewer opportunities to enlarge current efforts.
A decade ago, the six worst violence hotspots on the planet were Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya, and Somalia. These nations seem hopeless, and the search for solutions seems futile. But when you step back and look more closely, you find that these countries share a lot in common, beyond being “failed states.” All are largely Moslem and all have serious problems with governing themselves. This spotlights the fact that Muslims in general and Arabs in particular have developed a peculiar relationship with democracy to cure these longstanding problems.
This democracy movement has grown since the 1960s, as more Muslims have been able to migrate to the West. As a result, millions of Muslims have come to understand democracy through personal experience. They did this either by moving to the West or by being visited by family or friends eager to explain this curious but wonderful form of government in detail. As a result, opinion polls in Muslim countries have shown growing approval of democracy, at least in theory. This was especially true in 2011 after the Arab Spring uprisings. But since 2011, that approval of democracy has dimmed a bit, as Muslims unaccustomed to running a democracy found that doing so was not easy. Most Muslims still think democracy is the best form of government, but a quarter of Muslims also believe that democracy may be unsuitable for Muslim countries at this time. This disappoints and confuses many Muslims. They can see that democracy produces superior results where it has been established, but making democracy work reliably is much harder than many Muslims originally believed. This is largely because of some unique problems in Muslim states.
One unique problem is opposition from some Islamic conservatives. This is made worse because many Arabs believe what al Qaeda preaches: that the world should be ruled by an Islamic religious dictatorship, and that this must be achieved by any means necessary (including force against non-Muslims and Muslims who don’t agree). This sort of thinking has been popular with Islamic conservatives since Islam first appeared in the sixth century. Since then, it has periodically flared up into major outbreaks of religiously inspired violence. But that’s not the only problem. Arabs sustain these outbursts with their fondness for paranoid fantasies and an exaggerated sense of persecution and entitlement. For example, most Arabs believe that the September 11, 2001, attacks were not carried out by Arabs but were a CIA scam to provide an excuse for the West to make war on Islam. That’s just the tip of the iceberg. U.S. troops in Iraq were amazed at the number of fantastical beliefs that were accepted as reality there. Currently, it is popular to believe that ISIL was created by Israel and the United States and is still supported by those two countries.
Then there is corruption and intense hatred. It’s a very volatile and unpredictable part of the world and always has been. This has resulted in Arab states failing to achieve the same prosperity and other social, economic, and educational achievements found elsewhere in the world. In the first decade of the 21st century, it became popular to call many of the Muslim countries that were having trouble establishing democracy "failed states." This became a generic term for unstable countries prone to rebellion and civil disorder. What they all have in common is a lack of "civil society" (rule of, and respect for, law), and lots of corruption. The two sort of go together.
The best example of a failed state has long been Somalia, largely because the concept of the "nation of Somalia" is a very recent (1960s) development. It never caught on. The same could be said for the Palestinians. Sudan is accused of being a failed state, but it isn't in the same league as Somalia. Sudan has had a central government of sorts, on and off, for thousands of years. Not so Somalia.
Another common problem in failed states is many ethnic groups. This is a common curse throughout Africa, which is why many of the worst failed states are there. Europe and much of Asia have managed to move past tribalism, although that has not always resulted in a civil society. Tribalism has kept most African and many Arab nations from making much economic progress. The top failed states tend to be African, Moslem or both. Somalia is also unique in that it is one of those rare African nations that is not ethnically diverse. Instead, Somalia suffers from clan animosities and severe warlordism.
A similar problem exists in the Middle East. For example, three current hot spots, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan, have long been torn apart by tribal and religious animosities. The same is true of the Balkans and parts of India and Pakistan. No one has found a quick or easy solution for failed states. It all comes down to effective local leadership, and that often fails to show up. Some success has come from helping good leaders develop by installing democracy. But just letting the people vote often leads to someone who looked like a good guy turning into a dictatorial "president for life." Haiti has, for two centuries, tried to develop a civil society, and for over a century has used democracy in that effort. That has never worked, and right now Haiti is more anarchic than Somalia.
The Arab world has watched Iraq closely. It's one of the few Arab states to have held free and fair elections lately. Iraq, however, is at the center of the Arab world, and its success or failure as a democracy will determine how well democracy fares in the region. Thus, the current struggle with ISIL (Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant) takes on an added urgency.
The consensus so far is that the old reasons (outside interference) for the poor government in Arab states no longer apply. Since the 1950s, people have blamed centuries of Turkish rule and, more recently, a few decades of European rule. Tiny Israel also got some blame. But it's become obvious that the Turks, Europeans, and Israelis are not the cause. The problems are internal, and the search for workable solutions is on.
One exemplary leader can make a difference. Examples abound. Kemal Ataturk, more than any of his close followers and advisors, turned Turkey from a medieval monarchy into a functioning democracy. India also had a handful of strong early leaders who achieved what many believed impossible and created the world's largest democracy (over a billion people). Neither Turkey nor India is as efficient and prosperous as many older democracies. But compared to many of their neighbors, Turkey and India are beacons of hope in an otherwise dreary political landscape. Alas, they are the exception, not the rule, and this sorry situation will continue for the foreseeable future.
Meanwhile, many Muslim leaders have absorbed all this and come up with their own solution. This has not been easy. For example, for years the king of Saudi Arabia has been telling other Arab leaders that they are the problem, and you can take that as a sign of progress. But real progress isn’t. Arab leaders are victims of their own success. Their rule is based on corruption and police state tactics. Think about East Europe before 1989. The big difference is that, although the populations of East Europe then and the Arab world now were both fed up with their leaders and governments, Arabs were not willing to make as painless a switch as East Europeans did in the 1990s. That's because the East Europeans had two choices: communism or democracy. The Arabs have four: despotism, democracy, tribal factionalism, or Islamic dictatorship.
In Iraq and Gaza, we see how the Islamic radicals react to democracy. They call it un-Islamic and kill those who disagree with them. The Arabs must deal with this, and in Iraq they do. In Gaza, they don’t. But the violence in Iraq has revealed another Arab problem. Even if you remove religion from the equation, not all Arabs are keen on democracy. In Iraq, the Sunni Arab minority believes it is their right (or responsibility) to run the country. This pattern is common in Arab countries. One minority believes they are rulers by right, and that democracy is an abomination and un-Islamic (or at least inconvenient for the ruling minority). This pattern appears in nearly every Arab country.
Like South Africa, India, and many other places where "democracy won't work," it does. Not democracy like in the United States, or Europe, or anywhere else. Every democracy is different, just like every culture. Democracy is a messy, inefficient form of government, but compared to the others, most people tend to prefer it.
Arabs, even Arab leaders, know they need democracy. They have tried everything else, and nothing else works. But democracy is strong medicine for Arabs, and many would rather just talk about it and go no further. And that is the problem in the Arab world. Islamic terrorism is the result.