The White House is holding an international summit this week to shore up domestic and global support to fight “extremists,” but who those extremists are is difficult to say.
The high-level summit, which was announced in the wake of the terrorist attacks in Paris, features three days focused on countering the growing threat of radicalization and recruitment efforts of extremist groups, and includes speakers from three pilot programs focused on “countering violent extremism” that were conducted in U.S. cities last year. International heads of state and senior officials from France, Jordan and Egypt, among other countries, are attending.
The summit is part of a broader administration strategy called “Countering Violent Extremism” (CVE), which is aimed at identifying and preventing radicalization.
Yet in a hastily arranged pre-summit call with reporters on Monday, senior administration officials speaking on background struggled to describe the purpose of the summit, or the Department of Justice program behind it. The officials provided few details on what to expect at the conference — from strategy and guest list to goals and new policy initiatives, if any.
They even had trouble naming a specific extremist group the administration was focusing on. “The message at the White House and the agenda itself is not entirely focused on ISIL itself,” an official said. “ISIL is the near term threat you all are focused on, but we also recognize that in the United States there have been violent extremists that come in all shapes and sizes and so the agenda for all three days is going to show speakers and participants from all backgrounds to combat radicalization, extremism and terrorism.”
Yet the only other extremist group the official was willing to name was the FARC, the Marxist guerrilla group in Colombia.
“I think it’s wrong for us to say that there’s any one stereotype that’s going to fit here and I think that it’s a mistake to have a government that’s focused on stereotypes,” an official said on the call.
The clearest message came Tuesday, in an op-ed by Barack Obama published in the Los Angeles Times.
“In Syria and Iraq, the terrorist group we call ISIL has slaughtered innocent civilians and murdered hostages, including Americans, and has spread its barbarism to Libya with the murder of Egyptian Christians,” President Barack Obama wrote in an op-ed published Tuesday. “In recent months, we’ve seen deadly attacks in Ottawa, Sydney, Paris and Copenhagen.”
Obama, who is scheduled to speak Wednesday afternoon at the summit, also singled out the Taliban in Pakistan, al-Shabaab in Somalia, and Boko Haram in Nigeria as examples of “violent extremists.”
All of the groups named by Obama in the op-ed are Muslim.
“We know from experience that the best way to protect people, especially young people, from falling into the grip of violent extremists is the support of their family, friends, teachers and faith leaders,” Obama wrote in his op-ed.
However, dozens of documents on CVE obtained by The Intercept show a nascent CVE program more confused than focused. The documents, some of which are marked “For Official Use Only,” offer a glimpse into the vast network of CVE-associated programs and activities involving federal, state and local authorities.
The documents and reports underscore the difficulties of combating radicalization, and at times admit that identifying those at risk may be illusory.
“We found no characteristic or pathway that was unique to domestic terrorists; many characteristics and behaviors of those individuals who radicalize to violence are found in the general population, which limits their utility as indicators of violent extremist activity,” noted one Department of Homeland Security report, dated May 2014 and titled “Domestic Terrorists: Common Characteristics of Paths to Violence.”
Among the best measures of identifying someone who may be plotting a terrorist act, according to the report, are obvious signs, like stockpiling weapons.
Although some of the documents suggest that measures to alleviate poverty would help prevent extremism, that May report notes that “[w]hile unemployment figured prominently among a number domestic terrorist study subjects, their socio-demographic characteristics were similar to the general population in education, economic status, family status, and rates of mental illness.”
If spotting “violent extremists” is difficult, so too is treating them. Another 2014 report by the National Counterterrorism Center, titled “Turning Points in Violent Extremist Disengagement” suggest that “[p]sychotherapy and emotional support from social workers and probation officers,” can help extremists turn away from violence.
That report, which described a five-step model for deradicalization, also suggests focusing “energy on something positive,” and providing “positive feedback” for those who leave radical groups.
Photo: Farah Abdi Warsameh/AP
It would be quite laughable, were it not so pathetic. In addition to this story, there is one in the NYT in which Obama is claimed to have said that military means alone are not effective in countering terrorism – this from the man who, even more than his fellow fascist predecessor, has launched a worldwide, indiscriminate war on so-called terrorists. Any thinking person can reflect back to the time before Bush Sr.’s ambassador (April Glaspie) gave Saddam Hussein the green light to attack Kuwait, and compare the situation in the Middle East and Maghreb at that time with the present. One would be forced to conclude that things have gotten universally worse, and that each and every US or US-led intervention has only exacerbated the situation.
