“Former New Jersey Gov. Thomas H. Kean and former Congressman Lee H. Hamilton of Indiana served as chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the 9/11 Commission. Over the past year, they served as the chairs of the congressionally mandated Task Force on Extremism in Fragile States, which was convened by the United States Institute of Peace.”
And they haven’t got a clue. We are not going to be able to buy our way out of this fix, and no amount of US aid to help leaders “create alternatives to violence and extremism” is going to work unless the motivating ideology behind jihad terrorism is addressed. Kean and Hamilton here present their plan as something new, but actually it is what the United States has been trying to do ever since 9/11, both domestically and internationally. Jobs programs for Somali Muslims in Minneapolis were supposed to provide “alternatives to violence and extremism,” but Somali Muslim communities in Minneapolis have been hotbeds of jihad recruitment. And the nation-building projects that Kean and Hamilton rightly decry were supposed to create stable republics that would provide their citizens with “alternatives to violence and extremism.”
This approach has been tried time and time again, and has never worked. The reason why not is as clear as the wrongheadedness of mainstream terror analysts: jihad terrorists believe that by murdering Infidels and working for the imposition of Sharia, they are doing the work of Allah, and earning a place in Paradise. The longer we continue to ignore it, they will continue to make recruits among peaceful Muslims, no matter how many jobs programs and other alternatives to violence and extremism we provide.
Nonetheless, one thing is certain: no one will listen or consider this, and we will keep on making these same mistakes over and over again.
“18 years after 9/11: Terrorism needs to be prevented at the source,” by Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton, USA Today, September 10, 2019:
…Over a decade and a half ago, as chairs of the 9/11 Commission, we called for a comprehensive strategy to prevent new generations of terrorists, in addition to safeguarding the homeland and defeating terrorist groups. That call remains largely unfulfilled, but we are encouraged by new thinking in Congress, in the administration and internationally, dedicated to preventing violence and extremism at its roots.
Last year, Congress charged the U.S. Institute of Peace with developing a strategy to prevent the spread of extremist violence in the world’s most fragile states and asked us to lead a bipartisan group of 13 of America’s most senior foreign policy leaders to address this critical challenge. Our final report calls for the United States to focus on the underlying causes of fragility, by helping to repair the broken social contract between citizens and their governments, rather than just respond to terrorist threats.
Today, we are encouraged to see many of our recommendations reflected in pending legislation, especially the Global Fragility Act (HR 2116 and S 727). If adopted, this legislation will be a critical first step in reshaping U.S. policy toward countries vulnerable to extremism and violence. Leaders on both sides of the aisle — Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Chris Coons, D-Del., Reps. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., and Michael McCaul, R-Texas — are sponsoring this legislation. In April, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo concurred during a hearing that we must seize the moment and adopt this new approach. We applaud their leadership.
Let us be clear: We do not recommend nation building. We have learned that the United States cannot build other people’s nations. They have to do that for themselves. What we recommend is to focus on countries where the United States has committed partners and empower those leaders to create alternatives to violence and extremism. Their interest in peace and stability must be at least as great as our own.
Better to avoid the mess than have to clean it up later
Preventing widespread violence and state collapse is far cheaper than the use of military force after crises erupt. We cannot spend another $6 trillion fighting terrorism. By one recent estimate, we save $16 in costly military intervention and relief operations for every dollar spent on prevention. And when we invest in the ability of our partners to become self-reliant, to advance their own prevention agenda, we are working toward a worthy goal — a time when foreign assistance is no longer necessary.
Nor is prevention naive. The United States always reserves the right to use force to confront an imminent terrorist threat. But when we pursue today’s threats without regard to preventing tomorrow’s threats, we risk inadvertently fueling future grievances. We want to get ahead of the threat, not create an unsustainable cycle of violence.
A preventive approach is also prudent. Steering clear of harm’s way, in places where diplomacy and aid can prevent violent extremists from gaining a foothold, is the best way to honor the sacrifices our servicemen and women have made over the past two decades…