Answer: The recent surge in the number of American Muslims involved in terrorism has led U.S.
authorities to question the long-held assumption that American Muslims are immune to
radicalization, and to follow the example of other Western democracies in devising a comprehensive counterradicalization strategy.
• Radicalization is a highly individualized process determined by the complex interaction of
various personal and structural factors. Because no one theory can exhaustively explain
it, policymakers must understand the many paths to radicalization and adopt flexible
approaches when trying to combat it.
• The role of religion in the radicalization process is debated, but theories that set aside
ideology and religion as factors in the radicalization of Western jihadists are not convincing. Policymakers who choose to tackle religious aspects should do so cautiously, however,
cognizant of the many implications of dealing with such a sensitive issue.
• Policymakers need to determine whether a counterradicalization strategy aims to tackle violent radicalism alone or, more ambitiously, cognitive radicalism. The relation between the
two forms is contested. Challenging cognitive radicalism, though possibly useful for both
security and social cohesion purposes, is extremely difficult for any Western democracy.
• Finding partners in the Muslim community is vital to any counterradicalization program.
In light of the fragmentation of that community, a diverse array of partners appears to be
the best solution. There is the risk, however, that counterradicalization efforts could be
perceived by Muslims as unfairly targeting them.
• Partnerships with nonviolent Islamists could provide results in the short term, but there
are doubts as to their long-term implications. All aspects of a partnership with such groups
should be carefully examined before any decision is made.
• Policymakers need to find ways to empirically measure their programs’ effectiveness.
Explanation:
