Terrorism and violent extremism are problems that affect all members of the international community. In this thread, we will discuss the strategies and guidelines that collaborative entities have put together prevent, combat, and recover from terrorist threats.
Please offer your perspectives on documents of the day here as they are posted throughout the week.
Even though this document is for a broader audience, I would like to take away some things that could be implemented in our country's policy. Terrorism is all over, but in the American educational system, most do not know about the Oklahoma City Bombing and kids in school today; 9/11 is pure history to them in regards to not being alive for it. I do not even want to talk about the fact that even more of the population has no knowledge on the Khobar Tower Bombing in Saudi Arabia where a U.S. forces were bombed due to the lack of preparation. I would like to bring into discussion the recent event that had happened January 06 2021, the riots of the Capitol. The main focus from this domestic terrorism act was due to extremism on the right side of the spectrum, and under further inspection was caused due to the people not believing Biden was elected fairly. However on the Left wing side of things, their main focus is on revolutionary socialist doctrine and view themselves as protectors of the people against the “dehumanizing effects” of capitalism and imperialism. Under "Measures to address the conditions conducive to the spread of terrorism" it states how extremism can be reduced through means of reducing a "marginalization" and "victimization". This is extremely difficult to achieve, after all where there is light there is dark, and someone is always in the dark side of the spectrum. Nevertheless a good way to stop any terroristic actions would be to target social media. Facebook is notorious for creating "groups" where people can join and be informed on rally's and protests. A good way to combat this issue would be to look out for extremists posts and deleting specific "groups" that fit into a criteria.
When it comes to counter terrorism in the United Nations and how to create mitigation plans, many will use a method called "red team" and "blue team". These two teams are responsible for mitigating threats from past events and looking into the "what-ifs" of possible future events. This document highlights many past events that had occurred and created plans for such scenarios. In the United States, we even birthed three agencies for our own country. These agencies were "Hart-Rudman Commission" (1998), Gilmore Commission (1999), and the Bremer Commission (2000). These agencies were in charge of National Security and some were even built on FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Assossociation) who deal with weather damage and domestic terrorism. This document has many similarities to policies in the United States.
I definitely agree to your point about the dangers of social media. This document is from 2006, when social media was not even close to the level of development it is today. Updated strategies do a good job of addressing the online components of radicalization, which is certainly one of the easiest ways to make new terrorists this day and age.
@Griffen Ballenger In addition, a lot of recruiting is done through forums and online websites. However, once the government wants to restrict or monitor what people post more, it becomes an issue of privacy. Nevertheless, some privacy I do feel should be sacrificed in order to keep others safe.
@Nicolas McNaughton Your commentary is invaluable! I think that polarization is an increasing problem within the United States, and while this document clearly outlines potential ways to mitigate cyberterrorism, it can be used to manage domestic threats as well. Managing both sides of the political spectrum can help reduce the chances of domestic terrorism, and removing these platforms can decrease the amount of supporters getting influenced.
I am pleased that this strategy does not just include guidelines for combatting terrorism and terrorist ideologies but also for assisting the victims of terrorism. Besides the obvious humanitarian reasons, helping victims of attacks and working to normalize their lives again is important for halting the cycle of violence. Some victims may be spurred on to radicalize themselves and feel motivated by revenge for what happened to them.
I also think it is extremely important to help those that are in need and to focus on those that are affected by these attacks. People are displaced, families are torn apart, and people lose their lives. Helping those hurt get back on their feet is essential when it comes to dealing with terrorism.
I was glad to see this document take a very holistic approach in is response to terrorism, and I think it fits the scope of the UN's mission and capabilities well. Oftentimes, when people think counter-terrorism, they immediately think of military operations, which are important, but only one part of the response. It is also important that the financial roots of terrorists are cut out, that public security systems are in place to prevent future attacks, and that the roots of terrorism, such as youth unemployment, are dealt with as well. As @Griffen Ballenger noted, it is also important that counterterrorism includes a plan for helping victims of terrorism, which is essential to breaking the cycle of violence that exists in many countries plagued by terrorism. It is good that this strategy addresses many different ways that states and UN organizations alike can work together to reduce the factors that allow for terrorism to spread.
I agree that terrorism is a much deeper, more complex problem than many people tend to realize. Military action is an option, but it should never be the first one. Cutting off money, supplies, and recruitments can hinder these terrorist groups and cripple their capabilities. There are more ways than one to combat this problem. I do agree that it is important for the UN to take a "holistic approach" when responding to an issue such as this one.
