A counterterrorism plan for Obama

WHILE the Obama administration must be steely-eyed in confronting terrorist threats, an effective counterterrorism strategy must go beyond confrontation and coercion. It must also be based on a deeper understanding of the disenfranchisement that gives rise to despair and the conditions that delude individuals into believing that sensational violence serves their cause.

The United States missed a golden opportunity after 9/11. After toppling the Taliban, the world welcomed our pledge to democratize and rebuild Afghanistan. However, the Bush administration's failure to expend the required resources stirred doubt about the sincerity of its commitment.

The debacle in Iraq fueled further speculation. Using democracy to justify the US occupation convinced detractors that democracy promotion was a Trojan horse for toppling governments averse to US interests. How could America vanquish Saddam's Republican Guard, but fail to keep the electricity and water flowing?

Neglecting the Israeli-Palestinian peace process also eroded America's credibility, as did the Bush administration's support for corrupt, tyrannical, and, in the eyes of devout Muslims, impious regimes in the Muslim world.

The Obama administration must learn from Bush's failings and develop a different balance between confrontation, coercion, and co-optation of extremists.

To be sure, every US president has had the option - indeed the responsibility - to preempt an attack against the United States. However, preemption is justifiable when attack is imminent, whereas preventive war involves military action when there is no urgent threat.

The United States can never condone torture, rendition, extra-judicial execution, or political assassinations. Targeted killings of armed combatants may be necessary under dire circumstances, but they almost always fuel a cycle of violence and revenge.

When it comes to coercion, smart sanctions are more effective by targeting individuals with travel bans, freezing their overseas assets, and curtailing commercial operations in countries that sponsor terror.

Financial intelligence can be used to choke off financial flows. In addition, partnerships with local law enforcement help disrupt "hawala" banking used by terror groups to move money and to limit terrorist financing at its source by screening alms to radical clerics.

While observing the principle of free speech, the United States cannot stand idly by while the Internet is used to incite hatred, raise funds, recruit killers, and facilitate the command and control of terror operations. Unleashing viruses and computer worms can help address security risks. So can bombarding servers, redirecting traffic, and using a password assault to disrupt communications and penetrate websites used for nefarious purposes.

These confrontational and coercive measures are necessary options, but democracy and development assistance are also vital to the realization of US national security and global interests.

Democracy assistance has enjoyed bipartisan support for decades. To be effective, however, the United States must avoid arrogance and tread softly. Leaving a heavy footprint alienates allies, and risks undermining local initiative and fomenting further violence.

Moreover, democracy assistance is not about empowering leaders of whom we approve. Democratization should go beyond elections by including assistance to promote the rule of law, minority rights, and security sector reform, and enhance independent media and civil society thereby ensuring transparent and accountable governance.

Development assistance must also take into account the national security paradigm. Strengthening the formal education sector and increasing educational access for young girls undermines radical madrassas. Access to information and science education help cultivate analytic thinking as a bulwark against extremism.

Hardship and resulting radicalization can be mitigated via a social safety net focusing on health services, as well as steps to develop community and national health systems.

Additionally, viewing humanitarian assistance through a conflict-prevention lens both addresses basic needs and enhances stability, which is necessary to break the cycle of violence and counter extremism. Aid, trade, and debt forgiveness stimulate economic development and the emergence of a moderate middle class, thus helping to eradicate poverty, which is a potential breeding ground for extremism.

Eliminating the conditions that cause instability and give rise to extremism requires both US leadership and international cooperation. However, foreign aid must be based on more than altruism. In light of today's financial crisis, expenditures on democracy and development assistance are even more valuable when they also enhance US national security.

David L. Phillips, a visiting scholar at Columbia University and a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, is author most recently of "From Bullets to Ballots: Violent Muslim Movements in Transition."