Earlier this year national security blog Danger Room, part of tech site Wired.com, published counterterrorism training materials used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The materials (.pdf), in the form of power point slides, were used by lecturers to outline the basic tenets of Islam and beliefs and practices of Muslims for agents of the Bureau. The release of the documents resulted in an uproar among Arab and Muslim-Americans because they clearly depict correlations between piety and violence among Muslims along with other troubling connections. This has caused the Obama administration to order a complete review of all counterterrorism-training materials and procedures used by the government. In a memo (.pdf) dated October 14, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Homeland Defense Strategy and Force Planning, Jose Mayorga requested that “Departments and Agencies provide their screening procedures for CVE trainers and speakers.” The abbreviation CVE stands for Countering Violent Extremism, which is the Obama administration's term for the War on Terror. The government-wide memo goes onto say that “the intent is to determine the criteria used to establish professional qualifications for teachers and lecturers providing instruction on countering violent Islamic extremism.” At the bottom of the document is a line which reads “Attachment: Spencer Ackerman's Wired.com article,” which is a reference to the author of the initial story. The question now becomes whether the Obama administration is ordering this review to actually determine the efficacy and relevancy of the material or because they are bowing down to the tremendous scrutiny. It appears as though it may be the latter. What is worrisome, besides much of the information contained in the slides, is that this review seems to have occurred only because of the light shined on it by various media outlets. The first line of the memo states, “recent media attention on the Federal Bureau of Investigation Countering Violent Extremism training and DoD [Department of Defense] lectures led the National Security Staff …” to make the request for a formal review of their vetting and training procedures. So what exactly is being taught at these lectures? First, what is important to understand about the training in question is that the lectures where this material was used were strictly voluntary, according to an FBI spokesman. They are used to supplement training for field agents and sometimes local law enforcement. On the title slides of the presentation there is a disclaimer that reads “the views expressed in this presentation (.pdf) are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of any agency of the United States Government.” Most of the materials made available begin with background about the history of Islam along with basic information about the Qur'an and the Prophet Mohammed. In one pack of slides titled, “Doctrinal Basis for Jihad” (.pdf) the presenter states that “zakat,” which is one of the five pillars of Islam meaning charitable alms giving, is used as funding for “those fighting for Allah.” The author of the slides, William Gawthrop, who has been used by the FBI on several occasions, also writes that “A state of war, not peace, perpetually exists between Muslims and unbelievers.” And that “the expenditure of zakat on war fighting is not only permissible but obligatory.” Is an agent of the Bureau to believe that every Muslim who does their religious duty by giving zakat now funding Islamic terrorist activities? According to Gawthrop the answer is yes. In another set of slides labeled “Militancy Considerations” (.pdf) Gawthrop displays the three Abrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam on a simple graph with one axis for time and the other for degrees of violence. While the lines of Judaism and Christianity are moving safely toward the non-violent end, Islam, on the other hand, is apparently stuck at the same amount of violence that existed between 610 and 622 AD. The views expressed by Gawthrop seem to conflict with those shared by President Obama himself, so why are they being taught? In a speech in Cairo in 2009, President Obama said, “In Ankara [Turkey], I made clear that America is not — and never will be — at war with Islam …” and then went on to say, “We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security.” That speech was a sort of reset in the relations between the US and the Muslim world. The current administration has been trying to find its own way to talk about Islamic extremism even at times eschewing the words terror, jihadists, and Islamists when speaking about these issues. John Brennan, who serves as President Obama's Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, said at a 2010 conference for the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) that “Our enemy is not ‘terror' because terror is a state of mind … Nor do we describe our enemy as ‘jihadists' or ‘Islamists' because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenant of Islam … and there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children.” If Brennan is to be believed then what is being taught to FBI agents and law enforcement officials across the country goes completely against the stance of the administration. Between the time that President Obama gave his speech in Cairo and now, the United States has experienced attempted attacks of terrorism on home soil. The three most notable attempts being: the December 2009 “underwear bomber,” the May 2010 Times Square bombing attempt, and the October 2010 attempt to bomb cargo planes bound for the US. These efforts demonstrate that there is still a threat of attacks by terrorists acting in the name of Islam. The task now is how to educate those whose job it is to prevent such incidents from happening. No one would argue against better educating our security agencies and law enforcement about Islam and violent extremism in all forms. But if they are being taught that every Muslim is a potential enemy then how can there ever truly be normal relations between the US and the Islamic world. Time after time there have been calls for “moderate Muslims” to speak out against extremism and help law enforcement do its job better. Yet the view put forth by Gawthrop and sanctioned by the FBI is that the more devout a Muslim is the more likely he is to become violent. It seems as though on the surface the administration is still trying to mend and improve its relations with Muslims across the world. Underneath the surface however, it looks as though no one is clear as to how they should even talk about the subject. BM
