Twelve Rules for Preventing and Countering Terrorism

[davidbfpo]

Alex P. Schmid is the author in Perspectives on Terrorism of this one page rulebook:

1. Try to address the underlying conflict issues exploited by the terrorists and work towards a peaceful solution while not making substantive concessions to the terrorists themselves;
2. Prevent radical individuals and groups from becoming terrorist extremists by confronting them with a mix of 'carrot and stick' –tactics and search for effective counter-motivation measures;
3. Stimulate and encourage defection and conversion of free and imprisoned terrorists and find ways to reduce the support of aggrieved constituencies for terrorist organizations;
4. Deny terrorists access to arms, explosives, false identification documents, safe communication, safe travel and sanctuaries; disrupt and incapacitate their preparations and operations through infiltration, communication intercept, espionage and by limiting their criminal - and other fund-raising capabilities;
5. Reduce low-risk/high-gain opportunities for terrorists to strike by enhancing
communications, energy and transportation-security, by hardening critical infrastructures and potential sites where mass casualties could occur and apply principles of situational crime prevention to the prevention of terrorism;
6. Keep in mind that terrorists seek publicity and exploit the media and the Internet to propagate their cause, glorify their attacks, win recruits, solicit donations, gather intelligence, disseminate terrorist know-how and communicate with their target audiences. Try to devise communication strategies to counter them in each of these areas.
7. Prepare for crisis- and consequence-management for both 'regular' and ‘catastrophic' acts of terrorism in coordinated simulation exercises and educate first responders and the public on how to cope with terrorism.
8. Establish an Early Detection and Early Warning intelligence system against terrorism and other violent crimes on the interface between organized crime and political conflict;
9. Strengthen coordination of efforts against terrorism both within and between states; enhance international police and intelligence cooperation, and offer technical assistance to those countries lacking the know-how and means to upgrade their counter-terrorism instruments.
10. Show solidarity with, and offer support to, victims of terrorism at home and abroad.
11. Maintain the moral high-ground in the struggle with terrorists by defending and strengthening the rule of law, good governance, democracy and social justice and by matching your deeds with your words;
12. Last but not least: counter the ideologies, indoctrination and propaganda of secular and non-secular terrorists and try to get the upper hand in the war of ideas – the battle for the hearts and minds of those terrorists claim to speak and fight for.

Link:http://www.terrorismanalysts.com/pt/...-terrorism/411

[davidbfpo]

Clint Watts aka CWOT (SWC Member) has authored 'Radicalization in the U.S. Beyond al Qaeda: Treating the Disease of the Disconnection', published by FPRI and is a timely addition to this thread:

Completed in December 2011, the report explores the efficacy and future threat of al Qaeda’s ideology in radicalizing Americans but concludes with a broader call for examining the variety of domestic ideologies inspiring violence in the United States. Watts discusses potential trends in future U.S. radicalization and outlines several recommendations for preparing the U.S. to detect and interdict violence from a host of extremist ideologies, of which al Qaeda represents only one.

Caveats aside Clint offers five steps for countering homegrown (US) extremism:

A more appropriate blend of effort and resources for countering homegrown extremism might follow a spectrum of key tasks:

1- Identify and remove extremist content from U.S. and partner nation servers through established legal processes and cooperation with the private sector.
2- Detect online extremist radicalization through electronic surveillance and rapidly share this information with law enforcement and homeland security officials to initiate physical engagement with advocates of extremism.
3- Expand community engagement across all communities for additional detection capability and further means of extremist interdiction.
4- Directly and physically engage those being radicalized. Law enforcement and their local community partners should physically preempt those demonstrating extremist sympathies. This engagement could use a combination of intermediaries to include family, community leaders, law enforcement, social workers, and reformed extremists who are particularly effective in deescalating extremists moving down the path of radicalization.
5- Monitor and interdict those committed to extremism through informants, surveillance and preemptive law enforcement. For some radicalized in the U.S., there is no de-escalating their intent to commit violence. Law enforcement at all levels should continue their proactive policing when direct intervention with extremists is infeasible or insufficient to deter.A timely addition by CWOT

Link:http://selectedwisdom.com/?p=722

Link to FPRI report:http://www.fpri.org/pubs/2012/201208...calization.pdf

[Fuchs]

Germany has corrupted its far right wing (aka Neonazis) to the degree of ridiculousness. All their organisations appear to be compromised by informants well into the top of the hierarchies.

A recent project to support those who want to leave the far right subculture already appears to take a toll on their numbers.

Other than that, civil society does a lot to remind everyone that the far right is a bunch of loudmouths, and a minority at every occasion. Every far right demonstration is being countered by a larger anti-fascist demonstration usually including dedicated Antifa groups, churches, labour unions, Asta (university student organisations), local mainsteam politicians, greens, leftists and the likes.

[davidbfpo]

Fuchs,

I often wonder where the balance is between the actions of the state and non-state participants in CT and counter-radicalisation (CVE in the USA and PE now in the UK, it was PVE). In my reading and listening at conferences, with Spanish and Ulster voices in mind especially; what was the impact of the massive public protests against ETA - after kidnapping and murders?

Nearer to home in Northern Ireland we had the 'Women for Peace' and a short-lived cross-communal protest about violence, way-back in 1976. It was to take a long time for the 'men of violence' to find their operating space was diminishing; a mixture of exhaustion and compromise led to peace with the Good Friday Agreement.

No surprise then that Alex Schmid's last two points resonate with me:

11. Maintain the moral high-ground in the struggle with terrorists by defending and strengthening the rule of law, good governance, democracy and social justice and by matching your deeds with your words;
12. Last but not least: counter the ideologies, indoctrination and propaganda of secular and non-secular terrorists and try to get the upper hand in the war of ideas – the battle for the hearts and minds of those terrorists claim to speak and fight for.

[Fuchs]

Point 12 is ill-aimed. there's no need to engage millions since the support base for terrorists is usually only in the range of thousands. they're the ones who aren't resolute enough to not give up, who didn't go too far to return to civil society and who are indispensable for the morale and actions of the terrorists.

The RAF in Germany crumbled when its supporter base got disillusioned.


There's an interesting parallel with Mao's teachings about guerilla logistics (unless I mixed something up in my memory).