Counterterrorism: Communities and Terror

Dear readers,

There are many ways to approach counter-terrorism. The challenge is like that of David and Golliath--or Odysseus and the Cyclops. The terrorists are small, careful, smart, desperate and creative. Governments are large, lumbering, filled with internal bureaucratic issues. And, you might note, Golliath and Odysseus did not fare well--mostly due to my lack of good imagination to come up with a better parallel. :)

Two striking stories about extremist terrorist groups with ties to Islam.

Technology versus good old-fashioned spying: Europe's antiterrorism agencies favor human intelligence over technology

My favorite paragraph from this article is this one:
"You have to have people who go into a specific community, an ethnic group, religious group, a sectarian group, get acquainted with their people, their leaders, and get to know their community," Hamilton said in an interview. "Those communities know, usually, the people within the community that are disaffected, mad, angry, maybe even threatening."

Partially, because it deals with an understanding that terrorists, or people who become terrorists are an anomaly, not the mainstream. Also, if you build networks within a group, you can quickly find those anomalies...everyone knows the local weirdo, right?

The other story deals with the trickier aspect of the causes of terrorism--anger, frustration, the fact that the US is still killing people in 'Muslim lands' and how disconnected I think most Americans are from the reality of other people's fear--not just ours.

Just how deeply unpopular the United States is in the Muslim world?

My favorite paragraphs in this one are those that quote George Orwell:

Their violence, our violence

The palatable and politically safe answers – for conservatives, that Muslims are inherently violent, and for left-liberals, that only a small minority is violent – have always skirted around one important detail: our own violence.

This is no surprise. The notion that our violence motivates terrorism has always lost out to the notion that terror is absent from our violence. It was George Orwell who observed in 1945 that “the nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them”.

But this “remarkable capacity” is not shared by everyone. Civilian deaths and accounts of torture from Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine have fueled the radicalization of a minority of Muslims abroad, and it was only a matter of time before it produced the same effect on a minority of Muslims here, too.

It is only now, amid this growing domestic radicalization, that we are seeing some willingness to cure the deafness Orwell once wrote about.

Hope you enjoyed these stories.

Best,
Alena

How to be a consultant?

Dear readers,

I have to pick up the pace, I know.

However, I've been caught up in figuring out how to be a consultant.

I never realized how much work it is...it seems like everything that involves being 'independent' is for the super talented.

You need to be part lawyer, all businessman, an accountant, figure out insurance, health stuff, make sure no one can sue you, you have a good reputation, they have a good reputation, etc and so on.

You also need to make sure that. you. get. PAID!

I've been spending tons of time, trying to figure out contracts, tax language, legal documentation, figuring layers of relationships and more.

Have you been a consultant? Worked for yourself? Tell me how you pulled it off without losing track of something important!

Would love to hear your thoughts!

Best,
Alena

The Problem in Pakistan

Pakistan is in the news a lot today. The voices and advice are wide-ranging. From VP Biden saying early on that Afghanistan depends on what happens in India and Pakistan, to cries that 'Pakistan is not doing enough for us.'

I agree that, as one article from the Brookings Institute states Lashkar-e-Taiba is an important threat, and that the prevented attack in Dhaka, Bangladesh would have unleashed many negative repercussions on the already strained South Asian security situation. It would make U.S. calls on Pakistan to 'crack down' even more strident--which I think would be the wrong reaction.

I agree much more with another Brookings Institute article, which I referenced in my last post about how China and the US can work together with Pakistan.

The part I really want people to think on, is not so much how much pressure the US or China should put on Pakistan (I think Pakistan gets plenty of pressure, in the midst of troubled government, corruption, regular suicide bomb attacks of the Pakistani military itself, and its ongoing conflict with both India AND Afghanistan), but what can be done to help Pakistan move forward. In fact, I'd say taking a step back and letting Pakistan run its country might be a start. They're probably freaking out more than we (the US), and have plenty of problems to deal with. Considering that the US can't stop a terrorist attack when the father of the terrorist tries to turn him in and tells us directly about him, I don't think we should be casting the Pakistanis in such an ill light.

The first paragraph of the second Brookings article summarizes the problem.

Sorry I didn't copy/paste--the blog tool gave an error, I'm going to try and copy/paste the quote in a reply comment. It is important to realize that things aren't as simple as 'pressuring' or 'not pressuring.' Especially with our complicated history of funding islamic extremism (to counter Arab nationalism and Communism, respectively), we have to find ways to help without making things worse.

I look forward to your thoughts. Unfortunately, I only outlined a problem and didn't give you solutions.

Best,
Alena