The Struggle Against Radical Islam A Donor’s Guide ome donors look at issues of national and homeland security and assume that solutions must be the sole province of government — principally the federal government. Others look at the magnitude of the same issues and wonder where to begin in making a contribution. While government is primarily responsible for the security of the United States, there are many opportunities for private philanthropy to have an impact. These opportunities fall into three categories where private funding can make a crucial contribution to the struggle against Radical Islam. The first includes local or regional programs to improve the U.S. capacity to deter and respond to future terrorist attacks. The second includes programs to enhance the U.S. understanding of Islam, the Muslim world and the sources of radicalism and terrorism. And the third includes programs to strengthen moderate forces, both religious and secular, in the Muslim world. The Philanthropy Roundtable is committed to helping interested donors achieve maximum impact in the national security arena. We are dedicated to assisting donors in determining which type of program best speaks to their interests. This guidebook provides a place to start. It looks at the sources and attitudes of Radical Islam, at what government and private programs have achieved to date and at organizations that might provide an immediate route to involvement.

S

1150 17th Street, N.W. Suite 503 Washington, D.C. 20036 T: 202.822.8333

. F: 202.822.8325 . E: [email protected]

Free copies of this report are available to donors. Nonprofit organizations are eligible to receive bulk discounts.

The Struggle Against Radical Islam A Donor’s Guide

The Struggle Against Radical Islam A Donor’s Guide

By Nadia Schadlow Nadia Schadlow, is senior program officer at the Smith Richardson Foundation. This guidebook represents solely the views of the author; it does not represent the views of the Smith Richardson Foundation.

Published by The Philanthropy Roundtable

Table of Contents Letter from The Philanthropy Roundtable. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 I

The Threat: What the Radicals Want And How They Intend to Get It . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 A Radical Interpretation of Islam The Global Jihadist Movement Goals and Methods of Militant Islamists

II

Fighting Back: The Many Fronts in the Response to Jihad . . 13 Components of Response Better Understanding Needed

III

Interim Report: What the Public and Private Sectors Have Done to Date. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 United States Government Response Private-sector Initiatives

IV Taking Part: A Framework for Donor Involvement . . . . . 18 Three Categories of Support Improving the U.S. Capability to Deter and Respond Using Information More Effectively Energy Policy Challenges Improving Our Understanding of the Challenge Disarray in Middle East and Islamic Studies Promoting Debate and Improving Dialogue in the Muslim World Encouraging Debate Supporting the Forces of Freedom Abroad Aiding Public Diplomacy V

First Steps: Finding the Right Means of Support . . . . . . . 32

VI Starting Points: What Existing Organizations Offer . . . . . 34

Letter from the Philanthropy Roundtable

Letter from The Philanthropy Roundtable The Philanthropy Roundtable is delighted to publish this monograph on how donors can become involved in supporting efforts to bolster U.S. national security against the threat from radical Islam. While government is primarily responsible for the security of the United States, there are many opportunities for private philanthropy to make significant contributions. Three broad categories where private funding can make a crucial contribution to the war on terrorism are outlined in this donor’s guide. The first principally includes local or regional programs to improve the U.S. capacity to deter and respond to future terrorist attacks. The second includes programs to enhance the U.S. understanding of Islam, the Muslim world, and the sources of radicalism and terrorism. And the third includes programs to strengthen moderate forces, both religious and secular, in the Muslim world. The Roundtable is committed to helping donors achieve maximum impact in the national security arena. We are dedicated to assisting interested donors in determining which type of program best speaks to their interests. The Roundtable holds public meetings around the country where donors can exchange ideas, strategies, and best practices in national security programs. We also offer customized private seminars, at no charge, for donors who are thinking through how they can make the greatest difference in their giving. Please contact us at 202.822.8333 or at [email protected] if you would like further information.

Adam Meyerson President Mark Smith Director, National Security Programs

7

Introduction

Introduction This guide was written in response to queries from donors about how they could best contribute to the fight against radical Islamist extremists. Of course, national security is primarily the responsibility of the federal government. With the billions put into the global war on terror (now often referred to as the Long War) by the U.S. government, many funders may very well ask: What is left to do? Why should we spend our limited funds in this area? To provide some answers, this The intellectual foundations of a guide addresses a number of fundamental questions about radical strategy to counter radical, extremist Islamism and offers some ideas ideas and promote more moderate, about how the philanthropic community can support efforts to count- enlightened policies can and should be er the extremist ideology propagated built by the philanthropic community. by its adherents. The guide includes a summary of some of the main governmental and non-governmental responses to date, and offers a framework for thinking about how to support research and activities that can contribute to improving U.S. capabilities in the war on terrorism. While the U.S. government will ultimately be responsible for deterring threats to Americans and for implementing responses to future terrorist attacks, the intellectual foundations of a strategy to counter radical, extremist ideas and promote more moderate, enlightened policies can and should be built by the philanthropic community.

8

The Struggle Against Radical Islam

I The Threat: What the Radicals Want And How They Intend to Get It The United States is engaged in a long-term struggle to defeat forces that promote ideals diametrically opposed to those held dear by most Americans, and that seek to destroy the most basic individual liberties that form the fabric of this country and other pluralistic societies. These forces have found a relatively cheap and effective means—terrorism—of spreading disorder and chaos, which in turn poses a threat to order and progress.

A Radical Interpretation of Islam For citizens of democracies around the world, the basic freedoms that most of us take for granted are challenged by a radical interpretation of Islam that is fueled by militants and promulgated by transnational jihadi movements. Daniel Pipes, a scholar of the Middle East, offered a succinct and cogent description of the threat: “Islam itself—the centuries-old faith—is not the issue, but one extremist variant of it is. Militant Islam derives from Islam but is a misanthropic, misogynist, triumphalist, millennarian, anti-modern, antiChristian, anti-Semitic, terroristic, jihadistic, and suicidal version of it.” Adherents of this form of Islam seek to expand their power across the globe. Their goal is to sponsor revolution at home and abroad, to put in place their vision of heaven on Earth where all abide by their version of militant Islam. Examples of groups with this ideology include Al Qaeda, Iraq’s Unity and Jihad party, and Jemaah Islamiyah in Southeast Asia. Many of the most extreme of the jihadis follow the Salafi movement and accept the Takfiri ideology. The Salafist movement, also known as Salafiyya, refers to al-Salaf al-Salih, “the venerable forefathers,” the generation of the Prophet Muhammad and his companions. Salafis not only emulate those early ancestors, they believe that Islam and its followers who do not try to live as in those

9

The Threat

times (with the same culture and mores) are corrupt. There are many schools of thought within the movement and not all accept the extremism of Bin Laden. However, where the movement has spread throughout the world, so has radical jihad. Adherents to the Takfiri ideology preach a complete withdrawal from modernity, believing that modern society is an existential threat to Islam and hence must be abolished.1

The Global Jihadist Movement The global jihadist movement allows little if any room for compromise. Al Qaeda and their allies teach that their violent vision of jihad is a religious duty before God. It is necessary for the salvation of one’s soul as well as for the defense of the Muslim nation. As such, one is either a believer, a According to jihadis, peaceful true Muslim dedicated to violent jihad, or one is aligned with the coexistence with the West is a “forces of evil.” dangerous illusion and violence by According to jihadis, peaceful Muslims in the defense of Islam coexistence with the West is a dangerous illusion and violence by is the only way forward. Muslims in the defense of Islam is the only way forward. Islamic theological and legal arguments that seem to restrict the use of violence by Muslims are brushed aside as inapplicable in this war. Although the challenge of radical Islam has been growing for decades, the attacks of September 11, 2001, propelled the threat of Al Qaeda and related groups to the forefront. The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States (the 9/11 Commission), created by Congressional legislation in late 2002, stated that the enemy was capable of inflicting “horrific damage” on the United States. The commission focused on describing how Al Qaeda operates and concluded that despite inroads made against Al Qaeda, that group represented an “ideological movement, not a finite group of people,” and therefore Osama bin Laden and his cohorts were likely to inspire future generations of terrorists. Specific threats from Islamist extremists—some of whom hold power in their respective countries and some of whom are 1 For a more comprehensive explanation of Salafism and Takfiri, go to the Institute for Counter-Terrorism of Herzliya, Israel’s website at www.ict/org.il.

10

The Struggle Against Radical Islam

leaders with thousands of followers—are alarming. Individuals such as Osama bin Laden and the Egyptian Ayman al Zawahiri issue fatwas (interpretations of Islamic law) even though they are not scholars of Islamic law. Some of their earliest fatwas, in 1998, claimed that America had declared war against God and his messenger, Muhammad, and they called for the murder of any American, anywhere on earth, as the “individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any counUnder the guise of religion, the try in which it is possible to do it.” extremists use their interpretation of Nor are Bin Laden’s threats— his commitment to pursue armed Islam to advance their power, shape struggle against the United States or the political and economic systems of his reported success in securing a fatwa justifying the use of nuclear states to conform to their radical weapons against the United ideology, and undermine moderate States—the only reason to be concerned for the future. On a regular and pluralistic political systems, both basis lesser-known persons issue in the West and in the Muslim world. similar threats and advance ideas that are alarming. Unfortunately, many of these statements are not merely empty threats. Violent examples since September 11 back the seriousness of these threats: the fire bombings in Bali, Indonesia, which killed hundreds; the train bombings in Madrid and London; and the politically motivated killing of Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh are but a few of the most prominent attacks. Under the guise of religion, the extremists use their interpretation of Islam to advance their power, shape the political and economic systems of states to conform to their radical ideology, and undermine moderate and pluralistic political systems, both in the West and in the Muslim world. Theirs is a monolithic ideology, one that deliberately excludes and rejects the ideas of all who do not share their radical Islamist beliefs and modes of living. As Roya and Ladan Boroumond, two Iranian scholars now living and working in the United States, have written, the threat is an “ideological and moral challenge to liberal democ2 U.S. Department of State, Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism, Country Reports on Terrorism 2004 (April 2005). Available on the web at www.state.gov/documents/organization/45313.pdf

11

The Threat

racy” in which the religious vocabulary used by many terrorists “hides violent Islamism’s true nature as a modern totalitarian challenge to both traditional Islam and modern democracy.” Indeed, a relatively recent State Department report on terrorism described the expanding global jihadist threat and highlighted the growth of Islamist military groups in East Africa and Asia, as well as Europe and the Middle East.2

Goals and Methods of Militant Islamists Many argue that the war on terrorism is a misnomer, since terrorism is a tactic not a strategy. Yet militant Islamists do have overarching, long-term strategic goals that involve not only defeating Western democratic countries but also targeting Muslim regimes they view as corrupt. To these extremists, “apostate” regimes—that is, Muslim nations that do not abide by the version of Islam espoused by the extremists and do not impose Islamic “Sharia” law—are not acceptable and should be overthrown. Michael Doran, formerly a professor at Princeton University and now an official on the National Security Council, is one of Militant Islamists do have the most trenchant observers of this overarching, long-term strategic aspect of the struggle. He explains that an important part of Bin Laden’s goals that involve not only strategy is the way he uses the United defeating Western democratic States as an instrument in his struggle countries but also targeting Muslim with other Muslims. Doran argues that Bin Laden regimes they view as corrupt. hopes the U.S. will strike back after an attack, because Bin Laden believes that will outrage Muslims and inspire them to overthrow their governments and build an Islamic state.3 In addition to the domestic struggles over the direction of key Muslim states such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, radical Islamists are using a variety of means to weaken the United States and our allies. Terrorism is obviously one tactic, but a key strategic goal of this violence is the U.S. economy. Largescale, mass-casualty attacks focused on economic targets remain a primary aim of the global jihadists.4 In addition, the 3 For his full argument see "The Saudi Paradox," Foreign Affairs, January/February 2004. 4 See the State Department report cited above.

12

The Struggle Against Radical Islam

radicals are pursuing a deliberate strategy to weaken Western societies from the inside. Thus, they are working hard to recruit and radicalize second- and third-generation Muslims in Europe. Robert Leiken of the Nixon Center published a disturbing report in 2004, Bearers of Global Jihad, drawing attention to two troubling developments. First, he explains that second- and third-generation Muslim immigrants in countries such as England, France, Germany, Italy, and Belgium are more likely to become radicalized than their parents—partly due to the failure of European nations to assimilate these youth. Second, because many of these immigrants are now citizens of European countries, they enjoy free entry into the United States.5 Leiken’s work is an example of the kind of non-governmental research that identifies important issues worthy of further study and in turn can drive increased policy attention to neglected issues. As the recent riots in France demonstrate, Europeans are now facing the problem of how to preserve democratic societies and traditions in the face of growing demographic pressures and powerful social forces. Recognizing the duality of terrorist goals—that they are engaged both in a war against external enemies such as the United States and Europe, as well as against Muslim states that they view as apostate regimes, is important for developing the full range of appropriate responses. Some responses will need to focus on deterrence (if these global jihadis can indeed be deterred, which is itself an open question), prevention, and defense against actual attacks. However, other responses should focus on bolstering support for moderate (secular and Muslim) regimes. Understanding extremist designs in other parts of the world—particularly Muslim-majority states—is critically important for developing counter strategies that support the moderates in these countries.

5 Robert Leiken, Bearers of Global Jihad: Immigration and National Security after 9/11 (Washington, DC: The Nixon Center, 2004). Also on the web: http://www.nixoncenter.org/publications/monographs/Leiken_Bearers_of_Global_Jihad.pdf

13

Fighting Back

II Fighting Back: The Many Fronts in the Response to Jihad The transnational nature of the radical, extremist Islamist movement makes this trend both difficult to counter and challenging to understand. The movement operates as a global network of organizations. While certain states provide haven for key groups—witness Afghanistan in the 1990s—terrorist cells are flexible and adaptable, using modern technologies such as the Internet to communicate with followers. The State Department describes how a “grassroots” movement of terrorist cells and networks exists with few or no links to Al Qaeda or Osama bin Laden other than ideological affinity. Thus any effective response must incorporate a variety of political and military instruments. Components of Response One component of a response against radical Islamists involves military and security instruments. This is primarily an offensive response focused on hunting and capturing terrorists that directly threaten U.S. interests, or punishing states that harbor terrorist groups (as in the invasion of Afghanistan). Through a range of military means—including active intelligence efforts—the United States seeks to find, eliminate, or otherwise bring to justice terrorists responsible for attacks on U.S. interests. Yet winning “hearts and minds” is also a vital component of any military strategy, because the extremist Islamist movement is a long-term insurgency that is hard at work winning over populations throughout the Muslim world.6 While their tactics often build upon strong anti-American sentiments, their goals, as we noted, are much broader—the introduction of rigid economic, social, political, and religious systems based on Sharia law. These insurgents are focused on convincing local populations that their needs will be better met by Islamist forces than by forces promoting democracy and moderation. 6 Andrew Krepinevich was one of the first analysts to make this argument. Andrew Krepinevich, "The War In Iraq: The Nature of Insurgency Warfare," Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, June 2, 2004

14

The Struggle Against Radical Islam

A second component of a U.S. response involves defensive and intelligence measures designed to protect the homeland (and U.S. interests). This requires large initiatives such as “homeland security,” discussed below, which includes securing U.S. borders, securing weapons of mass destruction to prevent their falling into the wrong hands, and detecting and preventing the use of weapons of mass destruction on U.S. soil. In addition, certain law enforcement, immigration, and port security measures fall into this category because they make it harder for terA key challenge is to identify and rorists to operate on U.S. territory. A third component of the U.S. implement policies that reduce the response to radical Islamist extremchance of more persons joining the ism is the use of non-military instruments of power. The 9/11 ranks of terrorist organizations. Commission report stated, “longterm success [against radical Islam] demands the use of all elements of national power: diplomacy, intelligence, covert action, law enforcement, economic policy, foreign aid, public diplomacy and homeland defense.” A consensus among both supporters and detractors of the Bush administration is that the United States is failing to use many of its “soft” instruments of power effectively and as a result risks losing the “war of ideas.” A key challenge is to identify and implement policies that reduce the chance of more persons joining the ranks of terrorist organizations. Better Understanding Needed Responses to the challenge of radical Islam have been made more difficult by disagreements between America and her allies over the nature of, and the appropriate response to, the threat. A March 2004 Pew research report identified serious disputes between the United States and Europe, largely over, but not limited to, the war in Iraq. At the same time, there are indications that Europeans are becoming more aware of the problems posed by radical Islam—apart from their concerns about Iraq—and a growing sense that radical Islam poses serious security concerns for European countries. Public awareness of this threat increased in the aftermath

15

Fighting Back

of September 11, when Al Qaeda cells were unearthed all over Europe. Recent events in Spain, Holland, and Britain have also highlighted tensions emerging in European nations. Disagreements over how to respond to the radical Islamist threat fall into two broad camps: The first camp stresses that a primary cause of radicalism stems from the actions (or inaction) of the West in key parts of the Middle East (for example, U.S. policies toward Israel; the stationing of U.S. forces in the Middle East; the cultural, political, and economic tensions created by globalization). A second camp stresses that the roots of radicalism lie in the troubled political, social, and economic systems of the Middle East itself, in states like Saudi Arabia, whose closed political system perpetuates a culture of frustration that totalitarian religious ideologues take advantage of to recruit more adherents. A better understanding of this divide can help funders shape strategies for their support. Some projects could focus on examining the impact of Western policies on the Muslim world and exploring how detrimental effects could be mitigated; other projects may seek to improve our understanding of indigenous forces at work in key Muslim states. Either approach can be helpful over the long term. However one gauges the urgency of the threat, there is a struggle today within Islam over that religion’s future direction and the direction of countries in which Islam plays a dominant role. Fundamentally, this struggle is about whether modernization and basic freedoms are compatible with Islam. The task for the United States is not necessarily to convince ardently anti-American Islamists of the value of democracy and the benign intentions of the United States. But millions of other Muslims may be open to the argument that their welfare, and the welfare of their children, is better served through freedom and democracy rather than the totalitarian and nihilistic vision offered by the jihadis. Our biggest opportunity may be to reach out to them, and that is something that private parties can do more easily and effectively than the U.S. government.

16

The Struggle Against Radical Islam

III Interim Report: What the Public and Private Sectors Have Done to Date After the September 11 attacks, the U.S. government and the private sector initiated a wide range of responses to the threat posed by radical jihadist groups. The nature of this funding and the programs it has supported has varied widely. The U.S. government launched large-scale military intervenMillions of other Muslims may be tions in Afghanistan and Iraq to strike open to the argument that their back at state-sponsored support of terrorism. It also created major new welfare, and the welfare of their government departments, the children, is better served through Department of Homeland Security in 2003 and Office of the Director of freedom and democracy rather National Intelligence in 2005, in an than the totalitarian and nihilistic effort to consolidate many of the bureaucracies and instruments needed vision offered by the jihadis. to fight the war against terror. With the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, all sorts of agencies, such as the Coast Guard, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and the Transportation Security Administration, were consolidated in an effort to unify the vast national array of institutions involved in protecting our nation. Likewise, the National Intelligence Director was established to streamline the collection and dissemination of intelligence.

Government Response In addition, using the Department of Homeland Security and other agencies, the U.S. government began to allocate more funding to the study of Arabic, Islam, and the Muslim world as a whole and to support projects designed to better understand the motivations and tendencies of terrorists. The Department of Homeland Security created “centers of excellence” to direct funding to universities in order to increase attention and research on key aspects of the war on terrorism.

17

Interim Report

One of its most recent grantees was the University of Maryland at College Park, which will receive $12 million over three years to study how terrorist groups form and recruit, their motivations, and how they pick their targets. The university joins Texas A&M University at College Station, the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, and the University of Southern California in a growing network of these “centers of excellence,” with more projected for the future. Another aspect of U.S. government responses to the threat from terrorism have been efforts to strengthen the public’s capacity to withstand future terrorist attacks. The Department of Homeland Security’s Ready Campaign seeks to help American families be better prepared for even unlikely emergency scenarios.7 Other efforts have focused on improving overall U.S. civil defense, a project rooted in the earlier program of civil defense designed to respond to possible Soviet attack.

Private-sector Initiatives The private sector also responded with new initiatives following the September 11 attacks. A Government Accounting Office study in 2002 reported that 34 of the 300 charities that responded to the September 11 attacks received about $2.4 billion in donations. Nine large foundations granted a total of $92.5 million in September and another $68 million by the end of December 2001. The Foundation Center has compiled a database of the dollars given after the attacks and has begun a multi-year initiative that tells the story of the philanthropic response. Its fourth report, Giving in the Aftermath of September 11: Final Update on the Foundation and Corporate Response, describes how more than $1.1 billion in grants was awarded by 1,339 foundations and corporations through September 2004. The Center’s website also includes a database that tracks charitable contributions related to post-September 11, 2001 relief, recovery, and rebuilding. However, when reviewing these numbers, one must recall that much of this funding focused on assistance to the victims and families of September 11, as well as for some homeland defense efforts. Among the 40-plus funding groups described on the Council of Foundations website as of January 2005, none were devoted to understanding the enemy so as to help defeat the global jihadist movement. 7 http://www.ready.gov/

18

The Struggle Against Radical Islam

IV Taking Part: A Framework for Donor Involvement The 9/11 Commission documented many strategic and analytic failures by the United States prior to the September 11 attacks, eloquently pointing to a “failure of imagination” on the part of many throughout the U.S. government in the years leading up to the attacks. To avoid another such failure, Americans outside of government can play an important role in defeating this scourge. In particular, there are three broad categories of support where private funding can make a crucial contribution to the war on terrorism. They are projects (A) to improve the U.S. capacity to deter and respond to future terrorist attacks; (B) to With the creation of the enhance the U.S. understanding of Islam, the Muslim world, and the Department of Homeland Security, sources of radicalism and terrorism; all sorts of agencies, such as the and (C) to strengthen moderate forces, both Muslim and secular, Coast Guard, the Immigration around the world. and Naturalization Service, While not all-inclusive, these general categories offer a way of and the Transportation Security thinking about how to direct Administration, were consolidated resources toward the near-, medium-, and longer-term threats in an effort to unify the vast posed by radical Islam. Within national array of institutions each of these substantive areas, specific organizations and think involved in protecting our nation. tanks exist to offer a vehicle for funding. In some areas, where less work is taking place, new initiatives may be warranted. Overall, on a strategic level, we must improve our base of knowledge in order to understand the threat as accurately as possible. Second, on a more operational level, we must better prepare to respond to the threat by improving our civil defenses and local responses.

19

Taking Part

Improving the U.S. Capacity to Deter and Respond Since the September 11 attacks, billions of government dollars have been directed to improve “homeland security.” These initiatives have ranged from efforts to improve the security of ports and nuclear energy facilities, to efforts to strengthen border controls and immigration loopholes. They have included programs to improve the public health system’s capacity to respond to a future biological or chemical weapons attack. Yet the success of these initiatives is uncertain: it remains unclear whether the nation is indeed more secure. Many of the challenges and frustrations are found in Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s famous leaked memo of October 2002,8 where he wondered how the country could best Among the 40-plus funding think through new approaches to groups described on the Council “organize, train, equip and focus to deal with the global war on terror,” and of Foundations website as of also whether the U.S. even had the metJanuary 2005, none were devoted rics to measure if we were “winning or to understanding the enemy so losing the global war on terror.” Although the problem of detect- as to help defeat the global ing, deterring, and responding to a terrorist attack might seem better suit- jihadist movement. ed to government funding, many individual donors and smaller institutions have in fact played important roles in identifying key issues and instituting training and other programs that have helped to improve homeland security. Thus one possible focus for funders is to support studies of the best components of a robust homeland security posture. This would entail projects that measure progress, critique existing efforts, and point out remaining weaknesses. Many well-established think tanks are working toward this goal, including the Brookings Institution, the Heritage Foundation, the Lexington Institute, the Council on Foreign Relations, and the Center for Strategic and International Studies. A second line of funding could focus on improving the capacity of local communities to detect and respond to terror8 http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:rWW4OL0HqrMJ:www.usatoday.com/news/washington/executive/rumsfeld-memo.htm+rumsfeld+memo+are+we+winning%3F+leaked+memo&hl=en&lr=lang_en

20

The Struggle Against Radical Islam

ist attacks. One way to do this is to support groups that investigate suspected terrorist organizations. Under the leadership of Steven Emerson, for example, the Investigative Project has researched the operations, funding, and front groups of Islamic terrorist and extremist groups in the United States and around the world. The Investigative Project has amassed one of the largest archival intelligence centers in the world on militant Islam, mostly through the funding of private philanthropists, and it has been pivotal in uncovering financial networks and publicizing the most brazen cases of terrorist activities in the United States. It is a good example of how non-government resources can help analyze the threat posed by radical Islam. Its researchers have attended services led by militant clerics, for instance, something government agents do not do. A central challenge after September 11 has also been the problem of integrating local communities into federal initiatives. Local communities often struggle to figure out federal funding processes, and there is also a need for improved communication between the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. towns and cities. Specific projects at think tanks could examine funding streams available to local communities and identify obstacles to their actually receiving funding. Other studies might explore the dearth of funding that prevents local communities from following up on federal initiatives. One of the best examples of how to improve the capacity of local areas to detect and respond to terrorism is the Manhattan Institute’s Center for Policing Terrorism. That initiative, begun after September 11, works to expand the access of local police departments to the best possible thinking on terrorism in the world, using a global network of counterterrorism experts. The Center has worked with local police departments (such as the NYPD) to turn this thinking into practical products, advice, and services for local police. This model could be applied to other police departments around the country. In addition, Bernard Marcus provided a large grant of almost $4 million to the Centers for Disease Control to equip a state-of-the-art emergency operations center to serve as a control and coordination hub for epidemic outbreaks and other public health emergencies. Another groundbreaking project funded through philanthropists is the Law Enforcement Exchange Program, conducted by the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, which

21

Taking Part

takes American senior law enforcement executives to Israel to be trained in the study of “best practices” in combating domestic and international terrorism.

Using Information More Effectively Grantmaking could also focus on helping the government to use available information more effectively. David Abshire’s Center for the Study of the Presidency has developed a program to inform DHS officials of the many non-governmental studies and resources focused on homeland security. Often, the demands on DHS officials limit their ability to identify and read new information; this Center provides them with “one stop shopOverall, on a strategic level, we ping” of the best available analyses. Related initiatives could focus on must improve our base of education and outreach networks that make a stronger case for military knowledge in order to understand preparedness. The Committee on the the threat as accurately as possible. Present Danger and the Committee for the Free World were private groups that performed such work effectively during the Cold War. Today, a new Committee on the Present Danger has been established to educate the media and the public on the threat posed by radical Islamist and fascist terrorist movements, to counsel against appeasing terrorists, and to build support for a strategy of victory. Other specific projects could focus on particular constituencies, such as police, mothers, local newspapers, community groups, etc., and disseminate important information related to homeland security. The problem of radical Islam also creates a challenge for the American military. How does it need to adapt to the new challenges? Is it well suited to respond to the challenges we face today? This has been a key question since September 11. Even before the attacks, a lively and important debate raged over the appropriate shape of the American military after the collapse of the Soviet Union. What kind of forces should it emphasize? Should it become “lighter” and more flexible? During the Cold War, RAND was seen as a central place for thinking about deterrence and the implications of nuclear weapons. Today, small but influential think tanks also play important roles in defense debates. The Center for Strategic

22

The Struggle Against Radical Islam

and Budgetary Assessments has advanced influential ideas about how the United States military needs to transform to meet new challenges. The Center for Strategic and International Studies too, as well as the Brookings Institution, have strong military analysis programs. In order to “speak truth to power,” these institutions must have a funding base outside the government.

