Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
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.