Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS.
The UK's Department of Communities and Local Government is conducting an enquiry into the UK's government's Prevent strategy, one strand of the government's overall plan to tackle terrorism and its causes.
Before relocating to Pakistan, Londonstani spent a fair amount of time looking at extremism in the UK as well as efforts to counter it. Prevent seems to have started out very much as a "work in progress", meaning that the idea was to try a bunch of stuff and see how it played out before fine tuning the strategy. The broadbrush approach has drawn in community partners with differing views on the nature of the problem.
The way to see Prevent, Londonstani thinks, is as an effort by the government to draw in partners to help it understand an issue it realised was beyond its present capacity. The problem is that the partners might have had a snap-shot understanding of the areas in which they operate but who also lacked an overall understanding of the problem. This isn't a criticism of any given group - the problem is vast and the issues involved in it are manifold and constantly evolving.
Among the submissions to the enquiry are some interesting points made by the Quilliam Foundation, an influential think tank in the UK.
The argument that radicalisation is driven by grievances, in particular about foreign policy and the idea that of a "War on Islam", is a popular one but one that is undermined by a comparison between Britain and America. If British foreign policy feeds into a narrative of a "War on Islam" then America's foreign policy must also equally or more so. Yet, despite American Muslims sharing British Muslims' concerns about a "War on Islam"[5], America has seen nothing like the home-grown 7/7 attacks. This can be explained by the greater accessibility immigrants to America have to a shared identity built on universal values than is granted to immigrants to Britain.
Quilliam, to take this example, is very keen on the "inclusive British identity" approach. Others think extremists rise from disadvantaged communities and the main focus should be based on social services that tackle education, social exclusion etc.
However, Quilliam's above statement is a good example of the superficial nature of present extremism analysis. How does the greater accessibility that American universal values are supposed to offer immigrants explain events at Ft. Hood? An isolated incident? Well, what about, Najibullah Zazi, who planned "Mumbai-on-the-Hudson" with help from extremists in Pakistan. Or, Byran Neal Venas, a Hispanic American convert, who was captured in Afghanistan and admitted to helping with initial plans to launch an attack in the US. Or David Hedley, an American who planned to kill an editor at the Jyllands-Posten newspaper in Copenhagen. If he had managed, the US would have joined the list of nations that have become a launching pad for extremist violence.
Read Peter Bergen's Foreign Policy article where he outlines these cases and others in more detail and effectively makes the case that the US has basically just been lucky so far. And as we know, luck is no basis from which to argue for policy direction.
Drawing together lots of views and opinions is definitely a good approach, but Londonstani doesn't envy the people who have to navigate all the competing interests and ideologies that underlay the different views and come out with a better policy.
[On way to gym/work].....
I think I'd tap Ed Husein on ideas about what sucks kids in to Islamism (The Islamist), British Identity, etc....might want to also look at America's concept of assimilating immigrants - get a job - the main mechanism for America's successful assimilation for immigrants since Jamestown. There is yet practically no first generation welfare for immigrants, you come to America to work. The fact that you are free explains why immigrants who come from cultures where the permanent underclass - usually ethnically delineated such as the Underclass Mexicans who usually have darker skins and more Maya features, or the Sinhalese in Sri Lanka - one of which whose alleged motto is "manana" (I'll get to it tommorrow) the other who supposedly just wants to sit on the beach and drink Arrak - when they come to America suddenly they become whirling dervishes of labor. Because you are suddenly free you have motivation to toil because you are now working for yourself.
And they assimilate nicely into the culture. As does the Indian Liquor store owner, whose kids will work in tech/telecom with me, as does the Chinese restaurant owner, Korean dry Cleaner etc...etc. You live the concept of Liberty then (hopefully) your kids learn about it in school.
That's not going to stop radicalism*, but it gives it a starvation diet to feed on. As opposed to come to Europe to get on welfare for life and sit around all day being alienated with nothing to do but find trouble. In America the Islamist's have made no significant inroads outside of prison.