@Eric Bruckenstein Well said! Bullets certainly don't kill beliefs.
You make a good point, Jay, and one that I hadn't stopped to consider before I read your post. Every liberal Western culture influenced by Aquinas has considered violence to be the last resort to an impasse or problem; we see this advice being practical in the secular realm as well, with violence all too often begetting further violence (the "cycle of violence" you mentioned). In addition to cutting off the finances of terrorist organizations and assisting victims, efforts to win over the populations from which the terrorist org(s) in question draw members are often necessary (think the famous "hearts and minds" efforts in the Middle East)
Counterterrorism is obviously an important issue for the United Nations, given the rise of rogue states/actors and the development of terrorism on a global scale rather than just being isolated to regions of conflict. One thing that I think is important to keep in mind is that terrorism is a broad term that can fit many different types of actions and actors. As such, it is hard to create a universal approach to counter-terrorism. For example, counter-terrorism in the United States- where terrorists' goals are to strike fear in the US government- might look very different from counter-terrorism in Turkey or the Phillipines- where the terrorists are mainly focused on separatism. That is not to say that there is no overlap between counter-terrorism in the many countries of the United Nations. One thing I found interesting about the document is the statement under Plan of Action, that the UN countries resolve "[t]o consistently, unequivocally and strongly condemn terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, committed by whomever, wherever and for whatever purposes, as it constitutes one of the most serious threats to international peace and security" as well as "[t]o consider becoming parties without delay to the existing international conventions and protocols against terrorism, and implementing them, and to make every effort to reach an agreement on and conclude a comprehensive convention on international terrorism." While these are certainly noble goals, I think that given that vastly different ideological, religious and nationalistic identities within the United Nations, that this is not feasible. For example, nationalistic groups operating in the Balkans may be hailed as heroes in some Balkan countries while being scorned in others. Even regarding, politicians in the Balkans, some would view the Kosovar former President Hashim Thaci as a terrorist while others would consider him a patriot.
Very interesting take at the end, people Live their Lives bound by what they accept as correct and true. That is how they define "Reality" . But what does it mean to be "correct" or "true"? They are merely vague concepts of reality, just like how people view you, there are very different versions of you in everyone's mind. Their "Reality" may all be a mirage to an extent. Can we consider them to be simply living in their own world, shaped by their beliefs? I take this quote to explain that many terrorist situations are very complex and having to understand policy and why people do the things they do is important to counter terrorism and planning for anything bad.
In this world of increasing specialization and niche topics, it is good to see governments come together and form entities such as the GCTF. This way governments can collaborate on formulating ways to tackle problems like terrorism and not have to shoulder too much individual responsibility.
For the rest of the week, we'll be looking at some of the best practices that this forum was able to come up with. Each document will address a specific facet of terrorism and violent extremism.
It is extremely useful to have the principles and objectives outlined so clearly. Counterterrorism is a major issue in the world today and many nations around the world are struggling to combat terrorism. It is important for there to be open lines of communication between countries. This will make it easier to brainstorm ideas. There is also the added benefit of being able to talk about what strategies did and did not work. It also shows that there is more than one way of dealing with terrorism. Military action is not the only solution. Open discussions that talk about how to limit the funding, recruitment, and international exposure of terrorist organizations can greatly decrease the amount of attacks we see around the world. It is always nice to see governments of so many different countries working together towards a common goal.
Good Practice number 6 on page 7 stands out to me. It advises states "to adopt a multi-stakeholder approach to between Governments, the ICT industry and civil society organizations in preventing and countering violent extremism online."
The Information and Communication Technology (ICT) industry makes a great deal of its revenue by generating clicks, which are often generated by an appetite for controversial or false information. Social media companies may be willing to crackdown when there is credible threat of terrorist attack, but they are more hesitant to do so when it comes to the content that radicalizes individuals in the first place. It seems like the kind of approach outlined in Practice 6 would require at least some regulation of social media, which presents its own challenges.
Terrorist organizations aren't the only ones who stoke fears and target people online. Authoritarian regimes such as Russia spread disinformation to turn populations of Western states against themselves and derail political discourse. Russian trolls have targeted Danish citizens online, exploiting anxieties about Middle Eastern immigrants in Denmark.
