The violent extremism is billowing without restraint in every region of the world. The recent identification of the slayer who with his comrade extremists decapitated 22 Egyptian Christians on the sea-shore of Libya has raised so many questions about the reasons of this menace. Previously known “Jihadi John” is a Londoner and a graduate in computer programming who visited Syria in 2012, being radicalized he joined IS, to thrive for IS draconian objectives. This raises a serious question whether poverty and illiteracy is the only source of violent extremism? Or the prevailing political chaos in the world especially in mid-east and south Asia is igniting it more than ever?
Coming back to our region, the latest development in Benazir murder case suggests that the suicide bomber and his fellows who helped him in doing the turpitude were the students in a famous seminary Darul uloom Haqqania situated in Akora Khattak. The administration of the seminary concedes to the allegations that state prosecutors purported but denied the seminary is responsible for such act.
It is very true that the self-styled jihadists are using the name of religion or are religiously motivated but their background varies. Reports say about 2200 Americans and much more than that from European countries have joined the hands of IS in the last three years. What about Mohammad Emwazi (Jihadi John)? Was he not being nourished under the western civilization? What was the impetus for him to become IS violent activist? Surely he was well educated and belonged to a well settled family. The problem doesn’t lies in indigence and illiteracy but in the current global political stifle.
Last week, President Barack Obama hosted a global summit on Countering Violent Extremism (CVE). The goal: to galvanize a global campaign that seeks to tackle the growing threat extremists pose to modern societies. So where do we stand with CVE? We still haven’t agreed on a definition of the problem. Examine all the states directly tackling violent extremism and you’ll find that their number one, two, and three strategy is use of force. All the talk about broader non-violent policy options is just that — talk.
You cannot counter violent extremism through violent extremism. The point is simple and vivid; no peace can be attained without moderating the prevailing global policy towards extremism. Why didn’t Obama accentuated on to cut the fund age of this globally proscribed militia? Why doesn’t Obama administration take firm steps to put hindrances to the arms being supplied to the violent outfit? One of the reasons may be is their ambivalence on the menace, whether to cut it off by funds or by force.
Not only U.S but we are also profoundly confused what to do with these beasts. The strategic depth concept is still entrenched in the minds of our Khakis and they do not want to revert from that obsolete Afghan policy. The recent interview by former president Pervaiz Musharaf which was published in The Guardian, He admits Inter-Services Intelligence cultivated Taliban after American invasion in Afghanistan in 2001 to teach both Indian and Aghan regimes as they were working mutually against the interests of Pakistan.
The plagued policy to counter terrorism globally and domestically shows there is a very little chance for success in curbing this threat. The use of force only can exacerbate the grisly situation but cannot halt or eradicate this sickening phantom.
