TO FIGHT RADICAL ISLAM, U.S. WANTS MUSLIM ALLIES

[The 2009 shootings at Fort Hood, Tex., by a Muslim Army psychiatrist who had been radicalized in part on the Internet drew new attention to the threat posed by Americans who embrace the ideology of Al Qaeda. Anwar al-Awlaki, the American-born Qaeda propagandist now hiding in Yemen, who had exchanged e-mails with the Fort Hood gunman, has repeatedly and explicitly called on Muslim Americans to mount attacks.]

By Scott Shane

Robert Spencer, who operates
the Web site Jihad Watch.

WASHINGTON — Rolling out a new strategy for combating radicalization, White House officials on Wednesday warned that casting broad suspicion on Muslim Americans is counterproductive and could backfire by alienating a religious minority and fueling extremism.

The administration also promised to identify accurate educational materials about Islam for law enforcement officers, providing an alternative to biased and ill-informed literature in use in recent years, including by the F.B.I. Denis R. McDonough, President Obama’s deputy national security adviser, told reporters that Al Qaeda and those it inspired remained the biggest terrorist threat inside the United States. But he said the bombing and shootings in Norway last month, carried out by a right-wing, anti-Muslim extremist, were a reminder that the government could not focus exclusively on any single brand of radicalism.

Mr. McDonough said that Al Qaeda had a “bankrupt ideology,” but that accusing the entire Muslim community of complicity in terrorism could “feed the sense of disenchantment and disenfranchisement that may spur violent extremist radicalization.” Instead, he said, Muslim Americans should be treated as a crucial ally of the government in combating extremism.

In an introduction to the eight-page strategy document, Mr. Obama wrote that “communities — especially Muslim-American communities whose children, families and neighbors are being targeted for recruitment by Al Qaeda — are often best positioned to take the lead” in countering radicalization.

The strategy calls for federal agencies to support state and local officials by sharing information on potential threats and cooperating closely with the police.

The 2009 shootings at Fort Hood, Tex., by a Muslim Army psychiatrist who had been radicalized in part on the Internet drew new attention to the threat posed by Americans who embrace the ideology of Al Qaeda. Anwar al-Awlaki, the American-born Qaeda propagandist now hiding in Yemen, who had exchanged e-mails with the Fort Hood gunman, has repeatedly and explicitly called on Muslim Americans to mount attacks.

Since the Fort Hood attacks, there have been a number of foiled plots by radicalized Muslims in the United States, as well as by extreme right-wing and white supremacist ideologues.

Conservative critics of the Obama administration, including Representative Peter T. King, Republican of New York, have accused it of political correctness in avoiding applying the “Islamic” label to plots and attacks by Muslims. Mr. King, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, has held a series of hearings focusing exclusively on the threat from Muslim extremists, drawing fire from Muslim groups. In March, on the eve of Mr. King’s first hearing, Mr. McDonough spoke at a Virginia Islamic center to reassure Muslim Americans that the government would fight extremism without practicing “guilt by association.”

On Wednesday, Mr. King welcomed the administration’s identification of Al Qaeda as the “pre-eminent” terrorist threat but said he was concerned about language in the strategy document, titled “Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extremism in the United States,” that “suggests some equivalency of threats between Al Qaeda and domestic extremists.” Mr. King also said that while he supported meeting with community leaders, he did not want such meetings to be “politically correct, feel-good encounters, which ignore the threats posed by dangerous individuals in the community.”

A National Security Council expert on extremism who helped devise the new strategy, Quintan Wiktorowicz, said the administration was aware of “inaccurate training” on Islam for law enforcement officers. He said the administration would compile “gold standard” materials to be posted on the Web for officials to draw upon.

A January study by a liberal research group found a pattern of misleading and inflammatory training about Islam across the country, and a 2009 F.B.I. training document obtained recently by the American Civil Liberties Union gave a provocative account of Islam. That F.B.I. PowerPoint presentation was used for classes for law enforcement personnel at the bureau’s academy in Virginia, but it is no longer in use, according to the bureau.

The F.B.I. document recommended two books by Robert Spencer, an anti-Muslim blogger and author whose work was repeatedly cited in the online manifesto of Anders Behring Breivik, the Norwegian accused of killing at least 76 people last month. Mr. Spencer, who operates the Web site Jihad Watch, has said he opposes violence and condemns Mr. Breivik’s actions.

@ The New York Times 

TALIBAN HINT AT INTEREST IN NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT

[The Taliban shift comes even as Afghan public opinion has grown increasingly skeptical about the viability of peace talks in recent weeks, Western officials said. Under the best of circumstances, it will likely take years for a deal to be reached, but many Afghans and Westerners believe that the parties need to start talks before the United States begins to draw down substantial numbers of troops.]

By Alissa J. Rubin

KABUL, Afghanistan — The Taliban have begun to send signals that they are interested in a negotiated settlement, potentially offering an opening for the West and the Afghan government, several Western officials said.

While there have been some meetings between the Afghan government, NATO officials and some Taliban figures — and even with someone who turned out to be a Taliban imposter — the Taliban have always insisted that NATO troops would have to leave Afghanistan before any meaningful negotiations could take place. Now two recent statements suggest instead that they would be willing to engage in talks even with foreigners in the country. The Taliban are also speaking in less inflammatory terms.

