Radical How Could a Terrorist

Radical

How could a terrorist be de-radicalised?

terrorism strategies

How Could a Terrorist be Deradicalised?

In the last two decades there has been a rapid increase in the threat of both international and domestic terrorism in the world. This increase has been dramatically emphasized by a number of major terrorist attacks, such as the Oklahoma bombing in 1995, the attack on New York in 2001 as well as the suicide attacks on the London transport system in 2005, among others. These and many others events have not only raised concern in terms of the increased sophistication and the use of modern technologies, but also on the concept and reality of the radicalization of terrorism.

Ii should be noted at the outset that terrorism has a long history. A number of studies in the literature pointed out that terrorism as a means of attaining political and social ends is an endemic part of human history. As Schelling (1996) states, the use of violence to terrorize the enemy is as old as human warfare. However, there is an alarming difference between modern forms of terrorism and older forms of this phenomenon. This includes the greater intensity of modern terrorism, which many see as a reflection of its more radical nature. As Evens (2000) states, "….while terrorism has a long history; the current wave of this form of violence has been given impetus by a series of new developments in the post-World War II period. Any analysis of terrorism in the contemporary world must begin with a discussion of these developments." (Evans 2000, p. 11)

This has led to as new trajectory of research and thinking on this subject with one of the main issues at stake being the development of methods and policies to deal with terrorism which focus on the modern radicalization and deradicalization of terrorism (Mowbray, 2005) This discourse refers to the analysis and understanding of the underlying motivational aspects and ideological underpinnings of modern terrorism. This view of the root causes of radicalization and subsequent methods of deradicalization will be the focus of this paper.

A central thesis that will be discussed in the paper is that in order to deradicalize the terrorist, the nature, motives and ideological foundations of terrorist actions have to be understood in the broadest possible sense. It will be suggested that it is only through this kind of comprehensive and insightful understanding that methods, protocols and policies can be developed that will be truly functional in deradicalizing the radical terrorist

2. Definitions

A common assumption is that the terms radical and terrorist are synonymous. However, this view contains a host of debatable issues and presumptions that are in need of clarification before one can discuss the possible methods of the deradicalization of terrorism. For example, from the perspective of the terrorist the term radical may be seen as a stereotype imposed by the "enemy" or the Other that is intended to vilify the aims and objectives that the terrorist deems to be justified and morally legitimate. One therefore has to take into account the dilemma and paradox raised in many of these debates about who is fact is the terrorist: the radical Muslim terrorist will claim that the Americans and British governments, among others, are the real terrorists. Therefore, in the process of understanding the world view of the radical terrorist one must take into account how they perceive themselves, as well as what constitutes the psychological, social and ideological makeup of the terrorist. In order to do this one must first define terrorism and radical or extreme terrorism.

The FBI had defined this form of terrorism as, …the unlawful use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States or its territories without foreign direction committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."

(Terrorism 2002- 2005: FBI)

However the term is also one which is open to numerous interpretations, often from very conflicting points-of-view. An understanding of the term is extremely difficult to achieve from a purely semantic point-of-view. The perception and understanding of 'terrorism' requires a more holistic sensibility and is more realistically achieved through a relative cultural, political and historical understanding of this phenomenon. This also refers to the complexity of understanding terrorism in terms of its distinction from criminal activities. As one pundit notes: "Both political and academic efforts to get to grips with terrorism have repeatedly been hung up on the issue of definition, of distinguishing terrorism from criminal violence or military action" (Townshend 2002, p. 3).

The above refers to terrorism and radicalization in terms of implied and assumed negative connotations. Terrorism therefore becomes a derogatory label rather than a comprehensive and insightful definition. "...'terrorist' is a description that has almost never been voluntarily adopted by any individual or group. It is applied to them by others, first and foremost by the governments of the states they attack" (Townshend 2002, p.3). In this sense the definition given of terrorism by the United States is "...the calculated use or threat of violence to inculcate fear, intended to coerce or intimidate governments or societies (ibid). In the United Kingdom terrorism is defined as "the use or threat, for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, or ideological course of action, of serious violence against any person or property" ( ibid).