Energy Policy Challenges Another key issue involving U.S. vulnerabilities is the country’s continuing dependency on external energy sources. Indeed, the development of an effective energy policy is critical—and it is an issue on which both sides of the political spectrum have made little progress. Philanthropists could supMany individual donors and port work focused on developing a smaller institutions have in fact serious energy policy, work that need not be politicized but should entail played important roles in an objective look at the many instituidentifying key issues and tional constraints to implementing a reformed energy policy. Donors instituting training and other might also support work examining programs that have helped to how energy dependencies in other parts of the world affect U.S. interimprove homeland security. ests—how dependencies in Europe create certain dynamics, as well as how dependencies in Asia perpetuate certain regional dynamics. Philanthropists could also support work that develops messages to educate the American public about the ways that energy dependency harms our national interests and provides de facto support to regimes like Saudi Arabia. While such an approach may at first sound lofty or naïve, one need only recall the steady growth of the anti-smoking campaign in the United States to realize it is plausible that a similar campaign over time can persuade Americans to see the way continued U.S. energy dependence will worsen the security issues our children will face. Improving Our Understanding of the Challenge The United States must re-arm intellectually to tackle the problems posed by radical Islam. It has been clear—not least from

23

Taking Part

the failure to stabilize the political situation in Iraq—that the nation needs a richer understanding of political developments in the Middle East and the Muslim world. During the Cold War, the United States government devoted significant resources to the “intellectual capital” needed to fight the Soviet Union. For instance, the government helped to establish the Fulbright program, which was designed to “grow” young scholars who would have deep The Investigative Project has knowledge of foreign lands. It supported journals such as Problems of amassed one of the largest archival Communism to encourage debate intelligence centers in the world on and the exchange of ideas in the field. It created think tank and university militant Islam, mostly through the centers, such as RAND and funding of private philanthropists, Harvard’s Center for Russian Studies. and it has been pivotal in uncovering These efforts marked the first time that the United States systemati- financial networks and publicizing cally sought to build up institutions the most brazen cases of terrorist outside of government to train a generation of experts. Money was allo- activities in the United States. cated to university centers, training programs, and language courses. Indeed, so much funding went into academic institutions and think tanks that one scholar later wryly characterized the period as one of “Prosperity under the Shadow of the Bomb.” With the end of the Cold War, many of these institutions lost funds or were dismantled. Few such alternative centers are prepared to tackle the intellectual challenges of understanding the problem of radical Islam. To help reverse this trend, the Pentagon has recently provided seed money to a small new think tank called the Long-Term Strategy Project to ask and answer some of the hardest questions related to the war on radical Islam—such as how do you defeat an enemy who values death over life, and how do you convince Islamic communities around the world to purge jihadism from their midst? Yet seed money is all the Project has received. Such small, highly innovative, and potentially ground-breaking research centers need funding from private philanthropies to stay afloat. Private funders need not wait for the government to rebuild the intellectual resources needed. Indeed, it is wrong to

24

The Struggle Against Radical Islam

assume that such knowledge resides solely within the U.S. government’s analytic and intelligence communities. The wisest policymakers rely on a much broader network of thinkers to enrich their knowledge and understanding. The intelligence community itself uses outside experts to tap into alternative viewpoints and generate debate. Overall, the United States has one of the world’s best networks of international affairs experts who move into and out of government. Over the long term, a pool of individuals knowledgeable about the regions, culture, religion, and languages in question is critical, both to inform U.S. policymakers but also to serve as a seedbed to generate new policymakers.

Disarray in Middle East and Islamic Studies Thus another key element to improving our understanding of the challenge will be the education and support of an emerging generation of analysts seeking to understand the Middle East and Muslim societies as a whole. Currently, the field of Middle East studies is in a state of disarray. The 9/11 Commission Report noted that in the years prior to the September 11 attacks, few universities offered degrees in Arabic or Islamic studies; and there was very little instruction in Arabic or other Islamic languages. These weaknesses affected the United States’ ability to interpret warning signals from terrorist organizations. The 9/11 Commission also noted that the FBI had not assigned sufficient resources to the surveillance and translation needs of counter-terrorism agents, partly because it lacked sufficient translators proficient in Arabic and other key languages. In addition, the highly politicized nature of Middle East studies makes it doubly hard for the government to derive much policy-relevant information from regional experts. Several scholars in the field have noted that the Middle East Studies Association has specifically abjured cooperation with defense and intelligence agencies of the U.S. government, and prohibited recruitment advertising in its publications. Newspaper reports have described the battles raging at Columbia University through 2004-2005, where critics decried the alleged anti-Semitism of the Middle East Studies Department, as well as its anti-Americanism. One of the best, albeit more controversial accounts of the state of the field is

25

Taking Part

Ivory Towers on Sand, a well-researched account of the problems besetting the discipline that was written by Martin Kramer, a scholar with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. In this book, funded by private philanthropists, Kramer analyzes why the Middle East studies field has produced so little policy-relevant work and why it failed to predict many of the problems we see today. While Kramer’s work sparked much controversy, its criticisms of the field caught the attention of the policy community, received bipartisan endorsement, and led to an effort to establish an advisory board to assess the effectiveness of U.S. government funding for academia in this area (the Philanthropists could support work so-called Title IV program). This is another example of the way that focused on developing a serious focused, small-scale research can energy policy, work that need not bring wider attention to a problem: Kramer’s analysis would not exist be politicized but should entail an without private philanthropy. objective look at the many institutional Expanding the cadre of scholars who possess specialized knowledge, constraints to implementing a and who understand how to translate reformed energy policy. this knowledge into policy-relevant thinking and writing, is a mediumterm challenge that can be tackled with relatively modest levels of support. The creation of fellowships at a variety of think tanks can allow scholars to study Arabic, Urdu, and other Islamic languages; travel; and conduct research. In addition, fellowship programs can be designed to allow government analysts a year on the “outside” to learn and focus in more depth on key issues. Establishing a fellowship program at a think tank is easier than establishing one at a university center. Institutions like the Hudson Institute, the Center for Security Policy, and the Center for Strategic and International Studies are generally amenable to discussing parameters for research fellowships or specific research programs. Donors interested in national security may also want to follow the example of the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, which has established a program to give bright college students a chance to study economics and public policy, and to work as interns at policy-oriented institutions in Washington, D.C. It

26

The Struggle Against Radical Islam

spends some $250,000 each summer to train 30 students. A key component for any such program would be to establish parameters for the training each fellowship would emphasize. For instance, to strengthen regional expertise, emphasis might be placed on building a support network for analysts of specific countries and regions. Through fellowship programs, students could study the language of the country in question and receive grants for travel to the region and for support of relevant internship programs in the Washington area. Working through a university, while not impossible, requires a funder to deal with a much more elaborate bureaucracy and permits much less direct control over the resulting program. On the plus side, Small, highly innovative, and universities are the main building block of future scholarship and provide trainpotentially ground-breaking ing and opportunities to undergraduate research centers need funding from and graduate students—all necessary private philanthropies to stay afloat. for strengthening the field over the long term. Arguably, think tank fellowships are better suited for graduate students, because they can provide students who have shown a commitment to the field with an opportunity to study and write in Washington, D.C. By comparison, summer internships, while less expensive per person, tend to be geared toward younger students. More substantial programs would allow graduate students and postgraduates to work for at least a year in key areas related to the Middle East and homeland security. A particularly valuable education on these issues can be had at the Institute for World Politics, a graduate school for “statecraft and national security affairs.” Rooted in American principles, the Institute provides its students an education that meets the needs of U.S. foreign affairs, defense, intelligence, and commercial agencies by deepening the understanding of defense strategy, diplomacy, intelligence, opinion formation, economic strategy, and leadership.

