Whether it be drone strikes, Quran burnings, machine-gunning Afghan villagers, or spying on Muslim students in East Coast colleges, we seem to be quite ingenious in fueling the radicalization of Muslims. Unfortunately, we are interested in the opposite. As an American with an international background, hoping to serve my country in the Foreign Service, it is beyond frustrating that we can't get radicalization right.
Our government's strategy remains primarily military driven, perhaps best captured through this administration's beloved drone strike program. Although we have taken out key militants, drone strikes also kill innocent civilians -- something that violent extremists always highlight in their recruiting propaganda. Even when it comes to providing "development aid," a disproportionate amount goes to corrupt militaries that hinder the progress of democracy and civilian rule. We see this in the examples of Pakistan, Yemen, and more famously today, Egypt.
Fortunately, this is not all there is to America's strategy. In Sept. 2010, USAID's Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI) launched the Eastleigh Youth Engagement (EYE) program. EYE seeks to address the risk factors that lead youth in Eastleigh, a suburb of Nairobi, Kenya to join violent extremist groups. In particular, EYE seeks to preempt radicalization of youth that join the Somalia-based al-Qaeda affiliate, al-Shabaab. Eastleigh has a high population of Somali immigrants with 60 percent being youth between 17-30 years old. Some of the challenges youth face in Eastleigh include: limited access to education, high unemployment, poor health services, crime, gang violence, police harassment and corruption. These challenges, coupled with the highly radicalized environment in the form of unqualified, extremist preachers greatly weaken these youth's resilience and strengthen their susceptibility to extremist ideologies.
To counter this threat, EYE seeks to build moderation, foster identity and self-confidence in at-risk youth so that they can reject violent extremist ideologies. This focus on identity and self-confidence was the result of rigorous fieldwork during the program design. My own research, which included extensive interviews with former al-Shabaab members in Eastleigh, finds that the interaction of various forms of identity -- personal, cultural, and social -- is at the heart of youth radicalization, and thus, validates EYE's rationale. In addition to the meticulous analysis conducted before implementation, EYE is most impressive in its flexible, multi-faceted, and innovative implementation strategy. The program works entirely with local community-based organizations, youth groups, and NGOs that operate in Eastleigh. It strictly offers in-kind grants to these partners, which militates against corruption as it ensures that funds are used for the intended purpose. Its implementation team is composed of experienced Kenyans familiar with youth dynamics in Eastleigh. Thus far, it has sponsored job training for several youth, a movie series on tolerance and the rule of law, interfaith lectures on extremism, soccer tournaments for men and basketball tournaments for women. Although only a year and a half old, and certainly with improvements to make, EYE has already meliorated the capacity of several youth groups, provided useful training in leadership and jobs, and is quickly establishing a strong network of youth groups. And yes, you guessed right, not one civilian is getting killed.
These are the programs we need to replicate. Instead of drone strikes that dehumanize civilians -- as evinced in the fact that debates on their effectiveness are largely about the number of deaths --programs such as EYE actually bridge the divide between "us" and "them". I am reminded of an encounter I had with a youth leader in Eastleigh. Upon entering his office, I noticed three flags on his desk: Somalia's, Kenya's, and America's. I was shocked that he was not afraid to display his cooperation with the much-vilified America. When I asked him about this, he simply replied that it is no secret that we are helping his people and because of that, he had no qualms displaying the American flag on his desk. Given that most of my conversations in Kenya (and whenever I'm outside America) entailed defending our foreign policy in heated debates, it was a relief to see someone who knew this side of America. The side of America that I also knew -- one that considers its people, and not its military, to be its greatest strength.
This emphasis on the civilian component of our government and partnerships with local communities is not a novel. The Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR) and the National Security Strategy echo this sentiment verbatim, as they stress the role of our diplomats, NGOs, and private sector in achieving our national security goals. A quick perusal of these documents highlights the brilliance and innovation of the American minds that composed these documents. But what does it say when our government largely ignores these ideas and sticks to the same old tactics? EYE and programs like it need to be the norm and not the exception. Drones and militarized aid, which come with various forms of "collateral damage" have no place in today's globalized world, especially if we want to expose the America that you and I know to the rest of the globe. Where do we want to see our flag: displayed on humble office desks or being burned in the streets? The choice is ours.
