Youth Radicalization or Extremism research

[Beelzebubalicious]

I'm doing a quick and dirty assessment of research, literature and approaches to understanding and dealing with youth radicalization and/or extremism.

I would appreciate any pointers, links or resources anyone can point me to, especially separating the wheat from the chaff.

Thank you.

[Jedburgh]

Here you go:

[Jedburgh]

I'm doing a quick and dirty assessment of research, literature and approaches to understanding and dealing with youth radicalization and/or extremism.

The attached chart in the post above is just a simplistic rendition of the radicalization process, it doesn't speak to what I see as your real question, and that is how to deal with youth radicalization and/or extremism.

I am sure others will chime in with a spectrum of intervention and deradicalization resources focused on terrorism. However, I recommend that you also look at some of the tremendous amount of literature that's available on youth gang intervention. The paper Street Gangs and Interventions: Innovative Problem Solving with Network Analysis, published by the US DoJ, makes for a fair start.

[davidbfpo]

Not an exhaustive list (that is not to hand):

http://www.demos.co.uk/publications/bringingithome

http://www.da.mod.uk/colleges/arag/d...aug06.pdf/view

http://www.thecordobafoundation.com/...ue_02x_Web.pdf (the article by Robert Lambert on London)

http://journals.cambridge.org/downlo...51a6bcc1b17fc3

More next week, if that fits quick and dirty timescale.

davidbfpo

[marct]

The attached chart in the post above is just a simplistic rendition of the radicalization process, it doesn't speak to what I see as your real question, and that is how to deal with youth radicalization and/or extremism.

You know, I've been thinking about this chart ever since you posted it. Where did you get it from, Ted?

[Jedburgh]

You know, I've been thinking about this chart ever since you posted it. Where did you get it from, Ted?

Its from a larger study of the radicalization process disseminated in LE circles a couple of years ago.

[Beelzebubalicious]

Thanks for all the help and links. I've got a couple of weeks so any other input is appreciate.

Regarding the chart, I noticed that there was no reference to socio-economic background. We know that many OBL and other AQI leaders were from families of means who were part of the social fabric of their communities. Much of the discussion of youth radicalization and extremism, it seems to me, focuses on youth driven to extremism by poverty and lack of economic opportunities. Is this a big factor or not? To what extent does participation in radical groups provide economic security and/or benefits?

[marct]

Regarding the chart, I noticed that there was no reference to socio-economic background. We know that many OBL and other AQI leaders were from families of means who were part of the social fabric of their communities. Much of the discussion of youth radicalization and extremism, it seems to me, focuses on youth driven to extremism by poverty and lack of economic opportunities. Is this a big factor or not? To what extent does participation in radical groups provide economic security and/or benefits?

I had been wondering about that as well. From what I can see from the chart, it appears to be a modification of some of the work on New Religious Movements that came out in the 1960's-80's. Personally, I think this makes a lot of sense since the data from the two periods of "cult activity" in North America clearly indicate that socio-economic background is much less important compared with individual "meaning structure" background (think of that as a combination of individual personality and experiential validity of personal symbol systems).

As far as socio-economic status (SES) is concerned, that appears to act as an enabler for asking questions about meaning (i.e. via access to education, various experiences, etc.) rather than as a predictor of joining one of these groups.

Marc

[Retops]

I am in the early stages of a book on radicalization to follow a book on the global jihad that is coming out early next year (January 2009).

I thought the study below was insightful if somewhat limited to the African setting.

http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Current-A...ng=en&id=87744

[Yank in Germany]

The Dutch Intelligence Service AVID did an unclass report on Radicalization in the Netherlands.

[George L. Singleton]

1. After 6 years as the 6th US Congresional District Governor's appointed member of the Alabama Department of Youth Services Board and concurrent DYS Board of Education (classified as a "special needs school District here in Alabama, statewide as to DYS mission), simplistically I found here, at least, the root problem to be as much poor or no parenting, imparting zero, or little of any social values, as anything else. Lack of good role models in the home is a shorter comment.

2. As to radical Islam, I again suggest careful study of the evoluation of Islam whose beginning dates from the Book of Genesis never ending wrangle over Ishmael parented by Hagar and Abraham vs. Isaac, parented by Sarah and Abraham. It begins with the Judaic/Christian view (which of course I share) that the Jews are/were/are still God's chosen people, while the rest of mankind are likewise made in God's own image and his people, too.

