US Internal Security Redux

[Jack_Gander]

National security = force and violence, and that is not the solution for any of the problems you listed.

Clearly we have a difference in how we define national security.

I find it interesting that in both of your responses your political biases have slipped out. Your concern over the reaction of the Right as a potential disruption of internal US stability and now your “scare whitey” comment. I was warned by the moderator when I first posted here that political agendas were not allowed in this forum – apparently there are different ROEs for council members than outsiders.

Thank you for allowing me to post on your forum and for taking the time to respond.

[bourbon]

I find it interesting that in both of your responses your political biases have slipped out. Your concern over the reaction of the Right as a potential disruption of internal US stability and now your “scare whitey” comment.

They were valid points. Both you and AP are talking about divide and rule political tactics; one with regard to an external adversary and the other wrt the establishment toward its own populace. I would say both frames of analysis are necessary, and both have certain degrees of truth to them.

You seem very concerned about foreign information operations, in that case it is logical they provoke one side against the other; I believe that the Russians play both far-right and far-left groups in central Europe. The Chekists also have a history of infiltrating and manipulating right-wing groups going back to the Basmachi Revolt.

[Ken White]

I find it interesting that in both of your responses your political biases have slipped out. Your concern over the reaction of the Right as a potential disruption of internal US stability and now your “scare whitey” comment.

IMO, that's a reach. Both items appear as a sentence each in a lengthy post, IOW, it's there but one has to work to distill the post to that...

I was warned by the moderator when I first posted here that political agendas were not allowed in this forum – apparently there are different ROEs for council members than outsiders.

The board is apolitical and it is expressly not a political discussion forum. That said, issues of politics do naturally arise in conjunction with small wars, large ones, insurrection, civil disturbances or internal security and allied matters -- and such discussion is perfectly acceptable. What is not acceptable is the espousal of overt political position or any extremist ideologies, right or left, devoid of a connection to the warfare related purposes of the Board. IMO, neither your posts nor those of American Pride violate that restriction.

Thank you for allowing me to post on your forum and for taking the time to respond.

Hopefully you'll continue to post.

[AmericanPride]

Clearly we have a difference in how we define national security.

Define national security. I define national security as the preservation of a state's political sovereignty and territorial integrity. This necessarily requires violence and coercion.

I find it interesting that in both of your responses your political biases have slipped out. Your concern over the reaction of the Right as a potential disruption of internal US stability and now your “scare whitey” comment.

Everyone has a political bias. Do you hold any opinions or views you believe to be false?

I was warned by the moderator when I first posted here that political agendas were not allowed in this forum – apparently there are different ROEs for council members than outsiders.

I believe this was addressed by a few of the other posters.

[Bill Moore]

This e-mail directly addresses some of Jack's concerns. I made select portions of the e-mail bold.

President Barack Obama yesterday issued the "Strategic Implementation Plan for Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extremism in the United States." The National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) has compiled a fact sheet on violent extremism in the U.S.
(attached).

START researchers have also made themselves available to the news media to comment on the plan as well as discuss violent extremism in diaspora
communities, Islamic radicalization and homegrown terrorism.

"To prevent violent extremism, we need to enhance protective resources in refugee and immigrant families and communities to ameliorate their risk exposures," says Stevan Weine, START researcher. "This calls for utilizing a public health prevention approach to enhancing protective resources which utilizes multilevel, multidimensional and contextual strategies. The development and evaluation of new preventive policies and interventions is necessary to promote community resilience to violent extremism in diaspora communities in the United States."

. Stevan Weine, START researcher and professor at the University of Illinois
at Chicago, has conducted research to address the problem of violent radicalization and terrorist recruitment amongst members of a specific Muslim diaspora community in the United States. He has focused on Somali Americans in Minnesota and the roles of risk and protective processes at different levels (individual, family, sociocultural and structural) that impact violent radicalization and recruitment.

. Gary LaFree, director of START and professor of criminology at the
University of Maryland, is one of the country's foremost terrorism scholars.
His research examines longitudinal and spatial patterns of crime and political violence and he can discuss terrorism trends and networks, homegrown terrorism, counterterrorism, domestic preparedness, radicalization, extremism in the U.S. and global security, among other topics.

. Gary Ackerman, director of Special Projects at START is an expert in
Islamic radicalization and violent extremist organizations. His current research focuses on known jihadists in North America, homegrown Islamic radicalization in North America and Western Europe and the effectiveness and unintended consequences of historical attempts to influence violent extremist organizations.

[Ken White]

Nothing I ever wrote was as nearly meaningless as this:

"To prevent violent extremism, we need to enhance protective resources in refugee and immigrant families and communities to ameliorate their risk exposures," says Stevan Weine, START researcher. "This calls for utilizing a public health prevention approach to enhancing protective resources which utilizes multilevel, multidimensional and contextual strategies. The development and evaluation of new preventive policies and interventions is necessary to promote community resilience to violent extremism in diaspora communities in the United States."

I think he means "we need to work with immigrant communities and groups to deter extremism."

That quote is indicative of the problem with think tanks and contract 'studies.' They become self justifying and self perpetuating exercises in wordsmithing...

It's also representative of a degree of academic arrogance and condescension that will never achieve any success with most immigrant communities.

[Bill Moore]

Admit that para is takes too long to say too little. You summed it up well with your one sentence. I guess if it didn't sound condenscending it wouldn't qualify as an academic study