Promoting Debate and Improving Dialogue in the Muslim World The United States can and should do better at explaining its positions and defining its views in opposition to those who advocate terrorism and repression. Anti-American Muslims are not all radical Islamists, and many who have anti-

27

Taking Part

American outlooks can be open to alternative viewpoints. Turkey is perhaps the best example: anti-Americanism is much on the rise in Turkey, yet most Turks bristle at their nation’s being labeled a “Muslim country” and have little affinity for radical, extremist Arab Islamists in the Middle East. The United States should strive to counter false information promoted by many radical Islamist groups and, more broadly, to engage in and encourage debate in the Muslim world. Effectively explaining U.S. policies and ideals is essential to a long-term Over the long term, a pool of victory. The United States needs a broadbased effort to employ both its “soft” individuals knowledgeable about and “hard” power. Because totalitarian- the regions, culture, religion, and ism and repressive regimes around the languages in question is critical, world are likely to encourage political developments that are detrimental to both to inform U.S. policymakers medium- and long-term U.S. interests, but also to serve as a seedbed to the United States and its allies should develop strategies to promote modera- generate new policymakers. tion in the Muslim world, improve standards of living, and encourage democratic and pluralistic developments. All of these areas provide substantial opportunities for private funders to make a difference.

Encouraging Debate One approach is to support programs that bring Muslim policymakers, intellectuals, journalists, and others to the United States to debate key issues. There are a range of options for exchange programs—from the National Democratic Institute and its sister International Republican Institute, to the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and the Hoover Institution. The key element of such exchange programs is to ensure that democratically oriented individuals are actually taking advantage of them, rather than only treating them as free tickets to the United States. To gauge the value of these programs, grantees should follow up with visitors after they arrive back home. One related model to consider is the strategy employed by funders such as the Open Society Institute during the Cold War—supplying dissident voices behind the Iron Curtain with Xerox machines, faxes, and the like to aid the dissemination of their ideas.

28

The Struggle Against Radical Islam

Supporting the Forces of Freedom Abroad During the Cold War the United States created a wide-ranging strategy that supported political forces sympathetic to freedom and pluralism around the world. It did so through a range of institutions, some funded by government and others through private entities. Journals such as Encounter in Britain provided a forum for the views of European intellectuals sympathetic to liberty and democracy. Washington also facilitated the publication of certain Expanding the cadre of scholars books abroad that might not otherwho possess specialized knowledge, wise have found a publisher. In cooperation with the AFL-CIO, the United and who understand how to States supported anti-communist forces within foreign trade unions. translate this knowledge into Evidence that these public diplopolicy-relevant thinking and macy and political warfare efforts were effective emerged in the 1980s. The U.S writing, is a medium-term government implemented a major challenge that can be tackled with modernization of its radio services (Radio Free Europe and others) to relatively modest levels of support. strengthen programming and offset massive Soviet jamming operations. The U.S. also launched a major campaign to counter Soviet propaganda that opposed our deployment of intermediate nuclear weapons in Europe. It waged intensive public information campaigns around wars in Central America and Afghanistan. The United States also supported indigenous groups around the world, including the Solidarity Movement in Poland and resistance movements in Afghanistan. The U.S. government provided assistance to groups such as Resistance International, a coalition of resistance groups in communist countries around the world, and also established the National Endowment for Democracy to facilitate contacts among political parties around the world. In short, the United States had a coherent strategy for identifying friendly political forces, understanding the nature and sources of their support, and discerning how America could aid indigenous anti-communist movements. Yet, while the past few years have seen several well-publicized reports documenting the challenges the United States now faces in public diplomacy, little action has been taken to implement the findings of these reports. Most recently, an April 2005

29

Taking Part

General Accounting Office study highlighted continuing problems in this area. It noted that despite White House efforts to promote and coordinate U.S. public diplomacy, the government still lacks a national communications strategy. Efforts to engage the private sector in public diplomacy initiatives have met with limited success, partly due to governmental resistance and also a lack of resources and management commitment. Overall, the U.S. government’s inability to wage an effective war of ideas is having adverse consequences for our interests around the globe. For donors, the challenge is to support projects that effectively implement components of a public diplomacy campaign in key regions of the world.

Aiding Public Diplomacy The two main needs for public diplomacy are (1) producing content that provides the U.S. message and (2) building up institutions that communicate different ideas around the world. One organization that combines both kinds of work is Aaron Lobel’s America Abroad Media. This group conducts programming— television and radio—in countries around the world in an effort to foster debate and dialogue between younger Universities are the main building generations. On the content side it block of future scholarship and ensures that participants focus on important readings—such as the role provide training and opportunities to of democracy and religion in society— undergraduate and graduate students— and on the communications side it encourages debates among Americans all necessary for strengthening the and non-Americans. field over the long term. Equally important is fostering debate and constructive dialogue in the Muslim world by supporting indigenous groups that are writing, debating, or otherwise providing content for new media outlets. We cannot have a debate solely in the Western media; it must occur in the Middle East and throughout the Islamic world. One significant area of opportunity involves independent media outlets—publications or websites—that promote debate. Relatively few Arabic-language publications around the world are open to debate, and very few Arabic publishing houses produce books that deal with the ideas of liberty. Funding for publishing houses that would produce

30

The Struggle Against Radical Islam

Arabic texts—say, translations of key books of Western literature and ideas, as well as the work of moderate Muslims—could be very important and have immediate effects. A journal of ideas, in Arabic and Persian, could be supported to provide Muslim intellectuals with a forum for developing ideas and debate. These kinds of projects are quite practical. Various existing publications could be used as a launching pad to translate content, but also to develop new content and to encourage debate in the Muslim world. For instance, The National Interest is an existing journal of ideas that balances intellectual inquiry and history, as well as policy-relevant subjects, and it would be one candidate to build upon to publish in Muslim-friendly languages. Or a The United States should strive to journal like Foreign Affairs could be counter false information promoted translated into Arabic as a way to promote debate. by many radical Islamist groups In all these cases, it would be important not just to translate the and, more broadly, to engage in American content but also to solicit and encourage debate in the original content pertinent to key debates in the Muslim world, such as Muslim world. the role of religion in society, individual rights, and women’s rights. Independent newspapers could also be supported in key states around the world, although this would require a much more extensive planning infrastructure. Yet the payback could be enormous. There are also diverse and varied opportunities for creating websites that foster debate and dialogue. For example, Azar Nafisi, author of the best-selling book Reading ‘Lolita’ in Tehran and a scholar at Johns Hopkins’ Foreign Policy Institute, has launched a website that aims to create a dialogue among Muslim audiences (http://dialogueproject.sais-jhu.edu). Another important new website, http://www.abfiran.org/english/memorial.php, created by scholars at the Abdorrahman Boroumand Foundation for the promotion of human rights and democracy in Iran (ABF), carefully documents the thousands upon thousands of atrocities committed by the Iranian regime against its people for decades. Equally important, this site translates key human rights documents into Persian, and explains to Iranians who tap into the

31

Taking Part

site the human rights laws and norms that are consistently violated by the Iranian regime. Over the past few years, the U.S. government’s efforts to explain its policies have been especially poor in the areas of human rights and basic religious freedoms. Individuals like Cheryl Benard at RAND have done important work exploring how various moderate Islamic movements are compatible with both Islam and human rights, and how such groups can best be supported. Nina Shea and Paul Marshall of the Center for Religious Freedom at Freedom House have done critical work in publicizing how so many countries For donors, the challenge is to around the world, Muslim and nonsupport projects that effectively Muslim, repress religious practice. Finally, we must recognize that implement components of a public the issue of moderate Islam is broader than the Middle East. A key strate- diplomacy campaign in key regions gic issue for the longer term involves of the world. countries on the “periphery” of the Middle East—Central Asian and Southeast Asian countries with large Muslim populations that, as of now, are interested in a moderate balance between religion and secular society. Central Asia is a particularly important region where strains of radical Islam are growing in groups like Hizb ut Tahir (HT). A good example of the way independent research can alert the broader policy community to an issue is the work done by Zeyno Baran, now at the Hudson Institute, who published an in-depth examination of the HT movement and raised awareness of this problem.

32

The Struggle Against Radical Islam

V First Steps: Finding the Right Means of Support The previous chapter offered three main ways that donors can think about directing their funding toward projects that improve U.S. prospects in the war on terrorism. The challenge America faces requires not only improving our ability to meet the threats against our own territory, but also the broader political and intellectual work of promoting more moderate political developments in the Muslim world. One major issue for a donor to consider is whether to give project-specific support or general operating support. Most think tanks prefer general support grants, and a 2003 study conducted by James McGann, a scholar at the Foreign Policy Research Institute in Philadelphia, noted that reduced support for general funding can take a toll on think tanks. At the same time, a funder will want to strike the right balThe two main needs for public ance between aiming at specific outdiplomacy are producing content comes while also allowing grantees some flexibility so that new project that provides the U.S. message ideas can germinate. and building up institutions that Some of the specific ideas discussed in the next chapter involve communicate different ideas working through an established around the world. think tank with existing programs focused on the Middle East, homeland security, and other aspects of national security. Alternatively, many of these institutions are open to the creation of new programs that might allow them to build an area of expertise. The Philanthropy Roundtable’s National Security Breakthrough Group, which commissioned this guidebook, exists to help donors focus their efforts in the field. Thus a donor with an idea for a fellowship program could work with this expert group to develop a basic template of what such a program might look like, and then make decisions about which nonprofit should house such a program. Or a donor

33

First Steps

interested in supporting a new journal designed to foster debate in the Muslim world could work with the Breakthrough Group to identify Muslim partners or to identify the key issues the journal might initially focus upon. The institutions listed in the next chapter would be good places to jump-start small or more ambitious programs related to the war on terrorism. The organizations are listed alphabetically on this list, which is by no means We cannot have a debate solely in exhaustive. Indeed, some of the larg- the Western media; it must occur in er think tanks have not been described in detail, because they are the Middle East and throughout relatively well known and easy to the Islamic world. contact. Again, the Philanthropy Roundtable’s National Security Breakthrough Group can help point a potential donor to the right person or institution for a particular project.

