Countering Violent Extremism and Why the U.S. Continually Misses the Target
Ever since the Iranian Revolution of 1978 the U.S. Government (USG), and most Americans, have been taken by surprise by the social and political upheavals that have occurred with frequency across the Muslim world that are motivated by religion. The trend has been toward escalating violence aimed not only at the “secular” west but also at moderate Muslims that is driven by religious intolerance and perceived grievance wrapped in the language of an extreme interpretation of Islam. The conflict has become global and is the defining factor of the 21st century so far.
We in the west have been taken by surprise with these developments because for the last 200 years we have persistently detached and discounted religion as a valid way of making sense of the world and as a legitimate value in organizing aspects of public life, and assumed that the rest of the world would eventually do the same. They did not. Our secular way of looking at things has resulted in a dangerous blind spot that refuses to see or believe what our adversaries are zealously telling us in their words and actions. As the preeminent British scholar of Islam Bernard Lewis said: “The idea that any group of persons, any kind of activities, any part of human life is in any sense outside the scope of religious law and jurisdiction is alien to Muslim thought.”
The annual “Survey of the Afghan People” conducted by The Asia Foundation finds consistently that 67% of the population of Afghanistan states that religious leaders are the most influential voices in their community and 61% who believe that religion and politics should “mix.” What would the response rate be to those same questions if posed in the U.S., U.K., or (God forbid) in the Netherlands?
With all of the USG’s military, social, and economic interventions in the Muslim world from Afghanistan to Iraq to Syria we may finally realize that something is missing. None of these burdensome involvements have turned out as planned. In spite of 15 years and $113 billion of military and development aid provided to Afghanistan the Taliban is winning enough “hearts and minds” to control 35%-45% of the country and ISIS is gaining supporters along with territory in the south eastern and north central parts of Afghanistan. What are we missing here? Not enough drones, “kinetic” military action on the ground, not enough elections, democratic institutional reform, “inclusiveness”, gender equity, rule of law, community development, or a robust and rabble rousing civil society, not enough capacity building and EU-funded international human rights advisors? How about another “Afghan National Development Strategy” for consumption at the next international donor conference?
A recent USG response to this “missing” element is something called “Countering Violent Extremism” (CVE) which is the attempt to prevent or dissuade groups from resorting to violence to achieve their goals. The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has fashioned an approach to CVE that, “… concentrates on youth empowerment, social and economic inclusion, media and messaging, improved local governance, reconciliation, and conflict mitigation. USAID has long recognized the critical role of development in addressing social, economic, governance, and other grievances that can fuel violent extremism or radicalization of individuals and communities.”
Are we really unable to recognize that religion can be an authentic driver of violent extremism? Is every grievance that leads to extremist violence reduced to political, economic, and material deprivation? Apparently so, at least officially. The closest the USG can even come to recognizing the significance of religion in the world view of other people is by reducing it to a “cultural driver” that reflects indigenous “religious customs.” Pathetic.
“While less amenable to influence by development assistance, there are principles that should be considered to address cultural drivers, for example, by respecting indigenous and/or religious customs. (Missions should consult with USAID’s Regional Legal Advisor (RLA) or General Counsel (GC) in advance of programming to ensure compliance with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment concerning separation of church and state.) USAID Manual on, “The Development Response to Violent Extremism and Insurgency.”
It’s telling that the section from the USAID manual above should caution its readers to obtain legal counsel prior to implementing programing to ensure compliance with the “Establishment Clause” of the U.S. constitution.
While serving as the Country Representative to Afghanistan for The Asia Foundation, one of the programs I had responsibility for was something called the, “Traditional Leaders Development Program.” (Could not use the phrase “Religious Leaders” because it violated the Establishment Clause.) The program supported moderate Muslim religious leaders in their own words and voices to counter extremist views and interpretations of Islam that could lead to violence. The successful program was discontinued after a few years by the USG out of fear of non-compliance with the Establishment Clause, which is exactly why the U.S. continually misses the target.