It's terrific Terfor: I think not
Bill,
You appear to take an optimistic view of this announcement, being nearer to the scene, with friends working at the "coalface", I fear it is "spin".
There have been several government reviews of the counter-extremism strategy, often known as Prevent - within the wider CT strategy 'Operation Contest'; a couple of learned groups - including at least two parliamentary enquiries - and a number of other groups, some who have worked at the "coalface".
The CNN report has little detail, nor have several UK newspapers and we are left with a No.10 Downing Street press briefing:
Quote:
The cabinet-level group, which will also bring in intelligence and police chiefs when needed, will focus on radical preachers who target potential recruits in jails, schools, colleges and mosques. It will monitor trends in radicalisation and tackle "poisonous narratives", No 10 said.
The group, which is expected to meet within weeks, will include the deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg, the home secretary, Theresa May, the chancellor, George Osborne, other key cabinet ministers, the Metropolitan police commissioner, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, and Andrew Parker, the director general of MI5.
It will be known as the tackling extremism and radicalisation task force (Terfor)...
Link:http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...ror-task-force
A more conservative leaning paper has a little more, again with some choice headlines:
Quote:
We cannot allow a situation to continue where extremist clerics go around this country inciting young people to commit terrorist acts.
We will do everything we can to stop it.
Link:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...extremism.html
Meantime there is political pressure building to re-introduce a piece of legislation on greater communications monitoring, known as the 'Snoopers Charter' to many and officially as the rather blandly titled Communications Data Bill:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...s-charter.html
From another comment of mine on a different thread
I had suggested in the past either here or at another blog (Abu M) that we study the Punjab insurgency or the Khalistan or similar South Asian movements as a better mental model than 19th century colonial wars and in the manner of Dave Maxwell's recent article on UW.
1. Immigrant diaspora (Mackinley's Insurgent Archipelagos).
2. National and regional movements mixed in with ideological movements, some supported by national intelligence agencies.
3. Lobbying of western officials.
4. Cultivating Western scholars.
5. International banking and black globalization in combination as sources of funding.
6. Sophisticated use of the visual arts and contemporary communications (from television to the internet over time).
7. And so on.
PS: You can find newspaper reports of Brussels human rights officials being threatened when the official attempts to look into human rights abuses on both sides of a contentious issue, in this way nations can attempt to manipulate the appearances of insurgencies. This happens in a relatively benign fashion (diplomats yelling at each other or threatening to withhold business contracts behind doors) or in a more nefarious fashion.
Bad policy aids and abets radical speech
There is a tendency for officials in the UK (and it happens in Canada and the US too) to "outsource" (Praveen Swami's phrase) dealing with immigrant communities to community liaisons which perverts the complicated diaspora community and its attitudes.
I have started to see it here in the US, newspaper reporters will interview some "Hindu American" activist on some made up issue ("Salena Gomez wore a bindi and perverted our traditional culture!") and present it as representative of some community. I bet 99.999999999 percent of "Hindu Americans" don't know who the freak show activist is but some well-meaning but clueless reporter will pass it off as an issue and the whole ball gets rolling from this nonsense.
I'm seeing different rhetoric in my own community related to a different immigration pattern and this is somehow being passed off as representative of a whole complicated group of people.
So, this is probably what happened over the years in the UK, and no thanks to the national government, elected officials pandering to the louder activists within a larger immigrant population, and the Foreign Office or whatever buckling under to pressure from nations that are traditional allies or Commonwealth countries or whatever.
A complicated phenomenon, not typical to just one nation. Sunlight is the best disinfectant for this phenom, IMO.
Hammer, rapier and careful thought
One CT dilemma well put (in part) BY Jamie Bartlett, of Demos:
Quote:
.. the crunch question that in counter-terrorism: how do you discern between the (fairly many) individuals that hold illiberal, extreme ideas that we permit in a liberal democracy and the (very few) individuals that hold the same ideas, but are also willing to act on them violently. After a lot of painstaking research, I found there is no single answer, no single pathway of radicalisation, no obvious predictive flashing signs that the police or intelligence agencies can reliably and consistently look out for. Such randomness is uncomfortable, but it's true nonetheless.
