Image of the Enemy

  By Ken Webb

• Terrorism – To fulfil their ethos, a non-state actor’s instrumental premeditated and asymmetrical conduct and/or fostering of mass violence so their philosophical propaganda is marketed to influence and/or disrupt through fear a target public’s governance, livelihood and will. This is to achieve a mass effect and impact on the security and/or well-being of a nation or series of nations so the desired civil change is considered.
• Fundamentalist – An exclusive paradigm that causes a radical belief that their “religious and/or cultural” rules are the only way to order the society. It is a worldview that seeks to establish its own order, and thus to separate their ‘people’ from the Other while claiming a universal standing for their worldview.
• Other – All people not in the fundamentalists’ religion, belief and/or culture, and possibly those who belong but do not follow their views. It also includes atheists who do not have a ‘religion’.

This article provides some insight into what some of the ‘alleged and/or potential’ foes to Australia’s national security think of their ‘enemy’ and relays some findings of academic research done by resident Indonesians.

After completing funded research on how to better manage the country’s national security from asymmetric threats with a focus on terrorist groups; based on some considerations and limitations, I moved to Indonesia and extended my research privately. This was because it mainly involved, through interview, obtaining the viewpoints of key persons around the ‘Western World’ concerned with and/or involved in the national security system rather than also the view of the ‘other side’. The latter is now wanted, and hence the initial review of literature and informal interviews in a country/area where terrorists have made their ‘mark’ on Australia.

To aid this, many friendships and relations with key parties in Indonesia, and other parts of South-East Asia, have been established/rekindled. This particularly includes universities, government agencies, NGOs and security consulting firms.

CAVEATS AND CONTEXT

It is important to first provide some caveats and context to ensure unanimity:

1. It mainly uses the findings of Indonesian researchers.
2. It is purely from academic research and is impartial.
3. Referencing is not declared due to its sensitive nature, and need of confidentiality for future study and safety.
4. Any perception of pictures/examples such by the reader is entirely theirs.
5. It is not focused on a specific religion/culture, as they all share similar traits. It theorises from one that is able, available and appropriate for research.
6. It does not present any religion, belief and/or culture as terrorist, as fundamentalists everywhere are known to conduct terrorism, and does so with open-mindness and respect.

ROOTS OF THE ENEMY IMAGE

Construction of the fundamentalist image occurs in the following two parts:

PART 1 – THE NATURE OF ENMITY

The ‘black and white’ paradigm (world view) of the fundamentalists divides the world into two opposing halves, their religion/culture and the Others. It is based on the belief of permanent conflict between truth and falsity, which began with the first creation of human being and will continue until the end of the world.

This means they are consumed by the totalitarian idea of the superiority of their system, and this mindset is based on three elements:

1. The confrontational passages of their scriptures that form the basis of their endless enmity with the Other.
2. A sense of siege and distrust of the Other.
3. Perpetual conflict between them and the Other that ceases only when the Other submits to a protected  status under the fundamentalist’s ruler, belief and/or law, (e.g. a non-Muslim governed under Islamic rule).

PART 2 – INFLUENCE

Most fundamentalists belong to, rely upon and are networked with fundamentalist groups; and most of these groups, while confrontational and antagonistic in discourse, are peaceful in action. However, due to some fundamentalist groups, like the Muslim FPI (Front of Islam Defense), destroying ‘sinful’ places to them, their characterisation has become violent, extreme, hard-line and militant.

Fundamentalist groups that just provide political information, stigmatisation and stereotyping of the Other, as having an endless enmity to their being, could be seen to conduct ‘symbolic violence’. This is confirmed by a discourse of antagonism and conflict attitudes toward the Other being strong in the publications and leaders’ speeches, so a strong sense of enmity is developed.

FOUR PATTERNS OF DISCOURSE

Fundamentalists develop four patterns of discourses that contribute greatly to the development of enmity in a way that could incite conflict attitudes toward the Other and thus provide a motive for terrorism.

1st Pattern of Discourse – Ideologised social and conflict analysis works in several ways, such as:

• emphasis on the appropriate aspects in conflict and social analysis,
• emphasis on the failure of a secular system compared to the possible and hoped-for successes of their system, and
  • creating symbolic words and pictures.

2nd Pattern of Discourse – The Other is demonised by producing images of them as threatening, cruel and uncivilised in their religion/culture, for example, some pictures of the Ku Klux Klan.

This occurs by repeated stories and visualisations of hostilities, repressions and conspiracies against their people by the Other. It includes creating a generalised stigmatisation of the Other, and making provocative statements against them.

This theologically based consciousness is also strengthened/ substantiated by referring to historical evidence identified as the Other attacks on their religion, both physically and non-physically (ideologically). For example, from this research:

• Physical attacks refer to both past and current conflicts between Muslims and non-Muslims.
• Non-physical attacks, or what they call the ‘battle of thought’ (ghazw al-fikr/al siro’ al-fikr), refer to the imposition of modern ideas (such as nationalism, orientalism, Christianisation, capitalism, secularism, democracy, religious modernization, human rights, civil society, gender equality, pluralism, terrorism, Islamic fundamentalism, and so forth).

