AboutDon Radlauer Expertise I`m originally from the United States, and now make my home in Israel - after living for some years in Hong Kong and England.
In addition to handling general questions about Israeli life and history, I can field questions relating to strategic aspects of terrorism and counter-terrorism, as well as some tactical aspects. As an Associate of the International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism (ICT), I can draw on ICT`s accumulated expertise in this area. As the Lead Researcher for ICT`s "al-Aqsa Intifada" Database Project (and author of "An Engineered Tragedy", ICT`s report on the findings of this project), I have become the world`s leading expert (indeed, as far as I know, the world`s only expert) on the demographics of the victims of the phase of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that began in September 2000.
Going beyond terrorism per se, I can answer questions regarding pretty much all aspects of the Israeli-Arab conflict.
Experience
Experience in the area I've lived in Israel for over eight years. For more than five years, I have been associated with the Institute for Counter-Terrorism at the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya, Israel. My own role there is, to a degree, that of "expert in everything else" - that is, I'm less of a security expert than many of the other researchers there, but I have a broader background in other areas, including banking and finance, general scientific subjects, and so on. I also can draw upon the knowledge of other ICT staff.
Publications ICT website, http://www.ict.org.il
My blog, "On the Contrary: Don's Mideast Musings" is at http://radlauer.blogspot.com .
Question I'm doing research on National Security and U.S. Foreign Policy and currently reading Robert Jervis' book, "Foreign Policy in a New Era". Jervis talks both sides of President Bush's policy on terrorism after the attacks of Sept 11, 2001, but he doesn't do a good job, in my opinion, of explaining the differences and similarities of Bush doctrine as compared to other countries terrorism policies since the attacks. I've tried to find information on the terrorism policies of France, who opposed the invasion of Iraq, Israel, who probably has the most experience dealing with terrorism, and the UK, who just seems to coat-tail the US, but have had limited success. Can you give me insight on the similarities and differences between Bush doctrine and the policies of France, Israel, and the UK?
Answer Dear Kevin -
The Bush counter-terrorism doctrine is rooted in the euphoria of the early 1990's, which had been hailed as "the end of history" in the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Liberal democracy appeared to have "won" on all fronts. At about the same time, Samuel Huntington's Clash of Civilizations came out. This is the background against which a group of intellectuals in 1997 wrote a paper called the PNAC—"The Project for the New American Century". Many of those who wrote this paper later became influential in the Bush administration, either as officials or as advisers.
There was a great debate in the US about how imperative it was to adopt the PNAC ideas. 9/11 settled the issue. The attacks proved that America no longer lived in "splendid isolation", sheltered by oceans and distance. This was the first time that the true heartland of America had been successfully attacked. The actions taken as a result were all direct outcomes of the recommendations of the PNAC.
The idea that took hold was that rogue regimes must be brought down. Bush was (or still is, for the next day or two) in many ways the most ideological president since Woodrow Wilson. His basic premise was that as long as there exists even one dictatorship in the world, the US is not safe. The initial success of the Afghan campaign led to a huge spike in Bush's popularity, and seemed to bear out the PNAC ideas. The assumption was that toppling such regimes would create a positive domino effect, with more democratic regimes coming to power more or less automatically. This in turn would fuel reform in "borderline countries" such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia. But of course, there is nothing in the background or culture of these countries that can support a true, functioning democracy. Bush's doctrine was, ultimately, an act of faith, without any empirical basis.
One consequence of this doctrine was the need to vastly enlarge the American defense establishment. The PNAC in fact had called for an annual rise in the defense budget must of slightly more than 4% - which is quite a lot given how large this budget was to start with, and how fast "compound interest" adds up. But the battle against terrorism was seen as a total war, which must be fought in the same way that nazism and communism were fought. Palestinian terrorism, in this context, was seen as the "poster child" of Islamic terrorism.
By contrast to this extremely ideological American policy, both France and the UK (and even Israel) are far more pragmatic. France in particular has always fought terrorism quietly and quite ruthlessly. Its policy has been to avoid sweeping statements and generalizations regarding who the enemy is; but at the same time, France has been far more ruthless than many countries in identifying ideological trouble-makers on its territory and acting quickly to deport those it sees as inciting to violence. France's counter-terrorism laws are fairly sharp and effective. However, the country suffers from the existence of a "grey zone" when it comes to dealing with racial unrest short of terrorism. A sizable Muslim minority, which has become increasingly ghettoised, serves as a constant breeding ground for discontent.
The UK has traditionally taken an "appeasement" approach, granting asylum to many radical Islamic preachers and in general handling its Moslem population quite gently in order to maintain quiet at home. This eventually led to the "Londonistan" phenomenon, where the British Moslem community became fertile ground for generating terror attacks which took place outside of Great Britain. The 7/7 attacks in London highlighted the inadequacy of this traditional British attitude towards Moslem radicalisation, and the British authorities have begin - with the utmost politeness, of course - to take a more interventionist role in fighting terrorism. Still, the British tendency is to view terrorism in terms of grievances that must be understood and resolved; it is profoundly difficult, I think, for the British to understand people who are not interested in resolving conflicts peacefully even when doing so would seem the practical thing to do.
Both France and the United Kingdom (and, for that matter, many other European states) seem to view terrorism from more of a law-enforcement standpoint that does the United States (particularly under the Bush administration), and less from a clash-of-civilizations standpoint. As is so often the case in life, this has beneficial and harmful aspects: on the one hand, France and the U.K. are often very effective at controlling terrorism in their own territory because their approach tends to be practical and uncluttered by ideology; but on the other hand, these countries tend to view terrorism from a very local standpoint, ignore its broader context, and thus sometimes fail to be a constructive part of the broader struggle against the phenomenon.
Israel's approach is sort of a special case, since on the one hand we are targeted more than any other Western country (on a per-capita basis, at least), while on the other hand our attention is focused mostly on our own immediate surroundings. While the terrorism to which we are subject is associated (at least nowadays) with the Global Jihad, it also has very local elements; and the organizations that attack us are generally concerned only with Israel and not with the rest of the world. (Hezbollah is a special case; as the long-distance striking arm of Iran, Hezbollah has substantial ability to carry out terror attacks in many parts of the world, including the United States, South America, and Europe, but these capabilities are held in reserve and the only places where the group routinely carries out attacks are Israel and Lebanon.) Accordingly, Israel is both very much aware of the ideological aspects of global terrorism and very much focused on practical, local approaches to fighting terror. On the other hand, Israeli counter-terrorism is often tactics-wise and strategy-foolish: we are adept at combating terrorism in "real time", but too often at the cost of promoting radicalization in the long term.
I hope this answer was of some help; of course, I'll be glad to try to answer any follow-up questions you may have.
