Exclusive - Pakistani with U.S. bounty said helping de-radicalise militants

[Poll_Blind]

Source: Reuters

(Reuters) - An Islamist leader who had a $10 million (6 million pounds) American bounty placed on his head this week has been helping Pakistan de-radicalise militants under efforts to stabilise the strategic U.S. ally, a top Pakistani counter-terrorism official said on Friday.

Hafiz Saeed, suspected of masterminding an attack by Pakistan-based gunmen on India's financial capital Mumbai in 2008 that killed 166 people, including six Americans, met government officials from the Punjab province and pledged his support for the drive, the official said.

"Hafiz Saeed has agreed with the Punjab government programme of de-radicalisation and rehabilitation of former jihadis and extended full cooperation," the counter-terrorism official told Reuters.

--snip--

A senior police official in Punjab province, who is closely involved with investigations into militant activity, confirmed that Saeed and his supporters were helping efforts to transform militants into law-abiding citizens.

Read more: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/04/07/uk-pakistan-usa-bounty-idUKBRE8350B820120407

---

PB

[Robb]

1. The focus on personalities instead of issues is a hallmark of failure to deal with terrorism.

Hafiz Saeed wants to preemtively rewrite his epitaph and bring a hundred of his followers to build schools or plant trees, fine. On a personal level I'd prefer he be brought to justice, but it's an elusive concept at best anyhow. Off the street and out of trouble, fine.

But no matter how many prominent leaders are brought close to breast, the violence will not end unless the underlying issues are addressed. Pakistan's strategy in this differs from ours in this only in the names of the players -- we're all triangulating to keep our interests secure in one way or another.

For a more Western example, look to Belfast. Sinn Fein is a political party now with legitimized power and influence. But bombs still go off weekly. Because at its core the zealotry that follows desperation doesn't care a whit when the Face of the Movement says to lay down the guns -- especially when it feels the same as the day you picked them up.

[bemildred]

2. Yep, fixated on the quick, easy decapitation strikes.

And quick and easy in general, re-election is what matters. Your career is what matters.

One trick ponies, no new ideas. Terrorism does not happen because some particular guy gets a wild hair up his ass, so you can't fix it by killing that guy either. You might buy some time, a tactical victory, but strategically, not so much. Even if he was very important and exceptional, the underlying problerm will produce another one shortly.

Great post.

[Ikonoklast]

3. The underlying issues remain, yes, but will anyone step up do anything about them?

If the most fiery leader of a movement is removed, will it not give those that see violence as the only method to advance their grievances as a mistake the opening to reach out in a conciliatory manner to their adversaries?

Northern Ireland is still a valid example.

Those the grew weary of the violent rhetoric of the leadership and the violent results of such on both sides sought a different way to solve their problems.

The leadership advocating for violence as the only way were imprisoned, killed off or replaced by those that saw diplomacy and a willingness to seek common ground as a better way to advance their agenda.

But first, those that are used by both sides to further their agendas must grow weary of it.

Yes, there are still those on the fringes who love violence and will still employ terror to manipulate the populace and politics, but they are being increasingly marginalized by the majority as they see the good that comes from compromise.

The holders of power also see that the use of oppression as a tactic against their own population only leads to an increased call for more oppression, as the frustrated minority resorts to violent means to end that oppression.

It is a spiral of violence that finally collapses under its own weight as the participants on both sides suddenly refuse to participate in it.

[bemildred]

4. Assassinations seem like an odd way to argue for the inefficacy of violence.

But yeah, short term, sometimes you might have to kill somebody before he kills you; and that could allow an opening, you see that sometimes; and you do see that quite often these things just grind on for decades until there is nothing left to fight with or over, or nobody left to fight.

What is unacceptable is thinking that that, somehow, is enough.