Liberal-made terror

The 24th anniversary of the September 11,2001 attacks remain an indelible scar on America’s psyche-a brutal reminder that in an interconnected world, no nation can assume immunity from extremist violence. In the two decades since, the United States and its allies have pursued a sweeping “war on terror,” dismantling al-Qaeda’s core leadership, eliminating Osama bin Laden, and erecting an unprecedented global intelligence-sharing network. These efforts have undeniably disrupted large-scale plotting against the West, saved countless lives, and forced jihadist movements to splinter and conceal their activities under ever-tighter security scrutiny.Yet measuring success solely in military and espionage victories risks overlooking a stubborn truth: terrorism has not been eradicated. Boko Haram, Hamas, Laskhar-e-Taeba, al-Shabaab and a host of smaller outfits emerged in the vacuum created by successive counterterror campaigns. Their resilience suggests that kinetic force alone cannot defeat an idea that thrives on grievances against perceived Western overreach-real or imagined. A provocative critique has emerged from unexpected quarters. A Middle Eastern ruler recently asserted that Islamic terrorism is, at its root, a creation of liberal Western society-an assertion that seeds anti-Western philosophies within Europe and North America, nurturing them under the cover of human-rights forums and academic freedom. He claimed many jihadi ideologues are Western-educated, even Western nationals, who weaponize the very liberties they enjoyed against the societies that fostered them. There is a kernel of truth here: university campuses and non-governmental organisations have occasionally become safe harbors for extremist sympathizers, exploiting legal protections to spread propaganda. Western judicial systems, wary of trampling civil liberties, sometimes struggle to intercept incipient threats without clear evidence of wrongdoing. This “liberal laxity,” critics insist, allows radical ideas to percolate unchecked until they morph into violence.But the argument that terrorism is a creature of Western indulgence risks absolving autocratic regimes of responsibility. History shows that extremist ideologies often germinate in environments of political repression, socioeconomic despair and sectarian conflict-conditions far more prevalent in parts of the Islamic world than in London or New York. Moreover, countless human-rights organisations in the West have been instrumental in saving lives, documenting abuses and fostering integration, not in subverting liberal values.It is true, however, that foreign-policy missteps—ill-conceived interventions, civilian casualties from drone strikes, and opaque alliances with authoritarian regimes-have fueled anti-Western sentiment. The moral ambiguities of targeted killings and indefinite detentions have provided fodder for terrorist recruiters, who portray the West as hypocritical and hostile to Islam itself.If liberal democracies are to withstand this assault on their ideals, they must refine their approach. Security services need clear legal mandates to counter radicalisation, while safeguarding fundamental rights. Education and social-cohesion programs should pre-empt the narratives that extremists peddle. And Western governments must conduct foreign policy with transparent objectives and respect for civilian lives. The 9/11 terror attacks underscored that terrorism adapts quickly to any weakness. The West’s challenge is to evolve its strategies without sacrificing the very freedoms it vows to protect. Only by blending decisive security measures with a reinvigorated commitment to inclusive governance and diplomatic engagement can liberal societies hope to close the gaps that extremists exploit-and prevent future anniversaries from becoming grim milestones.