Terrorism
Since the September 11 attacks in 2001, the future complexion and definition of terrorism has become quite ambiguous for the public. In its early incarnations, terrorism was associated with the spread of fear for the sake of ideology without the mass genocide included. However, as the years progressed with the onset of various ideologies and changed political affiliations, some no longer know if the ongoing violence classified as terrorism is still ‘terrorism’ or just a plain warfare. This ambiguity has subsequently influenced how governments, such as the United States, in organizing their counter-terrorism strategies and now directed such strategies in addressing terrorist attacks of any form against the country. Americans must take closer attention towards international terrorist groups because of their massive logistics and influence, as well as their clandestine operations; however, it is crucial that the Americans also reconsider the nature of its anti-terrorism campaign to ensure they respect both civil liberties and the rule of law whilst protecting the public from the threat.
America is no stranger to the threats posed by either domestic or international terrorism even before 9/11. The first terrorist group in the country, the Ku Klux Klan, traces its history since the end of the Civil War in 1865. Foner (2011) stressed that the KKK were originally the military arm of the Democratic Party in the Southern colonies; however, they slowly began a war against the Republicans to ensure that the South remained supreme. The KKK killed Republicans and local leaders alike to ensure the South is respected, even murdering people in broad daylight and in cold blood. Some reports highlight that members of the KKK were forced to join in the fear of being killed by the KKK members. Although the KKK were suppressed in 1872 after a series of policies ordering for the arrest of KKK members, remnants of the group still remained around the country .
With the removal of the KKK, Poland (2005) indicated that the brand of terror used by the KKK was used by succeeding groups such as the separatists, extremists, left and right wing factions and the special interest groups. The separatist groups became prominent since the end of the 1898 Spanish-American War that allowed the Americans to claim dominion over Puerto Rico. With Puerto Rico under US custody, several Puerto Ricans aimed to strangle the hold away from the Americans and push for Puerto Rican independence. These groups conducted numerous uprisings and almost succeeding in assassinating President Harry Truman in the 1950s. Jewish extremism also provided problems for the American government as they protested the treatment of Jews throughout the country. These extremist factions hoped to get the United States to support the Jews oppressed in Europe and improve Jewish living conditions in the country. However, their call was unrecognized, leading members of factions such as the Jewish Defense League to attack white supremacists. Islamic radicals were also included in the foray, advocating for the removal of American influence in the Middle East.
The Ideological Left and Right factions also caused concerns for the government in the 60s to the 80s due to their perceptions on how America should be led. For the Leftist groups, the overall American system should be removed due to its corrupt nature. These leftists believed they were they champions of the poor and had no qualms in using violence to fight the oppressors. Some of the notable factions in the period representing the Leftist ideology were the Revolutionary Armed Task Force and the Weather Underground Organization. On the other hand, right-winged factions like the KKK became prominent in the 1970s, using violence to promote white supremacy and its expansion. Factions such as the neo-Nazi National Alliance of William Pierce, the revitalized KKK and the World Church of the Creator (WCOTC). The FBI even stressed that the WCOTC is one the most violent terrorist groups in the country.
Single issue terrorists or special interest terrorists groups also made it to the American society as a significant domestic threat. Some of these special interest groups fought for topics such as abortion, environmental issues, and political reform. However, while the advocacy pushed for these groups are important, the members of these groups utilize the same military functions as an extremist group and use violence to get support. Throughout the 1980s, these single-issue terrorists launched numerous assaults around the United States just to get their position known. A few single-interest groups were considered illogical by the American government that must be treated with caution. Currently, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has classified six major terrorist threats in the country: separatists, Jewish extremists, Leftist, Rightist, special interest groups and Islamic radicals. A majority of these factions still remain in the country, while a few are in hiding. The US, despite the presence of these domestic terrorists, remains confident they are capable of stopping these groups .
However, while domestic terrorism also has the capacity to threaten the people of the United States, international terrorists such as the Islamic extremists poses a higher security threat due to the amount of leverage these groups have and the expanse of these groups’ operations. According to Bergen, Hoffman and Tiedemann (2010), the continuous existence and operations of groups such as Al Qaeda and the Taliban is a testament to this argument. Since 2009, the US government has already reported 11 jihadist attacks around the country and the apprehension of 43 American citizens connected to the Al Qaeda and the group’s affiliates. Even if Al Qaeda was reported to have weakened significantly after 9/11, the group remains visible within the Middle East and even in the US in order to fulfill their goal of inflicting mass-casualty attacks in the United States due to the country’s sins against Islam.
The group’s visibility even in the US is thanks to the group’s success on establishing an embryonic terrorist recruitment, radicalization and operational network in the US and in other parts of the globe which permits the Al Qaeda to continue to raise terror and gain new followers. In the first place, Al Qaeda is not a very big organization contrary to popular belief. Al Qaeda maximizes its members to train other jihadist groups and influence potential members and allies to their brand of Islam. The group’s success can be seen with the growth of Taliban within Pakistan and Iraq. Al Qaeda had even reached areas such as South Asia, North Africa and Europe. Aside from the group’s operations, Al Qaeda is a very dangerous foe considering its capacity to cooperate with other terrorist groups, allowing the group’s operations to reach other parts of the globe. The cooperation Al Qaeda has with other groups also permits the group to reach out to other jihadist rebels and fight. Adding to the sway of Al Qaeda is their ideology that calls out to people, even foreigners as the group highlighted the plight of the Middle East under US leadership .