34

The Struggle Against Radical Islam

VI Starting Points: What Existing Organizations Offer The following list of organizations is merely an illustrative starting point for interested individuals/organizations. It is not meant to be a comprehensive list but only to highlight the many kinds of work now being done in the war on terror. Interested donors should contact the Philanthropy Roundtable National Security Breakthrough Group. Abdorrahman Boroumand Foundation 3220 N Street, N.W. Suite 357 Washington, DC 20007 202.333.3817 Contact: Roya Boroumand and Ladan Boroumand [email protected]

This small but highly focused organization steadily documents the human rights problems posed by radical Islamists, challenging the view that radical theocracies can be good for a country’s citizens. The Foundation has put together perhaps the only comprehensive websites on Iran’s human rights abuses. It is called OMID: A Memorial in Defense of Human Rights. It can be found at: http://www.abfiran.org/english/memorial.php. The Foundation believes that promoting human rights awareness through education and the dissemination of information is a necessary prerequisite for establishing a stable democracy in Iran. Through its programs of research, documentation, and publications, the Foundation hopes to help restore the dignity of Iran’s victims of human rights violations.

35

Starting Points

American Enterprise Institute Christopher DeMuth, President 1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20036 202.862.5800 www.aei.org

The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research is dedicated to preserving and strengthening the foundations of freedom—limited government, private enterprise, vital cultural and political institutions, and a strong foreign policy and national defense—through scholarly research, open debate, and publications. It is one of Washington’s largest and bestrespected think tanks and has an active defense and foreign policy program. AEI’s Middle East Studies Program focuses on U.S. strategy and democratic reform in the region, Islamic radicalism and terrorism, the political and social lessons learned during the Iraq war and reconstruction, The Arab-Israeli conflict and the collapse of the Islamic revolution in Iran. It would be well suited to provide assessments of key government homeland security initiatives, studies related to the U.S. defense posture, and programs related to the Middle East, such as projects that support moderate voices in the Muslim world.

36

The Struggle Against Radical Islam

America Abroad Media 1025 Connecticut Ave, N.W. Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 202.828.1282 www.americaabroadmedia.org Contact: Aaron Lobel, President and Chairman Both sides of the political spectrum seem to agree that a central weakness of U.S. foreign policy in recent years has been in public diplomacy, which entails explaining U.S. government policies in foreign lands and countering the rampant disinformation carried on by many regional media outlets. Not only has the content of America’s messages been weak, but few instruments have been established to disseminate this information or promote serious argument. America Abroad Media, a small but growing organization chaired by Aaron Lobel, is one of the best private entities engaging in public diplomacy. It has set up serious radio and television programming that encourages real debate over such issues as religion, democracy, and freedom among informed individuals. Aspen Institute Berlin Aspen Institute Berlin Inselstr. 10 14129 Berlin Germany + 49 (0) 30 80 48 90-0 [email protected] The Aspen Institute is one of the few U.S. organizations with a European office that brings together Americans and Europeans to discuss the problems of the day. Under the leadership of Jeff Gedmin, Aspen Institute Berlin has played a particularly important role in explaining key Bush administration policies, a clear area of weakness for the United States. Outspoken and a good writer, Gedmin challenges some of the more common assumptions held by Europeans about the United States.

37

Starting Points

Brookings Institution Strobe Talbott, President 1775 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20036-2188 202.797.6000 www.brookings.edu

The Brookings Institution, one of Washington’s oldest think tanks, is an independent, nonpartisan organization devoted to research, analysis, and public education with an emphasis on economics, foreign policy, governance, and metropolitan policy. It has a robust defense policy program, as well as the Saban Center for the Middle East, and the Center on the U.S. and Europe. One of its many current research projects is: U.S. Relations with the Islamic World. Center for Security Policy 1920 L Street, N.W. Suite 210 Washington, DC 20036 202.835.9077 www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org

Among the many projects at the Center for Security Policy, a noteworthy one is Frank Gaffney’s effort to draw attention to the financial resources of terrorists. Using the model of South Africa, Gaffney’s www.DivestTerror.org is a nationwide campaign aimed at some 400 public companies worldwide. He argues that public and private pension plans, college endowments, individual retirement account managers, 401(k) plans, and other investment vehicles should exploit the leverage represented by investments in publicly traded companies that operate in terrorist-sponsoring states. Also associated with the Center is Alex Alexiev, an expert on Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. His research and analysis have been important in understanding how radical Islam is shaping the internal and external policies of these states, and he has testified before Capitol Hill on these and other issues.

38

The Struggle Against Radical Islam

Center for Strategic and International Studies John Hamre, CEO 1800 K Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20006 202.887.0200 www.csis.org

CSIS is a large, well-established think tank with some 190 researchers and support staff who focus primarily on three subject areas: the spectrum of new challenges to national and international security; regional expertise on all of the world’s major geographical regions; and developing new methods of governance for the global age, such as programs related to technology, international trade and finance, and energy. CSIS’s Transnational Threats Project (TNT) assesses the impact of the convergence of transnational terrorism and transnational crime. The Transatlantic Dialogue on Terrorism aims to promote an open and timely discourse on jihadist terrorism between experts from the U.S. and Europe. The Homeland Security Program focuses on advancing policies, practices, and partnerships that best protect against the terrorist threat against the U.S. mainland. Center for the Study of the Presidency David Abshire, President 1020 Nineteenth Street, N.W. Suite 250 Washington, DC 20036 202.872.9800 www.thepresidency.org The Center seeks to further the understanding and functioning of the American Presidency and its related institutions. It has played a role as a clearing house of information related to the war on terrorism and has helped inform key executive branch agencies, such as the Department of Homeland Security, of important research that could assist U.S. policymakers.

39

Starting Points

Combating Terrorism Center Combating Terrorism Center Lincoln Hall U.S. Military Academy West Point, NY 10996 845.938.8495 E-mail: [email protected] http://www.ctc.usma.edu/default.asp Located at West Point, but run as an independent think tank focused on improving the U.S. understanding of the jihadi threat, the Center has gathered an impressive group of fellows and adjunct fellows who are working on analyzing extremist jihadi groups and their strategies. The Center is not fully funded by West Point. It was launched in February 2004, in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, by a West Point alum. Its scholars—mostly civilian academics and experts—depend upon outside sources of support in order to do specific project work. Council on Foreign Relations Richard Haass, President The Harold Pratt House 58 East 68th Street New York, NY 10021 212.434.9400 www.cfr.org

Washington Office 1779 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 202.518.3400

The Council has a well-established power to convene “power brokers” in Washington, New York, and around the country, and can highlight key issues to an influential audience. It also runs think tanks in New York and Washington, where its scholars have tackled key issues related to the war on terrorism and homeland security. CSIS’s Transnational Threats Project (TNT) assesses the impact of the convergence of transnational terrorism and transnational crime. The Transatlantic Dialogue on Terrorism aims to promote an open and timely discourse on jihadist terrorism between experts from the U.S. and Europe. The Homeland Security Program focuses on advancing policies, practices, and partnerships that best protect against the terrorist threat against the U.S. mainland.

40

The Struggle Against Radical Islam

Foreign Policy Research Institute 1528 Walnut Street Suite 610 Philadelphia, PA 19102 215.732.3774 www.fpri.org The Institute focuses on bringing the insights of scholarship to bear on the development of policies that advance U.S. national interests. It is a good forum for debating many of the issues associated with the “war of ideas” over national security. It publishes the respected foreign policy journal Orbis. In addition, it houses the Center on Terrorism, Counter-Terrorism, and Homeland Security. Foundation for the Defense of Democracies P.O. Box 33249 Washington, DC 20033 202.207.0190 www.defenddemocracy.org Clifford May, President The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit policy institute dedicated to finding effective ways to defeat terrorism—and the totalitarian ideologies used to incite and justify terrorism. It offers several academic fellowships focused on key areas related to terrorism, publishes research and white papers on key issues, and also runs democracy education programs geared to provide intellectual ammunition to reformers in the Middle East who are working to advance liberty, individual rights, and pluralism, and help them counter the influence of radical Islam in their societies.

41

Starting Points

Freedom House 120 Wall Street Floor 26 New York, NY 10005 212.514.8040 www.freedomhouse.org Contact: Arch Puddington, Director of Research

Freedom House played a key role during the Cold War in supporting forces opposed to Soviet domination, particularly in Central and Eastern Europe. Today, through its Freedom in the World survey, the organization plays an important role in establishing basic barometers to measure the quality of life in countries around the world. This annual survey is cited over and over by Congress as a measure for whether progress has been made by states across a range of religious, economic, and political freedoms. Holding states around the world – Muslim and non-Muslim – to such standards is an important part of the debate that must be generated. Center for Religious Freedom (a division of Freedom House) 1319 Eighteenth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20036 202.296.5101 www.freedomhouse.org/religion

Under the leadership of Nina Shea this center carefully documents two key trends: the repression and systematic violation of the religious rights of individuals around the world, and more recently, Saudi Arabia’s publication of radical extremist literature in its own textbooks. The Center’s work is an excellent example of how focused research can add knowledge and provide a foundation for understanding the threat to basic liberties that militant Islam holds.