And yet there is a resurgence in this country of cold war thinking, bought into by democrats and republicans, so-called conservatives and so-called liberals. Simply replace the word “communist” from the 1950s with “muslim extremist” and the psychology is identical. Always these people with their tiny brains find it impossible to view anything in colors other than black and white. Now, it is popular to blame the politicians, and whereas that blame might be appropriate in a dictatorship where the people have no voice in their government, here it is wrong, because the politicians are simply giving us what the vast majority wants. Perhaps the 0.1% does control the funding, but they are not holding guns to the heads of the electorate. Thus the sheeple get what they want: endless war, and perpetuation of hate and bigotry.
I guess anyone who doesn’t repeat what government is saying is a suspect. Generalization is also an important part of this psycho-transmittal fear mongering.
There are no links to the documents and references in this article so judging from the text only:
“Among the best measures of identifying someone who may be plotting a terrorist act, according to the report, are obvious signs, like stockpiling weapons.”
“All of the groups named by Obama in the op-ed are Muslim.”
What do you want us to believe here? a muslim stockpiler is a terrorism while a christian stockpiler is a normal decent citizen.
The reason Obama, Holder, and the like don’t want to say “Islamists” or “Islamic Terrorists” though these terms are more accurate than the nebulous “extremists” is because Obama and Dems are trying to hold on to their low information Liberal base. The ones who spend their entire thinking energy trying to cast world events within the template of how the hated Republicans are to blame. It simply points up Obama’s intellectual dishonesty, and disingenuousness all the more… although that is only one drop in an ocean. Given that Obama has been busily trying to arm and provoke these “extremists” to match the media hype, what does it matter I suppose… then there is the possibility that this is all another “Wag the Dog” they are trying to make into reality.
This is all about distinguishing goats from sheep. And it’s not just about Jihadis. Anyone outside the 0.1% who effectively resists their owners is an extremist. They want prioritized lists for TAO, drone strikes, and so on. Polarization is a key mechanism for revealing extremists.
Happy New Year!
To be fair and accurate, you have to substitute “violently” for “effectively” because government officials seem to be consistently speaking of “violent extremists”. (There’s a difference.) Example:
Therefore, the author was unfair and inaccurate in her first paragraph:
What exactly about the rest of the article, including the following, did you not understand?
Winter’s first sentence is this:
That’s just a misrepresentation. She needs to put “violent extremists” between the quotes. Same goes for the title of the article.
@barncat
I’ll stick with “effectively”. Maybe government officials are speaking of “violent extremists”, but their actions speak otherwise. Consider, for example, “free speech zones” at political conventions. Or consider police-corporate cooperation against groups that oppose fracking. The government has also harassed libertarian activists through targeted IRS investigations.
I’m reminded of this article about China: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/14/truth-behind-great-firewall-of-china-headlines
I don’t dispute that there’s a general crackdown on dissent, but that doesn’t imply that a particular government initiative purporting to counter “violent extremism” specifically is actually intended to target all forms of “extremism” including peaceful dissent. Your examples don’t prove that. If we agree that the government has a goal of achieving X, that doesn’t mean that everything it does is aimed at X.
If any of those groups have been labelled “violent extremists” by executive branch officials (congressional Republicans don’t count), then you have a point, but I don’t think that’s the case.
The government can be taken at its word, and then be asked whether it’s going to treat all forms of violent extremism equally. What explains the different US reaction to violent anti-government extremism before and after the Ukraine coup? Why were so many former government officials permitted to openly advocate for MEK while they were officially listed as a terrorist organization (technically a crime)? What is the distinction to be made between the FARC in Colombia and the Contras in Nicaragua? That sort of criticism (skepticism) I would consider fair. It points to possible contradictions with what the government is actually saying. And, in the long run, I believe that being fair is the best way to be effective.
The West, presently, is in a state where they have no moral leadership whatsoever…nor any moral credibility. Talking about it just festers the boil.
It’s appropriate that this conference is in DC, headquarters of the biggest, best funded terrorist group on the planet, the US government.
If this President wants to do something besides killing innocent people all over the planet and shoring up the bottom line of the weapons makers, he could start by reversing course on US policy, which is at present “Kill’em all and let God sort them out.”
Related: *U.S. Allows Sales Of Armed Drones To Allies With Clean Human Rights Records*
“The irony of the U.S. government emphasizing human rights and international law as a fundamental part of drone policy did not go unnoticed by drone experts. ‘Some might say, ‘Wait a minute — who is the U.S. to be the standard bearer of human rights when they frequently engage in drone attacks that potentially result in collateral damage?’ asked Amos Guiora, a professor at the University of Utah’s S.J. Quinney College of Law. ‘I’m skeptical of amorphous phrases like ‘respect for human rights’ because I have no idea what that means,’ continued Guiora. ‘Of course, when you sell a drone to a country, you want to know what kind of criteria they will have for using an armed drone. But I have no idea what the American policy for using a drone is. I’m not sure the world necessarily sees American principles as reflecting the highest principles of human rights.’ The U.S. has taken the position that drone strikes conducted by the Central Intelligence Agency are covert actions that the government can’t legally acknowledge.”