Currently, ISIS or the Islamic State has also used the same method enforced by the Al Qaeda in order to gain occult status around the globe and pose a threat to the United States and its allies. Katzman, Blanchard, Humud, Margesson and Tiersky (2014) reported that the group aims to establish the Islamic caliphate through armed conflict with governments the group considers as apostate – Iraq, Syria and the US. Then-National Counterterrorism Center Director Matthew Olsen remarked in September 2014 that while information of an ISIS attack is not clear, the very fact ISIS has foreign fighters with American or Western passports is disturbing. Olsen even stated that there is a possibility ISIS sympathizers may conduct the attack directly in the US mainland is plausible. The CIA supported Olsen’s position and indicated that ISIS can call up to 31,500 individuals around the globe with 15,000 foreign fighters hailing from 80 countries. On its end, ISIS – through Abu Bakr al Baghdadi and Abu Mohammed al Adnani – stressed in 2012 that the group’s members are now driving away the US forces and indicated that America will see ISIS fighters in the US mainland. Al Baghdadi repeated this warning in January 2014 and stressed that a direct ISIS-US faceoff after the crisis in Iraq, Syria and the Levant is inevitable and would occur soon. The recent killings of US citizens James Foley and Stephen Sotloff even gave out the impression that ISIS is trying to replicate and mimic the style of its now rivals Al Qaeda .
With these terrorist elements proving that they have the capacity to raise both terror and violence in the US, the US had immediately mobilizes several strategies to counter these threats. Foner (2011) stated that the Bush Administration had immediately launched an offensive against these terrorist threats, calling them “enemies of freedom” and launched the Bush Doctrine that would mark America’s War against terrorism. America sent troops in known strongholds of terrorist groups in Afghanistan (Enduring Freedom) and Iraq shortly after 9/11. After one year, Bush had released the National Security Strategy of the United States in 2002 which details America’s promise to fight not just terrorists but also tyrants against the idea of peace and equality. The US also used this document to support the use of military power against these security threats. The administration had also passed bills such as the US Patriot Act and the Defense Appropriations Act of 2005 .
However, whilst the US manages to parry off the terrorist threat throughout the globe and within the country, criticisms have been raised regarding the policies for counter-terrorism. The most notable criticism raised by experts according to Mueller and Steward (2012) is America’s deluded perception of terrorism. Experts question the validity of statements such as New York Mayor Rudy Guiliani’s when it came to America’s response to September 11 in terms of the nature of terrorism. Guiliani stated “anybody, any one of these security experts, including myself, would have told you on September 11, 2011, we’re looking at dozens and dozens and multiyear of attacks like this.” This statement is then followed by hypothesis stressing that the terrorist attacks in the US was just the first wave of the terrorist movement. While the sentiments are understandable given the aftermath of the attack, these loose statements have greatly exaggerated the entire concept of terrorism and the dangers these groups present. Terrorists vary in each part of the globe and America’s history of domestic terrorists prove that these groups vary in terms of their tactics and vulnerabilities. However, after 9/11, America forgot this fact and generalized that all terrorists are patient, opportunistic and dangerous. It is also unclear for experts as to whether or not known terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda are the root cause of the terrorist attacks are even on the move or currently on a state of hiatus. American response, in turn, has become disproportionate to the actual threat presented by terrorism, which now disables American forces to identify which groups should be targeted or determine if terrorism is as dangerous as it is perceived .
Aside from the deluded and otherwise questionable perception of Americans towards terrorism, Graff (2013) also indicated that America does not have a clear target when it comes to the operations in other parts of the globe. The National Security Agency is unable to determine who should be considered as targets and who the civilians are in the target pursuits. As a result of this incapacity, many civilians are caught in the crossfire and push the survivors closer to the terrorist movement. In addition to the incapacity of the American government to discern its targets, the country also does not have a system to ensure government officials and employees actively enforce the country’s counter-terrorism efforts and goals. There is a high possibility that within the ranks of the government, there are terrorist sympathizers that may derail evasive action against these threats. Finally, both the Houses of Congress and the Senate still remain conflicted as to what the country’s stance on terrorism should be, making it difficult to establish consistent counter-terrorism programs .
Considering the criticisms faced by the US government towards the country’s counter-terrorism strategy, several considerations can be made to improve action against terrorism. Socio-economic strategies, according to Campbell and Weitz (2006), have the capacity to eliminate motivation and reduce the necessity for military action as this would impact the foundations of terrorist groups around the globe. The Bush Administration, since 9/11, identified that socio-economic status improvement for the people is an integral part of counter-terrorism or counter-insurgency as many members of these terrorist groups join terrorism because of poverty and oppression. One of the strategies to reduce these membership rates is by introducing free elections to introduce socio-economic reform. The introduction of free elections would pave the way for democracy to flourish and would encourage terrorist groups to become involved as a means to encourage moderation and policy reform.
