The US administration decided that the terminology was outdated and ill-suited to describe the threats America is facing today. Not only did this move distance Obama from his trigger-happy predecessor, it signalled that the US was shrugging off a one-size fits all approach to countering violent extremism.
Instead, the US administration decided to look inwards for change – in the form of improvements in economy, education and energy.
This should be a clear signal to Pakistan to review its strategy on the ‘war on terror’. Since 2001, Pakistan has alternately been threatened and seduced into adopting American terminology and tactics to deal with the rise of extremism, but now it’s become the norm.
It is not uncommon these days for a Pakistani politician to visit the site of a militant raid or suicide attack and spout rhetoric on how ‘the terrorist threat will be eradicated’. We’ve acquiesced to using brute force to counter an amorphous, unidentifiable threat, a trap many of us vowed we would not fall into when we pledged allegiance to America’s war. Yet here we are.
So what could our new security strategy be? It’s hard to figure out where to start, but since our biggest threat is now a 15-year-old suicide bomber, maybe we should start with the people. Maybe we should start by spreading education and providing jobs, so that people feel empowered enough not to resort to violence.
It’s not impossible. And if we need more examples of governments that have managed to turn their anti-extremist policies around, we can look closer to home, to Indonesia. With Indonesia’s focus on identifying, then neutralising, ‘potential militants’ instead of core leaders and re-integrating them back into society, it’s not hard to see why it’s become a safer country.
If the American administration can de-programme itself, so can we.
Published in the Express Tribune, June 12th, 2010.
COMMENTS (2)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