ARGUMENT: Countering violent extremismTwenty Years After 9/11, the U.S. Needs a Better Strategy to Prevent and Counter Violent Extremism

Published 5 May 2021

With his announcement to withdraw all U.S. troops from Afghanistan by the 20th anniversary of 9/11, President Joe Biden is delivering on his promise to bring an end to the “forever wars” that were the defining features of what began as the “Global War on Terrorism” two decades ago. Eric Rosand writes that “The global terrorist threat today is qualitatively different than it was 20 years ago,” and, “therefore, the strategy for addressing it must reflect that change.”

With his announcement to withdraw all U.S. troops from Afghanistan by the 20th anniversary of 9/11, President Joe Biden is delivering on his promise to bring an end to the “forever wars” that were the defining features of what began as the “Global War on Terrorism” two decades ago. Eric Rosand writes in Just Security that, among other things, this much-anticipated decision reflects one of the lessons learned during this period: that terrorism is inherently a political phenomenon for which there is no military solution.

While much of the reaction has focused on the implications for Afghanistan, the decision could and should serve as the initial step of a long-overdue effort to rebalance U.S. counterterrorism policy, in Afghanistan and beyond, toward too often overlooked diplomatic and development tools that can not only help counter existing threats, but prevent violent extremism from taking root in the first place in communities around the globe.

Rosand says that a shift away from the security-dominated approach to counterterrorism that has characterized much of the world’s response to 9/11 — and that has at times exacerbated the threat — would certainly reduce the likelihood that U.S. troops get mired in future “forever wars.”

It would also make efforts to combat terrorism more financially sustainable in an era where the threat is no longer the global priority it once was, having been displaced by COVID-19, climate change, and other more pressing challenges. Moreover, such a “right-sizing,” which would underscore that the “9/11 era” is over, would help ensure that U.S. counterterrorism efforts are in service of the administration’s broader foreign policy priorities. These include advancing democracy, stemming the rise of authoritarianism, and strengthening multilateral cooperation.

The global terrorist threat today is qualitatively different than it was 20 years ago, Rosand notes, and, therefore, the strategy for addressing it must reflect that change.

U.S. counterterrorism policies and programs since 9/11 prevented another major attack on the U.S. homeland, lead to the killing or capturing of thousands of terrorists on the battlefield, and made it harder for terrorists to plan, travel, raise money, and control territory, but at a significant cost — and one that may now be disproportionate to a threat that is more geographically diffuse and rooted in local conflicts and conditions than ever.

Recruiters, whether on- or off-line, are seeking to exploit political, social, and economic grievances, often compounded and even generated by governments themselves, thus highlighting the need to focus more attention on these grievances in a rebalanced counterterrorism approach. This means elevating the role of civilian agencies – starting with the State Department and USAID – and relying more on cost-effective, sustainable, non-kinetic policies and programs that prevent terrorism and encourage local government and non-government partnerships. That, in turn, results in safer communities that are more resilient to extremist violence. In short, as the United States enters the third, post-9/11 decade, preventing and countering violent extremism (P/CVE) needs to feature more prominently in its counterterrorism strategy than it has before. Here are five steps that the Biden-Harris administration should take to ensure that it is developing and implementing a more up-to-date and effective approach to P/CVE.