Link:http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/jami...b_3343310.html
Marc Sageman chimes in, in the same e-paper:
Quote:
So what advice would he give the British government? "The priority for the government right now is.. to study what's happening on the ground, as opposed to just giving out soundbites.. stop being brainwashed by this notion of 'radicalisation'. There is no such thing. Some people when they're young acquire extreme views; many of them just grow out of them. Do not overreact - you'll just create worse problems."
Link:http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013...n_3342206.html
I wasn't implying a root causes argument
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bill Moore
Madhu,
I think it all comes down to identity and people in the end want their narratives to be simple. What amazes me is how quickly we bond with a group and assume a group identity for even a short period of time and throw rationale out the window as we get got up in the group dynamics. Others, like many home grown Islamists, especially those who were agnostic or Christian and then converted to Islam were searching for a group they could establish an identity with. Examples include the Hari Krisnas, the Jone's Town Cult, Aum Shinrikyo, devil worshiping cults, and the Islamist cult(s).
Something is missing in people's lives and for some reason joining this groups gives their life meaning. I listed what we generally consider undesirable groups above, but their seems to be little difference between people who decide to become professional soldiers, policemen, join Doctor's without Borders, or join the priest hood. We assume the norms of these groups because we want to belong. In many cases these group identities are healthy for our society instead of threatening.
I don't know what the fix is for radicalization, because I don't understand the problem, or even if human nature should be considered a problem we need to fix? I do think once those who have taken this path are identified and those who reach out to spread this group identity need to be removed. All complex psychological and sociological factors aside, the simple fact remains is they remain a threat to our society.
Why do so many skinny American white kids who are for the most spoiled brats embrace gangsta rap and walk around like an intercity black kid in a gang? What identity are they trying to embrace (often comical to watch)? Equally important what identity are they trying to break away from and why? Why do some people assume a violent attitude towards fans of an opposing sports team when they go watch a game (soccer, basketball, etc.)?
I can't answer any of these questions, but with my primal instincts I can recognize a threat, and Islamists fall into that category. They need to be neutralized as they're identified, and while I don't dismiss the need to address underlying causes, I don't think we understand the underlying causes, so until we do we need to do what we can to protect our people.
I was trying to think of ways to disrupt threats in my previous comments.
There is more than one conversation going on around here, one is about the home grown radical threat to the UK, and then there is the UK safe haven phenomenon that supports violence and disorder overseas, in symbiosis with the complicated nature of global travel and the rest of it.
When tallying costs, the two are sometimes looked at separately but maybe they shouldn't be?
Sageman confuses me, I guess I was using radicalization in a different way than a formal indoctrination, I was thinking more along the lines of what he was saying, it's kind of a milieu and the peer group and people talking to each other, as he puts it. So, I'm not sure what he is saying?
Race, class, ethnicity and Islam: a London cocktail
Giving some context to help understand the Woolwich murder, a short RUSI comment by an academic, Professor Jonathan Githens-Mazer. The full title, then sub-title being:
Quote:
Why Woolwich Matters: The South London Angle. The vivid and disgusting images witnessed in Woolwich come not necessarily from the pages of Al-Qa'ida's Inspire magazine, but out of rap videos shot in South-East London. Here is an environment that combines urban disaffection with perceived certainties from Islam.
Link:http://www.rusi.org/analysis/comment.../#.UaiyJ5UTNhB
What struck me on my first reading was how similar the scene was to known "hot spots" for AQ recruiting, for example a couple of towns in Morocco:http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/ma...2&oref=slogin& . Secondly how little outsiders understand what is occurring beyond their desks and journey to work.
There are several related threads on radicalisation (generally) and in the UK, in particular 'My Brother the Bomber':http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ead.php?t=3096
New Immigrant Communities in South London...
South London is also changing in other ways. Looking at just one shifting demographic, it is home to an increasing South and Central American community. Their culture* is decidedly different from that of the radical islamists - and even the more moderate portions of the Muslim community, for that matter - and it will be interesting to see how this confrontation will work itself out. There are other fault lines that will challenge jihadism. It could be that the very multi-culturalism which some see as the problem with respect to radicalisation and terrorism will serve as a bulwark against it.
[*Eg, there is a clothing shop on the Old Kent Road near the Tesco (in London, that is a meaningful geographical designation, fyi) that also deals in women's lingerie. In the front window is an ad for a thong corset, view from the rear. It is defiantly not modest.]