This is a valid point. Adopting a Multi-stakeholder approach to the problem would help combat cyberterrorism. I wonder if these entities would be willing to have transparency with one another though in order to solve this issue.
I was impressed by today's article because it took international human rights law into account multiple times. It is good to mention that they will respect freedoms of privacy, expression, association, peaceful assembly, and religion. People should not be deprived of their rights, even if it is to stop terrorism. I especially like the wording on page four where it states "Importantly, it is noted that in the context of preventing and countering violent extremism, effective measures and the protection of human rights are not conflicting goals, but complementary and mutually reinforcing." The article makes sure to carefully define terms like violent extremism and terrorism so that there is no place for states to abuse their power or interpret the article in a way that allows for invasions of privacy.
I completely agree that the rights of the individual should not be trampled by efforts to curb online extremism. I liked that you touched on the conflicting goals and definitions sections, as some authoritarian regimes like China seem to alter their definitions to fit a particular demographic.
This post is insightful to the practices involved in counterterrorism. The
I think that this is a good start to drawing the line between privacy and productive counterterrorism. However, I wonder if there is a way to tie this into censorship with Authoritarian states. There is potential room for these states to declare their opposition as violent extremists and shut down their social media presence in order to stay in power. The 2019 protests in Chile had seen over 200 cases of social media censorship that targeted posts criticizing the government. In cases like this, public dissent that becomes popular/acted upon can potentially be used in the argument of counterterrorism. The definitions listed in this post helps to somewhat prevent this, but it can be expanded upon further.
Very insightful, I like the Chile example!
That is exactly the point that I was making with my comment about current Chinese social restrictions/the social credit system. Just look at the situation in Hong Kong, where relatively peaceful protestors are being branded terrorists to justify actions taken against them, while the CCP ensures that only their narrative of events is available to the broader Chinese citizenry.
The internet has greatly expedited the rate of communication and how fast information has spread. This has produced many great things, has allowed people to gain opportunites they may have not had previously and has made daily life more convenient for internet consumers in general. However, with this network of communication it has become extremely easy for misinformation and propaganda to spread. There is growing concern of the ways social media is being used for radicalization. For example, the spread of the conspiracy theory group QAnon that incentivizes its listeners to mistrust the government, science and minority groups such as Jewish people. Given recent events regarding QAnon listeners, there has been a renewed concern about how misinformation spreads. Some social media sites such as Instagram and Twitter have banned several thousand accounts associated with the QAnon group.
As @Griffen Ballenger has stated above, certain countries like Russia have used social media to spread disinformation and propaganda that suits their narrative. For example, in the Balkans there has been significant attempts from Russia during the elections in Montenegro and Moldavia to convince the population to side with the Pro-Russian candidates (In Moldavia, the Pro-European candidate won whereas in Montenegro, a Pro-Serbian, Pro-Russia coalition won).
I found Practices 2 and 4 to be particularly important. A prevailing theme among discussion here seems to be the balance between the stakes of security and the sanctity of privacy rights. In particular, we have to question how transparent governments will be when surveying and attempting to curtail threats, as Brea already mentioned.
One key foundation of modern law in Western states is the paramount value of the individual. This in mind, I'm excited to see so many of us coming to confront that very conundrum. An interesting question at hand for sure!
I agree that the value of the individual is much greater in the Western states than it is in the East. It's a more American idea than I initially realized. While taking a human rights class in England our teacher asked us to vote. The question was "who is comfortable with the government watching what they do?" Every single British student in the class raised their hands while the handful of Americans stayed quiet. As far west as England they seem to be extremely comfortable with their lives being watched. I didn't realize just how "western" the idea was.
Outside of my specialty, I found the article interesting and very timely, as the general subject matter addressed seems to have been appearing more and more in the headlines in recent years, with various online misdeeds (the one I see most often referenced being the claimed Russian meddling in the 2016 US Presidential election) leading to cries for the world governments to place restrictions on internet/social media use in certain contexts. Reading the full article, the suggestions as to the application of "Good Practice" #7 and others which seek to ensure that the rights of individuals are not trampled in the attempts to curb the dangers of online terrorism serve to remind that these cautionary guidelines are aimed at liberal democracies, and that such concerns over respecting the rights of the individual citizen do not exist in more authoritarian and/or non-Western states. Take for example China, which famously monitors and restricts "as necessary" most aspects of its citizens lives. If the Chinese or similar governments do decide to implement some of these practices, I predict they will have a far easier time doing so, as the debate over protecting individual liberties is virtually nonexistent there.
