Michael de Laine

By Michael de Laine, The Copenhagen Voice, 1 April 2009

Al-Qaeda remains the major threat to the United States, not only because it can conduct large-scale terrorist attacks against the US and its allies, but also because al-Qaeda spreads its ideology and propaganda far and wide from its safe haven in Pakistan and Afghanistan. As a strategic response to extremism, the US and its allies must offer a viable and attractive political alternative to the dark vision offered by radical extremist groups.

“There is no single path that leads people to violent extremism,” a British government official said when speaking about individuals’ connections to extremist ideology, according to a new report on counter-radicalization. “Social, foreign policy, economic, and personal factors all lead people to throw their lot in with extremists,” the official said.

The report, ‘Rewriting the Narrative: An Integrated Strategy for Counterradicalization’, was released last month by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, which was established in 1985 to advance a balanced and realistic understanding of American interests in the Middle East.

Prepared late last year by the second of three independent task forces focused on critical and discrete issues high on the Middle East policy agenda facing the incoming administration, the report represents the findings and recommendations of the Washington Institute’s Task Force on Confronting the Ideology of Radical Extremism.

Matthew Levitt, director of the institute’s Stein Program on Counterterrorism and Intelligence, told a seminar hosted today by the Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS) that the task force’s definition of radical Islamist extremism includes the ideologies of takfiri jihadist groups like al-Qaeda, nationalist Islamist terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hizballah, and the so-called conveyor belt groups such as Hizb al-Tahrir (HT). While groups like HT do not perpetrate acts of terrorism per se, they help lay the groundwork for al-Qaeda’s toxic message to take hold and for individuals to take action.

“We do not consider anti–United States or anti-West attitudes alone to constitute radicalism,” the report states. “The task force also distinguished between radicalization and religious piety/devotion to Islam. The extremist ideology at issue is a distortion of Islam, and in fact, many who have been radicalized remain surprisingly ignorant about the religion, particularly as the radicalization process has accelerated in recent years.”

According to the report, many Muslims sympathize strongly with the underlying extremist narrative offered by al-Qaeda and its affiliates. Al-Qaeda charges that the United States and the West, more broadly, are at war with Islam and that the Muslim world must unify to defeat this threat and re-establish the caliphate.

“As evidence for their narrative, extremist groups point to the war in Iraq, Guantánamo, Abu Ghraib, US support for Israel, and Washington’s reluctance to compel changes in authoritarian regimes in the Middle East,” the report states.

“In addition,” it says, “there is strong evidence that al-Qaeda’s efforts to spread its destructive ideology have encouraged terrorist groups previously focused on more local targets, such as al-Qaeda in the Islamic Mahgreb (formerly known as the Algerian Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat), to shift their ideological focus to the global struggle. By appropriating the al-Qaeda brand, other ‘homegrown terrorists’ have become far more dangerous than they otherwise would have been. And terrorists inspired by, but with no direct ties to, al-Qaeda continue to perpetuate violence globally, justified by al-Qaeda’s global narrative.”

According to the Washington Institute report, “Al-Qaeda remains the major threat to the United States, not only due to its ability to conduct large-scale terrorist attacks against the United States and its allies, but also because of al-Qaeda’s demonstrated ability to spread its ideology and propaganda far and wide from the increasingly secure safe-haven in the tribal areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan. Like-minded terrorist groups located in Asia, Africa, Europe, and the Middle East, with varying degrees of ties to al-Qaeda, also play a key role in radicalizing Muslim youth and encouraging them to pursue a path of violence.”

The report lists some 30 recommendations for strategic, functional and organizational changes that the Obama administration should make in the Bush administration’s efforts to counter radicalization.

To stop the ‘disturbing’ cycle of radicalization, the report states, “the United States and its allies must stimulate competition for the would-be ‘radicalizer’, loosely defined to include al-Qaeda and like-minded groups that engage in global propaganda efforts, influential extremist clerics, and local-level recruiters.”

This competition could be in the form of supporting and empowering mainstream Muslim voices who offer other visions for society, while not trying to improve ‘the American brand’. Another way would be to promote economic, democratic and other changes in Arab societies, so people’s grievances – real or perceived – are resolved; in this way the radical extremists’ global narrative does not resonate with individuals’ daily lives.

“While supporting as many challengers as possible, the United States must simultaneously work with governments on greater systemic reform,” the task force report states. “Choice is a critical concept in dissuading would-be extremists from becoming violent. The more alternatives available to young people, the greater their freedom, and the more credible the voices exposing them to alternative arguments, the less vulnerable they are to extremist ideas. However, the United States should also deepen its efforts to counter the extremist narrative, both by better using its existing mechanisms and by increasingly relying on and partnering with the private sector and NGOs.”

At a time when, according to the World Bank, the Middle East region must create 100 million new jobs by the end of 2010 to meet a youth bulge, the situation is exacerbated by the global economic crisis, which has weakened the position of many people and generates grievances, whether real or perceived, that people will look for a scapegoat to be held responsible for.

Levitt told the DIIS meeting that there are two ways of combating radicalization – tactical methods, hands-on efforts with telephone taps, law enforcement and similar initiatives that seek to clear up and prevent the results of radicalization, and strategic methods that aim at preventing the start and growth of radicalization through ’soft diplomacy’.

“We (in the US) can learn from our European colleagues, who are much further ahead,” Levitt added.

This situation has arisen because of differences in attitude towards immigration and integration. Whereas in the US, because of the country’s history, immigration, integration and the feeling of being an American are natural for someone moving there to live, while he or she simultaneously retains an identity with the home country, this is not so in European countries, where immigration policies and integration requirements are often very stringent.

“Europe has attracted huge numbers of Muslim political and economic refugees from Middle Eastern and South Asian countries in recent history,” the report says. “Some of these immigrants and their children are failing to or are not allowed to integrate into European societies, creating profound questions centering on identity. No longer identifying with their ‘home’ country and feeling excluded from and resentful toward their adopted society, these individuals search for belonging or a cause. Some choose to accept an ideology of violence or define themselves by a radicalized form of Islam; though their numbers are small, their potential impact is large.”

As a consequence, countries such as Britain, France, Belgium, Spain, Germany and the Netherlands have gained experiences from their different ways of tackling radicalization.

Countering moves towards radicalization, Levitt said, must include talking to radical movements. But as governments are not necessarily the best organs for doing this, they should instead provide opportunities and framework for NGOs and other private operators to carry out this task.

As a strategic response to extremism, the US and its allies must offer “a viable and attractive political alternative to the dark vision” offered by radical extremist groups. “Prosperous democratic societies that respect the rights of their citizens are more resilient and less susceptible to political instability and radicalization,” the report says.

The report, ‘Rewriting the Narrative: An Integrated Strategy for Counterradicalization’, focuses on Al-Qaeda because this organization remains the major threat to the United States, not only due to its ability to conduct large-scale terrorist attacks against the US and its allies, but also because of al-Qaeda’s demonstrated ability to spread its ideology and propaganda far and wide from the increasingly secure safe-haven in the tribal areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan.