The present approach
The present approach leaves much to be desired. Simplified, it consists of two arms: the pre-emptive arm of having constant surveillance of certain high-risk individuals and groups using national and cross-border intelligence; and the reactive arm of responding to an actual terrorist event by belatedly tightening security around the area of operation and to mop up the perpetrators and their accomplices. From experience, the unpredictability of terrorist source and target render such an approach ineffective. Meanwhile, the highly predictable public response of expressing outrage, wide condemnation, generous conveyance of condolences for the victims, pledges of unity in the face of divisive pressures and the defiant breast-beating of trying to live life as before, all really cut no ice with the terrorists. This present approach, if carried forward, is unlikely to bring us any closer to a solution. In effect, it is merely waiting for the next act of terror to happen somewhere, sometime ... It is just an endless cycle of frustration and powerlessness for both sides.
A need for a new approach
There is really no short-cut to a solution to terrorism. To be forthright, the roots of the present terrorist conflict are actually centuries-old. Therefore, we need the triple requirements of honesty, patience and persistence to get anywhere near a solution. Bombs and firepower alone is certainly not the key to a solution. Truthfully, it is going to be a long hard road. We need the honesty to acknowledge that the present problem is the result of intractable religious bigotry and the conflicting religious duties imposed by rival narratives increasingly translated into a cultural war. We need the patience to let the process of healing and building of trust between communities run at their own time. And we need to believe that we can persist in our efforts to see the whole project through to the next generation.
The diagram above illustrates the structure of one of the possible ways we can proceed. It may be faulty, but it is just my suggestion. I propose to tackle terrorism peacefully using two arms. The cultural arm consists of efforts to persuade humanity to look at religion differently - that it is merely a device to help individuals come to terms with their own mortality and to make sense of their existence. Since there are many irreconcilable contradictions between religious precepts, religion should not invade the public space, but should become a personalized indulgence practiced in a private space. For this to become acceptable, all individuals must have perfect freedom to practice their religion without any form of discrimination, persecution or repression. The political arm needs worldwide cooperation, for example, being under the auspices of the United Nations, to pledge universal religious freedom, non-interference and peaceful co-existence. Such efforts should be reinforced locally through education and the passage of relevant laws. The goal is to de-politicize religion. Only when religion and politics are separated can religious wars be stopped.