The above discussion leads to a commonly held belief among writers and researchers on the topic that pursuing a clear and unambiguous definition of terrorism is a fruitless endeavour. Typological definitions of terrorisms tend towards a biased view of terrorism (Townshend 2002, p.3), while other attempts at defining terrorism include the characterization that terrorism is an act of random violence. However this attribute fails to take into account that fact that many terrorist acts are not random and have a directed and stated political intension. Those accused of terrorism also claim to have a form of legitimacy on their side. Other arguments attempt to delineate the parameters of terrorism or terrorist acts by focusing on the fact that they target innocent people.

Terrorism is therefore best understood firstly as a radical response. In political terms this refers to a response to overwhelming odds, where formal or conventional modes of conflict or opposition are not a viable option. This places the term terrorism in a more authentic and legitimate light and refers to terrorism from the perspective of the terrorist as a defence against a much larger and more technically equipped opponent. In this sense terrorism loses its more negative connotations and becomes another term for "freedom fighter'. It is this type of thinking that underlies many of the methods aimed at deradicalizing the terrorist by, in the first instance, entering into his or her worldview. The intention here is to point out that there is a relativity of perception that should be taken into account in investigating the perceptions of terrorist actions and activities and that this perception should be inclusive of all points-of-view.

From the point-of-view of most formal definitions the four main elements of terrorism are premeditation, a publically motivated as distinct from a purely criminal act and, thirdly, it is usually aimed at civilians, although this is not always the case and it is generally carried out by groups that are not associated with an army or a particular country.

From the point-of-view of the problem of deradicalization the above definitions points to an essential aspect of the problem under discussion; namely that one cannot begin a deradicalization of terrorism unless one understands the nature of what motivates and emboldens the terrorist to commit radical acts of violence and social disruption.

2.1. International Terrorism

International terrorism is seen as one of the paramount threats to the progress of modern civilization. Globalization and the rapid increase in travel and communication technologies are central factors in the increase and proliferation of radical terrorist views, technologies and actions. This has specific import for the present topic as the internationalization and growing interconnections between various terrorist groups, and the spread of radical ideologies via the Internet, in effect means that terrorism cannot be adequately controlled by conventional security or defensive means alone -- hence the need for programs and protocols to reduce the spread and influence of radicalism. In this regard it is important to note that many modern definitions of radical terrorism refer to the fact that terrorism transcends locality and national boundaries.

International and radical terrorism therefore transcends boundaries and is promulgated via technologies such as the Internet and mobile phones. Therefore, Osama bin Laden vision does not only threaten countries in the West who have a presence in the Middle East but also threatens allegedly corrupt and non-Islamic regimes in the Middle East region. One could in this regard also briefly refer to the interconnections between transnational extremist and terrorist entities and groups. The connections between these often disparate groups are often established through an alignment in terms of overarching ideological objectives. Following from this is the assumption that ideological connections may be the precursor to more definite and practical interactions between these groups and organizations.

In other words, terrorist groups, whether representing different nationalistic and ideological persuasions, can also be linked by shared concerns, objectives and perceptions. The increase in the ease of communications and the Internet has also accelerated the possibly of these connections. This has highlighted the threat of domestic extremists and the possible connections between extremist groupings. There has also been a more directed contemporary focus on the underlying causative facets that motivate and precipitate terrorist actions, resulting in a growing realization that these underlying causative elements in extremist groups can be more important and possibly override national and regional differences.

Cyber-terrorism has become a particularly virulent and dangerous form of terrorism that is not restricted by any regional or international boundaries. Experts agree that this form of terrorism "… threatens the safety of millions of people across the globe; especially the vulnerability of military computer networks to casual hackers. Indeed, this form of terrorism could be more devastating than biological or chemical warfare" (Thackrah, 2004, p. 61). A study by Morgan also substantiates the importance of modern technologies in the planning of terrorist activates, especially with regard to organization and coordination.