3rd Pattern of Discourse – This then leads to potential conflict and violence, both physical and non-physical, as all unhealthy social interactions do. It addresses the fundamentalists’ insistence on the inevitable clash between their civilisation and the others.

This discourse is based on the belief of superiority of their rule and its complete contradiction of any other system. It leads to a refusal in any sharing, compromise or dialogue with other systems in ruling the world. An example, using this research, is a belief now that, since the collapse of Communism, Islam is in intense collision with the rest of the world.

4th Pattern of Discourse – The final pattern of discourse is imagining their upcoming victory. Referring to several passages from their texts, the fundamentalists believe that the resurgence of their system is coming soon and this gives them the realisation of the image after it has been developed.

For example, fundamentalists studied in this research are convinced that Capitalism is today’s single dominant ideology but is showing indications of its collapse; and this gives them hope and belief that Islam will be the single World superpower before the end of the day.

FUNDAMENTALIST DYNAMIC

There is now a new side/dynamic to the fundamentalist, as fundamentalists of many sorts now see their way as a resistance against a global capitalist hegemony and its humiliation of global instability.

Rather than invading them, which is against many scriptures, this is now a resistance so its religion/culture is defended against a modern enemy. An enemy who is weaker from increasing pressure by other societal sources. It also means that the fundamentalist’s meaning from their image of the enemy is understood and justified further to them.

Irrespective whether they see terrorism as good or bad, most of them are urban and educated now. Before it was true that poverty breeds fundamentalism, but it is no longer lack of food and other basic needs. It is now the middle class who feel being impoverished and disempowered by the imbalanced global order.

They also show potential for marketing and resonance; which is important for promoting anything, and makes them powerful and welcomed by many.

So the fundamentalists, (a good example is Osama Bin Laden), are now:

• Offering an appealing alternative ideology for society to rid itself from an increased feeling of powerless and humiliation,
• Gaining increasing sympathy from people sick of the arrogance and corruption of the ‘elite’ with hedonistic and wealthy lifestyles,
• Coming with an attractive appearance of a humble, altruistic, simple but intellectual face willing to make lifestyle sacrifices, and
• Accessing means like the Internet and increased marketing prowess, as shown from the sales of their media.

This dynamic appears to come from the actual impacts of the fundamentalist’s image of the enemy, with:

• Their thinking now more towards growing their beliefs and values.
• The feeling of being under siege by a united global conspiracy against their religion, belief and/or culture no longer valid.
• They are no longer seen as the only society’ impacted upon by the global capitalist hegemony they are fighting.
• Many now feeling popular like heroes and symbols of resistance, instead of terrorists, as parties that invite their hatred massively used the media to characterise them as violent by using the term ‘terrorism’ to demonise and lobby support against them.
• Irrespective of what is presented, now feeling and being an attractive to many alternative with an ideology of protest.

FUNDAMENTALIST OBSTACLES

This dynamic has waned slightly after the rise of their popularity due to the following obstacles:

1. Although fundamentalists may provide certainty for the alleged ‘dying society’, their image of the enemy makes that hope for many an illusion and so needs careful crafting.
2. Their arguments have become oversimplified, strict and non-compromising with a notion of perpetual conflict; thereby:

• Resulting in internal differences, with some now personally feeling that their desired societal system is idealistic rather than realistic; and
  • Making many supporters wonder and/or not believe in them as strongly (e.g. the Western globalisation of contemporary terrorism has created a wide impact on the Muslim world).
  • Some see that Generalising the Other as having a character of hatred and enmity is an abuse of their scripture. Meaning the Other is not parallel to evil, as fundamentalists commonly judge.
  • In most cases, it is only when the Other fights their religion that they have god/s’ permission to fight back in defence (‘resistance’).
• Increase in fundamentalist conflict of all kinds including, religious to neo-liberalist, unilateral and market policies; and peace, climate, nationalist and race activism; all striving for a new balanced world order.

3. Religious scriptures being examined more, which means:

So the real world conflict appears to be between them all, which are products of our society. However, they victimise the rest by not working in vacuums, thereby creating chaos.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

For any religion/culture, a new dynamic has emerged where the fundamentalists’ motive for terrorism now appears to be their increased negative image of the Other plus the greater opportunities/reasons/‘credibility’ to fight that have developed. They have some obstacles to overcome though.

Their traditional discourses of inevitable conflict plus imagining guaranteed victory, which are the hallmarks of fundamentalists, appear not to be realistic and against peaceful coexistence in a pluralistic society. It thereby ensures continual conflict.

These observations raise a number of questions, including:

• If their future existence is to be jeopardised with the obstacles they face – should they reconceptualise their ideology?
• Being proactive rather than reactive, is research on the Other required to address the Image of itself as an enemy in the fundamentalist’s eyes?
• Have fundamentalists become Terrorists, Protesters or Resistance Fighters now?

About the Author

Ken is a former Government National Security Researcher and Operator based in Australia and Europe; and an SAS, Commando and Intelligence Officer prior to this after graduating from the Royal Military College. He received an Australian Postgraduate Award when completing doctoral research for the Australian Research Council; and his degrees include a PhD, MBA and GradDip in Survival & Rescue Management. Ken is based in Bali, Indonesia and has a sound network of relationships in national security around the world.