From AIFD:
The following column by Ellen Cannon appeared on Feb. 25, 2011 and can be found at this link.
HOMEGROWN TERRORISM AND MUSLIM 'RADICALIZATION': A COMPLEX BUT REAL THREAT
February 25th, 2011 10:32 pm CT
BY ELLEN CANNNON
On March 7, 2011, Representative Peter King (R-NY), Chair of the House Homeland Security Committee will open a Congressional inquiry into what King refers to as "the "radicalization" of the Muslim community in America and the extent to which Muslim Americans are cooperating with law enforcement officials in combatting the growing number of homegrown terrorist incidents by members of the Muslim American community."( Laurie Goodstein, "Muslims to be Congressional Hearings Main Focus," www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/us/politics/08muslim.html?)
Since 9/11 there have been 43 homegrown violent jihadist plots or attacks in the United States. Between May, 2009 and November 2010, arrests were made for 22 homegrown jihadists inspired terrorist plots by American citizens or legal permanent residents. (Jerome Bjelopera and Mark Randol, "American Jihadist Terrorism" Combatting a Complex Threat." Congressional Research Service, 12/7/2010)
Representative King is no newcomer to controversy in the area of homeland security. Refusing to be silenced by 'political correctness,' Representative King claims that he majority of mosques in America are not venues of spirituality, but dens of Islamic radicalization where hate against America is regularly taught and aggressively promoted. Representative King also contends that the majority of mosques in America promote homegrown terrorist activities and violence.
In addition, Rep. King has repeatedly argued that American Muslim leaders have failed to cooperate with law enforcement officials in the effort to disrupt terrorist plots. King claims, "federal and local law enforcement officials have told me that they receive little or in most cases no cooperation from Muslim leaders and imams."…"I also know of imams instructing members of their mosques not to cooperate with law enforcement officials investigating the recruitment of young men in their mosques as suicide bombers. We need to find the reasons for this alienation." (Rep. Peter King, "What's Radicalizing Muslim Americans? Newsday, December 19, 2010)
It is not surprising that the upcoming hearings have produced intense reactions from a variety of political and theological circles. The hearings have been overwhelmingly denounced by American Muslim community leaders, politicians, journalists, and intellectuals.
King's response to his adversaries is cool and to the point-"The issues I raise are controversial. But to me, it is something that has to be discussed and has been put off way too long."
(Raymond Hernandez,"Muslim 'Radicalization' Is Focus of Planned Inquiry,"www.nytimes.com/2010/12/17/nyregion/17king.html?17king.html?ref=)
Congressman King is not alone in his reaction to homegrown terrorist threats and the uptick in homegrown terrorist plots since 2009.
A new report by the group headed by former 9/11 commission leaders, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, agree with King's message if not his tone. The latest report published by the Bipartisan Policy Center's National Security Preparedness Group, states "Our long-held belief that homegrown terrorism couldn't happen here has created a situation where we today are stumbling blindly through the legal, operational, and organizational minefield of countering terrorist radicalization and recruitment occurring in the U.S."
Examining recent domestic terror activities, from the Fort Hood rampage to the foiled Christmas Day airliner attack in late 2009, the 9/11 commissioners strongly state, "that for too long we incorrectly believed that homegrown terrorism existed in other parts of the world. Not only were we myopic, but as a result "there is still no federal agency specifically charged with identifying radicalization or working to prevent terrorist recruitment of U.S. citizens and residents." (Lolita Baldor, "US Slow to react to Homegrown Terrorist Threats," www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/09.
Both Kean and Hamilton warn it is no longer wise to believe that American jihadists will not resort to suicide bombings.
One of the researchers on the report, Bruce Hoffman, of Georgetown University, notes that while homegrown terrorism is not the primary threat we face, we cannot be complacent as to the reality of the threat it does pose. In May, 2010, Hoffman said in congressional testimony, "it is difficult to be complacent when an average of one plot is now being uncovered per month over the past year and perhaps even more are being hatched that we do not know about."