3. Genesis, Chapter 21 leads to much complex haggling between Judiasm and Islam involving semantics and attempts at "one upmanship." You can read for yourself verses 1-21, but trying to answer parts of your question I am limiting within Chapter 21 quotes to Verse 10: "Wherefore she (Sarah, Abraham's wife) said unto Abraham, Cast out this bondwoman and her son; for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac." Verse 11: "And the thing was very grievous in Abraham's sight because of his son (referring to his first born, by Hagar, son, Ishmael)." Verse 12 "And God said unto Abraham , Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad (who is now age 13), and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearkent unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thys seed by called." Verse 13: " And also of the son of the bondwoman will I made a nation, because his is thy seed." Skipping to Verse 15: "And the water was spent in the bottle, and she cast the child (here Muslims seize on the word "child" which is actually used in Chapter 21 interchangeably with the word "lad") under one of the shrubs. Verse 17: "And God heard the voice of the lad; and the angel of God called to Hagar out of heaven, and said unto her, What aileth thee, Hagar? far not; for God hath heard the voice of the lad where he is." Verse 20: "And God was with the lad; and he grew, and dwelth in the wilderness, adn became an archer." Verse 21: "And he dwelt in the wilderness of Paran: and his mother took in a wife out of the land of Egypt."

4. Little discussed verses in Genesis, Chapter 25, theme being "Isaac heir to all things (also referenced in Hebrew Chapter 1, v. 2) verses 5,6: "And Abraham gave all that he had unto Isaac. But unto the sons of the concubines (ie, this includes Ishmael born of Hagar & Abraham) which Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts, and sent them away from Isaac his son, while he yet lived, eastward, unto the east country."

Educated Islamic scholars would peacefully teach that we are all the children of Abraham, which we are. But later day radical Islamics teach that we are all "children of the Book" referring to their Quaran over our Bible, which Islam as a faith teaches categorically is a wrong, in error, or if you will a heretical book (referring to our Holy Bible vs. their Quarran).

So, to me, the whole issue of radical, terrorist Islam, applied at the childhood and up ages levels, is about differing interpretations of what they believe vs. what we believe, which is how Muhammad left his early membership in a primitive Christian Church to start his own faith to favor the line of Ishmael instead of the line of Isaac as the favor line of God.

Missing in their teachings of course is the Old to New Testament of Jesus, a Jew, the Messiah, who even Islam recognizes as a sort of "super Prophet" and whom Islam asserts will sit at God's right hand on Judgement Day, which Christianity also teaches, with deeper meaning for us than for them.

To me, reason does not exist when hotheaded religious fanatacism is involved, hence normal comparisons with juvenile deliquency and sociology patterns are not valid unless studied in the context of the root cause of all our fanatical terrorist enemies today, whose focus or rallying point worldwide is Jerusalem.

My two cents.

[George L. Singleton]

Your Preradicilization topics on chart mentions "prison" as in prison. Here we have seen major inroads since around 1993 (the first twin towers bombing) by outside radical mullahs here going into prisons under freedom of religion protection of the US Constitution and getting Muslim converts by blaming "Christianity and white men" for so many Blacks being in our prison system.

Result: Growth in Black Muslims here and I presume whereever jails and prisons have substantial Black inmate populations.

The comments are based on first hand observations from several years ago when I used to teach Bible Class in an area, very large state prison for men. We had to share and swap out the same general meeting space we used to teach Bible with the Mullah(s) who likewise used same space to teach their faith and their Quarran.

[Bob's World]

Key is to keep separate in your mind "Causation" and "Motivation"

Radicalization is about motivation, and with no causation, no amount of motivation is going to get very many guys to sign up for the program.

Causation is rarely lower level Maslow criteria such as poverty, and is typcially the higher level crieteria such as "respect."

"Poor Governance," some aspect of how the government treats the populace that the populace takes offense to that takes place in an environment where the populace does not feel that it has any legitimate means to effect change, is typically the "Causation." Motivation, or Radicalization is whatever message speaks to this disenfranchised segment of a populace in a way that the government is either unable or unwilling to co-opt or counter.

Radicalization is interesting, but "fixing" it won't solve the problem, only fixing the underlying causation of poor governance can do that.

[George L. Singleton]

..when you, Bob, a very smart guy, mention causation and radicalization.

The radical Islamics, and original Islamics who were fierce warriors of early Islam's "proselitizing" favor the Ummah over the "state and routine governance" as understood in our generally secular style of government.
Ummah conceptully is above and more powerful than any single nation or state in their, the radical terrorist Islamics thinking.

