October 23, 2014
I originally began writing this post two weeks ago following the arrest of five individuals suspected of planning an act of terrorism, one of which is allegedly linked to ISIS, in London on October 7. I wrote “The particular aspect of the plot is that it was neither imminent, nor that it involved the use of explosives – although the latter may prove to be otherwise. This attracts the attention of security personnel, because it is part of a trend, or better yet, an important change of tactics in the way acts of terrorism are perpetrated in Europe.”
The focus of the post was the emergence of the “affiliated” lone wolf terrorist, and how it is affecting the way we deal with terrorism. Since then, Canada experienced two such attacks in less than three days, when on October 20 Martin “Ahmad” Couture-Rouleau ran over two soldiers of the Canadian Armed Forces, killing one near their base in St-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Québec. Then yesterday, October 22, Michael Zehaf-Bibeau shot another Canadian soldier before entering Parliament and discharging his weapon there. Following massive manhunts after their respective attacks, both terrorists were shot dead by police.
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper was quick to politicize the events in a statement to the Canadian House of Commons on Monday and in his speech to the nation following the attack in Ottawa. In both cases, he blamed radicals and islamists and suggested not only that both events could be linked, but also had a probable connection to ISIS.
In light of these attacks and the ensuing flood of (mis)information and comments, I have decided to complete this post to provide a clearer explanation of what the trends are, what we are dealing with, and more importantly, how to deal with it.
What’s the deal with the terrorist attacks in Canada?
The first thing that needs to be clear is that this was indeed a terrorist attack. It might not strike the imagination like bombings or mass killings, but it was political in nature and attacked symbols of power and political power. The soldiers killed were not killed for who they were or what they did, but for what they represented, and this is what makes it a genuine act of terrorism, not unlike the murder of Drummer Lee Rigby last year in London (more on this below).
So, when officials speak of terrorism, it is accurate. Where problems arise is in the so-called ISIS/IS links.
There is currently no evidence of any links between the terrorists and IS, nor that they were even involved in radical circles in Canada. Couture-Rouleau’s connections did not go beyond the digital sphere, where he could be tracked to various islamist fora, and where he expressed his sympathies for the Islamic State. This is what attracted the attention of the authorities, why his passport was revoked, and why he was deemed a low-level threat. The use of a car and a knife also suggest that not much planning was involved, nor that he had access to stronger weapons. He attacked with what he had.
As for Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, any links to IS/ISIS or any other radical groups have yet to emerge, and he had little to no digital life that would suggest otherwise. He was monitored by police and deemed dangerous, but more because of his criminal tendencies than his terrorist affiliations. Like Couture-Rouleau he was a convert and demonstrated tendencies to identify with islamist discourse.
It would be extremely surprising if both men were anything more than lone wolves who were triggered by personal interpretation of events linked to ISIS, Syria, Iraq, or the Canadian support for the anti-IS coalition. And though we will never be able to know, it is not improbable that Couture-Rouleau’s actions triggered the attack perpetrated by Zehaf-Bibeau. In any case, these remain isolated actions that do not suggest a network or dynamic structure of terrorism in Canada, but rather that the country, like many other states around the world, has islamist sympathizers who are willing to commit acts of terrorism to express their view.
So if these are “isolated cases”, we have nothing to worry about then?
Wrong. There a many things to worry about that are related to this, and citizens must be very mindful. First, it doesn’t mean nothing can happen. If anything, the attacks that occurred this week may very well inspire others to do the same, and so other similar attacks are not to be ruled out. And as I and many others tweeted, a lone wolf terrorist attack is near impossible to predict nor to prevent.
Another element of concern is the political instrumentation of these events. Prime Minister Harper was awfully quick to state Rouleau-Couture had been radicalized and in his suggestion of IS links. Briefings on such potential attacks occur every day in various ministries around the world, and they are seldom publicized the way Harper did it, especially with an ongoing investigation. By integrating Monday’s attack into the months long debate on Canadian policies concerning foreign fighters and the Islamic State, he hyped up the process and gave it an importance that can be used as a trigger.
Now I can already read the comments about how he needs to stand up to terrorists, address the issue and that he did the right thing. This is not about fear. PM Harper could have waited a few days, get more input and address the issue on more practical terms. He took an isolated event and dealt with it in a way that felt more like propaganda than solving a problem. It is exactly this form of political instrumentation of terrorism – and here no party is immune – that gives terrorists their success even in death. They become the focus and disturb the way we go about our business.