Follow Muhsin Usman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/muhsinhass
Muslim Congressman Suspicious Of Radicalization Hearings : NPR
Emotions fly at controversial hearing on Muslim Americans - CNN
Hearing on radicalization in Muslim community makes sense - CNN
King Hearings on Muslims Show Deep Partisan Rift - NYTimes.com
However, although I generally agree that stable governments and democracy might be better at tackling extremism, it will take much more concerted efforts by Muslims to root it out.
Two disasterous wars have proven that we cannot fight this new war, designed by Muslims, in the old way -- nation vs. nation. It is impossible to "liberate" a people from their own primitive mindset.
It is up to the MUSLIM people to avoid being collateral damage in this war by refusing to associate with terrorists and to end this war by refusing to become terrorists, refusing to aid terrorists and refusing to tolerate them. Until the Muslim people themselves can end this war some power hungry Muslims started, America has every RIGHT to defend itself and its leaders have an obligation to do so.
By using drones, America can kill the actual group of people intitiating the terrorist's attacks--the cowards that are unwilling to go onto the battlefield or strap on a bomb themselves because their actual objective is NOT to win some holy war but rather to survive and achieve power over others. By using drones to attack the planners, we can save not only American lives but the lives of the children these power-hungry cowards would convince to become martyrs.
We must kill as many of the enemy, including any and all new recruits, that seek to attack us as we can possibly kill and by any means necessary, including drones. (Two old-style wars prove that method fails)
In my opinion, that means identifying Islamism as the ideology of our enemy in this war, which means identifying Islamist governments as members of the opposition, if not actual enemies yet.
We need to shift to offense in the ideological war, so we can be more successful in the shooting war.
Don't you think it might make sense to narrow that definition down a bit, since well over 99% of all Muslim men have done no such thing?
Islamists have hated the West since the Great Divergence started in 1500 and economically trumphed over the stagnating Islamic countries which stopped world conquest by Islam, the World Calphate, and the trumph of Islam. That is defying the holy victory of Islam. We are robbing the islamists of their triumph. That is unforgiveable.
We could pull every soldier back and live like quakers but Islamists would still attack. We could surrender and become dhimmi and Islamists would still attack. So why surrender to a foe who won't stop waging war?
There's really no sign at all that that's true.
Only anti-Islam pundits make such assertions --- and the facts don't support their arguments.
Plus, I don't know if you've noticed, but .... non-Muslim-majority nations are the ones with the military power. The United States is the most powerful country, militarily, in the history of the world, by a *lot*. American Muslims represent roughly 1% of the American population, and with extremely rare exceptions, they show themselves to simply be regular people, and law-abiding, productive citizens.
If there is ever any sign of an actual threat, immigration policies and military readiness and/or action will of course be adjusted accordingly.
The reason this is not happening now, again, is that there is no actual sign that what you're saying is true.
http://www.loveforpakistan.com/page/alrahman-garden
An estimated US$45 billion has been spent by the Saudi Arabian government financing mosques and Islamic schools in foreign countries. Ain al-Yaqeen, a Saudi newspaper, reported in 2002 that Saudi funds may have contributed to building as many as 1,500 mosques and 2,000 other Islamic centers.
As long as this is the mainstream interpretation of the Koran, the war between Islam and everyone else will continue and spread.
Neither do terrorist bombers. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
We do not have the perfect weapon yet, but continue to work on killing fewer innocents.
What would our enemy choose as the perfect weapon?
One that would kill the maximum number, guilty or innocent.
There is no moral equivalence between us and them.
Islamists and even the more "moderate" Muslim Arabs are ever responsible and never to blame for all the bad choices they've made.
Nope, its always the fault of someone else - primarily the Jews
And the West by pretending not to notice the ever present incitement and KKK style mindset, enables them.
Inviting the Muslim Brotherhood to the White House is no different then inviting a Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan .... but no matter, all the western liberal centers of governance will soon be inviting the very people who are now calling for a full on Jihad against them.
Wake up before its too late
When Islam came into being all of Palestine was populated by very fair Greco/Romans. North Africa was populated by the descendants of green eyed blond Vandals. Turkey was a land of blond, green eyed Celts mentioned in the Bible as "Galatians". Where are these people now? Think about that a second.