Thanks for your input on this deeply serious topic which needs much more brain storming on this very good topic now developing here on SWJ in this thread.

[Bob's World]

I would never pretend to be an expert on Christian, Jewish, or Muslim faiths; though I know a bit about each, and respect all. The good news, is that in my line of business, I don't have to be, because the conflicts of man, while often motivated by religion, are rarely caused by it. Today's conflict is no different.

To focus on the religion of those who act out not only distracts from the true causes and cures of the challenges we face, it takes one down a very dangerous hate-laced path of "us vs them" with no possible resolutions at the end of that path.

Its like blaming the civil rights movement on African-Americans for being Black; or Native American uprising on those people for being Native American. We won't get through our difficulties when we focus too much on our differences.

Better to focus on fundamental human nature and how man responds to conditions of poor governance that he has no legitmates means within his control to change for the better.

Better to focus on how to adust the role America has had in shaping the politics of the Middle East and even more importantly, the role the US has played in establishing and sustaining governments in the region. Any situation where the US is even simply perceived as the source of legitimacy for some government or state that is at cross purposes with its own populace or even the larger populaces of the region; is a situation that puts the US at risk of attack by that same populace that understands fully that they cannot take control of their own governance until they can break that source of outside support and legitimacy.

None of this has anything to do with religion, but it is taking place within a very religious populace in the lands where the three great religions of the one God come together. Leaders will use the power of religion to motivate the masses to action, and also to distract the masses from the real issues. They always have, and they always will. This is not a good time for us to get distracted, because those who wish to do us harm are certainly motivated.

Better we focus on getting our own house in order. I suspect everything else will sort out in time.

[George L. Singleton]

Bob, you are a fine, very smart fellow but I find the reality of the extremist, terrorist Islamics, that is not all of Islam, to be the root action and reaction in the matter of the war on terrorism.

Sadly, you are right in that the most extreme terrorists are not and never will be reconcilable. Attempts at such reconciliaiton have repeatedly blown up in the face of the Government of Saudi Arabia...and no wonder...as the Saudi Government has allowed the Wahabbi Islamic extremist movement to grow and fund terrorism worldwide.

It began before 9/11, in my view, in 1993, with the first attack on the World Trade Towers, as far as a visible theme or focus point in time. But others can more wisely than me cite other examples I suspect.

Some Pakhtuns claim that Buddah as a human being was from the NWFP of Pakistan. Buddish is a great and large faith system, too, but today's radical Islamic movement has been physically destroying any and all vestages of it in Afghanistan and Northern Pakistan that they find or ever knew about.

I used to think like you, Bob, that poverty, lack of education, illiteracy, etc. were the root cause of terrorism. The I had to face the fact that highly educated radical Muslims, MDs, PhDs, engineers, etc. are among the rank and file as well as the leadership of Islamic terrorism today.
So much for my simple theory of suppressed masses which seems to be what you are driving at.

[Bob's World]

Bob, you are a fine, very smart fellow but I find the reality of the extremist, terrorist Islamics, that is not all of Islam, to be the root action and reaction in the matter of the war on terrorism.

Sadly, you are right in that the most extreme terrorists are not and never will be reconcilable. Attempts at such reconciliaiton have repeatedly blown up in the face of the Government of Saudi Arabia...and no wonder...as the Saudi Government has allowed the Wahabbi Islamic extremist movement to grow and fund terrorism worldwide.

It began before 9/11, in my view, in 1993, with the first attack on the World Trade Towers, as far as a visible theme or focus point in time. But others can more wisely than me cite other examples I suspect.

Some Pakhtuns claim that Buddah as a human being was from the NWFP of Pakistan. Buddish is a great and large faith system, too, but today's radical Islamic movement has been physically destroying any and all vestages of it in Afghanistan and Northern Pakistan that they find or ever knew about.

I used to think like you, Bob, that poverty, lack of education, illiteracy, etc. were the root cause of terrorism. The I had to face the fact that highly educated radical Muslims, MDs, PhDs, engineers, etc. are among the rank and file as well as the leadership of Islamic terrorism today.
So much for my simple theory of suppressed masses which seems to be what you are driving at.

1. I have never said, nor do I believe that anyone is "irreconcilable." Time, a reduction of testosterone levels, a true addressing of the actual grievances, etc heal all wounds.