The NYPD has gathered further evidence regarding the growing threat from "homegrown" terrorists. Top officials in the NYPD note that "it was formerly controversial to state that Americans will increasingly face a challenge from "homegrown" terrorism. The grim statistics cannot be denied," (Judith Miller, "New Yorkistan? www.city-journal.org/printable.php/id.=6269)
Mitch Silber, the NYPD's top terrorism analyst, told a gathering of security experts meeting at police headquarters in May, 2010, "that the preponderance of major terrorist plots against Americans since 9/11 was "homegrown" that is planned by terrorists either born or raised in the United States." In fact, stated Silber, my latest report on homegrown terror shows that 90% of the core conspirators of jihadists plots against America and the West throughout the world since 2004 and 2009 were radicalized in the West."
Silber offers sobering data stating, "The terrorism threat as of 2009 now comes mainly from "younger Muslim men between the ages of 15 and 35 who are middle class rather than extremely poor and have no Al Qaeda connection but have been radicalized by exposure to an extreme and minority interpretation of Islam." (Judith Miller, New Yorkistan" www.city-journal.org/printable.php./id.=6269)
Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, President of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy and former U.S. Navy Lieutenant Commander agrees with Mitch Silber and strongly supports the upcoming House Homeland Security hearing. He states, "When will the United States learn that our current behavior and lack of coordinated existential strategy since 9/11 is obviously not working? As a devout and concerned American Muslim working tirelessly against radical Islam and its root cause of political Islam, I thought the Fort Hood massacre would teach us that. It did not…I thought the Christmas bomber would tip us toward the battle of ideas, but nothing. And now on May 1, naturalized American citizen Faisal Shazhad, is the next in the growing line of homegrown radical Islamists. And again, the immediate fallout in the media, government, and academe is still one mostly of denial, dismissal, and fear of even mentioning the real theo-political battle we face against political Islam." (Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, "My fellow Muslims, We Must Wake Up!, www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/05/07/m-zuhdi-jasser-tim.)
Radicalization is a different process and phenomena than terrorism. However, we remain far from understanding radicalization and very far from developing a working model of counter-radicalism.
A recent report by Cifullo, Carpenter, and Levitt is highly critical of government policy regarding radicalization within the United States, "However well intended our current counterterrorism policy is, it cannot do much in reality." They find current national strategy to be largely "inconsistent, haphazard, lacking in integration and coherency and most important, improvises policy rather than having an understanding of what is truly wrong". Furthermore, they contend "that our present approach to homegrown radicalism is so limited that it hampers efforts to intervene early in the radicalization probes, both domestically and abroad, to prevent individuals or subcommunities from becoming violent.("What's the Big Idea,? Confronting the Ideology of Islamist Extremism", Homeland Security Policy Institute and Washington Institute for Near East Policy, February 4, 2011)
Jerome Bjelopera and Mark Randol agree stating," The Obama Administration has no unified strategy, plan or framework focused on homegrown jihadist terrorism. The Obama Administration has articulated a broad National Security Strategy which continues to operate with a counterterrorism plan developed by George .W. Bush that continues to focus on the foreign terrorist threats to the United States." Our present plan of action only discussed homegrown terrorism in the most general of terms without developing a policy. (Jerome Bjelopera and Mark Randol, "American Jihadist Terrorism: Combating a Complex Threat," Congressional Research Service, December 7, 2010)
Richard Falkenrath, Council on Foreign Relations adjunct senior fellow for counterterrorism and former NYC Deputy Commissioner for Counterterrorism, sees extraordinary levels of systemic organizational problems at the local agency level which makes combatting homegrown radicalization very difficult. According to Falkenrath, "the only government agencies that really are present for Muslim Americans are the health departments, education departments, policy departments and fire departments."…"If you really want to do something to counter radicalization you need to find a way to incorporate the government agencies at the most local level into such an effort."(Toni Johnson, "Threat of Homegrown Islamist Terrorism," Council on Foreign Relations, December 10,2010).