Every inch of territory gained by Islam has been gained by violence and conquest. The Immans openly speak of re-instituting the Caliphate in our lifetime, and of bringing in the reign of the final Mahdi through killing all Jews, and "bathing the world in blood". You cannot halt such violence by contemplating your navel, and we did not make them do this.
The West must man up while there is still time.
Palestine was never ever populated by the 'very fair Greco/Romans' ( It was home to Sami peoples)
and Turkey was never a land of blond, green eyed Celts. It was a land of Hititians and Assyrians, Lidyans and Frigyans... And your constitution and penal law all come from The Sharia Law, together with most of your commercial and maritime law...
Does your nation allow immigration without assimilation?
Shoud today's Americans make the mistake Native Americans made?
I don't think the author of the article is suggesting that we did. He's saying that certain aspects of U.S. foreign policy (i.e. drone strikes) fuels radicalization. If any of us were in an area on the receiving end of drone strikes, it would probably fuel radicalization in us, too .... that's simple human nature. When violence is done to you, you want to do violence back. And so, that's a simple and factual observation of cause-and-effect dynamics; blame has nothing to do with it.
The author suggests that there is a better way: proactive community-building. I agree with this.
He also suggest that this is "better than drone strikes". I partially agree, but I don't see it as an "apples to apples" comparison.
Community-building and education are excellent ways of preventing radicalization. Drone strikes are an excellent way of eliminating further threat from those who are already radical. No reason we can't do both. Some of the other items (spying, etc.) are nonsensical, harmful, not useful to counter-terrorism efforts, and are being eliminated fairly rapidly, which is good.
Much of what you wrote about Islam is incorrect - you may want to do some research regarding Islam from mainstream sources.
And I'm not sure what's up with your repeated mention of the skin-tone of the original inhabitants in a given area, and I'm not sure what it has to do with this conversation.
Islam has expanded almost exclusively through wars of conquest. The Mullahs around the world issue calls daily to go and conquer the nonbelievers, and to take their goods, and to make slaves of their wives and children. Do you think they don't mean it? This is what they have preached from the 7th century on, and it is what they have done in history.
As to my sourcing... I went through University with Muslims, and then worked with them professionally for almost twenty years. What I learned of Muslims I learned from the Muslims themselves. When you go and listen to their Mullahs and read their articles you will find that they do not hedge what I am saying. Here in the West they count on people like you to act as the smoke screen of their intentions.
The debate is on when is fire appropriate?
We, the enemy of the Islamist, cannot offer enlightenment. That can only come from other Muslims.
Fire is what we promise to those Muslims who reject enlightenment from reformist Muslims who see the wisdom of ending the permanent state of warfare between Islam and the rest of the world.
"the blame for such radicalization and the responsibility for curbing it lie with the Muslim community itself."
These are somewhat meaningless statements. The onus is on everyone really to deescalate but that too is meaningless. It would be a good idea to acknowledge, say for example, that foreign policies of western states contribute to escalation in conflicts and so does the inaction of Muslim elites to respond to western foreign policies so as to not engender radicalization and hatred. We can then move on from there.
It must also be acknowledged that western power elites are much more powerful in pursuing their interests than Muslim elites. Power corrupts and so does powerlessness.
Jihadism, in part, is a response to the powerlessness experienced by Muslims and foreign policies by Western states are, in part exemplify the overreach of their apparently absolute power. Case in point - drones and cyber warfare ala suxnet and nuclear weapons prior to this. All these developments expand the scope of warfare, endangering, not only human lives, but the fixed borders of nation-states maintained by the UN system - leading us a step back toward medieval imperial orders seeking to expand territory by warfare.
2. If the Ottoman empire had gained the military dominance it sought, all nations would be ruled by Muslims.
3. Fortunately, neither of those things happened.
Secular liberal democracies guarantee the peace militarily and Communist and Muslim nations benefit along with everyone else--as long as they compete without resorting to force of arms.
It's time for muslims to stop blaming everyone else but themselves for the neverending stream of violence perpetuated in the name of Islam.
Most data indicates that mosques and Muslim leaders, outside of areas where radical groups such as the Taliban have control (i.e. the Northwest tribal areas of Pakistan, aka FATA) are not the primary cause of radicalization. The primary cause is actually interaction with radical Muslims - being "indoctrinated" by them, 1:1. Increasingly, this is happening online, but it can happen anywhere young Muslim men meet. This can be at a mosque, but a mosque is no more common a source for such meetings than any other, and it usually doesn't involve the mosque leadership.