2. My position on the Saudis is that the problem there is not the Wahabists (they have been hand in glove with the Saudi Royals in their rise to power, btw), but in the fact that the Saudis are a corrupt dictatorship that offers little in terms of hope for a better future to their populace, and who are widely perceived as being protected by their neighbors and own populace by the strength of the United States in exchange for our oil extraction relationship. The focus on the Wahabists, I believe, is made by those who wish to sustain the status quo and distract people from the real problem. Not religion, but a very bad government that is out of touch with its own populace.

3. Islam is little different to Christianity in its intollerance to other religions, both being so certain of their own rightness and everyone elses wrongness, that they believe easily that they have a duty to convert others to their faith, and that killing non-believers is no great sin. Our political system has evolved in the west so that we don't do this any more; and when the political system of the middle east evolves as well I suspect you will see less of such abuse of Islam for such purposes as well.

4. People do not become insurgents because they or poor, stupid, or ignorant any more than they do because they adhere to any particular faith. My position has been, and remains that, as I said in my last post, they do so when they are subjected to conditions of poor governance (defined as any aspect of governance, usually a higher order issue like lack of respect, that cannot be changed through any available legitimate means) that drives a populace to using illigitimate means to effect change. This is the causation of insurgency. Motivations can vary for any given cause over time, and often do. Certain motivations work best with certain populaces, and religion is usually the best one to use if one has a populace base of any strong faith.

Anyone can feel free to quote me on any of these 4 points. As the politicos say: "I'm Robert Jones, and I approve this message."

[Tom Odom]

1. I have never said, nor do I believe that anyone is "irreconcilable." Time, a reduction of testosterone levels, a true addressing of the actual grievances, etc heal all wounds.

2. My position on the Saudis is that the problem there is not the Wahabists (they have been hand in glove with the Saudi Royals in their rise to power, btw), but in the fact that the Saudis are a corrupt dictatorship that offers little in terms of hope for a better future to their populace, and who are widely perceived as being protected by their neighbors and own populace by the strength of the United States in exchange for our oil extraction relationship. The focus on the Wahabists, I believe, is made by those who wish to sustain the status quo and distract people from the real problem. Not religion, but a very bad government that is out of touch with its own populace.

3. Islam is little different to Christianity in its intollerance to other religions, both being so certain of their own rightness and everyone elses wrongness, that they believe easily that they have a duty to convert others to their faith, and that killing non-believers is no great sin. Our political system has evolved in the west so that we don't do this any more; and when the political system of the middle east evolves as well I suspect you will see less of such abuse of Islam for such purposes as well.

4. People do not become insurgents because they or poor, stupid, or ignorant any more than they do because they adhere to any particular faith. My position has been, and remains that, as I said in my last post, they do so when they are subjected to conditions of poor governance (defined as any aspect of governance, usually a higher order issue like lack of respect, that cannot be changed through any available legitimate means) that drives a populace to using illigitimate means to effect change. This is the causation of insurgency. Motivations can vary for any given cause over time, and often do. Certain motivations work best with certain populaces, and religion is usually the best one to use if one has a populace base of any strong faith.

Anyone can feel free to quote me on any of these 4 points. As the politicos say: "I'm Robert Jones, and I approve this message."

Well said and I agree.

Best
Tom

[William F. Owen]

4. People do not become insurgents because they or poor, stupid, or ignorant any more than they do because they adhere to any particular faith. My position has been, and remains that, as I said in my last post, they do so when they are subjected to conditions of poor governance (defined as any aspect of governance, usually a higher order issue like lack of respect, that cannot be changed through any available legitimate means) that drives a populace to using illigitimate means to effect change.

I can't say you are wrong, - or even want to! - but I would offer a simpler version, and that is summed up in the word, "Victim."

All insurgents/terrorists see themselves primarily as victims. Sometimes they have a real right to that claim and other times they have to invent it, but it's always there. I submit they could be perfectly justly governed, but if they have a powerful narrative that allows them to paint themselves as "victims" then away you go.

An interesting example of this would be the current killings by the "Real IRA" who see themselves as "victims" of the Peace Process and Provisional IRA.

[Steve Blair]

All insurgents/terrorists see themselves primarily as victims. Sometimes they have a real right to that claim and other times they have to invent it, but it's always there. I submit they could be perfectly justly governed, but if they have a powerful narrative that allows them to paint themselves as "victims" then away you go.

This is especially true if you look at the narratives surrounding the West German terrorist groups of the 1980s. While I'm not sure that it would hold true if the leadership were closely examined, the victim concept is certainly useful for recruiting and motivation. It also allows the group leadership to "spin" their goals even further out of reach, keeping the movement alive.