A Bizarre Criticism of Serious Intelligence Analysis

One of the more sophisticated sites following jihadi Islamist groups is Jihadica, captained by Thomas Hegghammer, one of the best analysts of al-Qa‘ida and its analogues who is, like so many of the best analysts of this extremely critical field, a product of Sciences-Po in Paris (and also of Oxford). (In fact, he's so good I've published him in The Middle East Journal. Ahem.) In a posting yesterday, he notes that he is being pilloried by an author at FrontPage Magazine, a rightwing site, for studying jihadis. His response is worth quoting at length. As Hegghammer puts it:

Last week David Solway at Frontpage Magazine published an entertaining article ridiculing people who try to “understand” jihadism and its “roots” (his quotation marks). These people are like the cartoon characters shmoos (see also here), because, like the shmoos, they “recognize no threats, treat everyone as a friend and, even as they are about to be voluntarily exterminated, are all smiles and contentment.”

Solway proceeded to highlight yours truly as a resident of the “Valley of Shmoon” in good standing, describing my review essay in the Times Literary Supplement as an excellent example of the “sacrificial” attitude to jihadism.

As someone who studies jihadism for a living, I do not often find myself accused of not taking jihadi terrorism seriously. I am sometimes criticised for emphasising the political over the theological sources of jihadism, but usually by people who actually know what they are talking about (such as Raymond Ibrahim).

The Frontpage article is extraordinary in that it actively argues in favour of ignorance. For Solway, detailed knowledge about the jihadis, their backgrounds and their thinking seems irrelevant. Trying to understand the myriad of factors that influence militants’ readings of scripture and the different tactical conclusions they draw from those readings is humanizing the enemy, a moral transgression. Jihadists are religious fanatics and it is enough to know where they are so we can bomb them.

The irony here is that the people who work the hardest to “understand” jihadism and its “roots” are not academics or leftist intellectuals; they are the analysts in the intelligence community. The Valley of Schmoon, I’m afraid, covers most of northern Virginia.

Apparently it's offensive even to try to understand them. Excuse me? I thought 9/11 was the result of intelligence failures: so intelligence on the adversary is somehow suspect? As already noted, I've had the privilege of publishing Thomas Hegghammer, and hope to do so again, because he is one of the most careful and meticulous scholars of modern radical Islamist movements out there. That certainly doesn't make him a sympathizer. Fortunately (I hope and as he notes in his last paragraph quoted) most Western intelligence services actually prefer intelligence analysis to Know-Nothingism.

Sun Tzu (Sun Zi), who I think has stood the test of time longer than FrontPage will, begged to differ:

It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.

Just before the Japanese invasion of Malaya in 1941, leading to the fall of Singapore a few weeks later, the British in Singapore were actually briefed that they had no need to have blackouts because the Japanese were all myopic and couldn't fly at night. The first bombing of Singapore was, of course, a night bombing. They also were told that Japanese aircraft were unreliable and inferior, even though the Chinese had handed British intelligence an intact Mitsubishi Zero, which was the most sophisticated fighter in the world at the time. The fundamental reason for intelligence is to know one's adversary or potential adversary.