Report: Community Groups Need to Play Larger Role in the National Strategy to Counter Violent Messaging

Printer-friendlyPrinter-friendly EmailEmail ShareThis
Date: 
June 30, 2011

Although community organizations throughout America are uniquely positioned to counter the message of violent extremism, a June 2011 report from the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) finds the U.S. government engagement with these groups is mostly limited to law enforcement activities. Preventing Violent Radicalization in America outlines a domestic approach to countering terrorist messaging that rejects false theories about the process by which an individual becomes violent, and calls on the White House to implement the strategy with help from community leaders and non-governmental organizations. 

Note: from CSN staff: Although the report described in this article uses the term "radicalization," it most often appears to reference violent extremism. Because radical beliefs, opinions, writings, and associations are protected by the First Amendment, we are using the term "violent extremism" in this article.  The term "radicalization" is only used in direct quotes from the report.
 
Unlike counterterrorism activity, which is aimed at terrorists, countering violent extremism focuses on the individuals and communities that are often targeted by terrorists for recruitment. It is designed to protect and empower people to become more resilient to the narrative of violent extremism, at home or online. It is delivered through “multiple channels with a range of activities involving engagement and outreach, education and partner building.”
 
The report says the range and scale of U.S. government sponsored activities dedicated toward this task has surged since early 2010, but lacks “coordination and strategic oversight.”  The absence of a comprehensive national strategy leaves the United States vulnerable to current and future homegrown threats. In response, the report offers “concrete policy recommendations for a counter-radicalization strategy – the elements of which should be implemented not just by the federal government, but by state and local officials and community organizations.” 
 
For trust to develop between the at-risk communities and the government, the report says counterterrorism efforts conducted by intelligence and law enforcement agencies must be separate from other activities. It recommends that agencies that focus on counterterrorism issues should not “be seen to play a dominant role in counter-radicalization.” Peter Neumann, the author of the report, said to minimize making communities feel like suspects in their own homes, “the FBI and police forces should only be called upon when illegal activities are taking place.”
 
Former 9/11 Commission Chairmen Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, co-chairs of the BPC’s National Security Preparedness Group, stressed that the strategy will not succeed if it is limited to a Washington only approach. “While a counter radicalization effort requires the federal government to take the initiative and provide direction….leaders of community organizations have to play an absolutely essential role,” said Kean.
 
The process by which individuals participate in a violent act is also analyzed in the report. One model conceives this process similar to a “conveyor belt” which moves people “from peaceful activism to tacit support, then to material violence.” This theory is flawed, because the process “is not linear, and that the progression towards violence is not inevitable.”  There is no “template or formula” that explains how people become violent actors and the process involves “many steps and stages at which the process can be stopped or reversed.” Religious and ethnic profiling by law enforcement is another ineffective tool in preventing people from becoming violent. According to the report,  senior U.S. counterterrorism officials have “called attention to al Qaeda’s strategy of “diversification” – mounting attacks involving a wide variety of perpetrators from different national and ethnic backgrounds that cannot easily be profiled.”
 
Other recommendations of the report include:
  • The White House identifying lead agencies to serve as the “principal hub for collecting, disseminating, and evaluating information” on countering violent extremism.
  • Respecting the values embodied in the U.S. Constitution by refraining from “adjudicating intra-religious affairs,” and countering extremist narratives using transparent methods.
  • Caucusing with community leaders and non-profits to learn, analyze and share best practices of countering violent extremism techniques
     
The report draws on a comprehensive review of official documents, speeches, congressional testimony, and nearly 40 interviews with officials, former officials, experts, and other stakeholders in Washington, D.C.