Social system needs sprucing, better monitoring
The terror attack in Brussels on Tuesday is shocking for two reasons: One is, of course, that innocent people were killed in the blasts, which happened at the airport and a metro station. The second reason is that the terrorists could strike a city which was already on high alert, with such impunity. The strike came only months after the carnage in Paris in November 2015, which compelled much of continental Europe to stay on guard and raise its fences. Brussels itself was at a level Three security alert (level Four is the highest), especially after the recent arrest of one of the perpetrators of the Paris attack, Salah Abdeslam, in the city. Almost all of its law enforcement mechanism was reportedly working to prevent exactly this kind of an attack, which had been predicted by just about every security expert. At about 500 fighters, Belgium has the highest per capita figure of jihadis in Europe, fighting in Syria alongside the Islamic State. Many of these battle-hardened fighters have now returned home (and more will come back as the Islamic State loses ground or expands) and they have brought the war with them. However, as police and investigators themselves have acknowledged, they are overwhelmed by the task at hand — they are unable to follow many of the leads or keep a close eye on every suspicious individual. Even when they make arrests, most suspects are released soon after. These resource deficiencies of the security system are made worse by structural flaws. Brussels has multiple security agencies, controlled by different sections of a decentralised Government, which makes coordination difficult. This explains why the authorities were unable to prevent Tuesday's attack even though they knew of the alleged perpetrators. A similar pattern had also emerged after the Paris attacks. In both cases, the suspects were known criminals from tough neighbourhoods. They weren't particularly religious but their radicalisation happened quickly. The attacks they conducted were possible only because they could fall back on their home networks. This is an important factor that’s often overlooked, with analysts mostly focusing on linkages with Syria. It also raises the question about whether authorities should approach this problem through conventional policing methods instead of depending solely on counter-terrorism measures.
From a socio-political perspective, these homegrown terrorists are as much a proof of Europe's tottering multi-culturalism project as they are a threat to the open, progressive and liberal values that are the hallmark of European society. To some extent, Europe itself is to blame for this mess, having for years turned a blind eye to rabid Islamists that militate against its own liberal values. The Sharia4Belgium group is one prominent example. Today, ghettos like Molenbeek in Brussels and those in the Parisian suburbs have become fertile grounds for militancy, although social discrimination is not the only reason. In Belgium, the problem is especially worse, as even White society is sharply divided along racial and linguistic lines that are even reflected in state institutions. As these differences percolate down the socio-economic ladder, they become more pronounced, allowing the unscrupulous to tap into the discontent.