This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/29/the-guardian-view-on-counter-terrorism-after-tunisia-calm-resolve-required

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
The Guardian view on counter-terrorism after Tunisia: calm resolve required The Guardian view on counter-terrorism after Tunisia: calm resolve required
(about 1 hour later)
Leadership is often about finding the right words, and never more so than in the aftermath of tragedy. Faced with a massacre of tourists on a Tunisian beach which represents the largest loss of British life to terrorism since 7/7, a full decade ago, David Cameron had an important task in expressing a nation’s sense of loss – and its resolve. He acquitted himself well enough in defining the emotional mood, as he often does.Leadership is often about finding the right words, and never more so than in the aftermath of tragedy. Faced with a massacre of tourists on a Tunisian beach which represents the largest loss of British life to terrorism since 7/7, a full decade ago, David Cameron had an important task in expressing a nation’s sense of loss – and its resolve. He acquitted himself well enough in defining the emotional mood, as he often does.
But in the wake of disaster the test for a government is about more than mood, it is about the response – the policy to be pursued. And the words the prime minister selected in connection with that were not a happy choice. He has called for a “full-spectrum response”, echoing the discredited neocon architects of the Iraq war who once demanded “full-spectrum dominance” for the US. He spoke of an “existential” threat to the life of Britain, needlessly reinforcing the terrorists’ self-aggrandising pretensions of reordering the world by borrowing rhetoric that hawks often deploy in connection with Iran and Israel. However, there is at least the rationale that a prospectively nuclear-armed enemy state could theoretically call time on Israel’s very existence. By contrast, any suggestion that murderous bullets on a foreign beach could close the book on a thousand years of British history is absurd.But in the wake of disaster the test for a government is about more than mood, it is about the response – the policy to be pursued. And the words the prime minister selected in connection with that were not a happy choice. He has called for a “full-spectrum response”, echoing the discredited neocon architects of the Iraq war who once demanded “full-spectrum dominance” for the US. He spoke of an “existential” threat to the life of Britain, needlessly reinforcing the terrorists’ self-aggrandising pretensions of reordering the world by borrowing rhetoric that hawks often deploy in connection with Iran and Israel. However, there is at least the rationale that a prospectively nuclear-armed enemy state could theoretically call time on Israel’s very existence. By contrast, any suggestion that murderous bullets on a foreign beach could close the book on a thousand years of British history is absurd.
So Mr Cameron got ahead of himself, raising the temperature at just the time when cool and clear heads are requiredSo Mr Cameron got ahead of himself, raising the temperature at just the time when cool and clear heads are required
So Mr Cameron got ahead of himself, raising the temperature at just the time when cool and clear heads are required. In the aftermath of 9/11, the Blair government similarly used to speak of the “life of the nation” being at issue, and was rightly challenged over that by Lord Hoffman in the Belmarsh judgment. Presenting a real and serious threat to a relatively small number of lives for a 1940-style danger to national survival was part of the mindset that led Tony Blair to disastrous military misadventure overseas, as well as a needless disregard for civil liberties, against which the younger Mr Cameron sometimes made a brave stand. So Mr Cameron got ahead of himself, raising the temperature at just the time when cool and clear heads are required. In the aftermath of 9/11, the Blair government similarly used to speak of the “life of the nation” being at issue, and was rightly challenged over that by Lord Hoffmann in the Belmarsh judgment. Presenting a real and serious threat to a relatively small number of lives for a 1940-style danger to national survival was part of the mindset that led Tony Blair to disastrous military misadventure overseas, as well as a needless disregard for civil liberties, against which the younger Mr Cameron sometimes made a brave stand.
The words, then, portend a worrying turn in policy, and in the PM’s Monday morning BBC interview we got a sense of the particular twist that it is likely to take. Mr Cameron is throwing himself more firmly behind his home secretary’s counter-extremism strategy. This previously ran into controversy not only with former Lib Dem colleagues, but also with Conservative ministers such as Sajid Javid, who reacted with horror to the suggestion of censoring broadcasters, only one of the plan’s details. A new “extremism analysis unit” in the Home Office is already drawing up lists of radical Islamist groups and deciding which are beyond the ideological pale. The new departure here is the shift from the familiar problem of “violent extremism” towards extremism in some vaguer sense.The words, then, portend a worrying turn in policy, and in the PM’s Monday morning BBC interview we got a sense of the particular twist that it is likely to take. Mr Cameron is throwing himself more firmly behind his home secretary’s counter-extremism strategy. This previously ran into controversy not only with former Lib Dem colleagues, but also with Conservative ministers such as Sajid Javid, who reacted with horror to the suggestion of censoring broadcasters, only one of the plan’s details. A new “extremism analysis unit” in the Home Office is already drawing up lists of radical Islamist groups and deciding which are beyond the ideological pale. The new departure here is the shift from the familiar problem of “violent extremism” towards extremism in some vaguer sense.
JS Mill held that the only point at which a legitimate line could be drawn under free speech was the point where inflammatory words about a corn dealer were being uttered to “an angry mob, ready to explode”, and already stood outside the corn dealer’s house; the point, that is, where the connection between militant talk and violent action is plain. To veer away from this test is to veer in the direction of seeking to prosecute thought crime. Beyond the high principle, there are more pragmatic objections. What is needed in targeting violent jihadism in the UK is, first, for the authorities to achieve more understanding of the communities from which rare terrorists emerge, and second, targeted surveillance of individuals at risk of going down that route. Denouncing all those who stand in a wide penumbra of “extremism” will retard both halves of this, by cutting off that dialogue out of which understanding must be built, while alienating potential providers of tip-offs. JS Mill held that the only point at which a legitimate line could be drawn under free speech was the point where inflammatory words about a corn dealer were being uttered to “an angry mob, ready to explode”, and already stood outside the corn dealer’s house; the point, that is, where the connection between militant talk and violent action is plain. To veer away from this test is to veer in the direction of seeking to prosecute thought crime. Beyond the high principle, there are more pragmatic objections. What is needed in targeting violent jihadism in the UK is, first, for the authorities to achieve more understanding of the communities from which rare terrorists emerge, and second, targeted surveillance of individuals at risk of going down that route. Denouncing all those who stand in a wide penumbra of “extremism” will retard both halves of this, by cutting off that dialogue out of which understanding must be built, while also alienating potential providers of tip-offs.
The bloodshed in Sousse will stir anger in every decent heart, but every wise head knows that anger is not the best frame of mind for making policy. Britain must mourn, but also stand true to its free speech traditions, and hope that its government can still be persuaded to do the same.The bloodshed in Sousse will stir anger in every decent heart, but every wise head knows that anger is not the best frame of mind for making policy. Britain must mourn, but also stand true to its free speech traditions, and hope that its government can still be persuaded to do the same.