Two headlines skittered across my monitor today that illustrate the problem of defining “violent extremism.”
First, US-led air strikes on Syria ISIL targets ‘kill 1,600’
From the post:
US-led air strikes against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) group in Syria have killed more than 1,600 people since they began five months ago, a monitor said.
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said on Monday that almost all of those killed were fighters from ISIL and al-Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate al-Nusra Front, though it also documented the deaths of 62 civilians.
As I understand it, ISIL (IS) is trying to overthrow the government of Syria, lead by the son of Hafez al-Assad, Bashar al-Assad, who together have ruled Syria as dictators since 1970. That’s forty-five (45) years for those of you who are counting.
The abuses of the combined regimes are legendary. For example, Bashar al-Assad, if ever captured, will be charged with war crimes for events arising out of the Syrian Civil War. Syria also joined the United States in the unjust war against Iraq.
If I am reading the article correctly, the United States and its allies have killed at least 1,600 people who are trying to overthrow a dictator who is a known war criminal.
Yes?
The other headline that caught my eye was: The White House Summit on Countering Violent Extremism, the press release reads in part:
This [week of 16 February 2015] week, the White House is convening a three-day summit on Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) to bring together local, federal, and international leaders – including President Obama and foreign ministers – to discuss concrete steps the United States and its partners can take to develop community-oriented approaches to counter hateful extremist ideologies that radicalize, recruit or incite to violence. Violent extremist threats can come from a range of groups and individuals, including domestic terrorists and homegrown violent extremists in the United States, as well as terrorist groups like al-Qaeda and ISIL.
A summit to counter: “…counter hateful extremist ideologies that radicalize, recruit or incite to violence.”
It isn’t clear to me how the White House jumps from a group that is recruiting fighters to overthrow a dictator/known war criminal to “…hateful extremist ideologies that radicalize, recruit or incite to violence.”
By way of only three precedents (there are many others), the United States used violence to overthrow the governments of Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. What makes the violence of ISIL, which is at least opposing a known war criminal and not a victim picked out of hat (Iraq), different from that of the United States?
Moreover, the violence by ISIL is at least in their own country, not half a world away, meddling in affairs that are really none of their business.
The fact that ISIL owns its violence, such as beheading people, may be physically repugnant but it is morally superior to the arcade style killing directed by faceless planners.
I think “violent extremism,” like “terrorist,” means: Someone the speaker dislikes, for any number of reasons.
Other definitions?