I have a hard time believing China would adopt any of these measures, since their current efforts violate most of the individual rights people have online. Labeling an entire demographic as "extreme", such as the Uyghurs, allows China to censor or even imprison anyone with anti-China sentiment. Great post!
China does spy on all of its citizens and uses a social credit system. Although it is not the first of its kind, it is good that there are "Good Practices" being put into place to avoid any invasion of privacy. Although you state that there is virtually no debate over the protection of liberties in China, there is an opposition that is growing in strength. There could be major changes in that country in the next decade.
*that bad implementation of practices wouldn't have nearly the level of fallout as it would in a liberal society
Extremism has been prevalent on social media and the internet as a whole for several years now. Freedom of expression online is a pillar of the international human rights law framework, outlined in "Good Practice 7" of the Zurich-London Recommendations on Preventing and Countering Violent Extremism and Terrorism Online. Yet there are limits to what one can say or post online, including incitement to commit or encourage a terrorist act. Another right outlined under Practice 7 is the right to not be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with one’s privacy. The rights individuals have online often conflicts with government efforts to stem terrorist activities online. Take China for example, and specifically the northern Xinjiang province with a large Uyghur muslim population. Uyghur web users routinely face tighter forms of censorship since state authorities view them as potential terrorists, especially on popular social media app WeChat. Their messages primarily focussed on religious passages, like what types of practices were halal and the traditional ways on how to dress and pray. China interpreted them much differently and began labeling acts like having a long beard or muslim prayer as "extremification". 1.5 million Uyghurs have been labelled as "untrustworthy" and ordered to be sent to the 're-education camps' with reports of beatings, forced labor/ sterilizations, and mass rape. In the current internet environment, Uyghurs have had to post messages in Chinese, a dialect they do not speak, pledging their loyalty to the Chinese state. The internet in Xinjiang is highly monitored, regulated, and censored, all backed by claims of terrorist notions online. However, there has been no evidence of mass recruitment or incitement activities online, and people within the community call the internet a trap where you can post a muslim prayer and be flagged an extremist with a one-way ticket to the camps. Careful consideration of individual rights online have escaped Beijing's approach to combating extremism online.
Today's article on good practices for rehabilitation was thought-provoking. In a post-incident approach, the rehabilitation process is a great form of counter-terrorism that isn't focused on enough. In the section on prison context, making tailor-made programs would be the best course of action in order to remove the terrorists from extremism. In the role of actors, it is imperative that law enforcement officers are placed at the center of the support system, as they have the most contact with the inmates. However, including religious experts into this role at the early stage of rehabilitation might be counterintuitive. Assuming that mid-level terrorist aren't knowledgeable on religion is narrow-minded, and can potentially lead to a situation in which they are confirming their own biases about their beliefs. In exchange, the use of former extremists was a crucial recommendation that will definitely help mitigate the spread of extremism in the sense that they will be able to empathize with the inmate. Section D on the reintegration components goes as expected. Much like the reintegration process for regular inmates, its insuring that extremists are transitioning into society better than when they had left. While this section covers the standard rehabilitation process, I wonder if it is effective for extremists who are discontent with society as a whole (those who became extremists due to their homes being destroyed due to war, government corruption, etc). Their lives might improve but in many cases, they believe their work is for the greater good. Overall, this approach is useful, but should be used in conjunction with counterterrorism work that seeks to stabilize regions through building infrastructure. On a relative note, many global issues could be repaired through the improvement of infrastructure and state capacity. In my specialty, Latin American immigration would be reduced if living standards were increased, as people would feel more content residing in their native countries. The same can be said for terrorism and extremists. Removing the causes to radicalize are much more effective than doing the work post-incarceration.
I agree that this form of counter-terrorism is not focused on enough, and I also thoroughly enjoyed the article. I believe that it would be in the best interest of countries to still focus on the human rights work that can be done to combat this. There is a serious homelessness crisis happening in our world today. People that feel as though their governments are against them are more likely to look for others that oppose those in power which leads to extremism and terrorist recruitment. We should work on fixing as many issues as possible so that we can prevent terrorist organizations from growing.
