De-Radicalization Programs: the US’ Alternative for Non-Violent Extremists

Earlier this month, two Minnesotan men – Abdhihamid Farah and Yasin Daud – were each sentenced to 30 years in prison after attempted provision of material support to the Islamic State (IS). Their recruitment and plans of traveling overseas have become familiar narratives throughout the United States. These men are two of the now 109 Americans who, since 2014, have been charged with IS-related offenses.

Extremists like these Minnesotan men, who voiced their support for IS over social media platforms and attempted travel to Syria, bring significant risk of terrorist activity to America. They also pose the dilemma of how to deal most effectively with the growing number of extremists who go beyond mere speech, yet whose actions fall short of actual violence. Farah and Daud will remain imprisoned for decades, yet their allegiance to IS after their sentences conclude is uncertain. So how do we effectively detach these nascent extremists from their radical mentality?  Our country must look beyond criminal charges and imprisonment. We must also look toward de-radicalization programs.

{mosads}De-radicalization programs are comprehensive. As practiced in many Western European and Middle Eastern countries, they include components of psychological and religious counseling and therapy, as well as vocational training. The programs identify the motivations behind the individual’s radicalization, and aim to negate them with the benefits offered through the reintegration, counseling and mentorship.

There is no single extremist profile, case, or timeline. Therefore, flexibility in the implementation of de-radicalization program is essential. In France, government programs introduced in 2016 focus on voluntary candidates, demonstrating a way out of terror networks for would-be jihadists. Other programs, such as those in Saudi Arabia and Germany, work largely with convicted material supporters and even more active members of terrorist organizations, therefore targeting cases of advanced extremists. Thus, there are multiple insertion points for individuals across the extremist spectrum.

America’s federal prison system and its surrounding culture have been described as ‘breeding grounds’ for radicalization. Flexible de-radicalization programs operating in U.S. prisons would help thwart recruitment of criminals with backgrounds unrelated to terrorism. Additionally, the programs’ primary concern, de-radicalizing those inmates involved with terrorist organizations, remains an imperative as an estimated 100 will be released over the next five years.

De-radicalization programs are effective in leveraging change in disillusioned radicals. The first stage, disengagement, in which an individual ceases illegal activities, can promote successful de-radicalization, the second stage during which they renounce extremist ideology. Early indications suggest that De-radicalization programs in the U.S. are capable preventing further violent terror activity, and changing the outlook of some extremists.

Even early adopter states of de-radicalization programs such as Saudi Arabia, however, have fallen short. They lack rigorous long-term follow-up with their programs’ graduates and have limited data regarding recidivism. For some skeptics, this component has shaken their confidence in the programs’ ability to disengage and de-radicalize the individuals. However, the Saudi programs are important examples for the United States to consider in attempt to address this population which we ignore at our peril and, perhaps, incarcerate to our detriment.

As extremist numbers in the United States grow, we require a more effective counter-terrorism response. The implementation of de-radicalization programs is our country’s next step to better address the terrorist threat and keep our country safe and secure.

Parker is a graduate student at the George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs.

The views expressed by authors are their own and not the views of The Hill.