42

The Struggle Against Radical Islam

The German Marshall Fund of the United States 1744 R Street, NW Washington, DC 20009 202.745.3950 www.gmfus.org President: Craig Kennedy

The German Marshall Fund’s Washington, D.C. office serves as the headquarters for its global activities. The Fund has played a key role in fostering transatlantic debate on issues related to terrorism and radical Islam. It has also played an important role in understanding Muslim diaspora communities in Europe, and it has supported several influential surveys regarding attitudes in Europe toward the United States and the war on terror. Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002-4999 202.546.4400 www.heritage.org

The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institute whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense. Heritage has done work related to U.S. homeland security efforts, examining progress in key areas. Recent Heritage studies include: State and Regional Responses to Disasters: Solving the 72 hour Problem; Building the Right Regional Framework for Preparedness and Response; Talking Through Disasters: The Federal Role in Emergency Communications; Empowering America: A proposal for Enhancing Regional Preparedness; Learning form Disaster: The Role of Federalism and the Importance of Grassroots Response.

43

Starting Points

Hoover Institution John Raisian, Director Hoover Institution, Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305-6010 650.723.1754 www.hoover.org

The Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University is a public policy research center devoted to advanced study of politics, economics, and political economy—both domestic and foreign—as well as international affairs. Since September 11, Hoover has held a number of events focusing on the subject of terrorism. In particular, they have two programs—the National Security Forum and the International Rivalries and Global Cooperation—which are applicable to many of the issues discussed above. The Iran Democracy Project at the Hoover Institution was created to understand the process and prospect for democracy in Iran and the rest of the Middle East. The central goal is to help the West understand the complexities of the Muslim world, and to map out possible trajectories for transitions to democracy and free markets in the Middle East, beginning with Iran. Hudson Institute 1015 Fifteenth Street, NW 6th Floor Washington, DC 20005 202.974.2400 www.hudson.org

Over the past two years, the Hudson Institute has worked to build up a strong research and activity program devoted to understanding radical Islam, identifying moderate forces within key Muslim states, and thinking about the key strategic challenges posed by radical Islam to the United States. Hillel Fradkin is doing important work as the director of the Center for the Study of Islam, and the new director of the Center for Security Futures, S. Enders Wimbush, offers a wealth of knowledge about strategic as well as regional issues.

44

The Struggle Against Radical Islam

Institute for American Values David Blakenhorn, President 1841 Broadway Suite 211 New York, NY 10023 212.246.3942 www.americanvalues.org

Although the Institute is better known for its work on domestic policy issues, over the past two years president David Blakenhorn has worked hard, and successfully, to bring together moderate Muslims and Americans to engage in dialogue over issues such as democracy and freedom. In September 2003, the group published a letter signed by 60 scholars entitled, “What We Are Fighting For.” The letter was translated into Arabic, circulated, and generated several responses from Europe and the Middle East. The Institute continues to work to bring influential Muslim and American thinkers together regularly. It has recently launched a jointly edited journal called Reason/Ijtihad, which could play an important role in launching the kind of debate that many have been talking about but have yet to make happen. This journal of ideas will appear in English and Arabic.

45

Starting Points

Institute of World Politics John Lenczowski, President 1521 Sixteenth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20036-1464 202.462.2101 www.iwp.edu The Institute of World Politics is a graduate school of statecraft and national security affairs dedicated to helping develop leaders with a sound understanding of international realities and the ethical conduct of statecraft based on an appreciation of American political philosophy and the Western moral tradition. It emphasizes developing a capacity to think strategically so as to detect and understand threats and political-strategic opportunities; prevent, manage, mitigate, resolve, and prevail in international conflicts; match the ends and means of policy; and to do all this in ways that minimize the necessity of using force. This Institute would be a good place to house fellowship programs for those pursuing the study of many of the subjects discussed in this guide. The Investigative Project 5505 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 341 Washington DC 20015 202.363.8602

This organization reveals just how much an outside (non-government) entity can contribute to understanding terrorist networks. The Investigative Project focuses on research to better understand terrorist networks. It pays particular attention to how networks are operating in the United States. Its work is systematic and detailed, and it is called upon to brief a variety of U.S. government agencies—include Congress and the FBI—regularly.

46

The Struggle Against Radical Islam

Jamestown Foundation 4516 43rd Street, NW Washington, DC 20016 202.483.8888 www.jamestown.org Contact: Glen Howard, President The Jamestown Foundation’s mission is to inform and educate policymakers and the broader policy community about events and trends in those societies which are strategically important to the United States and which frequently restrict access to such information. Utilizing indigenous and primary sources, Jamestown’s material is delivered without political bias. The Foundation recently began publishing well-regarded newsletters—Terrorism Monitor and Terrorism Focus—which provide analyses of key issues related to terrorism and to events, more broadly, in the Greater Middle East. Jebsen Center for Counter-Terrorism Studies BG (USA, Ret.) Russell Howard, Founding Director The Cabot Center, Suite 505 The Fletcher School, Tufts University 160 Packard Avenue Medford, MA 02155 USA 617.627.4740

The Jebsen Center for Counter-Terrorism Studies was established at The Fletcher School in September 2005. Its mission is to increase the understanding and competency of counter-terrorism professionals. To accomplish this mission the Jebsen Center funds a research and analysis program, hosts conferences and a visiting fellows program, and conducts outreach activities. Predicting, preventing, and preempting terrorist activity will be important early research topics at the Center as will the role of women and business in the campaign against terrorism.

47

Starting Points

Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs 1779 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Suite 515 Washington, DC 20036 202.667.3900 www.jinsa.org

JINSA is a nonprofit, nonpartisan educational organization committed to explaining the need for a prudent national security policy for the United States, addressing the security requirements of both the United States and the State of Israel, and strengthening the strategic cooperation between these two democracies. JINSA works to explain the role Israel plays in bolstering American interests, as well as the link between American defense policy and the security of Israel. It conducts exchange programs with Israeli security and terrorism experts and U.S. officials and analysts focused on these issues. Lexington Institute Mac Carey, CEO 1600 Wilson Boulevard Suite 900 Arlington, VA 22209 703.522.5828 www.lexingtoninstitute.org The Lexington Institute seeks to inform, educate, and shape the public debate of national priorities in areas of importance to the future success of democracy, such as national security, education reform, tax reform, immigration and federal policy concerning science and technology. The Institute would be well suited to programs that focus on a reassessment of U.S. defense policy and defense posture issues, as well as issues related to homeland security preparedness.

48

The Struggle Against Radical Islam

The Long Term Strategy Project Stephen P. Rosen, Director 104 Mount Auburn Street Cambridge, MA 02138-5019 617.492.1500

Begun with a seed grant by the Office of the Secretary of Defense in 2003, the LTSP focuses on researching cutting-edge issues in the war on terrorism, with particular focus on how to assess the economic, political, and military aspects of the enemy and how the U.S. should be organized as a government, military, economy, and society to fight against this threat. Taking a page from the manner in which RAND was established in 1948, the LTSP brings together some of the finest minds in policy analysis, history, Middle East studies, anthropology, economics, and security studies to address some of the most difficult questions regarding radical Islam and how to combat it. Manhattan Institute for Policy Research The Manhattan Institute, Center for Policing Terrorism 52 Vanderbilt Avenue New York, NY 10017 212.599.7000 www.cpt-mi.org The Manhattan Institute conducts research on a variety of issues. Since September 11, they have created an innovative Center for Policing Terrorism, based on the idea that local police departments would be on the frontline of combating terrorism. The Manhattan Institute believed that local police deserved to have available the best possible thinking on the subject, and the Center has dedicated itself to helping police departments combat terrorism using a global network of the finest counter-terrorism minds. CPT partners with police departments for the purpose of turning this intellect into practical products, advice, and services. They have run specific training programs for the NYPD and are now working to expand their network to other departments around the country.

49

Starting Points

Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) P.O. Box 27837 Washington, DC 20038-7837 202.955.9070 www.memri.org

MEMRI is one of the most straightforward but powerful vehicles around for understanding the tenor of the dialogue in the Middle East and Muslim world today. It is a tool for gaining firsthand knowledge about the debate in the Middle East through its timely translations of Arabic, Farsi, and Hebrew media, as well as original analysis of political, cultural, and religious trends in the Middle East. It is headquartered in Washington, D.C., but has branch offices in Berlin, London, and Jerusalem, where MEMRI also maintains its Media Center. MEMRI research is translated into English, German, Hebrew, Italian, French, Spanish, Turkish, and Russian. The Nixon Center 1615 L Street, NW Suite 1250 Washington, DC 20036 202.887.1000 www.nixoncenter.org President Dimitri Simes The Nixon Center conducts research on the Middle East, Caspian Basin, South Asia, and the former Soviet Union. Its conferences, briefings, seminars, lectures, and other events have been particularly useful to the Washington policy community in illuminating the threats from radical Islam in Central Asia. The Immigration and National Security Program organizes seminars and workshops that bring together experts from the fields of immigration and national security. The Regional Strategic Studies Program directed by Geoffrey Kemp, is currently focused on a project on the future of U.S. – Iranian relations.

