Deradicalizing Terrorists – Saudi Style
There’s a lot of chatter lately in counterterror circles about Guantanamo Bay and what to do with those held captive who are either (1) not charged and ready for immediate release, or (2) go through military tribunals which fail to convict. As a result, the conversation inevitably leads to the topic of deradicalilzation (deprogramming for you cultists out there). Stratfor’s Kamran Bokhari chimed in this past week:
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia historically has played a major role in the development of jihadism. Key pillars of the Saudi state — oil, Wahhabism (a conservative form of Sunni Islam) and the strength of tribal norms — were instrumental in facilitating the rise of Islamist extremism and terrorism around the world prior to 9/11. These same pillars allowed Riyadh to contain al Qaeda within Saudi Arabia in the wake of the insurgency that kicked off in the kingdom in 2003-2004. After this success on the home front, Riyadh is still using these pillars to play an international role in counterjihadist efforts — a role welcomed by the United States.
During a visit to the kingdom last week, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the Saudi rehabilitation program for former militants impressed him, prompting him to consider sending Yemeni detainees at Guantanamo Bay to Saudi Arabia as part of Washington’s efforts to close down the detention center. The Saudis probably have done “as good, if not a better, job of that than almost anybody,” Gates said of the Saudi program. In separate comments, Gates called on Riyadh to assist Pakistan in the latter’s efforts to combat its rapidly expanding Taliban insurgency — and Saudi Arabia in fact has been playing a role in efforts to contain the Taliban insurgency in both Pakistan and Afghanistan for some time.
The entire article can be retrieved by signing up for Stratfor’s free newsletters – which I highly encourage to anyone who wants more in-depth analysis of geopolitics and terrorism than you get from the main stream media. Not a difficult task, I know.
You can also check out the following two articles if you want to know more about deradicalization. Both are interesting and offer different perspectives:
How to defuse a human bomb
by Drake Bennett of the Boston Globe.
And…
Deradicalization or Disengagement?
by John Horgan in the Perspectives on Terrorism Journal
Personally, I’m all for trying deradicalization on those who have not actually taken reasonable steps toward acting on their plans – as long as it happens in the individual’s home country, after revocation of their passports and all visas. We can’t lock people up forever for thought crimes.
Comments and questions are welcome.
About the Author: Randall H. Miller is an American college educator/blogger. He is also a former U.S. Army officer (82nd Airborne) with a M.A. in Diplomacy (focusing on International Terrorism) and a B.A. in Criminal Justice. Use the form on the right to sign up and receive notifications of new content. The words and ideas expressed here are 100% his own and not those of his employers or affiliated organizations.
dickmill | May 17, 2009 | Reply
Sounds great, but NIMBY.
(For those who haven’t fought nuke plants or wireless towers — NotInMyBackYard)
Maybe the best we could hope for would be to transform them into evangelicals — then they could still be terrorists.
Daniel | May 29, 2009 | Reply
“I’m all for trying deradicalization on those who have not actually taken reasonable steps toward acting on their plans – as long as it happens in the individual’s home country, after revocation of their passports and all visas. We can’t lock people up forever for thought crimes.”
First of all, locking people up for thought crimes is illegal. Taking their passports is also illegal. Because the reality is that if we were to lock people up for thought crimes, every single person in the world (apart from maybe Jesus, the Prophets and a couple of saints) would be in prison.
Secondly, are you really that vindictive? Don’t you think that people can change their ways? That they can reflect on what they’ve done and conclude that they were wrong? Rehabilitation programmes are about helping people to change from “bad guys” to “good guys”. It seems to me that you don’t really want more good guys around, but just to punish people. In fact, your logic reminds of your worst enemy. Could it be that there’s not much difference between American vindictiveness and AQ vindictiveness?
American: We must punish AQ for 9/11 and Embassies bombing!
AQ: We must punish America for Iraq (1991)/Palestine (since 1950)/Lebanon (in the 80s)!
Mediator: But surely you can talk to each other and find a solution!
American and AQ in unison: NO, WE DON’T TALK WITH BAD GUYS!!! THEY MUST BE PUNISHED!!!
RHM | May 29, 2009 | Reply
Daniel,
First, thanks for stopping by and for posting such a passionate reply. But I have to say I am a bit confused as to how I should respond.
You seem to have somehow misinterpreted the post. I do not believe that people should be locked up for thought crimes or that rehabilitation doesn’t work. I’m not sure how you came to that conclusion.
If you snoop around the blog a bit you’ll see I’ve been an outspoken opponent of Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, extraordinary rendition, and the Iraq war in general. I also scream from the mountain tops that it is essential to negotiate with adversaries.
Here are just a few posts which may enlighten you as to where I actually stand on the issues. Your rant here was way off.
http://randallhmiller.com/torturing-democracy/
http://randallhmiller.com/friday-morning-fix-january-30th-2009/