U.S. must work to prevent radicalization

[Warrior-Mentor]

May 3, 2009

U.S. must work to prevent radicalization

By Tim Roemer and Lorne Craner

In recent congressional testimony, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair cited violent extremism -- largely perpetrated by Islamist terrorist groups -- as one of the most serious national security concerns confronting the U.S.

While the United States now clearly recognizes the scale and complexity of the problem it faces, developing an effective strategy to counter it has proved daunting. Today, the Obama administration has an opportunity to chart the path toward success by embracing a new plan.

Radicalization is a process with identifiable stages that can be interrupted. Yet U.S. policy until now has been defined by an approach that focuses only on violent extremism -- and combating it through primarily military means. Far too little has been done in the 71/2 years after Sept. 11 to counter the ideology and prevent the still-nonviolent recruit from taking the final step toward detonation.

To break the radicalization cycle, the United States and its allies must engage in a competition of ideas for the would-be "radicalizer.'' The likely target is al-Qaida, with its global propaganda efforts, or influential but independent extremist clerics, or low-level recruiters. As in Iraq, cultivating such alternatives will require empowering mainstream Muslims in their efforts to provide hopeful, practical alternatives to jihadist ideology. It also will require substantial investment in rejuvenating efforts to encourage prosperity, reform and democracy in Arab countries.

These democracy-promotion efforts must be delinked from counterterrorism policy, however. Connecting the two, as the Bush administration did, has the unintended implication of hurting the ability of both U.S. government and nongovernmental organizations to play an effective role on the ground in supporting democracy and reform efforts, as it raises suspicion that the real purpose of the efforts is regime change.

U.S. investment also can be leveraged more effectively in this effort by linking assistance to anti-corruption in the Middle East. Persistent corruption is the No. 1 frustration among Arab publics, a factor radical extremists exploit to challenge governmental legitimacy. Encouraging increased transparency would help the United States build bridges to a suspicious public and prevent al-Qaida's rhetorical punch.

Where terrorist groups provide social support and constituent services to their communities, such as Hamas and Hezbollah, the United States must work to empower alternatives to compete with them. In some cases, this will require helping governments to decentralize, relying on U.S. Agency for International Development, World Bank and other expertise to do so.

The U.S. also should work more aggressively to end government-only contacts within Muslim-majority countries and find new ways to empower or amplify voices competing with those of the radicalizer.

Finally, the Obama administration should fix the existing bureaucracy designed to confront these challenges by designating a single address for counter-radicalization strategy at the White House to oversee and advise the president on this effort.

Radicalization is an issue that strongly warrants the attention of policy-makers. With the right conceptual approach and concerted action, the Obama administration can set the United States on a course to undercutting al-Qaida's narrative and appeal; the sooner these changes are adopted, the safer we will be.

http://www.indystar.com/article/2009...35/1002/OPINIO

[Dozer523]

Originally Posted by Warrior-Mentor

May 3, 2009 U.S. must work to prevent radicalization By Tim Roemer and Lorne Craner

These democracy-promotion efforts must be delinked from counterterrorism policy, however. Connecting the two, as the Bush administration did, has the unintended implication of hurting the ability of both U.S. government and nongovernmental organizations to play an effective role on the ground in supporting democracy and reform efforts, as it raises suspicion that the real purpose of the efforts is regime change.

Finally, the Obama administration should fix the existing bureaucracy designed to confront these challenges by designating a single address for counter-radicalization strategy at the White House to oversee and advise the president on this effort.

]

Why does everything have to have a czar? How about a well defined Commander's Intent and all the agencies consider their actions in that light when formulating their plans and actions and when coordinating with one another.

[jw74]

Originally Posted by Dozer523

Why does everything have to have a czar? How about a well defined Commander's Intent and all the agencies consider their actions in that light when formulating their plans and actions and when coordinating with one another.

Because czars don't have to go through the confirmation process that cabinet secretaries do.

[Skelepede]

Whenever Obama creates a czar he counts it as saving or creating a job.

[nmap]

Originally Posted by Warrior-Mentor

Where terrorist groups provide social support and constituent services to their communities, such as Hamas and Hezbollah, the United States must work to empower alternatives to compete with them. In some cases, this will require helping governments to decentralize, relying on U.S. Agency for International Development, World Bank and other expertise to do so.

The idea may be a very good one - in essence, it seems the policy would starve extremist groups by starving them of new recruits. But I think there is a flaw in their underlying assumptions.

When the article speaks of USAID and other entities, it is, in essence, talking about spending money. I propose that we do not and will not have the money to support such efforts anytime in the foreseeable future.

Our national budget is about 40% new debt, and 60% tax revenue. This is not sustainable.

As much as 3% of our GDP growth depended on consumer refinancing of their home mortgages, with the consumer then spending the money. It seems unlikely that pattern will re-emerge soon. Which means that we have no real chance of growing our way out of this.

