The Realities of Radicalization

The increasing role of the state in the life of the citizen in the name of security has been slowly tipping the scale of the state-citizen power balance for the past several decades. However, this shift in the power balance has been made the most readily apparent since the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center on September 9, 2001. This imbalance can be seen quite clearly in micro within America’s engagement with its Muslim community, a relationship that has become increasingly fraught since the attacks. Directly after the attacks, then-President George W. Bush called for solidarity from the mourning country, including solidarity with the nation’s Muslim population. However, since then, the radical right’s demonization of the religion of Islam has destroyed any such progression. The left’s response has not been much better, however, as witnessed by the release of a new 23 page strategy on countering extremist violence that does little to repair damages done to relations with the American Muslim community.

Domestic security measures, as well as international involvements in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, have all lead to a state of heightened tension among the American populace. Moreover, the so-called “War on Terror,” campaign, started by President Bush, has provided for increased restriction on liberties, after the passage of legislation such as the Patriot Act, increasingly placing citizens at the mercy of the state. While these sorts of measures could be approved in the sense that the state is acting out of an invested duty to protect its population, this imbalance seems clearly unjust when one also views the persecution that American Muslims have faced.

This persecution is especially notable on the extreme right, as embodied by comments such as that of Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, comparing Muslims to Nazis. If the right’s rhetoric of demonizing all Muslims was bad enough, the left’s response is not much better. The Obama administration’s release of a new strategy for countering violent extremism has proven just how out of touch the US government has become with its Muslim population. The paper calls for a supposedly “color blind” approach to preempt domestic radicalization. This provides for measures such as:

1) U.S. Attorneys will be tasked with outreach and engagement to communities at risk of radicalization. For example, the US Attorney for Alabama might hold roundtables with leaders of the local white community, as the white community is, obviously, a target audience for recruitment into radical movements.

2) The Justice Department will produce brochures that explain steps white people can take if they feel they have been discriminated against.

3) White people will be engaged on issues other than white supremacist ideology, so that they don't feel that the only issues the government engages them on are those of national security.

4) The government will support efforts to communicate to the American public that not all white people are extremists and seek to discourage those who would cast suspicion on the entire white community.

It is true that Muslims have been unduly discriminated against in the name of national security. It is also true that other radical movements exist within the United States that tend to be prepossessed towards recruiting members of specific racial or ethnic communities. However, there is a reason that jihadist movements are viewed as a predominating security threat over other such movements – they have proven in the past that they are willing and able to carry out threats with massive casualties on a consistent basis, something other radical organizations, so far, have not.

That is not to say that all Muslims should experience such harsh deterrent measures. Members of the religion of Islam should no more be punished for the actions of a minority group of radicals than members of any other mass movement. Unfortunately, this is the sort of rhetoric that has emerged increasingly from the right, while the left’s new response of essentially treating American Muslims like children that need to be coddled has not provided any relief either. The Obama administration’s new strategy ignores the realities of the current state of national security. The answer to excessive discrimination is not to simply discriminate against everyone to the same degree. Rather, the best response should be a frank discussion with the nation’s Muslim population that recognizes the realities of extremism while also acknowledging the community’s role in preventing radicalization.

Failure to do so ignores the realities of the state’s contract with its citizens. While the US government has a responsibility to citizens, it does not have a right to do so to the extent that those same citizen’s rights are infringed upon. On the other hand, the Obama administration’s new strategy blatantly disregards the fact that American Muslims are aware of the realities of security today and are willing to confront them as US citizens.

Works Cited

Berger, J.M. "Monsters and Children." Foreign Policy. 09 Dec 2011: 1-2. Web. 11 Dec. 2011. .