The idea that radicalization happens at mosques *because* of the mosque itself, and/or teaching or preaching that occurs there, is simply false.
The never-ending stream of violence is an unspeakably serious problem; to falsely state that "Islam" is the reason for such violence doesn't help solve the problem, and can actually make it worse.
Radicalization among Muslims is a phenomenon of political, not religious, extremism.
Was/is the Irish Republican Army a problem that "Christians need to address" or that was "perpetuated by Christianity"?
If not, then how can you say that Islam is the problem, when radical Muslims engage in similar types of horribly misguided, ethically heinous insurgency attacks?
Christian no, Irish, probably. IRA didn't used violence in the name of catholicism, it was for a political purpose. Islamist, like others religious supremacist, don't want a country, they want their faith to rule the world.
An issu that the Vatican should address is pedophilia.
"Radicalization among Muslims is a phenomenon of political, not religious, extremism."
I think the line is too thin to tell where politics stop and where religion starts
But what may work in Kenya, a multi-ethnic, pluralist, predominantly Non-Muslim country with universities, a flourishing tourist industry and a somewhat decent infrastructure, is simply not going to work in places such as Somalia or Afghanistan.
How could youth community centres possibly help in places where even aid workers and doctors are considered to be Western perpetrators by a significant proportion of the population. It's only a few months ago that two workers from "Doctors without borders" were executed in Somalia. They weren't the first and unfortunately not the last.
Blatant Anti-Westernism or Anti-Americanism has been around for much longer than the Gulf Wars, the drone strikes and pastor Terry Jones. And they're here to stay: no matter the effort, the amount of aid money, or the approach taken. The sooner we come to terms with that, the more effectively we can battle radicalisation in places that aren't lost causes.
Blatant Anti-Westernism or Anti-Americanism does not come out of thin air, nor does it come from Islam. It existed with a left-wing or pan-Arabist secular flavour long before the new Islamism was fashionable. It has existed in the Middle East and Africa, Asia and South America, and indeed everywhere in the world that people have been aware of US foreign policy since the Spanish-American War. Americans prefer sanitized school text-books like Japan.
Thank you very much for your efforts to understand Islamic jihadist.
If we really want to understand the psychology of Islamic jihadists, we first need to understand the psychology of Muhammad - the original Islamic jihadist, whom Islam regards as the perfect model.
Please begin this, by learning something about the disorder known as malignant narcissism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malignant_narcissism
With this knowledge in mind, please study the "Sirat Rasul Allah" by Ibn Ishaq (translated by Guillaume as "The Life Of Muhammad").
If we read the The Life Of Muhammad objectively, we will see very clearly that Muhammad suffered from the disorder of malignant narcissism.
This view is presented very convincingly in the book "Islam Dismantled" by Sujit Das.
Das goes further, and explains how malignant narcissism is actually propagated by Islam.
To understand the history of Islamic jihad, please read Andrew Bostom's book, "The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims."
Only by studying the psychology of Muhammad himself, as well as Muhammad's words and deeds, and the history of Islamic jihad, together with Islamic doctrine and teachings, can we hope to understand the psychology of modern Islamic jihadists.
Engaging in jihad is a communal religious duty for Muslims - therefore it is no more "radical" than praying five times a day, or fulfilling any other Islamic religious obligation.
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur'an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Scholars_on_Jihad
(Instead of clicking on the url, please copy and paste the url into your browser.)
Nor does this serve to remove the blame religion deserves for indoctrinating people to gladly murder each other for some fictional being in the sky.
It's not a numbers game.
2) Stalin and Mao were communists and probably sociopaths
Not believing in a religion had nothing to do with any of the events you mention.
Human beings seem to be able to do evil without the specifics of religion to excuse them, so perhaps religion's not totally to blame for all the ills of humanity after all?
The difference is now they figured out how to defend religious fanatics with lingo many Western liberals find comforting.
"civilian component...partnerships... flexible, multi-faceted, and innovative implementation strategy.... interaction of various forms of identity."
This is the lingo used by multiculturalist proponents to bamboozle European and British electorates.
Result-- more terrorism, more violence and higher levels of support for Jihad and world caliphates.
"Poll shows Muslims in Britain are the most anti-western in Europe."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jun/23/uk.religion