Despite our success protecting America’s homeland, extremism is spreading. Since 9/11, the number of terrorist attacks worldwide per year has increased fivefold. As long as this continues, the United States will remain vulnerable to terrorism while extremism contributes to chaos, conflict, and coercion that drains U.S. resources, weakens our allies, and provides openings for our competitors.

We need a new strategy to prevent extremism in fragile states. If we can mitigate the underlying conditions that allow extremism to emerge and spread in these states, the United States will be closer to breaking out of the costly cycle of perpetual crisis response, pushing back against the growing threat of extremism, and positioning itself effectively for strategic engagement with its competitors. Recent successes in the fight against the Islamic State make this a unique opportunity to focus on prevention. We must move from defeating terrorists to preventing extremism.

Established in response to a request from the U.S. Congress in 2017, the Task Force on Extremism in Fragile States has developed a new strategy that represents the insightful and bipartisan foreign policy thinking of fifteen leading former policymakers, legislators, and other experts on how to empower fragile states to resist extremism on their own.

1. Adopt a shared policy framework for strategic prevention.

  • The United States should adopt a shared, government-wide framework for understanding the underlying conditions of, and solutions to, extremism.
  • The framework should recognize extremism as a context-specific, but inherently political and ideological, problem.
  • The framework should make the goal of U.S. policy to support and encourage leaders at all levels and in all segments of society—including women, youth, civil society, and the private sector—to listen and respond to the needs of their people.

2. Launch a Strategic Prevention Initiative.

  • Congress should authorize and fund, and the Executive Branch implement, a government-wide Initiative that aligns U.S. policy instruments, from foreign assistance to diplomatic engagement, in support of preventing extremism in the Sahel, Horn of Africa, and the Near East.
  • The Initiative should aim to promote long-term coordination between U.S. agencies working in fragile states to ensure efficacy and efficiency in the way our government funds projects that prevent extremism.
  • The Initiative should set out the roles and responsibilities of each U.S. agency for undertaking prevention, create new mechanisms for oversight and coordination, and grant policymakers flexible authorities to implement a preventative strategy that responds to evolving local needs.

3. Establish a new Partnership Development Fund to rally the international community behind country-led efforts to prevent the underlying conditions of extremism.

  • The United States neither can nor should prevent extremism alone. Our government should therefore lead the creation of a multilateral Fund to focus the international community’s attention on prevention and pool international donors’ resources behind a shared, coordinated, and sustained approach to addressing the underlying conditions of extremism in fragile states.
  • A Partnership Development Fund would provide an innovative and inclusive international coordination and financing mechanism to align programs and activities and raise and disburse funding for country-led, inclusive programs that address the underlying conditions of extremism.
  • A single, unified source of assistance might also entice fragile states that would otherwise look elsewhere for patronage.

The Task Force urges Congress and the administration to take up these recommendations and looks forward to working to implement them.

Related Publications

After Afghanistan Withdrawal: A Return to ‘Warlordism?’

After Afghanistan Withdrawal: A Return to ‘Warlordism?’

Friday, June 25, 2021

By: Barmak Pazhwak; Asma Ebadi; Belquis Ahmadi

As the United States withdraws from Afghanistan, Washington is considering options to ensure its intelligence-gathering and counterterrorism capabilities are maintained. Recent reporting suggests that United States is looking to use bases in Pakistan and in the former Soviet Republics in Central Asia — although without success so far. Washington is also mulling over engaging with Afghan warlords as part of this effort, a strategy it relied on in the 1980s and 90s and to a lesser extent over the last two decades. If history is any guide, this strategy will pose significant risks that could have deadly and destabilizing consequences for Afghanistan and the region. 

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Fragility & Resilience; Peace Processes

Can the World Go Green Without Destabilizing Oil-Pumping Nations?

Can the World Go Green Without Destabilizing Oil-Pumping Nations?

Wednesday, June 23, 2021

By: Benjamin J. Spatz; Alex de Waal; Aditya Sarkar; Tegan Blaine

Amid the dizzying acceleration of headlines and debate about the vital global transition to renewable energy, new research shows how that change could destabilize dozens of fragile states that depend heavily on oil exports. The new study underscores that governments and international institutions will need to guard against risks that the shift away from carbon-heavy fuels will inadvertently upset political balances and potentially ignite violent conflicts in a swath of nations from Venezuela to Nigeria to Iraq and beyond. Above all, the research suggests, the world must avoid an unplanned “traumatic decarbonization” of these economies.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Economics & Environment; Fragility & Resilience

11 Things to Know: Afghanistan on the Eve of Withdrawal

11 Things to Know: Afghanistan on the Eve of Withdrawal

Thursday, June 17, 2021

By: Andrew Wilder; Scott Worden

U.S. and NATO troops are rapidly executing President Biden’s policy of a complete withdrawal of American troops and contactors supporting the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces (ANDSF) by a deadline of September 11. Based on the rate of progress, the last American soldier could depart before the end of July. The decision to withdraw without a cease-fire or a framework for a political agreement between the Taliban and the government caught Afghans and regional countries by surprise. The Taliban have capitalized on the moment to seize dozens of districts and project an air of confidence and victory.  

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Peace Processes; Fragility & Resilience

How Missing Data Can Make the Global Fragility Strategy Work

How Missing Data Can Make the Global Fragility Strategy Work

Thursday, May 20, 2021

By: Michael F. Harsch; Calin Trenkov-Wermuth, Ph.D.

As glaring inequalities in the global recovery from COVID-19 become clearer, the U.N. has warned of growing risks of political tensions and conflict in many countries. This poses a daunting challenge to U.S. foreign policy and presents a test for the new Global Fragility Strategy (GFS), which aims to reduce state fragility and break cycles of violence in critical regions. What the GFS lacks, however, is a clear “theory of success” that explains why and how proposed actions will lead to desired outcomes in fragile states. A new capacity-based approach is needed to identify fragile states with high potential for effective engagement, particularly security sector reform (SSR).

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Fragility & Resilience; Justice, Security & Rule of Law

View All Publications


Related Projects

Task Force on Extremism in Fragile States

Task Force on Extremism in Fragile States

The bipartisan Task Force on Extremism in Fragile States will recommend a new approach for U.S. policy that harnesses existing U.S. programs and international partnerships to target the underlying causes of extremism and limit the ability of extremist groups to exploit fragile states.

Fragility & Resilience

View All