Then there’s the very poisonous “Minority Report” debate these attacks will ignite. Both attackers were known by Canadian security forces for their radical tendencies and desire to go to Syria and fight. Authorities met with Couture-Rouleau and deemed him a low-level threat. So the easy question is, why weren’t they arrested? Had the police arrested them, the soldiers would still be alive and terrorism would not have struck Canada.
The police said they did not have enough proof against Couture-Rouleau to arrest him. If terrorists create situations where the burden of proof is shifted to the citizen rather than the state, under the guise of preventive/preemptive security, then we create a highly arbitrary security framework, which in effect says that the citizen is guilty until proven innocent. Terrorists represent a minuscule amount of people in our societies, and to allow 90 people to alter the way risk is managed for 35 million others would be their greatest victory. Hence, just embarking on this debate is a very slippery slope, and therein lies the greatest threat.
Is this a new form of terrorism?
No it’s not. The lone wolf terrorist or the lone attacker is nothing new. Auguste Vaillant, the French anarchist who blew up France’s Assemblée National in 1893 acted alone, although some colleagues from anarchist circles helped to provide him with the dynamite. Richard Reid – Shoe Bomber also acted alone and this was in 2001, so this tactic is really nothing new. But the tactic of the lone attacker – combined here with lone wolves – is making a serious comeback as Western security technology renders the use of bombs and spectacular attacks involving more than one person more difficult. Hence, the utilization of one attacker using small arms.
This trend came to light in 2012 when Mohammed Merah attacked French soldiers and a Jewish school in Montauban and Toulouse, France, killing eight (4 soldiers and 4 individuals at the school). He was rumored to have relations with Al Qaeda, although this has never been confirmed. In many ways he fits the profile of a mass murderer, but the political motivations of his actions allow them to be classified as acts of terrorism.
Subsequent terrorism-based murders in London 2013 (Lee Rigby murder) and Brussels 2014 (attack on the Jewish museum) began to indicate the trend of terrorism acts perpetrated by small arms on symbolic targets of political oppression. In Lee Rigby‘s case, he was stabbed and decapitated on a London street by Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale, while the attack on the Brussels Jewish museum was perpetrated by Mehdi Nemmouche using a handgun and a AK 47 to kill visitors at the museum.
While all three were known to have gravitated around radical Islam scenes, Nemmouche was the first to have actually returned from the war in Syria, where he took part as a foreign fighter, to commit acts of terrorism in Europe. So in this case, Nemmouche could be considered a lone attacker rather than a lone wolf, and this is exactly what makes this trend so disturbing and dangerous. There’s little doubt we will see more of such attacks in the near future, as terrorists are getting all the attention they want – and more – out of it.
What can we do to prevent these attacks from occurring?
I’m afraid very little. Even with extreme gun control, people will turn to knives as seen in the Rigby case. Couture-Rouleau used his car. In short, pretty much anything can be used as a weapon, if an attacker is ready to kill.
Fact is, this type of tactic presents the same problems a mass killer does. How does one prevent an event like the school shooting in Columbine, Colorado, or men like Marc Lépine, who walked into Montreal’s École Polytechnique and shot 14 women dead and injured 15 others on December 6, 1989? Truth is, we cannot, but we can mitigate the effects with a proper management of the situation.
This risk management includes security personnel to do their jobs properly and pay attention to particular types of behavior that often indicate tendencies for such actions; proper security checks in areas that constitute highly symbolic targets – that anyone could walk into the Canadian Parliament with a rifle 30 years after Denis Lortie walked into Québec’s Assemblée Nationale with automatic weapons, killing 3 and injuring 13, or that another individual was caught jumping the White House fence same day as the Ottawa shooting is mind boggling; media and political discretion is essential during and after such attacks occur. While the Ottawa police did a fantastic job, politicians and the media were absolutely brutal spreading constant assumptions and adding a circus component to an extremely volatile issue that, above all else, requires discretion and discipline in order to limit the fallout’s impact. The political instrumentation of the St-Jean-sur-Richelieu attack altered the focus put on it, whereas it could have been handled much differently, with little media resonance. With this poor management, politicians and media are fueling the romance attached to such ideas, like martyrdom, “justice” and “supporting” their brothers and sisters in “pain”. Terrorism is all about the romance.
Terrorism is not an easy problem to tackle, but it is manageable without giving into fear, appearing weak or fostering paranoia. It is a very present, volatile issue, but rightly dwarfed by many other problems our societies must deal with every day. Let’s not make terrorism a bigger problem than it actually is by giving it the inflated spotlight it doesn’t deserve. If we are to succeed in limiting the appeal and impact of terrorism, it is vital that we stay aware of that.