Bridging the gaps |
TO meet post 9/11 commitments, terrorism-affected states enacted counterterrorism policies and laws. CT came mainly under the centre; success depended on governance quality, LEAs’ adaptability, cooperation and federating units’ political ownership. Debate on kinetic options’ effectiveness and cost shifted attention from CT to preventing and countering violent extremism (PVE/CVE). Kinetic options could kill terrorists and dismantle their networks, but defeating ideology needed a different, long-term approach.
Uncertainty initially prevailed over the war on terror’s duration and global impact. Few states drafted policies to adequately meet the challenge; 25 years on, the focus is on persisting implementation gaps. Policies are usually drafted away from conflict zones by those who may lack knowledge of geography and sociopolitical dynamics.
Over-optimism in policy formation leads to weak implementation. Poor planner-implementer coordination weakens chances of success. Policies are hastily drafted after major events without clear timelines or resources. Implementation needs civil society support, but NGOs are often viewed with suspicion.
CT and CVE/PVE have concurrent jurisdiction. Internal security policies, ministries and agencies are........