Britain’s ill-defined counter-terror strategy exposed by America’s clarity
David Blackburn 5:44pm
In a post over at the Staggers, defence and security expert Matt Cavanagh has compared and contrasted Barack Obama’s review of US counter-terrorism policy and the
coalition’s recent update of the Prevent strategy, together with David Cameron’s professed ‘muscular liberalism’. Here are his insights:
‘The new (American) strategy contains a fairly detailed discussion of the Arab Spring, arguing for applying "targeted force on Al Qaida at a time when its ideology is under extreme pressure" from events in North Africa and the Middle East. By contrast, Britain's revised Prevent strategy published three weeks ago, mentions these events only once - in a footnote, saying with characteristic bureaucratic obtuseness that it's too early to say what the effects will be. The British system has probably been too busy thrashing around on the argumentwhich has divided our politicians, counter-terrorist officials and experts over the last year - the argument about whether the real enemy is terrorism, violent extremism, or extremism more widely.The lack of definition across British policy is clear. For instance, the Foreign Office was caught on the hop by the Arab Spring and, four months into the Libyan adventure, officials still have no plan for a post-Gaddafi Libya; indeed, they pray for his continued survival at the moment. The creation of a National Security Council and the numerous reviews undertaken by this government were supposed to shake Whitehall from its indifference; they seem to have been ineffective so far.That question was supposedly resolved in the Prevent strategy, which committed the Government to broadening out its counter-terrorist efforts to include non-violent extremists, defined as people and organisations who disagree with our "core values", including democracy, equality before the law, and universal human rights. David Cameron had flagged this shift in his Munich speech, when he explicitly criticised the previous government tfor focusing too narrowly on terrorism and violent extremism, and failing to be sufficiently 'muscular' in standing up for our values.
The most interesting thing about the new US strategy from a British perspective is that it essentially takes the diametrically opposite path. President Obama's foreword asserts that "we must define who we are fighting with precision and clarity", and the strategy states that "by ensuring that counter-terrorist policies and tools are narrowly tailored, and applied to achieve specific, concrete security gains, the US will optimise its security and protect the liberties of its citizens."
At the time the Prevent strategy was published I criticised it for being sloppily written and not properly thought through - as well as representing a fundamental wrong turn. It fails to make clear whether the Government believes in tackling non-violent extremism as a matter of principle, or because it thinks this will reduce the risk of terrorism.’
But, to my mind, ill-definition is not the only impediment to British policy. Even when there is a clear plan, there is a reluctance to execute it. Organisations that might have been outlawed under Prevent endure: Hizb ut-Tahrir is a case in point. There is little point in promising to be muscular but being pusillanimous, especially where a nation’s defining values and its security are concerned.
Previous
TrevorsDen
July 2nd, 2011 6:00pm Report this commentAmerica has the power to put a policy to work. we are small bit players, given the massive cut backs projected in American defence budget we ourselves are committed to mirroring the USA pull back strategy in Afghanistan for instance.
Neither we not any other NATO country can think about launching some independent strategy.
Obama might talk about defining with clarity but his policy is in fact driven by a desire to be re-elected.
ndm
July 2nd, 2011 7:03pm Report this commentCavanagh writes:
-- The new (American) strategy contains a fairly detailed discussion of the Arab Spring, arguing for applying "targeted force on Al Qaida at a time when its ideology is under extreme pressure" from events in North Africa and the Middle East.
Indeed, it might. But, frankly, I won't give a damn about US policy in the Middle East until it wakes from its decades-long slumber and changes it dramatically with respect to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The US remains mired in its support for the Israeli oppression of the Palestinian people - a support that nominally betrays its own foundational belief that all men are created equal but which, in practice, continues the racism that has bedevilled America for much of its history.
Perry
July 2nd, 2011 7:37pm Report this commentEven when there is a clear plan, there is a reluctance to execute it. …
Yeah, …well it’s yooman roits innit? … an’ the gummunt rules wot stops us doin’ wot we should .. an’ that.
Anyway, … you bein’ racist or what …?
Organisations that might have been outlawed under Prevent endure: Hizb ut-Tahrir is a case in point. There is little point in promising to be muscular but being pusillanimous, especially where a nation’s defining values and its security are concerned.
Yeah, well we ain’t ‘lowed ter in’fere wiv free speech an’ that. An’ you just wotchit … we’ll ‘av you fer summit or uvva!
Norman Dee
July 2nd, 2011 7:53pm Report this commentIt's getting harder and harder to see what it is Cameron is trying to achieve, what does he see as a target for our future?. All the promises made are disappearing, immigration control being the latest fatality, a federal Europe beckons, we have driven into Libya and now we find we haven't got a reverse gear, meanwhile most of the NATO partners are quite happy to let the French and us pick up the bills, ad after the NHS and the other catastrophes we appear to be rudderless in a sea of promises going nowwhere.
Davey L.S
July 2nd, 2011 7:58pm Report this commentWhilst I think that Prevent still leaves a lot to be desired, and the government is as the post indicates still not sure on whom to focus, I don't think the comparison with the US policy is fair. The threat the USA faces internally and the make up of the communities that the policies effect are different, plus just because Obama is saying this, does not mean it will happen, one thing Prevent has shown is that it is not easy to "define who we are fighting with precision and clarity".
JohnBUK
July 2nd, 2011 8:12pm Report this commentPerry, agree fully. We've managed to put our own handcuffs on and thrown away the key!
Baron
July 2nd, 2011 9:34pm Report this commentndm, the narrowness of your thinking will soon suffocate you, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be over at a stroke if the international community starved Hamas of funds, it’s peripheral to the issue unde discussion anyway, the key to its solution lies in the madrassas that install in the minds of the young the hatred of the Western culture, we should hit them one way or another.
AY
July 2nd, 2011 10:06pm Report this commentAuthor demonstrates highest journalist skills, writing about subject without naming it even once.
That is supposed to work in the following way - we separate that non-spelled word from other-code words denoting things that we detest - "extremism", "violence", etc.
We therefore project our will to see a non-spelled thing in the benign way, free from what we don't want to meet in life and happen in society. But, by attaching benign mantras we pay an advance without knowing if that thing desreves it (and, rather, inspite of knowing the opposite). This is moment of belief, moment of switching to religion.
Briefly speeking, the situation forces people to accept the genre of prayer/shamanism, de-facto following tribal customs that forbade cursing or even naming a mighty animal (bear etc.), fearing it can hear the call and come.
Not that complicated mechanism by which that non-named mighty thing causes degradation of cognitive and ethical makeup of this country - paving the way to subversion through debilitation.
Kennybhoy
July 2nd, 2011 11:53pm Report this commentDavey L.S om July 2nd, 2011 7:58pm
Ansolutely spot on sir! Correct in every particular.
RCE
July 3rd, 2011 10:12am Report this commentNorman Dee @ 7:53,
"Rudderless on a sea of promises going nowhere." An most fitting epitaph for the Cast Iron Dave era.
Dimoto
July 3rd, 2011 3:06pm Report this commentHmmm, is that the same "coherant" USA that wasted trillions fighting "Al Qaeda terrorism" with the Iraq adventure ?
US policy is around the concept of "a global war on terror".
The UK, being a principle ally, needs to genflect to US fancies, but is really about keeping the islands safe.
We gave up (most of our) global posturing decades ago.
Perry
July 4th, 2011 8:35am Report this commentCaption for pic could read
'Two poseurs dissembling before sceptical crowd'
Back to top