Nadia Roumani, Director of American Muslim Civic leadership, agrees with Falkenrath. She finds the lack of agency coherency at the local level to be a significant barrier to combatting homegrown radicalization. "Oftentimes there will be one strategy that's been taken by local law enforcement and different ones by the FBI and a different one by the Department of Homeland Security. This confuses the community as to who to engage with and how they are connected with law enforcement, if at all. (Toni Johnson, "Threat of Homegrown Terrorism, Council on Foreign Relations, December 10, 2010).
Similarly, legal experts Tara Lai Quilan and Deborah Ramirez suggest that we look at coordinated law enforcement community partnerships that have developed in the United Kingdom in the aftermath of the 2005 London Subway bombings.
The latest report on homegrown radicalization, published on February 4, 2011 by the Homeland Security Policy Institute and the Washington Institute for Near East Policy agrees that the present strategy is not getting at the core issue of homegrown terrorism which the report claims is the underlying extremist ideology of the radicalizers. "We have mistakenly focused on preventing and deterring attacks at home and identifying and interdicting threats, denying hostile actors the ability to operate within our borders, and protecting the nations critical infrastructure, key resources and securing cyberspace. "This strategy does not get at the core issue which is the underlying extremist ideology which we have not taken the time or the resources to expose, undermine, unpack, dissect and combat." Our adversary is not the individual bomber or terrorist, but the ideology being peddled by radicalizers; our ultimate enemy is the radical ideology that propels the homegrown terrorist to carry out an act of terrorism."
Professor Walid Phares, senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies as well as the head of the foundation's Future Terrorism Project, agrees with this assessment. Testifying before the Senate in 2006, Phares contends that the main enemy is the ideology of Jihadism.
Jihadism, according to Phares, is not a vague radical threat. He sees it as very specific systematic ideology that penetrates and informs strategies, networks, visions, and therefore constitutes a direct threat against the homeland security of the United States.
Professor Phares sees Jihadism as having many components. These include "a rejection of the legitimacy of our national liberties, pluralism, and the role of secular law; a rejection of democracy and democratic processes; a rejection of the American constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the international principles of human rights."
In addition, Jihadism, according to Phares, aims at destroying democracies by installing a totalitarian regime for some caliphate for others to imitate. It creates the conviction in the minds of adherents that war against the government, people, and constitution of the United States is the path toward achieving the universal goal of a religious caliphate.
According to Phares, there is a "click" of the threat in the mind of the homegrown terrorist that transforms them from a citizen into a jihadist. This he argues is the start of the process of violent extreme radicalization upon which a homegrown terrorist acts. (Walid Pheres, "intercepting Radiclization at the Indoctrination Stage,"paper presented as testimony to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, 2006).
Professor Phares argues that what allows this ideology to continue is that it has not been clearly explained, addressed or unpacked to the American public by the government. It has not been officially identified and labeled as a critical issue by the top leadership.
Judith Miller, a journalist who has been writing on extremism and terrorism for years repeatedly underscores this point. Highly critical of the political correctness of both President Obama and Attorney General Holder who continue to run away from using clear language regarding terrorism in its many forms, she too agrees that the top leadership misses every opportunity to have an honest adult conversation regarding a serious internal ideological threat to the homeland that can result in terrorist plots and activities.
The 2011 report by the Homeland Security Policy Institute and Washington Institute for Near East Policy, shares the view of both Phares and Miller. In the clearest language possible, the report calls on "policy experts and planners to focus on radical jihadi extremism per se and articulate and develop a counter-radicalization policy which confronts the problem through a "whole government" approach augmented by non-governmental and societal efforts." Top experts must now turn their focus to the ideology being peddled by the radicalizers.