… the major use of information technology has been as an aid for terrorists rather than as a target of their activity. The reported use of the internet and e-mail by al Qaeda to coordinate the strikes on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon provides a dramatic example of this sort of coordination.

(Morgan, 2004, p.29)

In the light of the above definitions and discussion it becomes even more obvious that the deradicalization of the terrorist is closely linked to the understanding of the way in which modern terrorism functions and especially of the underlying causative facets that motivate and precipitate terrorist actions. There is a growing realization that only through a clear understanding of these primary and fundamental causes can the spectre of terrorism be practically reduced.

However, the question of the causative factors is complex and consists of a large range of interconnecting variables. The following is only a partial list of various possible causes of terrorism.

….government structures and exploitative economic systems; repression and discrimination; relative deprivation wherein a group sees its position in society slip in regard to other groups even if all groups are raising their standards of living; rapid change that disrupts the social and political systems; imperialism and colonialism; and disasters -- natural or otherwise -- that overwhelm the political society.

(Lutz & Lutz 2004, p. 16)

2.2. Radical Terrorism

The above discussion leads to an examination of the term "radical terrorism." The definitions of radical terrorism and of radicalism in general are congruent with the following line if thought. The radical terrorist is an individual who is prepare to go to extremes in obtain his or her objectives. These extremes are measured against the 'accepted' norms and standards of societal behaviour and it is often precisely these norms and standards that the terrorist perceives as being hypocritical and wishes to overcome.

Therefore in terms of this perception, the radical terrorist feels justified in taking extreme measures to make a political point or to assert his or her view of reality. As will be discussed in more detail in the following sections, an understanding of the point-of-view of the radical terrorist is vital in developing modes, methods and protocols, as well as formulating policies that are aimed at the deradicalization of the terrorist. The above points to a definition of deradicalization that must of necessity include the perspective of the radical terrorist if any progress towards deradicalization is to be made.

In other words, the most important aspect of developing methods of deradicalization would be to understand the perspectives, root causes and motives that have created the matrix of reason and emotion that motivates radical terrorist acts. One should not only refer to social causative factors but one should also consider the very real importance if ideological factors that need to be understood and addressed in the process of deradicalization.

Taking the above discussion into account one can begin to understand the process of deradicalization in terms of addressing the underlying issues and causative factors that inspire and motivate radicalism. In other words and more simply put, the reasons for radical actions must be addressed in such a way as to reduce the motivation for these acts.

In order to ascertain these reasons and motivations that constitute radical terrorism it is necessary to briefly discuss the term ' radical'. Ingram states that,

...'radicalisation' is defined as a process whereby an individual or collective increasingly adheres to a selectively literalist interpretation of an ideology, a response that is triggered and catalysed by a perception of crisis which, in its latter stages, can lead to the legitimisation and use of violence against a perceived Other.

(Ingram)

Ingram isolates two important elements of radicalization; these are the perception of crisis and uncertainty, the breakdown of tradition and the presence of the Other (Ingram). These are considered the main drivers of radicalization and are further explained as follows: "...increasing adherence to a selectively literalist interpretation of an ideology, increasing perceptions of crisis, an increasing essentialisation and demonization of the Other, and an increasing legitimacy of and propensity towards militant violence" (Ingram). Therefore, it would be logical to assume that deradicalization would involve the reversal of these elements and the amelioration of aspects such as the perceptions and the threat of the Other. This leads to the concept of winning hearts and minds, which is central to deradicalization and which will be discussed in more detail below.

