The Islamic extremists, Isis among them, are winning a battle many do not even realise is going on by expertly wielding their weapon of choice: us. As citizens of Europe, there is much we can do to fight back.

The economic mode of thought has something to contribute to discussion surrounding the growing threat presented by Isis. Game theory, founded by John Von Neumann in 1928, offers an analytic, dispassionate approach to this problem (incidentally, the American military was first to try and apply game theory in decision-making).

At its very core, game theory involves making the best decision, based on what the other players in the ‘game’ are likely to do, a process which has since been heavily and deeply mathematicised.

For our purposes, however, we shall only need concern ourselves with the importance of attempting to anticipate our opponent’s - Isis - next move to decide what we should do.

Effective analysis requires us to rise above the daily media reports of beheadings, burning corpses, suicide bombings and any atrocities Isis can bring themselves to commit and ask ourselves why are Isis and Islamic extremists doing what they are doing?

By publicising their heinous acts, they vilify themselves in our eyes and are aware of this, otherwise they would seek to win us over by trying to undermine our trust in our own Western governments, for example.

The physical impossibility of reading others’ minds means the question above will remain unanswered. This remains true regardless of how much intelligence we can gather, assuming, of course, that intelligence gathered is correct, which is not always the case.

If 44 million people wanted to create havoc in Europe, there is little that can stop them

Here, we smack against the opaque veil of uncertainty. We may assume it’s not the case but not without leaving ourselves vulnerable to being exploited by our enemy. The case of the Maginot Line, built by the French in the 1930s to prevent a direct invasion by Germany illustrates this point.

So focused were the French on a single possibility that they did not anticipate what, in retrospect, was a simple tactic: the German army simply marched around it.

It is ironic then that the answer to this conundrum may very well have emanated from within France itself in the form of Pascal’s Wager?

Pascal’s Wager, simply put, states that it is rational to believe in God because if He does exist the reward of believing is eternal heaven whereas the cost of believing in a nonexistent God is relatively trivial.

Although I do not recommend basing your religious beliefs (or lack thereof) on this frankly naive view, the Wager does present us with a basic modus operandi: think about the various strategies the Islamist extremists may be employing and act on those which imply the greatest damage rather than those which some think (read: guess) are most probable.

I contend that the greatest damage that can be inflicted upon the West is the disintegration of its most basic values, thereby preventing us from recovering as we have done after every attack so far.

The leaders of Isis are either psychotic madmen who also happen to be formidable strategists or simply psychotic madmen (the former is more likely given the rate at which Isis have expanded in the past year or so).

Nevertheless, overestimating their abilities has a lower potential downside to underestimating them, and we should therefore err on the side of the former rather than the latter.

It follows, then, that these atrocities are committed with strategic intentions that go beyond collecting ransoms from governments that have explicitly stated they do not negotiate with terrorists, beyond generating outrage among us.

Identifying those intentions is key: we do not know whether these are their actual intentions, so we are devising a strategy to deal with the worst case scenario we can imagine.

Their strategy then is to spark outrage among us, to push some towards the more vociferous, extremist Europeans be it a knock-off Adolf or the Pegida movement, birthed in Germany, and spilling over into Austria.

Increasingly, we unite under banners of overgeneralised, conveniently amorphous terms such as ‘Maltese values’ or ‘Europeanness’, excluding those on the other side of the dividing line we drew ourselves.

At this point, what choice do those excluded have? Would it be so outlandish for them to think that ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’?

Would we be surprised that, at such a point, those fighting for Islamic extremists grow exponentially?

Consider that, according to the Pew Research Centre, there were over 44 million Muslims living in Europe in 2010. Next, consider that terrorist attacks, ranging from public stabbings to attacks involving explosives, may be accomplished using simple household goods and easily obtainable know-how via the internet.

If 44 million people wished to create havoc within European borders, there is little that can stop them.

Perhaps then we should ask why terrorist attacks are not a common occurrence in light of the above.

That the point has to be made that there are no more extremist Muslims than there are extremist Christians or atheists is telling of our times.

A single act makes for sensational reporting, reporting which leads to a snowball effect (or ‘cascade’) allowing the effect of any minor attack to spread wildly into our minds, further fanning the flame of outrage and fear, further feeding our extremists.

Slowly, you can begin to see the feedback process on which Isis are relying: instil the fear which elicits outrage, nurturing the extremist movements that vilify Isis’s likeliest recruits: rinse and repeat.

You and I then run the risk of becoming the pawns of Isis. The pawn is only useful to his master as long as he is unaware of his being a pawn.

Manipulation is a delicate art, bending someone’s will without breaking the illusion that his will is his own. The very act of approaching the conflict with Isis on our terms, not theirs, is already a great step forward.

Keep in mind that a knee-jerk Islamophobic reaction may be what Isis want in the first place as well as all the other extremists who tend to thirst for conflict and the opportunity to gain power over their fellow men.

Will you help Isis and all the other extremists succeed?

We, the citizens of Europe and Malta must do our duty to protect what is arguably the birthplace of free thought by reframing the conflict in terms of a battle for our minds.

It is this freedom that lends us our greatest strength, which our enemies do not possess.

Whereas dissenters of any fundamentalist view are castigated, we draw strength from ours.

I conclude by asking: if we, the ones who are already blessed with the freedoms we take for granted, lose this battle, where else does it stand a chance to flourish?

Matthew Farrugia is an economics student and blogger.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.