Though the article notes appropriately:
"Deradicalization" is now a growth industry in corners of the psychological and anthropological professions. Research is being published and careers are being made on it, so caution in assessing it is required. And it should be noted that, by itself, deradicalization doesn't address the grievances that fuel the drive to militancy.
(This might help explain its growing popularity in academia.)
The grievances fueling the drive to militancy are, of course, the most important issue. The point is to preempt and avoid radicalization in the first place, which in this case is a byproduct of foreign intervention - direct and indirect. What is apparent time and again is the fact that the grievances of those committing terrorist acts are commonly (though not always) legitimate.
The policies and actions of the intervening power tend to arouse resentment among the local population. This resentment exists in different degrees across a spectrum: from those who grin and bear it, to those who organize and protest, to those who detonate bombs in public places. However, everyone on the spectrum uniformly views the prevailing circumstances negatively. The root objection is understandable; but not every expression of that objection is valid, such as the murder of innocents.
One needn't be a planner or Washington insider to know what certain policy decisions will likely inspire and provoke; a general sense of history, American or otherwise, provides ample insight. Ever since the United States assumed authority over the Middle East shortly after World War II, there has been a cost-benefit analysis, and the arousal of - and sometimes direct support for - extremist elements has been deemed worth it. National security is tended to domestically regarding immediate concerns in the form of surveillance and intelligence gathering. But with regard to the big picture, the abstract threat of terrorism is an acceptable complication.
Evidence of continuity in this area is President Obama's handling of counterterrorism through targeted killings - actions that arouse foreign anger and could possibly inspire acts of vengeance. Opposition to drone attacks is high in Pakistan, for example, and reaches 90 percent in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, home to over 3 million people. Again, there is always an anger index.
For a sober discussion of this policy, in the context of last Tuesday's 6,000-word article in New York Times (third link below) on the subject, listen to yesterday's interview with law professor Doug Cassel on Jerome McDonnell's Worldview program on WBEZ.
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2012/0525/Are-terrorists-beyond-redemption
http://www.wbez.org/worldview/2012-05-31/worldview-61201-99725
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html