A consensus among national security policy experts is emerging. It is not a voice that aims to undermine civil liberties, scare, or blame. Instead experts agree that there is no definitive ethnic or socioeconomic pattern as to who becomes a homegrown terrorist. They also suggest, that the one thing that homegrown terrorists have in common is a new found hatred for their native or adopted country, a degree of dangerous malleability, and a religious fervor for legitimizing violence that impels very impressionable and easily influenced individuals toward potentially lethal violence.
Cifuffo, Carpenter, and Levitt suggest that each "person that turns to Islamic radicalism and violence does so because the Islamic radical message resonates with them personally, but each person joins for a different reason.
Radicalizers, they contend, "enjoy tremendous success by connecting a recruit's local grievance, to a radical global narrative that combines Islamist extremism with "clash of civilizations" rhetoric, pitting the monolithic West against the monolithic Muslim ummah. In nearly all cases, radicalizers suggest a persons' identify must be rescued to being "a Muslim". Of course, what it means to be a Muslim is defined by the radicalizer. "This has a profound and programmatic implication, since emphasizing other aspects of a potential recruit's identity or constructing alternative narratives is critical to stopping or short circuiting the radicalization process.
In addition, lack of knowledge of Islam among Muslim American lay leadership, religious leadership, and masses further permits radicalization to take root in the Muslim American community.
David Schanzier, Charles Kurzman, and Ebraham Moosa document this problem in their 2011 study of American Muslims entitled, "Anti-Terror Lessons of Muslim Americans."
They found that "most of those who engaged in religiously inspired terrorism have little formal training in Islam and, in fact, are poorly educated about Islam."…They found a "clear paucity of intellectual resources within the Muslim American community to deal with the range of theological issues linked to violence, justice, and politics. The authors found "limited religious literacy among imams, community organizers, and professionals who remain ill equipped to counter radical theologies peddled by more politicized members of the Muslim American community.
Shanzier, Kurzman, and Moosa recommend the need for the Muslim American community to develop seminaries and programs for its own leadership. They suggest that foundations and universities may be willing to assist in course development that specifically addresses how theological issues can skillfully counter radical thoughts.
The issue of jihadism is not going to go away. On February 24, 2011 the FBI arrested Khalid Ali-M Aldawsari, a Saudi student in Texas, for attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction on possible targets including the home of former President George W. Bush, reservoirs and dams in Colorado and California, nuclear power plants ,and Dallas nightclubs. He faces up to life in prison and a $250,000 fine if convicted. The Wall Street Journal reports that one entry in his journal which is written in Arabic states, "I excelled in my studies in high school in order to take advantage of an opportunity for a scholarship to America, offered by the Saudi government and its companies…Now after mastering the English language, learning how to build explosives, and continuous planning to target the infidel Americans, it is time for jihad." (Evan Perez, "FBI Arrests a Suspected Bomb Plotter," Wall Street Journal, February 25, 2011.
There appears to be sufficient basis and systemic justification for the House Committee on Homeland Security to hold hearings regarding homegrown terrorism and serious problems stemming from the radicalization of a small portion of the Muslim American community.
These hearings can be used to serve the public good rather than promote further hate and fear. It can serve the highest purpose of public service if it examines: the organizational maladies and confusion among law enforcement and homeland security agencies regarding combatting violent extreme radicalism; exploring the limitations of the current National Security Strategy and moving toward making the issue of homegrown terrorism a major national security priority; exploring the difference between counterterrorism and counter-radicalism as policy concerns; exploring the minimal knowledge policy makers have of all Muslim American communities and cultures; exploring the essential need to hire trained security analysts who speak the languages of Muslim Americans and are knowledgeable in the cultural and cultural anthropology of this widely diverse American community; to explore the latest data on how the Muslim religion can serve to promote moderation and leadership into the wider American fabric.
Shifting the focus of the upcoming hearings to critical core issues is essential for constructive non-polarizing future policy efforts as we move forward as a nation in dealing with this very real threat.