50

The Struggle Against Radical Islam

Non Proliferation Policy Education Center (NPEC) Henry Sokolski 1718 M Street, N.W. Suite 244 Washington, D.C. 20036 202.466.4406 www.npec-web.org

Combating the spread of strategic weapons was at the very top of President Clinton’s and President Bush’s list of foreign policy objectives. Iraq’s and North Korea’s development of longrange missiles, and nuclear, chemical and biological weapons has reinforced the gravity of this issue. Yet for so important a topic, America’s fight against strategic weapons proliferation has generally been ineffective. Neither its policies nor the actions taken to implement them have been very successful. The Philip Merrill Center for Strategic Studies Eliot Cohen, Founding Director The Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies The Johns Hopkins University 1619 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 202.663.5772 www.sais-jhu.edu/merrillcenter/

The Philip Merrill Center for Strategic Studies operates both as an academic program at The Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) of The Johns Hopkins University and as an outreach program. The academic program in Strategic Studies comprises one of the sub-fields of the International Relations concentration available to SAIS students and deals with the relationship between politics and military power. The Center’s outreach activities aim to improve the quality of teaching in strategic studies and promote dialogue on major issues of the national security agenda.

51

Introduction

The Policy Forum 44 Hays Mews 153 East 53rd Street, 49th Floor London Q1J 5QB New York, NY 10022 44.07717.851.782 212.303.4353

The Policy Forum on International Security Affairs was launched in November 2002, as it became increasingly obvious that the overseas press had little understanding of U.S. foreign policy and even less sympathy for American policies in the War on Terror. Based in London, the Policy Forum hosts a series of roundtable discussion for members of the U.S. policy committee and the international press corps. Given the central role of the U.K. among America’s alliances, the Forum is located in Britain. Furthermore, London also serves as the center of the Arab press, and the Policy Forum regularly gathers key Arab media in small sessions as well. Although the Forum works closely with U.S. government officials, it provides the media a certain distance from official circuits and offers both sides greater candor in discussions, many of which are off-the-record. The Policy Forum’s director, Devon Cross, has twenty years experience working with private foundations involved in national security issues. She serves on the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board and her many contacts in this field have yielded a wide range of speakers for the Policy Forum’s roundtables, including senior officials from the Departments of Defense and State, as well as leading outside analysts such as Henry Kissinger, R. James Woolsey, and political commentator Michael Barone.

52

The Struggle Against Radical Islam

Potomac Institute for Policy Studies Michael S. Swetnam, Chairman and CEO 901 North Stuart Street Suite 200 Arlington, VA 22203 703.525.0770 www.potomacinstitute.org The Institute identifies key science and technology issues facing the United States. It has programs related to terrorism and asymmetric threats, as well as projects related to national security more broadly. It would be well suited to conduct studies to assess U.S. homeland security efforts in key areas like bioterrorism. It has published many reports on bioterrorism and is well connected to the policy community focused on this area. The Project for the New American Century Gary Schmitt, Executive Director 1150 Seventeenth Street, NW Suite 510 Washington, DC 20036 202.293.4983 www.newamericancentury.org

The Project for the New American Century is a nonprofit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy, and commitment to moral principle. PNAC produces issue briefs, research papers, advocacy journalism, conferences, and seminars, to explain what American world leadership entails.

53

Introduction

Washington Institute for Near East Policy 1828 L Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20036 202.452.0650 www.washingtoninstitute.org Executive Director Robert Satloff Founded in 1985, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy was established to advance an understanding of American interests in the Middle East. The Institute seeks to bring scholarship to bear on the making of U.S. policy in this vital region. The Institute houses an impressive group of regional and country experts and would be a strong candidate for projects seeking to advance U.S. understanding of political and economic developments in key countries in the Middle East and broader region.

54

The Struggle Against Radical Islam

The Philanthropy Roundtable The Philanthropy Roundtable is a national association of individual donors, foundation trustees and staff, and corporate giving officers. Its mission is to foster excellence in philanthropy and to assist donors in advancing freedom, opportunity, and personal responsibility. The Roundtable is guided by the principle that voluntary private action offers the best means of addressing many of society’s challenges, and that a vibrant private sector is critical to generating the independent wealth that makes philanthropy possible. The Roundtable is strongly committed to donor intent and to helping philanthropists ensure that their intentions will be adhered to in the long-term administration of their trusts. The Roundtable attracts independent-minded grantmakers who understand that philanthropy is difficult to do well, and who realize they can benefit from being part of an organization that is dedicated to helping them achieve their charitable objectives. To these ends, the Roundtable offers its Associates three principal services: ★ Meetingplace: The Roundtable offers a solicitation-free environment where donors share ideas, strategies, and best practices. ★ Resource Center: The Roundtable publishes state-of-the-art information on excellence in philanthropy and connects donors with the best minds in their field. ★ Leverage: The Roundtable helps donors leverage their resources by enlisting new philanthropists committed to freedom, opportunity, and personal responsibility.

55

The Philanthropy Roundtable

Programs & Services The Roundtable’s programs and services for grantmakers include ★ An annual national meeting, held each fall, that focuses on a theme of central importance to philanthropy. Donors gather from around the country for this three-day conference. ★ Regional meetings, held in different cities throughout the year, that bring grantmakers together to discuss issues of common concern and to develop effective strategies to address them. ★ Philanthropy, a bimonthly magazine that explores the issues of greatest concern to grantmakers and welcomes articles by donors and others about new ideas and developments in philanthropy. ★ Monographs addressing both practical and philosophical matters pertaining to charitable giving. ★ A website (www.PhilanthropyRoundtable.org) with current information of interest to donors. ★ Consulting and referral services on starting, restructuring, and administering giving programs, designed especially for individual donors and small foundations that have limited staff and resources. ★ Affinity groups for donors with a specialized interest in K12 education, environmental giving, higher education and national security. The Roundtable’s programs and services are available to donors only. The solicitation-free environment we seek to maintain precludes paid fundraisers from participating.

56

The Struggle Against Radical Islam

The Roundtable welcomes individual donors, corporations, foundations, and trust and estate officers as Associates. All Roundtable Associates are eligible to receive: ★ A subscription to Philanthropy ★ Invitations to annual and regional meetings and affinity groups ★ Complimentary copy of each monograph ★ Program and management consultation

Suggested Annual Contribution Levels

BASIC SUSTAINING LEADERSHIP SPONSOR

Individual Donors

Foundation and Corporate Donors

$250 $500 $1,000 $2,500 and up

$500 $1,000 $2,500 $5,000 and up

The Roundtable also accepts grants for projects and operating support

Enclosed is my tax-deductible contribution of $_____________ to become a Roundtable Associate ❑ INDIVIDUAL

❑ INSTITUTIONAL

at the following level: ❑ BASIC

❑ SUSTAINING

❑ LEADERSHIP

❑ SPONSOR

MR. MRS. MS. NAME

TITLE

A F F I L I AT I O N

ADDRESS

CITY

BUSINESS PHONE

S TAT E

ZIP

FA X

HOME

The Philanthropy Roundtable is a nonprofit tax-exempt organization under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Contributions are fully tax-deductible.

The Struggle Against Radical Islam A Donor’s Guide ome donors look at issues of national and homeland security and assume that solutions must be the sole province of government — principally the federal government. Others look at the magnitude of the same issues and wonder where to begin in making a contribution. While government is primarily responsible for the security of the United States, there are many opportunities for private philanthropy to have an impact. These opportunities fall into three categories where private funding can make a crucial contribution to the struggle against Radical Islam. The first includes local or regional programs to improve the U.S. capacity to deter and respond to future terrorist attacks. The second includes programs to enhance the U.S. understanding of Islam, the Muslim world and the sources of radicalism and terrorism. And the third includes programs to strengthen moderate forces, both religious and secular, in the Muslim world. The Philanthropy Roundtable is committed to helping interested donors achieve maximum impact in the national security arena. We are dedicated to assisting donors in determining which type of program best speaks to their interests. This guidebook provides a place to start. It looks at the sources and attitudes of Radical Islam, at what government and private programs have achieved to date and at organizations that might provide an immediate route to involvement.

S

1150 17th Street, N.W. Suite 503 Washington, D.C. 20036 T: 202.822.8333

. F: 202.822.8325 . E: [email protected]

Free copies of this report are available to donors. Nonprofit organizations are eligible to receive bulk discounts.

The Struggle Against Radical Islam A Donor’s Guide

1150 17th Street, N.W. Suite 503 Washington, D.C. 20036 T: 202.822.8333

. F: 202.822.8325 . E: [email protected]