Of course there is the matter of Britain's weakened identity of being British. Obvious fix, teach them old school British values. America has the same problem as we have the same leftist educational and media "elites". Our people are rebelling against it, hard. Your business how you handle it, but if you think diversity is a strength rather than a weakness to be overcome....you can look to Ireland, Sri Lanka, the Balkans, even Canada to check that idea.
Multiculturalism is the path to doom. See also Pakistan. Wait, you just did.
*Stopping Radicalism from spreading: you stop the Radicals from spreading their poison. To a certain extent that means showing up their ideas in the free marketplace of ideas. It also means at the same time to censure, deport, suppress, jail and perhaps recognize you are in a existential war, not with Islam, but with Islamism or political Islam. As you probably know a great body of scholarship (the traditional ulema) and many Muslims don't agree with Islamism. They're doubly dis-empowered when govt's reach out to the Radical elements, and discouraged. It takes courage for Muslims to make the stand for tolerance in their own community, they will be abused, threatened, ostracized and even harmed. Must be more than discouraging to see the Political Leaders they count on for support and protection snuggling up to the worst sorts.
Wow ELF, that is a mouthful. Think Nidal Malik Hasan, the Ft Hood Shooter, proved your point that having a good job does not stop radicalism. Be careful about your views about multiculturalism, guess it depends on how you define it. I see America as a melting pot full of cultures. Some cultures are more American than some of our own homegrown ideas, they contain the American concept that you can still pull yourself up by your own boot straps and family is the place to get your values.
Getting back to AM's point and a better policy. That is a complex problem. America is going to need help from the Muslim community. Think that is already happening. Then there are the "lone wolfs". Not sure that can be stopped.
Once you engage with the Muslim community, it comes down to what is the difference between being killed in a bank robbery or standing in line at Ft. Hood. People are full of emotions, that will not change. How sensitized we are to the crime changes over time. The Islamist is looking for a platform, we are giving it to them. Personally, I am willing to accept a little insecurity in my life for my liberties.
Bottomline: If little rubber ducks took down the World Trade Center, then our tribe would at war with little rubber ducks. Then we would be running around trying to stop folks from being attacked in their bathtubs by little rubber ducks. America, get a grip, we have more problems to worry about.
I hope we don't fall into a trap and end up falling on our own sword. Don't give the islamist too big a platform to work with.
There's a simple way to deal with Islamic extremism: treat it exactly the way you treat racism.
For example, you could create liability for anyone employing, promoting, or facilitating Islamic extremism. For instance, any suggestion of Islam in the workplace could be considered harassment of Christians. You could allow victims of terrorism to sue the mullahs who inspired the terrorists and seize their mosques, just as the SPLC does to the KKK. Etc, etc, etc. Another good example is the current treatment of Nazism in Germany.
Our government knows exactly how to ban an ideology. If it doesn't do so, that's because the existence of that ideology is useful to some political faction or others. When you find the professional apologists and appeasers, you're done looking. This was true of Communism in the Cold War era; it's true of Islamism now. Extremist Islam is just a rebranded version of Third World nationalism, anyway; and the American sponsors of that movement were always the progressives. Same old, same old.
Londonistani,
Such publicity for a British House of Commons Select Committee hearings! This particular committee oversees the national department that shares responsibility with others for the 'Prevent' aspect of the UK national strategy against terrorism and violent extremism - called Operation Contest.
The written submissions are available on this link:http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmcomloc/memo/previoex/contents.htm
There are quite a few, some are short, others long and a mixed bag too. Many are critical of the UK state's response, indeed quite a few called for the programme / policy to be scrapped. I'd select documents 35, 39 and 69 for a glimpse into the debate.
A variety of parties gave verbal evidence on Monday, including Quilliam Foundation: http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=5259
One of the puzzles of recent polling is that Muslims were found to have a greater sense of loyalty to the UK than other groups, including the vast majority - the white people.
It is easy to lose sight of the fact very few Muslims are drawn to the cause of violent Jihad, or the 'cause'; causation and motivation rarely come together.
Londonistani,
Gremlins appear to have eaten my first atrempt to post, so apologies if this appears to be a duplicate.