'RADICALIZATION': A COMPLEX BUT REAL THREAT
The following column by Ellen Cannon appeared on Feb. 25, 2011 and can be found at this link.
HOMEGROWN TERRORISM AND MUSLIM 'RADICALIZATION': A COMPLEX BUT REAL THREAT
February 25th, 2011 10:32 pm CT
BY ELLEN CANNNON
On March 7, 2011, Representative Peter King (R-NY), Chair of the House Homeland Security Committee will open a Congressional inquiry into what King refers to as "the "radicalization" of the Muslim community in America and the extent to which Muslim Americans are cooperating with law enforcement officials in combatting the growing number of homegrown terrorist incidents by members of the Muslim American community."( Laurie Goodstein, "Muslims to be Congressional Hearings Main Focus," www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/us/politics/08muslim.html?)
Since 9/11 there have been 43 homegrown violent jihadist plots or attacks in the United States. Between May, 2009 and November 2010, arrests were made for 22 homegrown jihadists inspired terrorist plots by American citizens or legal permanent residents. (Jerome Bjelopera and Mark Randol, "American Jihadist Terrorism" Combatting a Complex Threat." Congressional Research Service, 12/7/2010)
Representative King is no newcomer to controversy in the area of homeland security. Refusing to be silenced by 'political correctness,' Representative King claims that he majority of mosques in America are not venues of spirituality, but dens of Islamic radicalization where hate against America is regularly taught and aggressively promoted. Representative King also contends that the majority of mosques in America promote homegrown terrorist activities and violence.
In addition, Rep. King has repeatedly argued that American Muslim leaders have failed to cooperate with law enforcement officials in the effort to disrupt terrorist plots. King claims, "federal and local law enforcement officials have told me that they receive little or in most cases no cooperation from Muslim leaders and imams."…"I also know of imams instructing members of their mosques not to cooperate with law enforcement officials investigating the recruitment of young men in their mosques as suicide bombers. We need to find the reasons for this alienation." (Rep. Peter King, "What's Radicalizing Muslim Americans? Newsday, December 19, 2010)
It is not surprising that the upcoming hearings have produced intense reactions from a variety of political and theological circles. The hearings have been overwhelmingly denounced by American Muslim community leaders, politicians, journalists, and intellectuals.
King's response to his adversaries is cool and to the point-"The issues I raise are controversial. But to me, it is something that has to be discussed and has been put off way too long."
(Raymond Hernandez,"Muslim 'Radicalization' Is Focus of Planned Inquiry,"www.nytimes.com/2010/12/17/nyregion/17king.html?17king.html?ref=)
Congressman King is not alone in his reaction to homegrown terrorist threats and the uptick in homegrown terrorist plots since 2009.
A new report by the group headed by former 9/11 commission leaders, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, agree with King's message if not his tone. The latest report published by the Bipartisan Policy Center's National Security Preparedness Group, states "Our long-held belief that homegrown terrorism couldn't happen here has created a situation where we today are stumbling blindly through the legal, operational, and organizational minefield of countering terrorist radicalization and recruitment occurring in the U.S."
Examining recent domestic terror activities, from the Fort Hood rampage to the foiled Christmas Day airliner attack in late 2009, the 9/11 commissioners strongly state, "that for too long we incorrectly believed that homegrown terrorism existed in other parts of the world. Not only were we myopic, but as a result "there is still no federal agency specifically charged with identifying radicalization or working to prevent terrorist recruitment of U.S. citizens and residents." (Lolita Baldor, "US Slow to react to Homegrown Terrorist Threats," www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/09.
Both Kean and Hamilton warn it is no longer wise to believe that American jihadists will not resort to suicide bombings.
One of the researchers on the report, Bruce Hoffman, of Georgetown University, notes that while homegrown terrorism is not the primary threat we face, we cannot be complacent as to the reality of the threat it does pose. In May, 2010, Hoffman said in congressional testimony, "it is difficult to be complacent when an average of one plot is now being uncovered per month over the past year and perhaps even more are being hatched that we do not know about."