We can either cut spending a lot, raise taxes a lot, or some combination of the two. I question how much money we can send to other countries while our own people are struggling.

[Ret10Echo]

Originally Posted by Warrior-Mentor

Finally, the Obama administration should fix the existing bureaucracy designed to confront these challenges by designating a single address for counter-radicalization strategy at the White House to oversee and advise the president on this effort.

Radicalization is an issue that strongly warrants the attention of policy-makers. With the right conceptual approach and concerted action, the Obama administration can set the United States on a course to undercutting al-Qaida's narrative and appeal; the sooner these changes are adopted, the safer we will be.

One man's "counter-radicalization" (strategy) is another man's "Reeducation" camp....

So who falls into the "radical" pile. Should DHS decide? <<sarcasm intended>>

[Warrior-Mentor]

Originally Posted by Skelepede

Whenever Obama creates a czar he counts it as saving or creating a job.

LOL.

[dividebyzero]

Originally Posted by nmap

The idea may be a very good one - in essence, it seems the policy would starve extremist groups by starving them of new recruits. But I think there is a flaw in their underlying assumptions.

When the article speaks of USAID and other entities, it is, in essence, talking about spending money. I propose that we do not and will not have the money to support such efforts anytime in the foreseeable future.

Our national budget is about 40% new debt, and 60% tax revenue. This is not sustainable.

As much as 3% of our GDP growth depended on consumer refinancing of their home mortgages, with the consumer then spending the money. It seems unlikely that pattern will re-emerge soon. Which means that we have no real chance of growing our way out of this.

We can either cut spending a lot, raise taxes a lot, or some combination of the two. I question how much money we can send to other countries while our own people are struggling.

While your point is valid about unsustainable spending and foreign aid, I have the following question:

The US finds itself locked in a war of ideas with AQ and other militant Islamist groups who are able to cultivate followers by way of providing social support programs where the afflicted state cannot. In this case, foreign aid and capacity building a la USAID is an integral part of our national security strategy. Yet, at the same time, we have a financial crisis that has affected millions of Americans and threatens to plunge many of them into poverty. It seems then that we have an ugly choice- do we stave off potential future threats to national security at the expense of the struggling American workforce, or do we favor domestic politics over potential threats 5-10 years down the line?

I don't mean to oversimplify the question, because there's a myriad of factors at play here. I ask you- given the choice of two unappealing options, which would you choose?

[nmap]

Originally Posted by dividebyzero

It seems then that we have an ugly choice- do we stave off potential future threats to national security at the expense of the struggling American workforce, or do we favor domestic politics over potential threats 5-10 years down the line?

I don't mean to oversimplify the question, because there's a myriad of factors at play here. I ask you- given the choice of two unappealing options, which would you choose?

The choice may be uglier than you suggest. We may, as a society, be forced to decide whether to continue making Medicare payments - or not. We may, quite literally, face the choice of implementing triage among the elderly since the last year of life is quite expensive. The domestic changes may be wrenching.

On the other hand, a global recession (or depression) may create fertile ground for terrorist groups and radical political factions, thus making the need for intervention even greater. One might ask what the cost of a Taliban controlled Pakistan might be.

Questions like this make me glad I am not a policymaker!

However, I suppose I would withdraw into fortress America. I am inclined to believe that matters will get worse, not better - so much worse that our attempts to help will resemble an attempt to put out a forest fire with a garden hose.

I freely acknowledge that my choice has deep flaws. On the other hand, if our domestic society degrades too greatly, we may lose the ability to aid anyone - even ourselves. So I guess this is a case where one's expectations for future growth (or the lack thereof) come into play. If one expects growth to resume, aid is good. If one expects a long-term decline, aid is wasted. YMMV....

[ZonieDiver]

The choice may be uglier than you suggest. We may, as a society, be forced to decide whether to continue making Medicare payments - or not. We may, quite literally, face the choice of implementing triage among the elderly since the last year of life is quite expensive. The domestic changes may be wrenching.

And... the choices may be even uglier. It may not only be choices about triage among the elderly due to the expense of that last year of life, but also among premature, very-low birth weight babies who not only require lengthy, expensive hospitalization after their birth, but in many cases life-long care of varying degrees.

When medical care is free-for-all, just who will "all" be?

[KClapp]

Originally Posted by ZonieDiver

And... the choices may be even uglier.

And then there is the possibility that China moves off the dollar. Or we could find ourselves with Weimar style hyper-inflation. We are seeing a deepening divide within this nation. Worrying about foreign enemies may become moot, when half the nation sees the other half as a domestic enemy.

[greenberetTFS]

Originally Posted by ZonieDiver

And... the choices may be even uglier. It may not only be choices about triage among the elderly due to the expense of that last year of life, but also among premature, very-low birth weight babies who not only require lengthy, expensive hospitalization after their birth, but in many cases life-long care of varying degrees.

When medical care is free-for-all, just who will "all" be?

ZD,

I have to agree with your point,especially who will "all" be.............

GB TFS