Such publicity across the water for a British House of Commons Select Committee enquiry into the 'Prevent' strand of the national UK strategy Operation Contest - the response to terrorism and its origin in violent extremism.
There are just under seventy written submissions to the enquiry and on this:http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmcomloc/memo/previoex/contents.htm
As a taste I'd look at numbers 35, 39 & 69.
The first day's hearings, including Quilliam Foundation are on: http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=5259
It is easy to overlook the fact that those who wage war on us at home - both - are a tiny minority and a tiny minority within the Muslim communities. Those who do have both causation and motivation.
One of the puzzles in recent UK polling is that a larger majority of Muslims professed loyalty to the UK than the majority white population. There are many Muslims who say the UK is the best place to be a Muslim and only a tiny vocal minority who say different.
Davidafpro,
That was a very good last point - "One of the puzzles in recent UK polling is that a larger majority of Muslims professed loyalty to the UK than the majority white population. There are many Muslims who say the UK is the best place to be a Muslim and only a tiny vocal minority who say different."
Thank you. I do believe that goes same in America, and indeed in any Muslim country that gets to "know" them.
@Zak,
I am very much in favor of the traditional melting pot - which means you take a bunch of metals and elements and melt them together to make a stronger alloy. Multiculturalism means we all lock ourselves into ethnic, racial and worse linguistic ghettos, this encourages suspicion, racism, inter-communal strife, victimization cults and radicalism. Pour welfare on it and all you need is a leader - like the Radical Imams.
I wasn't saying having a good job stops radicalism, I was answering Londonstani's and others query about why Britain's Muslim population has so much more radicalism than America's - because in America, they have to get a job. Cut's down on Jihad time and might just tend to humanize the object of the Madonna/Whore/Hate obsession.
Usually. Hasan worked pretty much alone in Army terms, a squad would have put his ass straight quick or expelled him, a real Commander from the Army.
On Liberties vs Securities: if you want Security to go and take Liberty with it, continue on the path America and I infer from your remarks you are on. If you are going to conflate your rights as a citizen with those of a wartime enemy - in particular one who fights outside the bounds of war, treaty, conventions held long before Geneva, for whom atrocity is not only a preferred method but a source of delight - if you want to be held as a citizen in the eyes of the Law as Him, then prepare for defeat followed by the loss of our rights at the hands of our own judiciary.
I don't have to speculate, it's already happening. The enemy is getting the Full Measure of our Constitutional Rights which were never designed for war measures against an enemy, AND Draconian Anti-Terror measures are being used against the citizens for utterly unrelated matters. For instance the warrant to nail Eliot Spitzer for his whoring trysts was issued under the Patriot Act. I'm waiting for the local boro to waterboard us if we can't pay our Property Taxes (this is NJ. No joke).
@Mencius "Our government knows exactly how to ban an ideology"... (sic) Treat Islamism like racism..
Right on Bro. Fire for effect. Indeed they could ban it, except for our "progressives".
Honestly I don't know why they call themselves that. It should be "regressive", especially given their new friends.
Ex,
There was a great, very informative discussion (mostly on SNLII's side) about Islam and terrorism on your original blog which resulted in 400 comments, I believe some time last year. I've been trying to look for it, since I've had a similar discussion with a fundamentalist Christian gal about the same subject, but your old blog is no longer online. I was wondering if you or any of your readers would have that thread saved somewhere. That thread was a great resource-- it should have been saved. Thank you.
James
What's the matter, Elf?
Are you seriously afraid that KSM would walk in a fair trial? Is your faith in the American system of justice and in the American state so low? Perhaps some idiotic conspiracy theory about how Obama is in with Al Qaeda?
Give me a break.
Multiculturalism stops where my family's safety begins. There is nothing wrong with understanding and appreciating other cultures but that isn't the goal of multiculturalism. It's design is to destroy the cultural fabric of the dominate culture. Paralyzing it making you unable to speak out for fear of being called a racist. I've been called a racist and my wife is from Central America.
Elf, I must have mistyped. Really do not want anyone to lose their freedoms. We have lost too many already. In the UK or US.