The NYPD has gathered further evidence regarding the growing threat from "homegrown" terrorists. Top officials in the NYPD note that "it was formerly controversial to state that Americans will increasingly face a challenge from "homegrown" terrorism. The grim statistics cannot be denied," (Judith Miller, "New Yorkistan? www.city-journal.org/printable.php/id.=6269)
Mitch Silber, the NYPD's top terrorism analyst, told a gathering of security experts meeting at police headquarters in May, 2010, "that the preponderance of major terrorist plots against Americans since 9/11 was "homegrown" that is planned by terrorists either born or raised in the United States." In fact, stated Silber, my latest report on homegrown terror shows that 90% of the core conspirators of jihadists plots against America and the West throughout the world since 2004 and 2009 were radicalized in the West."
Silber offers sobering data stating, "The terrorism threat as of 2009 now comes mainly from "younger Muslim men between the ages of 15 and 35 who are middle class rather than extremely poor and have no Al Qaeda connection but have been radicalized by exposure to an extreme and minority interpretation of Islam." (Judith Miller, New Yorkistan" www.city-journal.org/printable.php./id.=6269)
Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, President of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy and former U.S. Navy Lieutenant Commander agrees with Mitch Silber and strongly supports the upcoming House Homeland Security hearing. He states, "When will the United States learn that our current behavior and lack of coordinated existential strategy since 9/11 is obviously not working? As a devout and concerned American Muslim working tirelessly against radical Islam and its root cause of political Islam, I thought the Fort Hood massacre would teach us that. It did not…I thought the Christmas bomber would tip us toward the battle of ideas, but nothing. And now on May 1, naturalized American citizen Faisal Shazhad, is the next in the growing line of homegrown radical Islamists. And again, the immediate fallout in the media, government, and academe is still one mostly of denial, dismissal, and fear of even mentioning the real theo-political battle we face against political Islam." (Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, "My fellow Muslims, We Must Wake Up!, www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/05/07/m-zuhdi-jasser-tim.)
Radicalization is a different process and phenomena than terrorism. However, we remain far from understanding radicalization and very far from developing a working model of counter-radicalism.
A recent report by Cifullo, Carpenter, and Levitt is highly critical of government policy regarding radicalization within the United States, "However well intended our current counterterrorism policy is, it cannot do much in reality." They find current national strategy to be largely "inconsistent, haphazard, lacking in integration and coherency and most important, improvises policy rather than having an understanding of what is truly wrong". Furthermore, they contend "that our present approach to homegrown radicalism is so limited that it hampers efforts to intervene early in the radicalization probes, both domestically and abroad, to prevent individuals or subcommunities from becoming violent.("What's the Big Idea,? Confronting the Ideology of Islamist Extremism", Homeland Security Policy Institute and Washington Institute for Near East Policy, February 4, 2011)
Jerome Bjelopera and Mark Randol agree stating," The Obama Administration has no unified strategy, plan or framework focused on homegrown jihadist terrorism. The Obama Administration has articulated a broad National Security Strategy which continues to operate with a counterterrorism plan developed by George .W. Bush that continues to focus on the foreign terrorist threats to the United States." Our present plan of action only discussed homegrown terrorism in the most general of terms without developing a policy. (Jerome Bjelopera and Mark Randol, "American Jihadist Terrorism: Combating a Complex Threat," Congressional Research Service, December 7, 2010)
Richard Falkenrath, Council on Foreign Relations adjunct senior fellow for counterterrorism and former NYC Deputy Commissioner for Counterterrorism, sees extraordinary levels of systemic organizational problems at the local agency level which makes combatting homegrown radicalization very difficult. According to Falkenrath, "the only government agencies that really are present for Muslim Americans are the health departments, education departments, policy departments and fire departments."…"If you really want to do something to counter radicalization you need to find a way to incorporate the government agencies at the most local level into such an effort."(Toni Johnson, "Threat of Homegrown Islamist Terrorism," Council on Foreign Relations, December 10,2010).