The central elements of radicalization, leading to an assessment of methods of deradicalization could therefore be discussed as follows. Alienation and marginalization have been shown in a number of studies to be a central conduit to the radicalisation of the individual ( Ingram). "...feelings of alienation and marginalization, typically rooted in conditions that are often unique to the 'modern experience', typify individuals and groups moving through the radicalisation (Ingram). This can be linked to concepts such as anomie. Importantly, Ingram noted that"...there is broad scholarly recognition that a fundamental change occurs in the individual and collective which may signal the legitimisation of violence and preparation for engagement "( Ingram). This is linked to what is termed a 'moral disengagement', which implies a deviance from the accepted norms and values of civilized society. This in turn leads to violent actions, although it is also true that radicalism always eventuates in violence. In this light the process of deradicalization would revolve offering the terrorist an alternative worldview which would reduce the sense of anomie and alienation and inculcate faith in the more democratic channels and means of attaining his or her objectives.

3. Deradicalization

The common dictionary definition of deradicalize is to "... free from radical ideas, goals, or elements" ( Deradicalize: Dictionary. Com) Other definitions refer to aspects of deradicalization such as political and social normalization. A more useful definition from the Collins dictionary is "... The practice of encouraging those with extreme and violent religious or political ideologies to adopt more moderate views"(Deradicalization). However, this only touches the surface of the deeper meaning and reality of the term.

Effective deradicalization is a process that implies a "cognitive shift" or a fundamental change in the perspective and understanding of the terrorist (Fink and Hearne, 2008, p. i). The rationale behind this process is that these methods can result in a reduction of the threat of terrorism and are essential in global counterterrorism efforts. The reasoning here is that deradicalization methods and procedures eventually lead to the internal fragmentation of extremist radical groups and to the delegitimization of their ideological rhetoric and tactics (Fink and Hearne, 2008, p. i).

The need for deradicalization methods is underscored by the view of the International Center for the Study of Radicalization, which emphasizes that radicalization is on the increase (Roots of Violent Radicalization, 2012). However, there is contention about the types of methods that are most effective and whether governments have gone far enough in establishing adequate protocols and policies, especially with regard to the use of the Internet as a platform for the proliferation of radical ideologies.

Taking the above discussion into account it becomes evident that there are a number of central aspects that should be considered in the process of deradicalization of the terrorist. These include the understanding of the underlying causative factors, as well as the manner in which the terrorist is radicalized to perceive the Other in terms of literal interpretation of ideology leading to the legitimacy of violent actions. Central as well is the perception of crisis and threat to tradition. These and other aspects must be addressed in the attempt to deradicalize the terrorist. In this regard the focus on many studies on deradicalization is on changing the ideological perspective of the terrorist. However, as is argued in this paper, a multivalent and inclusive approach to deradicalization is one that has the best chance of altering perceptions and behaviour patterns.

In the first instance what becomes clear for the studies on this subject is that conventional methods of defence and warfare are largely ineffective in addressing the issue of radicalization, especially in a technological world where ideology and actions can be shared and advanced via the Internet. It is also therefore clear that the deeper causes and rationale of the terrorist activities need to be addressed. Understanding the root causes and fundamental issues that create, generate and sustain terrorist ideology is seen as indispensible in the fight against terror. Wealth disparity and poverty are often referred to in this regard. This in turn is linked to various poetical perspectives and perceived alliances. As one expert succinctly puts it;

The genesis for the terrorism directed at the United States… is inextricably bound up with the globalization of poverty, Washington's continued support for Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, U.S. bombing and sponsorship of the devastating economic sanctions against Iraq, and the alliance between the United States and Arab monarchies such as Saudi Arabia, where the U.S. maintains a significant military presence" (Cohn, 2002, p. 25).

