Excerpts from January 2010 Speech by Daniel Benjamin, State Department Coordinator for Counterterrorism

Printer-friendly version

On Jan. 13, 2010, Daniel Benjamin, the State Department Coordinator for Counterterrorism, delivered the keynote address at a CATO Institute event, The Obama Administration's Counterterrorism Policy at One Year. He spoke about several elements of the President’s counterterrorism strategy, the attempted Christmas Day bombing and terrorist recruitment techniques here and abroad. During his speech, and in the question and answer period that followed, he also shared his thoughts about the "radicalization" process and issues U.S. nonprofits have been wrestling with since 9/11, including the negative impact of anti-terror financing laws. Here are excerpts from his remarks addressing (emphasis added):

• American Values
• Increased Government Collaboration with U.S. Nonprofits
• The Negative Impact from Anti-Terror Financing Rules
• Addressing Drivers of Terrorism
• About the “Radicalization” Process/Profiling

 
American Values

From Benjamin’s speech: “[A]re we hewing to our values in this struggle? Because as President Obama has said from the outset, there should be no tradeoff between our security and our values. Indeed, in light of what we know about radicalization, it is clear that navigating by our values is an essential part of a successful counterterrorism effort.

 
Increased Government Collaboration with U.S. Nonprofits

Question from audience: I was gratified to hear your comments on addressing the root causes of violent extremism and making that part of the overall strategy. I’m wondering how more can be done in that area particularly in making use of the contributions civil society can make not only humanitarian aid, but peacebuilding activities, long term development and education.
 
Benjamin’s response: I don’t think we have time enough to enumerate them. I think I would turn the question a little bit on its head and say there is probably no success in this area that can happen without civil society. So many of the societies we need to engage in it’s the NGOS that have the ground knowledge which is vitally important. It's the NGOS that are politically palatable because there are many places, quite frankly, direct engagement would not be constructive. This is really one of the big challenges is creating those public private partnerships that are going to make the difference. Whether it’s in education, health care provision, any number of other areas, governance and the like, you name the problem and I think you will find a lot of different NGOS working on it and so much the better. We need to do a better job within the government, we are doing a lot already, but I think we constantly need to improve our game there too in terms of taking advantages of the resources that exist in the NGO community.

The Negative Impact from Anti-Terror Financing Rules on U.S. Nonprofits

Question from audience: In his Cairo speech, President Obama acknowledged the negative impact that anti-terrorism financing laws were having on specifically Muslim charities...and on all humanitarian aid, regardless of the nature of the charity to conflict zones. That would seem to be very counterproductive not just from denying humanitarian aid to those areas, but from the messaging standpoint that can be exploited by the extremists which would suggest the United States is indifferent to suffering in those countries. Yet today you said that you thought that anti-terror financing was a success. How do you tie those together and what are you doing to make sure you address what President Obama said about correcting that negative impact?
 
Benjamin’s response: That’s a very good question and an issue that is constantly being discussed within the administration with regard to a number of different geographic areas. I think the most important thing to say is that the amount of money derived from humanitarian aid, specifically, is only a portion of the overall part of the, what we might call, the terrorist budget. We are taking a hard look at what the greater priority is. Many of us have made the argument that we need to always keep in sight that starvation is not going to help us with our counterterrorism equity. It’s a very complicated calculus. But I do think the important thing is the majority of the funding streams we have cut off have not had an impact on the humanitarian issue. Now there is a related issue which is that Muslims understandably want to fulfill their religions obligation to give charity and it has been something of a challenge to get particular organizations affirmed as ones absolutely not involved in anything inappropriate and that is a process problem. I believe the government is working on it.

Addressing Drivers of Terrorism

From Benjamin’s speech:  “Even with their efforts, peace in the Middle East will take plenty of time, and as we know, it will not eliminate all of the threats. But while the big policy challenges matter in radicalization, local drivers are also critical in making individuals vulnerable to the appeal of al-Qa’ida’s ideology and its narrative. We are developing tailored-approaches to alter them – to deal with issues of education, health care, social welfare and economic opportunity that create the conditions of marginalization and alienation, and perceived–-or real–deprivation. In recognition of this, my first step has been to build a unit within my office focusing on what we in the government call “Countering Violent Extremism” in my office to focus on local communities most prone to radicalization. There is a broad understanding across the government that we have not done nearly enough to address underlying conditions for at-risk populations—and we have also not done enough to improve the ability of moderates to voice their views and strengthen opposition to violence.”
 
“We are also working on what my colleague Deputy National Security Advisor John Brennan has called the upstream factors. We need to confront the political, social, and economic conditions that our enemies exploit to win over the new recruits…As we look at the problem of transnational terror and its long term implications, we are putting at the core of our strategic policies recognition of the phenomenon of radicalization—that is, we are asking ourselves time and again: Are our actions going to result in the removal of one terrorist with the resulting creation of ten more? What can we do to attack the drivers of radicalization, so that al- Qa’ida and its affiliates finally have a shrinking pool of recruits?”
 
 
About the “Radicalization” Process/Profiling

Question from audience: There have been a lot of reports about radicalization and the pre-radicalization process. I wanted to get your thoughts on this but with a special regard to the difference between radical thoughts and acts of violence.

Benjamin’s response: This is another issue on which experts can speak for days. And perhaps the most important thing to say in that context is that, as I said at the end of my remarks, we don’t know nearly enough about the process by which people become radical and turn to violence. I think what we do know is there is an extraordinary amount of variety in terms of the pathways to radicalization which from an intelligence and defensive perspective makes our jobs enormously complicated and challenging. And is one of the reasons why every time someone thinks they’ve come up with a profile they turn out to be wrong, it turns out to be a female suicide bomber or a suicide bomber in his 40s, 50s, 60s. It is an enormously challenging area.   I spoke about some of the drivers of radicalization and the ones I think we have some opportunities to get at involve social deprivation but it would be a mistake to suggest we don’t also face a threat from individuals who have encountered nothing in terms of direct deprivation and there a large number of these. We need a lot more enlightenment on this issue.