Nadia Roumani, Director of American Muslim Civic leadership, agrees with Falkenrath. She finds the lack of agency coherency at the local level to be a significant barrier to combatting homegrown radicalization. "Oftentimes there will be one strategy that's been taken by local law enforcement and different ones by the FBI and a different one by the Department of Homeland Security. This confuses the community as to who to engage with and how they are connected with law enforcement, if at all. (Toni Johnson, "Threat of Homegrown Terrorism, Council on Foreign Relations, December 10, 2010).
Similarly, legal experts Tara Lai Quilan and Deborah Ramirez suggest that we look at coordinated law enforcement community partnerships that have developed in the United Kingdom in the aftermath of the 2005 London Subway bombings.
The latest report on homegrown radicalization, published on February 4, 2011 by the Homeland Security Policy Institute and the Washington Institute for Near East Policy agrees that the present strategy is not getting at the core issue of homegrown terrorism which the report claims is the underlying extremist ideology of the radicalizers. "We have mistakenly focused on preventing and deterring attacks at home and identifying and interdicting threats, denying hostile actors the ability to operate within our borders, and protecting the nations critical infrastructure, key resources and securing cyberspace. "This strategy does not get at the core issue which is the underlying extremist ideology which we have not taken the time or the resources to expose, undermine, unpack, dissect and combat." Our adversary is not the individual bomber or terrorist, but the ideology being peddled by radicalizers; our ultimate enemy is the radical ideology that propels the homegrown terrorist to carry out an act of terrorism."
Professor Walid Phares, senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies as well as the head of the foundation's Future Terrorism Project, agrees with this assessment. Testifying before the Senate in 2006, Phares contends that the main enemy is the ideology of Jihadism.
Jihadism, according to Phares, is not a vague radical threat. He sees it as very specific systematic ideology that penetrates and informs strategies, networks, visions, and therefore constitutes a direct threat against the homeland security of the United States.
Professor Phares sees Jihadism as having many components. These include "a rejection of the legitimacy of our national liberties, pluralism, and the role of secular law; a rejection of democracy and democratic processes; a rejection of the American constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the international principles of human rights."
In addition, Jihadism, according to Phares, aims at destroying democracies by installing a totalitarian regime for some caliphate for others to imitate. It creates the conviction in the minds of adherents that war against the government, people, and constitution of the United States is the path toward achieving the universal goal of a religious caliphate.
According to Phares, there is a "click" of the threat in the mind of the homegrown terrorist that transforms them from a citizen into a jihadist. This he argues is the start of the process of violent extreme radicalization upon which a homegrown terrorist acts. (Walid Pheres, "intercepting Radiclization at the Indoctrination Stage,"paper presented as testimony to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, 2006).
Professor Phares argues that what allows this ideology to continue is that it has not been clearly explained, addressed or unpacked to the American public by the government. It has not been officially identified and labeled as a critical issue by the top leadership.
Judith Miller, a journalist who has been writing on extremism and terrorism for years repeatedly underscores this point. Highly critical of the political correctness of both President Obama and Attorney General Holder who continue to run away from using clear language regarding terrorism in its many forms, she too agrees that the top leadership misses every opportunity to have an honest adult conversation regarding a serious internal ideological threat to the homeland that can result in terrorist plots and activities.
The 2011 report by the Homeland Security Policy Institute and Washington Institute for Near East Policy, shares the view of both Phares and Miller. In the clearest language possible, the report calls on "policy experts and planners to focus on radical jihadi extremism per se and articulate and develop a counter-radicalization policy which confronts the problem through a "whole government" approach augmented by non-governmental and societal efforts." Top experts must now turn their focus to the ideology being peddled by the radicalizers.