(Yes, it says: CAN’T LEGALLY ACKNOWLEDGE!!! HOLY MOTHERFUCKING AMERICAN CORRUPTION, BATMAN!!!)
In relation to this article, and many others here – who the hell trusts the US government to be decent, honest, responsible? Idiots, that’s who.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/18/us-armed-drone-sales_n_6708238.html
“Who the hell trusts the US government to be decent, honest, responsible? Idiots, that’s who.”
Setting aside the anger that’s so clearly an attempt to mask the emptiness and guilt you struggle with, Cindy … the government is us. Which begs the question; W
“The government is us,” you say.
I don’t agree. In my opinion the government has been largely corrupted by corporatism and militarism, but ‘we’ have merely been propagandized. The idea that the government and its servile establishment (both controlled by a multinational elite) has any relationship to the general public -outside the latter being manipulated to allow the continuance of the former – is at this point quite ridiculous.
Certainly I’m angry. Anyone who isn’t angry either benefits from corruption or isn’t paying close attention to the demise of American decency.
“[T]he government is us” is the big lie. The US government was never “us”. At the very start, only male landowners could participate. And once corporate charters sans any public-interest requirement became available, starting with the railroads, “the people” quickly lost control. Supreme Court decisions followed within decades that applied the Bill of Rights to corporations. Former slaves first, then corporations, and lastly women. The US is a fascist police state, albeit a very subtle one since the 30s. But that has been changing, and distinguishing goats will become essential to avoid unpleasantness, and keep the sheep quiet.
Oops!
What have you done, Cindy — to actually get in the game and help make things better?
What I have done and continue to do to ameliorate the situation (corruption of the US system by corporatism/militarism) is literally none of your business.
However, I will say that what I (and my many friends) do is always decent, non-violent and meets the standard of appropriate, measured civil disobedience.
“What I have done and continue to do to ameliorate the situation (corruption of the US system by corporatism/militarism) is literally none of your business.”
As I suspected. Not a damned thing.
Your presumption that Cindy owes you an accounting and your follow-up presumption when she tells you to take a hike is exactly what gives Texas a bad name.
The good people of that state deserve better.
For the most part, getting in the game, and working to “make things better”, is a waste of time. The game is rigged. The prudent strategy is to opt out. Read _The Diamond Age_ by Neil Stephenson, and _Last Trumpet Project_ by Kevin MacArdry (available at http://anarplex.net/hosted/files/last_trumpet/LTP.pdf).
Quite vague. That vagueness should alarm everybody who ever has, or is, or ever will disagree with the government. They would never do that would they? Pre crime anyone?
Violence is the problem, not extremism. We must remember what we are actually trying to prevent. Violence. Preventing extremism would remove many of the voices in our society and would have removed the religious extremists who founded our country. Extremism is okay. Sometimes the extremism of one century (women and blacks being allowed to vote) becomes the status quo of another century. I’m against violent middle-of-the-road-ism, too. So let’s see if we can tackle violence and maybe the extremism won’t be such a problem.
Indeed, violence is a big part of the problem and unfortunately too much of that violence is being perpetrated by those that are claiming to try and stop extremism by… using violence themselves.
Yes, emphatically, violence is a big part of the matter. And that violence is presented in the American entertainment media in every concept and perception imaginable. An endless depiction of mayhem and murder and now in the last few years even official torture, largely presented in the context of right prevailing over evil. Some scenarios depict a dark fame or perhaps a dark sense of accomplishment or a sense of self accruing to those effecting evil, be it a mass murderer, a Blackwater psychopath, a suicide bomber, or a school shooter, and on and on. The forces of right on the other hand routinely dispense justifiable violence, with even the miscreants being portrayed with redeeming qualities as they exercise an ‘end justifies the means’ motivation.
Further, the influence is pervasive in countries such as Canada where we have a huge consumption of American media. We now have crackpot dullards, claiming jihad, planning death and destruction, to shooting in our Parliament Buildings, to routine violence and killings by police, to a militarized public viewpoint led in part by a warmongering Prime Minister and his Party, to hot and cold running drug gangs. ….As I was saying, it’s pervasive.
Characteristics or pathways of domestic terrorists?
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/18/guantanamo-torture-chicago-police-brutality
This had been going on for some time in the Chicago PD appparently, prior to 9/11. The State’s Attorney is looking into this — notice it’s the state of Illinois and not the ODOJ. The latter can nail a Stephen Kim or two, but not this guy or his principals.
. . “extremists” You can not outlaw the Congress where the most of them are….John McCain wants to arm every one at the taxpayers expense – besides being a war-monger you don’t consider him an “extremist” ?.?.?
. . . You talk terrorist but neglect to say a single word about the KKK – burning – beatings – lynchings
ITYM “elusive.”