Terror reporting ignores the real threat

I promised not to add one more word to the debate on the Westgate Mall attack. It was heinous alright and many things went wrong with the response. As I have mentioned before the capacity of local police forces against that sort of attack is wanting(http://trulyjossi.blogspot.com/2013/08/its-long-way-to-reformed-police-force.html).  See also http://blogs.aljazeera.com/blog/africa/kenyas-shambolic-response-westgate-siege. However, it is the terror reporting that unwittingly aids terrorism. Here are my thoughts written on Facebook on July 2 2012 after a string of grenade attacks in Kenya by terror group al Shabab(https://www.facebook.com/jossi.tinga/posts/453344281357470). With the outbreak of violence in Mombasa following the execution of a radical imam after the Westgate attacks, I believe these thoughts are still valid. The focus should remain on terror not religion or ethnicity. These were my words in July 2012 :

In reporting terror undue emphasis is placed on the religious or ethnic identity of the perpetrator to the exclusion of other factors. Racial and religious profiling of terrorists actually aids terrorism by giving criminals the camouflage required to operate in.

Critically, ethnic profiling allows terrorists to outsource their heinous trade to non-targeted communities to devastating effect. The emerging al shabab threat is particularly potent because the majority of perpetrators do not fit the traditional profile of a terrorist. By and large, the attacker is of black African descent, will likely carry identification with Christian names and is of upcountry origin not coastal or Somali.  Effectively, the attacker is one of us and not the enemy as we are trained to identify.

A hotel in Garrisa, Northern Kenya- Terrorists do not discriminate against purely civilian facilities

Further ethnic profiling blames whole communities for the crimes of a few creating a siege mentality in the accused community. All Muslims are terrorist suspects. As such they are forced to be defensive whenever the issue is addressed. Is it not too much to expect Muslims to be at the forefront in the fight against terror when even the anti-terrorist Muslim policeman is a terror suspect herself?  

In reporting and defining terror, we should focus instead on the tactics and organisation involved in the attacks. For example, not one above ground site has been targeted thus far. Does that not tell us something about the organisational limitations of the attacker? Probably a simple barrier can put off attack. Would attacks take place with the current frequency if church services and bars operated behind closed doors? It is unusual but probably necessary to place a physical barrier between the body-search and the congregation or as it were, the bar lounge.

Critically, we should not make enemies of ordinary Muslims. In a historically tolerant country that voted with the minority to allow Kadhis Courts to determine personal status issues for Muslims, it would be treacherous to listen to the language of the terrorist to inflame passions. It is far more beneficial to reorient the Police Force to take a more pragmatic approach to the whole issue. The fight against terror is about strategy not communities or religions. Of course the terrorist would like us to focus on that to grow the conflict and give her sufficient cover.

The Police Force has borne the brunt of attack with a number of officers falling victim in bold attacks. Is our Force trained and conditioned to counter commando-style raids? How often are officers drilled both physically and mentally on how to combat terror? To the best of my knowledge all policemen are garrisoned away from the public for quick mobilisation should a riot occur. They are least equipped and structured to deal with a fluid challenge such as terror. As a matter of fact much of the forensic science required to combat terrorism is foreign to the force not just in technology but in expertise too. Organised crime and terrorism, unlike pro-democracy demonstrations, cannot be fought with brute force. They are intelligence-driven and require a force ‘with an ear to the ground’. It does not help the fight if the public are afraid to pass information for fear of betrayal or undue harassment.