A consensus among national security policy experts is emerging. It is not a voice that aims to undermine civil liberties, scare, or blame. Instead experts agree that there is no definitive ethnic or socioeconomic pattern as to who becomes a homegrown terrorist. They also suggest, that the one thing that homegrown terrorists have in common is a new found hatred for their native or adopted country, a degree of dangerous malleability, and a religious fervor for legitimizing violence that impels very impressionable and easily influenced individuals toward potentially lethal violence.
Cifuffo, Carpenter, and Levitt suggest that each "person that turns to Islamic radicalism and violence does so because the Islamic radical message resonates with them personally, but each person joins for a different reason.
Radicalizers, they contend, "enjoy tremendous success by connecting a recruit's local grievance, to a radical global narrative that combines Islamist extremism with "clash of civilizations" rhetoric, pitting the monolithic West against the monolithic Muslim ummah. In nearly all cases, radicalizers suggest a persons' identify must be rescued to being "a Muslim". Of course, what it means to be a Muslim is defined by the radicalizer. "This has a profound and programmatic implication, since emphasizing other aspects of a potential recruit's identity or constructing alternative narratives is critical to stopping or short circuiting the radicalization process.
In addition, lack of knowledge of Islam among Muslim American lay leadership, religious leadership, and masses further permits radicalization to take root in the Muslim American community.
David Schanzier, Charles Kurzman, and Ebraham Moosa document this problem in their 2011 study of American Muslims entitled, "Anti-Terror Lessons of Muslim Americans."
They found that "most of those who engaged in religiously inspired terrorism have little formal training in Islam and, in fact, are poorly educated about Islam."…They found a "clear paucity of intellectual resources within the Muslim American community to deal with the range of theological issues linked to violence, justice, and politics. The authors found "limited religious literacy among imams, community organizers, and professionals who remain ill equipped to counter radical theologies peddled by more politicized members of the Muslim American community.
Shanzier, Kurzman, and Moosa recommend the need for the Muslim American community to develop seminaries and programs for its own leadership. They suggest that foundations and universities may be willing to assist in course development that specifically addresses how theological issues can skillfully counter radical thoughts.
The issue of jihadism is not going to go away. On February 24, 2011 the FBI arrested Khalid Ali-M Aldawsari, a Saudi student in Texas, for attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction on possible targets including the home of former President George W. Bush, reservoirs and dams in Colorado and California, nuclear power plants ,and Dallas nightclubs. He faces up to life in prison and a $250,000 fine if convicted. The Wall Street Journal reports that one entry in his journal which is written in Arabic states, "I excelled in my studies in high school in order to take advantage of an opportunity for a scholarship to America, offered by the Saudi government and its companies…Now after mastering the English language, learning how to build explosives, and continuous planning to target the infidel Americans, it is time for jihad." (Evan Perez, "FBI Arrests a Suspected Bomb Plotter," Wall Street Journal, February 25, 2011.
There appears to be sufficient basis and systemic justification for the House Committee on Homeland Security to hold hearings regarding homegrown terrorism and serious problems stemming from the radicalization of a small portion of the Muslim American community.
These hearings can be used to serve the public good rather than promote further hate and fear. It can serve the highest purpose of public service if it examines: the organizational maladies and confusion among law enforcement and homeland security agencies regarding combatting violent extreme radicalism; exploring the limitations of the current National Security Strategy and moving toward making the issue of homegrown terrorism a major national security priority; exploring the difference between counterterrorism and counter-radicalism as policy concerns; exploring the minimal knowledge policy makers have of all Muslim American communities and cultures; exploring the essential need to hire trained security analysts who speak the languages of Muslim Americans and are knowledgeable in the cultural and cultural anthropology of this widely diverse American community; to explore the latest data on how the Muslim religion can serve to promote moderation and leadership into the wider American fabric.
Shifting the focus of the upcoming hearings to critical core issues is essential for constructive non-polarizing future policy efforts as we move forward as a nation in dealing with this very real threat.
'RADICALIZATION': A COMPLEX BUT REAL THREAT
No comments:
Post a Comment