Thanks to Davidbfpo for the link. The debate has the flavor of the law enforcement profiling discussion in the US. Citizens have stopped the practice or made it more tranparent. I think that it would be hard to bring a case to court in the US based on profiling that would not generate a lot of negative attention.
It might be interesting to look at the effectiveness of the FBI, NSA, and intel processing from the field. No one really knows how much information has been collected by the Patraiot Act or the CIA data collection from prisioners. I think the US has had more direct exposure to battle field intel than the UK. That information is hard to get your arms around. There has been cases of hard drives and papers found that have produced arrests in the US.
A pretty large information net has been cast to stop another 9/11. Once it happens, it gets the system spun-up. Think we have all the bases covered then we have guys like the Ft. Hood shooter come on radar.
"Are you seriously afraid that KSM would walk in a fair trial?"
A fair trial would be any trial that led to his execution for his obvious role in the events of 9-11.
What you want is to a trial involving all of the processes of a normal peacetime prosecution and defense. In such an environment, of course KSM could walk, considering the circumstances under which he was caught. So could any number of other lower-middle level operatives who were picked up through covert/clandestine or military forces. I.e., not by policemen concerned with collective courtroom evidence, let alone that which can be revealed publicly.
The Obama Administration, for the record, is speaking of two minds. It wants to claim it is carrying out a normal prosecution, while at the same time weighing the dice to guarentee the end result. And if that doesn't happen, they'll reserve the right to nullify the result in any case. In other words, they want to posture while actually carrying out a showtrial, and possibly infecting the civilian court system in the process.
So spare me the nonsense that anyone of power today is advocating what you'd consider a fair trial.
What SNLI said. What creepy Beltway imperative could cause you to delete your old blog, AM? What an un-Internet thing to do. You weren't the only one who posted to that site, you know.
But no. Apparently, everyone who steps into the White House becomes Nixon.
Theodore Dalyrmple's Life at the Bottom is an excellent description of this heinous 21st-century sceptred isle - the product of a century of New Jerusalem Fabian socialism. England's green and pleasant land!
For a history of how this happened, try Peter Hitchens' The Abolition of Britain. For prophecies from the past, see Carlyle's Shooting Niagara or Maine's Essays on Popular Government. Suffice it to say: this is exactly the result predicted by the Victorian opponents of democracy. For that reason alone, you owe it to yourself to read them.
[Sorry, that last comment was meant for the following post. I'll copy it there.]
@ Armchair Warlord,
"Are you seriously afraid that KSM would walk in a fair trial?" Yes. In fact, he already should by the rules as they stand now - no Miranda, coerced confession, justice was not speedy (In fact, I think there's an appeal on those grounds already filed in Manhattan).
Is your faith in the American system of justice and in the American state so low? Yes to both.
But you miss my larger point. Also the Senates point, Andrew McCarthy's point, and for that matter in a roundabout way Justice Kennedy's point when he acknowledged SCOTUS had taken us into uncharted waters.
This has NEVER been done before. So don't pontificate to me and the rest of us about the American system of Justice. Because it's not. It's the Left's system of postmodern legalism, you are quite literally making it up as you go along. This administration continues to behave as if it's Latin America and they are a leftist Junta (which no doubt they long to be) and the law is what they say it is, not what long established precedents (military tribunals), acts of Congress (MCA), prior Supreme Court decisions (Ex Parte Quirin) and the Presidents Warmaking Powers under Article II. For that matter, his most Serene Highness Emir Al Amiriki Barrack Hussein the First doesn't even apply a consistent rule to himself, having military tribunals for some and Civilian Trials for the NYC Famous Five. BTW that sets a precedent for the future: Kill American Servicemen, face Military Tribunal.
Kill American Civilians on American Soil - get our Constitutional Rights.
And if you understand anything about the American system of justice you know it's equal justice for all. What this means for the rest of us: whatever rules are used in Civilian Courts to "convict" or keep them behind bars can and no doubt will be applied to the rest of us, probably outside the context of Terrorism by another eager Beaver US Attorney. As with Eliot Spitzer, to name one of many.
Add your comment