The Taliban shift comes even as Afghan public opinion has grown increasingly skeptical about the viability of peace talks in recent weeks, Western officials said. Under the best of circumstances, it will likely take years for a deal to be reached, but many Afghans and Westerners believe that the parties need to start talks before the United States begins to draw down substantial numbers of troops.

“The Taliban’s public position has undergone an evolution,” said Staffan de Mistura, the United Nations special representative to Afghanistan, citing a United Nations analysis of Taliban statements since January, including one on July 28 posted on the Taliban’s Alemarah Web site. “They are becoming politically engaged.” The analysis was shared Wednesday with senior diplomats in Kabul.

A Taliban spokesman, Zabiullah Mujahid, confirmed that the article had been posted, and while he said it did not represent the official position, he reiterated several of the article’s points. Arsala Rahmani, a former Taliban higher education minister who is now a member of Afghanistan’s High Peace Council, said he believed that the posting by the Taliban was part of an effort to show an interest in talks.

“I am pretty certain that the Taliban are showing a little bit of flexibility recently, and as far as I have information there is a keenness and willingness from Taliban and among the Taliban ranks for peace,” he said.

He added, “But we have to prepare the ground first.”

The Taliban statement, which describes how to bring an end to the war and how the Taliban will behave, includes this sentence: “The Americans and all foreign invading forces should seek a face-saving exit from Afghanistan in understanding with the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan.”

The United Nations analysis notes that “this envisages talks specifically about foreign troop withdrawal.”

Another statement promises that the Taliban “will abide by its commitments to the stability of the region following the withdrawal of foreign forces.”

None of this suggests that a peace negotiation is imminent. At this early stage even the most cursory dialogue between the warring parties has the character of Kabuki theater in which shadows of menace and promise loom larger than reality. Still, the Taliban statements appear to be efforts to throw out a line. What comes of them will depend on how they are received.

For now, Afghans remain wary. The Taliban have continued to wage a brutal war that has taken an ever higher toll on civilians — 360 were killed in June, according to the United Nations. And the position of Pakistan, which has at the least considerable influence and perhaps complete control of some Taliban factions, has not moved. Pakistan wants to retain power over how postwar Afghanistan is shaped, and it fears talks with the Taliban might undermine its own influence.

Pakistani officials have made many conciliatory statements but have not, for instance, offered to allow the Taliban leadership to leave the country in order to meet on neutral ground with Afghan officials and Western interlocutors, according to Afghan and Western officials. There have been initial talks between Tayeb Agha, a former assistant to Mullah Omar, the Taliban leader, and the Americans, the Germans and the Afghans. Information about those talks was leaked in May, and the publicity was believed to have slowed down discussions, several diplomats said.

Some Afghan government officials look on Taliban statements skeptically, saying they are doubtful that even if the Taliban were interested in talks that Pakistan would allow them to reach out. It has arrested those Taliban, like Mullah Baradar and others, who tried to start peace negotiations.

So far, despite numerous meetings between Pakistani and Afghan officials, sometimes with Americans present, there have been no concrete offers, one senior Afghan official said. “The problem is that until today, the offers and efforts have been from our side, and the mistake is for us to put our expectations and desires in place of realpolitik. And right now there’s nothing,” the official said.

The United Nations analysis includes several caveats. For one, the Taliban document leaves out any mention of negotiations with the Afghan government. Rather, it asks for talks with the United States and regional countries. That suggests the Taliban still see themselves as the legitimate government and not the current Afghan government.

Another worry is that the Taliban continue to intimidate civilians, attack them and kill them in order to compel compliance. And there is no guarantee that the Web site statement represents the Taliban’s collective view.

“The Taliban have their weapons, and they are fighting and killing every day,” said Naiem Lalai Hamidzai, a member of Parliament from Kandahar, Afghanistan, who is a Pashtun, as are the vast majority of the Taliban. “You cannot make peace with the enemy of peace.”

The education minister, Farouk Wardak, who is close to the negotiations, described dealing with the Taliban by drawing a diagram of 10 vertical lines, each representing a different faction. “There is no hierarchy; there are parallel groups that take support from difference sources and who follow different guides,” he said.

Many in southern Afghanistan, who would likely have to live most closely with the Taliban, worry not only about potential abuses but also about sharing power and spoils. Sway over local tribes would have to be divided with them along with the local income producers — the poppy crop, the customs duties and the rich agricultural land.

“This government consists of warlordism so they are all power hungry,” said Mohammed Omar Satai, 62, a elder from Kandahar who is working to form the local peace commission. “They fear that if the Taliban come they would want shares of power.”

Nonetheless as diplomats search for a way forward, they see a shift that should not be ignored, they say. “The tone of this statement differs from previous statements,” said Mr. de Mistura.

“This is their response to Hillary,” he said, referring to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s speech in February at the Asia Society in which she made clear that a laying down of arms on the part of the Taliban was no longer a precondition for talks, but a “necessary outcome.”

Sangar Rahimi contributed reporting.
@ The New York Times