Good Practice Number 2 is what caught my eye in today's article. It is always good to see that human rights are a focus. Having a safe environment for rehabilitation is extremely important. If we are to deter these people from joining or rejoining extremist groups it is essential that they are treated fairly and with compassion. I also enjoy that they stated "it is important that there is a clear legal basis and procedural framework for detention which complies with human rights and international law obligations and clearly delineates the institutions and agencies involved as well as their respective roles, responsibilities and powers in this area." It cannot be stressed enough that these prisoners need to not feel threatened by the guards and inmates they are with. If they feel as though the government is still targeting them even when they are incarcerated, it will lead to them rejoining extremist groups. Being humane towards inmates is essential to creating an opportunity to change their minds.
Likewise, I was excited to see that the issue of freedom of thought wasn't taken as a given in this article. Certainly prisoners shouldn't be treated in a way that breeds resentment towards the powers that be if they are to re-assimilate effectively.
I also believe that harsh conditions in prisons can lead more, and even new, people to extremism. The torture and other human rights abuses the Uyghur population endures could cause an uptick in extremism as a result. It will be interesting to see when, or if, these inmates are released what kind of ideological mindset they hold towards the CCP.
I'm glad that the practices in this document focus on prisons, as detention facilities can become "incubators of radicalization" and a favorite place of terrorist recruiters.
This has especially been the case with Salafist extremists in Europe. Whether they are captured foreign fighters or young people brought in for petty crimes (and who have been ostracized in society), they can wind up being lumped in the same facility.
Practice 4 urges states to consider segregating terrorist inmates from the general prison population. I think if a rehabilitation program is to be successful, this should be a rule of thumb, at least for the early stages of a given program.
I had never really thought about the fact that they could mingle with extremists inside of the facility. I do agree that it is in the best interest of the prison to keep them apart if the rehabilitation is to be successful. It would most likely work better if they surrounded the terrorist inmates with people that have made progress towards rehabilitation and have them work as mentors. It could be good for them to be surrounded with positive examples.
In prison, I can see this occurring more than what we already see. Prison gangs are already a growing concern with extremists groups all over. Not to mention that influx of inmates over the past decade with laws like the three strikes law and harsh punishments for first level offenders. In Practice 4, as you stated, it is important to separate people based on skin color and gang affiliation, but going the next step and seeing if they are a terrorist can be much harder to spot. However if one comes up as positive, they will be put into a different facility to avoid being injured or killed by other inmates.
@Eric Bruckenstein I like that you took the idea further and brought up the idea of using further rehabilitated individuals as mentors! I'd be very interesting to see a framework for such a mechanism.
I hadn't previously considered the roles prisons themselves could play in the continued radicalization OR rehabilitation of extremists. Generally I've considered rehabilitation to be a "politician's word," to quote Morgan Freeman. However, I enjoyed reading rule #2. While decent conditions are probably not the first thought the average person has when thinking of prisons, one is hard press to explain how prison conditions would have no effect on the rehabilitation process of extremists. Likewise, I liked the emphasis that rules #3 and #4 out on the reality that not all offenses and mindsets are created equal, and that this fact may produce complications when trying to house offenders of different natures. So far as prisons as breeding-grounds for terrorism goes, I can't agree more, now that I've had to confront the idea. A hypothetical I feel I'm now forced to consider is how one-party states like China, where political dissent is not good for one's health, may be made to deal with an extremely resentful and possibly difficult to control prison population if any sort of major instability comes to rock the country. I have great confidence that China's reeducation based rehabilitation practices don't produce individuals with an unquestioning loyalty to the Party. "You can't force me to respect you. You can only make me act like I respect you." How may the information provided in this article play into the context of states like China?
I think that writing off rehabilitation programs entirely is a bit too harsh, they have had their successes and their failures here in the US, and are still an improvement over the universal "punishment" mindset that was popular up through the mid-20th century. On the other hand, China absolutely handles its "rehabilitation" program horrendously, if we take the charitable view that they take it seriously themselves. If anything, I'd take your conclusion a step further and suggest that their policy is what creates the "Uyghur problem" that they are having in the first place.
I liked your point about not all mindsets being created equal. China definitely has an extremism problem in Xinjiang, especially the 2009 attacks that resulted in the deaths of 197 people. However, China's mass-detention of any Uyghur that publicly opposes CCP policies does not correlate with violent extremism.
This is an interesting observation. I also took note of China's "Reeducation" term as a means to justify their use of incarceration. I find it intriguing that authoritarian states implement incarceration as a means to uphold state capacity in lieu of addressing public dissent. While this might solve their problem in the short-term, only time will reveal the long-term impacts of this.
