Tehran Institute For International Studies tiis
As militarism increasingly demonstrates that it is incapable of resolving conflict with non-state armed groups, the need to reevaluate the approach to such violence is as pressing as ever.
More than 38,000 dead in Gaza. Fighting with the Houthis in the Red Sea and Yemen. A never-ending stream of back and forth strikes between American forces and Iran-backed groups in Iraq and Syria.
Conflict in the Middle East is escalating, fueled by weapons and military actions that increase the very real risk of a greater regional war. All the while a wave of military coups in Africa continues, aided by training and assistance carried out in the name of “counterterrorism.”
As militarism increasingly demonstrates that it is incapable of resolving conflict with non-state armed groups, the need to reevaluate the approach to such violence is as pressing as ever.
It is long past time to move beyond Band-Aid counterterrorism that only fuels the very injustices that cause the formation and growth of violent non-state groups in the first place.
Following the horrific events of 9/11 and the beginning of the so-called “Global War on Terror,” the United States embarked on more than two decades of using war as the foundation for its response to terrorism threats abroad. Today, it remains in armed conflict with numerous non-state groups across the Middle East and Africa, including ISIS, al-Shabaab, al Qaeda, and others.
However, while the War on Terror was intended to quash terrorism, the United States’ violent approach has instead served to fuel it. Annual attacks from non-state groups increased by 1900%—or 20 fold—in the seven countries the U.S. either invaded or conducted air strikes in between 2001 and 2018. Annual attacks worldwide increased fivefold during the same time period. And as the U.S. continued to pour billions of dollars into training foreign forces to combat “militants,” the result was increasing reports of gross violations of human rights by government forces, exacerbated violence, instability, and military coups. This approach has proven deeply counterproductive while failing in combatting terrorism worldwide.
So, what can the U.S. do to more effectively address the threat of international terrorism?
A new report from the Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL) provides concrete recommendations for critical non-military tools to both prevent and respond to this complex issue. These recommendations fall into three broad categories: (1) diplomacy; (2) development and peacebuilding; and (3) law enforcement, intelligence gathering, and restorative justice.
The report details the need for increased investment in and use of State Department experts in strengthening state stability and other core competencies, as well as using leverage to support negotiated settlements to wars with non-state armed groups. This requires properly resourcing and deploying the State Department’s Negotiations Support Unit of trained, experienced experts in negotiating and implementing peace agreements; effectively executing long-term economic development and peacebuilding programs like the Global Fragility Act; and moving away from a war paradigm and the use of lethal force as a first resort in responding to international terrorism. Instead, the U.S. should prioritize the use of law enforcement and intelligence gathering to disrupt plots and hold individuals accountable through Article III courts—a strategy which has been highly effective and grossly underappreciated throughout the post-9/11 period.
Rather than partnering with autocratic regimes and training their militaries to kill suspected militants, we must pursue nonviolent means that are grounded in respect for human rights and help address the root causes of violence. In regions suffering from discrimination and corruption, non-state militants rise up to oppose the current power structure. By addressing the issues that contribute to the formation and expansion of these groups, the U.S. and its partners can more effectively counter global terrorism. But responding to the emergence of violent groups through greater violence and oppression, with resulting civilian casualties and destabilizing impact, serves only to reinforce the beliefs of non-state actors and bolsters their ability to recruit others to their cause.
For too long, the focus in the executive branch and Congress has been on the question of whether or not to utilize force against non-state actors. It is time to expand this question and prioritize other avenues for counterterrorism. These nonviolent approaches have proven to be highly successful: Peaceful negotiations have accounted for the resolution of 43% of conflicts involving non-state actors. In contrast, just 7% of these conflicts were resolved through military action.
It is long past time to move beyond Band-Aid counterterrorism that only fuels the very injustices that cause the formation and growth of violent non-state groups in the first place. Addressing the core reasons for international terrorism and responding to it strategically and skillfully is the only realistic avenue toward a safer, more just world.
