It has been nearly a week since the
attempted car bombing in Times Square, and though investigators have uncovered many critical details in the last six days,
the journey to this point has been muddled with confusion, while the
ramifications remain ambiguous.
Here's what we do know -- the
perpetrator of the botched attack was Faisal Shahzad, a recently naturalized U.S. citizen of Pakistani descent who was well
educated and came from a "privileged and moderate" family in Pakistan. By all media accounts,
Shahzad's story is particularly significant because he doesn't fit the profile of a terrorist and a would-be
suicide bomber, an angle the Western media has labored upon at length, at times
to patronizing degrees.
But if Shahzad's journey has taught
us anything it's that a terrorist stereotype does not exist. Forget the ages
18 to 35, impoverished, uneducated male bracket. That myth has been debunked
countless times. Radicalization is a far more nuanced phenomenon, one that
cannot be boxed in a series of checklists. Recognizing the complexity of the
problem is only the first step in tackling potential solutions.
The question now, of course, is how
do we address other would-be Faisal Shahzads, men living seemingly
"anti-terrorist" lives? Although one reaction would be to cast a net over the
entire "Muslim world" with the hope of catching the bad seeds, that tactic will
only further polarize and exacerbate the situation. And though the spotlight
will inevitably shift back to Pakistan's
fight against militancy, it's also important for the United States to understand its
role in the problem. In the chicken-versus-egg debate, responsibility is
shared.
Kalsoom Lakhani is the director of Social Vision, the
strategic philanthropy arm of ML Resources in Washington, D.C. She is from Islamabad, Pakistan,
and blogs at CHUP, or Changing Up Pakistan.
(2)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE