We Can Effectively Counter Terrorism Without War

FOLLOWING THE HAMAS attacks on Israel last October, President Biden drew a parallel to the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States. He remarked that in the aftermath of 9/11 “we felt enraged” and “we made mistakes.” The U.S. response in 2001 serves both as a cautionary tale to Israel and a reminder of the failures of the military-first approach the U.S. has taken to international terrorism.

After 9/11, the U.S. responded with war. This choice was just that — a policy choice. The U.S. could have used effective models of international policing to bring Osama bin Laden’s transnational criminal network to justice — and many countries stood ready to help. Instead, ex-President Bush chose a military strategy against nonstate actors. Thus began the Global War on Terror. This choice employed a war-based framework that permitted killing people suspected of terrorism as a first resort; allowed for indefinite military detention; and trained foreign forces to respond to threats of terrorism with lethal force. In 2023, according to the Costs of War Project, the U.S. was conducting militarized counterterrorism operations in 78 countries.

Twenty-three years of this approach has not defeated terrorist groups. Instead, these groups are more dispersed and recruitment has increased. This policy choice has resulted in up to 432,000 civilian deaths and cost U.S. taxpayers more than $8 trillion. The post-9/11 period has seen a fourfold increase in terrorist groups and terrorist attacks have increased fivefold per year globally. Part of this growth relates to the high numbers of civilian casualties caused by U.S. military operations, including drone strikes, which groups such as ISIS and al Qaeda exploit to bolster recruitment.

Do we want a fifth U.S. administration to inherit and manage this failed and damaging military framework? Scripture calls on Christians to “seek peace and pursue it” (Psalm 34:14) — wisely and effectively. We live into this calling by addressing the root causes of terrorism and utilizing effective, nonviolent tools to mitigate, contain, and respond to terrorist violence. We have an opportunity and duty to make a new policy choice that prioritizes using critical nonmilitary tools to create the conditions for stability, peace, and the protection of human rights.

First, we must demand that Congress increase funding for the State Department and U.S. Agency for Development Aid (USAID) to support economic development and peacebuilding programs. These nonmilitary agencies can work with local populations to break cycles of violence and build community cohesion while strengthening the rule of law. For example, when violence erupted between militias in the Central African Republic in 2013, USAID was able to leverage its Complex Crises Fund to train a diverse cohort of community leaders in mediation, conflict analysis, and conflict resolution. At the end of the 18-month program, community cohesion across difference had increased 178 percent and 220 fighters voluntarily disarmed.

Prevention programs are extremely cost-effective. Every dollar invested in peacebuilding saves up to $16 in the cost of responding to war. In 2023 the Biden administration released, as part of the requirements of the Global Fragility Act (GFA), 10-year country plans for some nations at high risk of violent conflict. These plans are built on effective anti-violence approaches, not militarized counterterrorism efforts. Effective implementation of the GFA plans depends heavily on funding. Congress should appropriate $200 million per year for the Prevention and Stabilization Fund (one of the key accounts supporting GFA implementation) and $60 million per year for the Complex Crises Fund.

Second, it’s time to take seriously President Biden’s 2021 assertion that diplomacy is “back at the center of our foreign policy.” In the context of international counterterrorism, this means investing in a State Department workforce with expertise in core elements that strengthen state stability, including capacity-building and governance. It also requires a State Department that can cultivate partnerships in other countries with local nongovernmental organizations, which hold intimate knowledge of regional dynamics. Following the Trump administration’s gutting of State’s experienced diplomatic corps, there has been a scramble to rebuild. Ongoing failure to invest in our diplomacy infrastructure has led the government to delegate such civilian-led functions to the military, which lacks the necessary expertise.

Third, we must shift to an international law enforcement approach, grounded in human rights law, that puts the use of force against suspected criminals as a last resort and brings to justice through the federal courts system those planning violence against U.S. citizens. At least 113 international terrorism suspects have been captured abroad and convicted in U.S. federal courts, resulting not only in justice but in actionable intelligence to prevent further crime.

It should be noted that international terrorism prosecutions in U.S. courts have raised human rights concerns — in particular concerning due process violations and conditions of confinement. Far better that we work to strengthen our judicial system than to maintain a strategy of targeted killings of suspects that inflames terrorists, endangers civilians, and weakens international law.

The tipping point away from a war-based counterterrorism strategy to one using international law enforcement and intelligence resources is now. It’s hard to imagine a response to the scourge of terrorism that doesn’t involve more violence. But Christians can help envision a different way toward peace. We have a vast nonmilitary toolbox for effectively countering terrorism. Let’s invest in it.