Sebastian Gorka’s activist views and Trump’s radical policies have something in common.
Gorka’s work has inspired most of Trump’s anti-terrorism speeches. Speaking against “Radical Islamic terrorism”, Trump stated that a Cold War-like approach to encounter radical Islam would be better. Gorka considers Islamic religion as an inherent predilection for military, a view is strongly supported by right-leaning Washington think tanks. His controversial philosophy about Islam drives Donald Trump’s populist proposals towards anti-terrorism and national security. His words weaken the efforts of the US’s national security and unfortunately, they create room for a radical break in the strategy that has been embraced by both the Democrats and Republicans in countering terrorism.
His views establish that terrorism is not connected to alienation, repression, tribalism, torture, poverty, or US’s foreign policy pitfalls and the complex, messy Middle East. He believes that terrorism is rooted in Islamic faith, further stimulated by the “martial” sections of the Koran, which, he says, predispose most of Muslims to terror threats. In this view, many anti-terrorism experts decline Gorka’s Islamic ideas, saying that they are dangerous oversimplifications that might promote terror groups and alienate U.S of Muslim allies. He, in addition proposes that the US should have Muslim allies, and together, the Muslim allies should counter jihadist religion just like America countered Communism during Cold War.
When Trump speaks of banning immigrants and testing their religious beliefs, it is Gorka’s ideologies that are reflected. But, designating so has only promoted further terror in the economy, and this could directly conflict the United States and the Middle East’s Islamic pact. Gorka’s opinions about the GTMO detainees notwithstanding, his influence on current political economy is as much as astounding.
Gorka’s work strongly favours efforts against Jihadists through eager use of psychological warfare, special operations, technical support, direct action, and foreign internal defense as mechanisms to strengthen Muslim allies, rather than using large-scale US national-building and counterinsurgency operations. By describing the enemy in a rather straightforward manner, he remains exceptional in one way, and anti-Semitic in another.
A democracy should never be influenced by an anti-Semitic activist, and delve into action that is uncalled for. And it gets worse when such action has internal economic ramifications. It is safe to say that democracies are not immune to lobbying of the intelligence. We have seen in Central and Eastern Europe, Germany, the former Soviet Union and Romania. Intelligence politicisation has not been uncommon, to say the least. Infact, politicians play a consistent role in guiding and updating intelligence about policies and actions. Ideally, an intelligence analyst holds neutral office, and helps with the national security policy. Policy preferences matter more, when intelligence is partisan to the government. When such irrelevant policy actions happen, it is the tax-payer’s money that is spent. So, does the government politicise intelligence when there are oppositions to specific policies? Trump’s voter population is not a secret anymore; nor are his intentions for the administration and the economy. Though concluding about his influence on intelligence is an extreme statement, one cannot undermine his efforts in tandem with the intelligence on immigration and allied areas. There is high probability that the current administration’s policies are misguided, and may not have the intended effect. At this juncture, it may be better to consider intelligence as being independent and objective in its functions. Policy bias has become evident, in this hour of exigency. To approach the policy of immigration solemnly and objectively is as necessary as other threats. It is perhaps time to focus on those others. There is a thin line between comprehending what national security comprises of and restraint.