Studies on radicalization & comments

[davidbfpo]

One of the better comments on the, assumed, radicalization of the two suspects by Daveed Gartenstein-Ross:http://thewasat.wordpress.com/2013/0...adicalization/

Why this was written:

I wanted to introduce these radicalization models because they will help us to think about the points that follow. But my goal in this entry is not to discuss the merits or shortcomings of existing radicalization models. Rather, I want to outline some aspects of this case that strike me as significant.

This point is often lost in post-attack discussions:

.. it is worth noting that there is a difference between someone holding extremist views and someone being likely to undertake violence.

The author's own website:http://www.daveedgr.com/ and on Wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daveed_Gartenstein-Ross

[davidbfpo]

Following the vents in Boston it appears that those academics, analysts and pundits are in full flow. Here is a short commentary by J.M. Berger, via his blog-site Intelwire on 'The Myths of Radicalisation':http://news.intelwire.com/2013/05/my...rce=feedly&m=1

Myth One: Radicalization leads to terrorism; Myth Two: Counterradicalization equals counterterrorism; Myth Three: Radicalization is an issue best addressed by law enforcement; Myth Four: Radicalization is always bad and Myth Five: Because Myths One Through Four Are Myths, Radicalization Doesn't Matter

Myth Four is well pungent:

Martin Luther King Jr. was investigated as a dangerous radical in his day because he advocated racial equality against the social norms of his time. Few people today would defend the law enforcement tactics used against King. In the context of his era, King was radical, but he was also right. Radicals and radicalization can take on many forms, and much of what we consider radical today is also repugnant and regressive. But sometimes radicalism arises to address real problems that are entrenched in society. The verdict of history doesn't always track with the present view. Sometimes societies require radical change, but advocating for such change -- even loudly -- is by no means the same as advocating for violence or terrorism.

A riposte by Jamie Bartlett, of the UK think tank Demos:http://www.demos.co.uk/blog/decoupli...onandterrorism

[davidbfpo]

Somehow I missed this report being published in January 2012, it is worth a scan as there is a broad range of opinions on radicalization - with a British focus - in the report of the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee 'Roots of violent radicalisation':http://www.publications.parliament.u.../1446/1446.pdf

[davidbfpo]

Link to:

This Insight outlines the work that the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation (ICSR) has undertaken since 2008 which is directly relevant to the government's newly-formed tackling extremism and radicalisation task force.

Link:http://icsr.info/2013/06/icsr-insigh...adicalisation/

[davidbfpo]

A real tour de force by Professor John Horgan, which starts with:

Terrorist deradicalization. What an intriguing idea for a quick fix if ever there was one. Yet never in the history of counter-terrorism has any short-term solution ultimately proven to be more than a naïve pipedream. That is not to suggest that what is commonly called “deradicalization programs” would see themselves as representing a quick fix. But the allure surrounding these creative approaches to counterterrorism has been so powerful that a seeming failure to deliver on the implicit (and vague) promise of “revers[ing] radicalism” has apparently led to a loss of popularity. That may not be a bad thing, but a critical question lingers around whether or not these programs are effective.

Link:http://www.e-ir.info/2013/07/29/full...tion-programs/

Effectiveness and value for money he writes cannot be judged as so little independent, academic evaluation has actually happened.

[davidbfpo]

In mid September 2013 the Qatar Institute Applied Security Studies (QIASS) and the Soufan Group published 'Countering Violent Extremism: The Counter-Narrative Study', it is a lengthy report, 200 pgs, although double-spaced. It was only identified thanks to an Indian contact, who also had a working link:https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...Sep%202013.pdf

I have only read the sections on the UK, Northern Ireland and Singapore which is described as:

..the gold standard in counter-radicalization...

Considering the role played today by Qatari state in Syria, providing ample funding to Jihadist groups I do wonder if Admiral Nelson was involved in writing the report.

[Bob's World]

A real tour de force by Professor John Horgan, which starts with:

Link:http://www.e-ir.info/2013/07/29/full...tion-programs/

Effectiveness and value for money he writes cannot be judged as so little independent, academic evaluation has actually happened.

David,

I would offer that "de-radicalization" is not a successful solution to terrorism simply because "radicalization" is not the cause of terrorism.

Terrorism is a political weapon that is employed when legal political methods are either unavailable or ineffective. We need to focus on the politics that energize the systems, not the methodologies employed to recruit from energized populations, or the tactics employed by "politicians" (terrorists) denied effective, legal means to relieve negative political energy that has developed within some population.

We also need to stop being so distracted by the "solutions" offered by the groups that emerge to tap into this political energy. We are too quick to think of those proposed, and often "radical" solutions as the problem. They rarely are the problem at all. But they do distract us from the problem of politics that is energizing the population to provide a source of sanctuary, support, personnel, etc to such movements that promise change.

[davidbfpo]

David,

I would offer that "de-radicalization" is not a successful solution to terrorism simply because "radicalization" is not the cause of terrorism.

Terrorism is a political weapon that is employed when legal political methods are either unavailable or ineffective. We need to focus on the politics that energize the systems, not the methodologies employed to recruit from energized populations, or the tactics employed by "politicians" (terrorists) denied effective, legal means to relieve negative political energy that has developed within some population.

We also need to stop being so distracted by the "solutions" offered by the groups that emerge to tap into this political energy. We are too quick to think of those proposed, and often "radical" solutions as the problem. They rarely are the problem at all. But they do distract us from the problem of politics that is energizing the population to provide a source of sanctuary, support, personnel, etc to such movements that promise change.

Bob,

You raise fundamental issues around how Western liberal democracies respond to terrorist campaigns. My main focus has been the UK, with some knowledge of a few other, mainly Western countries. I now you take a wider viewpoint.

Maybe there is a distinct difference between 'de' and 'counter' radicalization, for my purposes here today there is none. To be fair the UK has always referred to counter-radicalization.

When the UK state designed its national CT strategy, known as 'Operation Contest', the standard themes of Pursue, Plan and Prepare had a fourth 'p' Prevent - into which counter-radicalization dropped. The main author, Sir David Omand, has stated Prevent was very much an after-thought.

Prevent, with 'counter' action, was seen IMHO as a method of responding to the national government's perception that a significant minority were or had been radicalised to accept, if not use terrorism within the UK primarily. It was and is seen as legitimating the other 'P's.

I do differ from you that:

Terrorism is a political weapon that is employed when legal political methods are either unavailable or ineffective.

Terrorism is a political weapon and tactic used by determined minorities, who rarely wish to engage in legal politics when violence starts to be used. It is not - in the West - that political methods are unavailable or ineffective. Such minorities know their cause has very limited appeal and they will not get political power via the ballot box. They expect terror will lead to fear and their aims will - one day - be achieved.

Western Europe in the 1970-80's had a succession of such minority groups choosing terrorism; 'The Angry Brigade' here, the RAF or Baader-Meinhof gang in Germany and the 'Red Brigades' in Italy come to mind. Both the IRA and ETA eventually opted for the "Armalite and the ballot box", in the knowledge their cause(s) resonated within part of the nation-state.

From my perspective the jihadists, as seen with AQ plus, have not considered - where there is a political option - using 'legal politics'. They believe such politics is not for them, for a variety of reasons, including their interpretation of Islam.

In the UK context the jihadist cause resonates within a tiny minority. Now whether 'Prevent' has worked is a very moot point, I would argue it has done more damage than good. It is a quirk of modern British demography that "new" communities, not exclusively Muslim, were found in polling recently to be more loyal to our institutions and ways than the "old" nation.