Therefore, the deradicalization of the terrorist requires much more than military force. It necessitates a strategy that takes into account economic and social factors, such as world poverty and inequality, among others, that contribute to the ideology and motivation behind terrorism. In this regard Renner ( 2002) makes the following comment:

To provide a true long-term solution requires addressing the underlying political, economic, and social conditions that give rise to the politics of extremism. That means tackling such broad challenges as the poverty and inequality that radicalize millions of people, the rule of corrupt and repressive governments, the climate of violence that reigns in many regions of the world, and the persistence of unresolved political grievances

(Renner, 2002, p. 26)

As was suggested above, one of the central reasons for radicalization is also the sense of marginalization and anomie that people often experience in a rapidly changing world. Ingram and Ruthven (2004) suggest that radicalization feeds on alienation and anomie, as well the crisis of identity that has been a result of colonization and globalization. Therefore, many studies have indicated that the most successful path to deradicalization is one that takes "... proactive measures to prevent vulnerable individuals from radicalizing and rehabilitating those who have already embraced extremism" (Boucek, C. et al. 2010). This broader conception of counterterrorism is evident in deradicalization programs of a number of Middle Eastern, Southeast Asian, and European countries. These programs tends to support a multi-dimensional and multi-faceted approach to deradicalization. Some of the aspects pertaining to this view will be discussed in the following section

3.1. Assessment of Deradicalization Strategies

The Prevent Strategy was published and initiated in Britain in June 2011. This deradicalization strategy has three main objectives; to challenge the ideology that supports terrorism; to "support sectors and institutions, including universities and prisons, where there are risks of radicalisation" and to draw on various programs to protect vulnerable individuals (New Prevent strategy launched, 2011). Furthermore, the strategy also intends to "Deal with all forms of terrorism and target not just violent extremism but also non-violent extremism, which can create an atmosphere conducive to terrorism and can popularise views which terrorists exploit"(New Prevent strategy launched, 2011). This strategy has been welcomed in part because it emphasizes the clearer split between counter-terrorism and counter-radicalisation work. However, what is noteworthy about the strategy is that is a multi-faceted approach to the problem of deradicalization ( Roots of Violent Radicalisation, 2012, p. 19).

One critique of the deradicalization initiatives and projects that governments in Britain and other countries have initiated is the way in which the online world is being dealt with. As has been referred to, the Internet is seen as a major source of ideological recruitment and communications that inculcates radical actions and ideas. Many studies express the view that more definite action should taken in this regard. One recommendation is to "...bring strategic prosecutions -- not necessarily taking down websites but to prosecute the people who are producing the content for the websites"(Roots of Violent Radicalisation, 2012, p. 19). However as one pundit notes "We believe that there is no technical solution to this problem and that this problem needs to be addressed differently..." (Roots of Violent Radicalisation, 2012, p. 19). This again is indicative of the need for a more comprehensive and inclusive approach to deradicalization. This in turn has led to recommendations that the Government in conjunction with internet service providers institute a Code of conduct that leads to the removal of radical and extremist material and that this should result in international cooperation in this regard (Roots of Violent Radicalisation, 2012, p. 24).

In the same report another important factor in deradicalization is discussed - the spread of radicalism in prisons. As a report from the Rand Corporation states, "Imprisonment may increase a prisoner's susceptibility to adopting new and radicalized ideas or beliefs. This is referred to as a "cognitive opening" (Hannah, Clutterbuck, Rubin, 2008, p. X). Efforts towards deradicalization within the prison system have also been a major area of focus. In this regard a criticism is that "...there exists no systematic Programme... In the UK for the de-radicalisation of prisoner..." (Roots of violent Radicalisation, 2012, p 26). The implication is that a more systematic and influential system aimed at changing attitudes and winning "hearts and minds" should be implemented.

This area is considered to be of primary concern as radicalization is often inculcated and promoted in the prison environment. This also refers to deradicalization processes after release from prison. In this regard a more comprehensive and multi-faceted approach has been recommended, which can be modelled on deradicalization strategies that have shown evidence of success in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Singapore (Porges and Stern, 2010). These deradicalization strategies address the problem in an inclusive and holistic way and "...through a combination of education, vocational training, religious dialogue, and postrelease programs that help detainees reintegrate into society. Involving family members in the process also plays a role, depending on the cultural norms and the particular detainees involved" ( Porges and Stern, 2010). This is possibly the model to follow in other areas of deradicalization.