A Bad Idea: Using a Cold War Strategy to Fight Extremism

Last month, in these pages, Steven Stoddard suggested that the United States emphasize the shortcomings of radical Islam in order to cause the ideology’s demise, similar to the approach used to defeat Communism. While substituting one ideology for another might seem appealing, Communism and radical Islam do not have enough in common for this tactic to be effective. Instead of waiting for the ideology to collapse under the weight of its own contradictions, the United States should take an active role in diminishing the appeal of extremism.The biggest problem with trying to discredit a religious ideology as opposed to a political one is that religious extremists do not operate within the constraints of international law. They are willing to utilize any form of violence that will raise awareness of their cause. As a result of their religious belief that those who die in jihad will be greatly rewarded in the afterlife, Muslim radicals are not afraid of death or suicide.The Soviets, on the other hand, drew a line at personal destruction. While relations between the East and West were unstable at times, the Soviets preferred to take on the United States by proxy—supporting Communist insurgencies around the globe—rather than engaging in suicide bombings or other direct, violent attacks on America.The Soviet Union acted in its best interests; it proved to be a rational negotiating partner. Even at the Cold War’s tensest moments, lines of communication existed between Washington and Moscow. Although diplomats did not always agree, dialogue continued, allowing the two sides to explain their positions without violence.This is not the case with radical Islam. There is no hotline from the Oval Office to Osama bin Laden’s cave, and there are no U.S. embassies in al Qaeda training camps. Extremists are not interested in U.S. policy; their goal is to defeat the United States and establish an Islamic caliphate.As a result, radical Islam is a much bigger threat than the USSR and Communism ever was. To overcome it, the United States should not simply use words or lead by example. This approach is too abstract. Instead, it should provide Muslims with concrete proof of the West’s good intentions.As it is now, many jihadists are attracted to the fight not because of the ideology, but because joining a worldwide network of terrorists empowers them. Foot soldiers can earn education, training, and a financial reward, and ordinary citizens sometimes receive social services. By providing for these basic needs, radical groups fill the void of opportunity in impoverished areas.If the United States reaches out to Muslims in poor areas, it has a chance to stop the flow of recruits to terrorist groups. Building infrastructure in poor Muslim areas gives people something that tangibly improves their lives—and that also reminds them of America.Robert Kaplan, a correspondent for The Atlantic Monthly who embedded himself with U.S. Special Forces units in places such as Yemen and Colombia, found that in strongholds of the Abu Sayyaf, an insurgent group in the Philippines, the biggest concerns of the citizens were a lack of clean water, basic security, medical care, education, and good roads. Whoever provides these basic services should have no problem winning over the hearts and minds of the people.Indeed, in the Philippines, Green Berets stationed there told Kaplan, “When we first arrived, Muslim kids made throat-slashing gestures at us. By the time we left, they were our friends.”Successes like these need to be replicated throughout the Muslim world. In the past, tasks like building schools and providing medical care were considered humanitarian aid, expendable when budgets tightened. But now, these endeavors should be classified as essential to national security and should be given top priority.Of course, the United States must undertake these projects in cooperation with allies, multilateral organizations, and nongovernmental organizations. Host countries, in which the development would take place, must be consulted in order to make sure that projects are maintained. Since developing infrastructure benefits the host country as well as the United States, the policy should face little resistance.Radical Islam is not an ideology that can be defeated with the same tools that defeated Communism. It is a violent movement, indifferent to international norms and unwilling to compromise. In order to combat it, the United States cannot wait for extremists to realize their thinking is illogical. Rather, the West needs to be a presence in impoverished Muslim areas, by choking off radical Islam’s greatest asset: the continuous flow of young, impoverished males.