http://lynch.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/11/04/10_questions_on_combatting_violent_extremism

And Obama's window is closing. Arab audiences see Guantanamo still open (including in an endlessly repeating al-Jazeera promo), US troops escalating in Afghanistan, Gaza still blockaded, and no settlement freeze or peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians. They have seen little follow-up on the ground on the Cairo address (regardless of what's been cooking secretly in Washington). A narrative is clearly hardening that Obama has not delivered on his promises, and that he hasn't really changed American policies despite his personal appeal. U.S. officials may complain that this is unfair, that it's only been four months since Cairo, that they are preparing a lot of programs... but the world isn't fair. This window isn't closed yet, but it's closing fast and opinions appear to be hardening.

It isn't just "narrative" it's reality.

Can local partners do the job? I hear a lot of talk these days about Western governments partnering with and helping to build up local Muslim groups which can carry on the fight inside their own communities. In general, that sounds good -- though nobody should expect that this can be done covertly without serious backlash risks, and there should be no expectations of control. But I'm also struck by the lessons of democracy promotion and civil society building efforts over the years -- and the limits of all those partnering and capacity building efforts. The CVE folks should learn those hard-learned lessons. In general, there are only a limited number of local partners with the capacity and willingness to deal with Western governments on these issue. They often can't bear the weight assigned to them. They may risk their local credibility by partnering with governments. And they may end up spending more of their time chasing the next government contract than doing the kind of community work which first made them interesting.

What about human rights? The GWOT frame tended to encourage a cavalier approach to public freedoms, human rights, and the rule of law in the name of counter-terrorism and security. It is not clear whether the CVE frame makes the same leap. After all, a whole of government, long-term approach to CVE should recognize the importance of legitimate, accountable, and transparent governments which deal respectfully with their citizens. But will that in fact be the case? The way that many Arab governments have achieved "success" has included a lot of torture, arbitrary indefinite arrest, and repression of all sorts. [yeah that's working out real well for the world, so glad we took a page from the Arab world playbook--guess if you can't beat them you join them.]

Interesting questions raised. All those pesky problems that arise when you frame a problem incorrectly thereby limiting your solutions.

You frame a problem as something that "only a war against it" can make us "safe", and you can almost guarantee what the outcome will be. You'll get more war, less safety, and paradoxically less freedom and liberty.

but it's so much easier just to "take people out" extra-judicially. Dead men can't talk. Dead men don't get to defend themselves in a court of law. Dead men generally aren't afforded "due process". Dead men are no longer human beings. Dead men are just dead and the people who kill them can claim anything they want about the underlying rational for and circumstances of their death.

Very convenient to just dispense with the rule of law when it comes to "combatting the evil human beings among us".

In fact, come to think of it, we should scrap the entire system of criminal justice in America and appoint a Star Chamber and just let them get on with keeping us safe and ending all the evil in men's hearts. You combine that with our worldwide Spanish Inquisition II tactics and we should just about be safe as kittens in a couple of months. They just haven't had a "free-enough" hand yet to be effective.

The Constitution and laws are so outdated and quaint anyway.

It doesn't. Take it from me, invocation of "state secrets doctrine" is 99% CYA for illegality and 1% legitimate protection of identities, technology, etc. etc. etc. . . . but like Glenn says when you're a nation at perpetual war the idea of "state secrets" becomes all-encompassing so as to render it void of meaning. State secrets become "anything" government wants kept secret for any reason whatsoever it feels important and it has zero to do with public safety and the law except in the sense of rendering the law a virtual nullity. Arbitrarily followed or invoked at the pleasure of elite interests.