Reading today's article, I took note of the concern the GCTF's recommendations had with ensuring that violent extremists are not only prevented from further radicalizing, but are properly rehabilitated before release. Given the unique nature of each individual, I believe that Good Practices #7 and #8 are absolutely vital if that category of Good Practices is to function at all, because I think that one of the enduring lessons of the American prison system over the last hundred or so years is that the "one size fits all" approach simply does not work as an approach to prison populations of any variety. Relatively within my specialty, and speaking of a "one size fits all" approach, even the most charitable and pro-China view of the Uyghur detention facilities would be forced to acknowledge that a contributing factor of the "problem" continuing to exist is the treatment of all Uyghurs and their "infractions" as instances of anti-state terrorism.
It is absolutely absurd to me that China detains Uyghur men with long beards as an instance of anti-state terrorism. I hope the international community can come together to better protect the Uyghur population in Xinjiang from human rights abuses.
Rehabilitation, both in and out of the prison system, could be vital in stemming the rise of violent extremism in the world. The Rome Memorandum on Good Practices for Rehabilitation and Reintegration of Violent Extremist Offenders offers a multitude of suggestions to states to rehabilitate their violent extremists. Some notable good practices (GP) include a parole-like monitoring system post-release to deter/ interrupt recidivism (GP#22), including former extremists in rehabilitation to provide commonality among inmates and instructors (GP#13), and fostering a positive environment for re-entry (GP#24). A parole system for reformed extremists could prevent rehabilitated inmates from returning to extremist views, as well as allowing former extremists to take an active role in the process would provide a like-minded dialogue. I believe fostering a positive and supportive environment for re-entry is the most important. Allowing reformed extremists to re-enter society, without a social asterix by their name, could allow former inmates to not feel secluded from society, something that likely drew them to extremism in the first place.
Reading the first 3 good practices, I noticed China often falls short in these matters. GP#1 argues that it is important to clearly define the program's goals and objectives. China's objectives in the Xinjiang Uyghur re-education camps have often been shuttered in secrecy, with the only official word from the regional government claiming the camps "carry out anti-extremist ideological education", with no clarification. Good prison conditions and practices can offer an essential launch pad for rehabilitation, as outlined in GP#2. There have been numerous reports from Chinese human rights groups claiming torture, mass rape, and forced sterilization in the camps. This is likely to drive more Uyghurs to extremism, not rehabilitation. Good practice #3 argues an effective intake, assessment, and classification system for new inmates is essential for starting a rehabilitation program. China has mass-incarcerated up to 1.5 million Uyghurs in their camps, with no clear classification system. China could take these suggestions to better rehabilitate extremists, as well as better identify potential extremists, with actual extremist views.
I love your connection to China with the incarceration of the Uyghurs. We don't discuss the impact of incarceration on individuals who are already ostracized from society enough. In the case of China, I do agree with you on the fact that the current human rights abuses will lead to an increase in extremism. I would even make the case that this will ultimately affect their state capacity later on in the future. China is currently rated 10/100 on the Freedom House Global scale, and have decreased in freedom by 1 point each year. With this in mind, I wonder how they will continue to fare in the future.
The connection between terrorist groups and organized crime networks is a concept that seems obvious to me but one that I now realize I haven't thought much about before reading this document. It makes sense that many terrorist entities would rely on the illicit activities of organized crime for funds, equipment, and even recruits.
Good Practice 14 mentions how the recruitment pool for both terror cells and criminal gangs tend to be the same, mainly communities with disadvantaged youth. These broad connections means that a holistic approach is required to tackle both the radicalization of extremists and their support networks.
Such an approach means robust collaboration between government agencies.
Good Practice 8 recommends that agencies prioritize intelligence sharing in order to better identify the layers of criminal entanglement.
This practice applies outside the field of counterterrorism as well. As the Arctic has become more of a strategically dynamic area, the different branches of the US military and other government agencies have all been releasing new Arctic strategies. Each document is and should be tailored to each organization's needs, but the information that these branches all act on should be the same to ensure a coordinated, credible US foreign policy in the Arctic region.
I agree with you on the idea that a holistic approach is required for this issue. There are many similarities that can be drawn between organized crime and terror organizations. It is important for us to attack these links and similarities and stop them from working together. It could cause a serious issue if they were to work together or find a common goal. Having government agencies across the world working together would be a huge step in fixing what could become an immense issue.