What the United States Still Misses About the Islamic World

The horrific attacks of September 11, 2001, still demand a deeper examination of one fundamental question: why does a segment of a society come to believe that killing innocent people is morally justified?

Since then, the United States has undoubtedly become more capable of protecting its citizens, strengthening its security measures, often at the expense of individual freedoms. More importantly, however, America remains deficient in understanding some of the underlying forces that contributed to the emergence of violent Islamist movements—and, consequently, in developing a more effective long-term approach toward the Muslim world. The US continues to view the world primarily through a domestic lens, rather than fully understanding the dynamics of other societies. Twenty-five years later, America is better protected, but it remains vulnerable to similar attacks.

Human beings are like seeds: their development depends greatly on how they are nurtured. Those who are raised in conditions of autocracy, illiteracy, and poverty may develop a very different understanding of the world from those who are born and raised in liberal democratic societies. Muslims, therefore, are not shaped by Islam alone. The intersection of culture, education, state authority, economic conditions, religion, and regional conflicts all play major roles in shaping their thoughts and behaviors.

A large proportion of the Muslim world has been shaped by these dynamics, in societies where violence is widely practiced. This can make parts of these societies vulnerable to extremism, which may channel their anger in a violence path without actually changing the underlying reality. Yet the Western world tends to reduce these diverse and complex challenges to a single word: “Islam”—an ideology that is easier for Westerners to criticize and attack.

Meanwhile, when a state fails to provide justice and dignity, people may turn elsewhere for moral authority and guidance. Thus, a slogan such as “Islam is the solution” can easily gain traction among large segments of Muslim societies, transforming religion from being primarily a personal faith into a source of legitimacy, morality, and identity.

A religious leader may then come to be regarded as morally superior to a corrupt government official, while religious principles may appear more trustworthy than a nation’s corrupted institutions. These dynamics can produce an ignorant and manipulated individual who becomes vulnerable to the influence of his religious leader, rather than developing a genuine understanding of the true meaning of Islam.

From the perspective of many Muslims, the United States plays an unlawful and immoral role in the Middle East. The US has a long record of supporting autocratic regimes, while also using military force in the region without explicit authorization from the UN Security Council in certain cases, most notably the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the US strikes against Syria in 2017 and 2018, and obviously the present war on Iran. These actions have contributed to a widespread perception among Muslims that the United States not only applies double standards when it comes to international law, but also contributes to the miserable and autocratic conditions under which many of them live.

Moreover, the US is widely perceived as strongly biased toward Israel—the ultimate foe, in the eyes of many Muslims—despite the agreements signed between the State of Israel and a number of Arab nations, which many of their citizens are not happy with. The United States overestimates the universality of its own values while discrediting international law, praising itself for virtues that, in essence, it does not consistently uphold.

Meanwhile, Muslim life revolves around three principles: belief, identity, and organization. Neither belief nor identity can simply be eliminated through security measures, leaving the United States with a single option: Islamist organizations. Yet these organizations represent only one layer of a much larger phenomenon, in which the United States appears to be searching for a clear enemy that it can defeat rather than working to address the problem at its roots.

Targeting organizations such as ISIS, which officially declared war on the United States and contributed to the violence that culminated in 9/11, is a legitimate security objective. However, banning other organizations can sometimes strengthen their ideology and empower those organizations to attract potential Muslim recruits, rather than persuading their followers to abandon their beliefs.

The United States and other liberal democracies cannot “defeat Islam,” an enduring religion that has grown significantly since 9/11. Nor can they succeed simply by dismantling organizations that may eventually be replaced by other radical organizations. Neither can they successfully weaken Muslim identity through political or military pressure. Islam is a religion, and Muslim identity is a deeply rooted social and cultural reality. Any strategy based on manipulating or suppressing either is destined to fail.

What the United States and the Western world need to do is reach out to Muslims at large, understand the sources of their anger, and work to address their grievances diplomatically and peacefully. Bringing genuine peace to the Middle East—not merely through thin accords—is a necessity. Persuading the rulers of Muslim nations to embrace good governance, including the rule of law and independent institutions, should be another pillar of this approach.

Meanwhile, the engagement and success of American Muslims in their nation’s politics should be viewed as an asset to the country’s political dynamics. A potential Muslim candidate for the Senate, for example, may be better positioned to bridge the gap between the United States and the Muslim world if the US is genuinely interested in pursuing such an approach. In short, the United States needs a complete paradigm shift to address this complicated issue.