Empowering Islamic moderates can also aid in eliminating motivation around the globe for terrorist movements. Much like the establishment of the Social Democrats in the Soviet Union, Islamic moderates can serve as the deterrent against jihadist extremists. With these moderates getting the support and legitimacy from the people and the international community, counter-terrorism efforts would be improved. Whilst creating barriers to counter extremism with moderates, the US is also advised to exert pressure towards these Islamist extremists to stop possible changes in the balance of power. If the US ensures that the public is aware of the country’s counter-terrorism efforts, it would warn potential members of terrorist organizations that they will become targets of the US .
Another socio-economic strategy that can help in the fight against terrorism is through anti-terrorism litigation to cut off financial support of these terrorist groups. Bachmann (2012) stated that a majority of today’s terrorist organizations get their money from charities and personal contributions around the globe. Utilizing litigation would permit the US in filing cases against these terrorists and their supporters within the grounds of the country’s laws. Lawsuits can be brought either under the Alien Tort Statute, the Torture Victim Protection Act, the Anti-Terrorism Act and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Each policy clearly highlights that the US is file lawsuits against these terrorists and the supporters. If this similar system is used across the globe to stop terrorists from gaining funds, the international community can easily apprehend supporters and the terrorist network .
Finally, some experts indicate that giving more influence and power to the government can also help in stopping terrorism. Campbell and Weitz (2006) argued that adding more power to the government – especially its law-enforcement agencies – would aid in apprehending terrorist groups and sustain the peace in their territories. Additional powers would also aid counterterrorism operations as governments and their respective law enforcement bodies would be able to restore the rule of law and mobilize accordingly depending on the threat. Governments can also use the additional power to reach out to other organizations and governments in order to counter terrorism outside the country .
However, while giving the government more power can bolster counter-terrorism efforts, there are several consequences that has to be taken into account. The first aspect to consider is the fact whether these legislative changes and additional power is approved under the rule of law. Currently, America is facing many criticisms towards their international terrorism efforts as expert believe the country’s course of action is permitted under international law. Mazhar and Goraya (2011) indicated that international law clearly states that countries cannot easily go into war or consider the use of force. Although there are clauses permitting countries to exercise their rights to self-defense, attacks must be approved by all parties and identify the rules of engagement in each operation .
Finally, additional powers would not only bolster more retaliation from terrorists, but it would also erode civil liberties in the process. Since 9/11, Lyugutas (2009) stated that American legislators passed several counter-terrorism policies that sacrifices civil liberties and foster tensions. One example of a US policy aiming to give additional power to law-enforcement is the ‘Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (PATRIOT Act). The PATRIOT Act authorizes law enforcement agencies to investigate and prosecute people suspected of terrorism without formal charges or warrants. Surveillance also became legal even without the consent of the public, permitting law enforcement agencies to get sensitive data.
Critics and the public stressed that the act can be used against the people and as a means of blackmail from the government. Although the Patriot Act recognizes the importance of the Fourth Amendment, there were still citizens – especially Arabs and Muslims – who were brought into court for suspected connections to terrorist groups and organizations. Some of these suspected terrorists were tortured and placed in detention camps in poor conditions. With policies such as the PATRIOT Act active, the fact that these policies create tensions between the public and the government allows the terrorists to exploit the issue to gain support and cause further tensions. Since the government targets communities perceived to be related to these groups, the rights of people are violated and forces them to support terrorism. Additional power also makes it difficult for the public to oppose this stricter and discriminative treatment .
The threat of terrorism may it be on a domestic or international level should be taken seriously by all citizens due to the capacity of these groups to spread both terror and violence. Although both have almost the same goals and intentions, international terrorists such as Al Qaeda and ISIS should be given closer attention due to their capacity to gain the attention of the public and their operations are not just concentrated in their home territories, but also around the globe. These international terrorists would use their ideology and plight to gain new members in their own target countries, adding more members ready to commit terror and violence against their home countries. While the international community, especially the United States, has currently adopted counter-terrorism strategies, there is a question with regards to their policies and the fact it already challenges civil liberties and the rule of law. As long as US policy remains fragmented and incapable of containing the threat, terrorism would continue to flourish and intensify in the future and overturn the balance of power in the process.
References
Bachmann, S.-D. (2012). Bankrupting Terrorism: The Role of US Anti-terrorism Litigation in the Prevention of Terrorism and Other Hybrid Threats: A Legal Assessment and Outlook. Liverpool Law Review, 33, 91-109.
Bergen, P., Hoffman, B., & Tiedemann, K. (2011). Assessing the Jihadist Terrorist Threat to America and American Interest. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 34, 65-101.
Campbell, K., & Weitz, R. (2006). Non-military strategies for countering Islamist terrorism: Lessons learnt from past counterinsurgencies. Princeton: Princeton Project.
Foner, E. (2011). Give me Liberty: An American History. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Graff, G. (2013). The threat of terrorism is ebbing, but US counterterrorism policies are not: A Critical look at US Counterterrorism efforts amid the NSA scandal. Washington, D.C.: Friedrich Ebert Stiftung Perspectives.
Katzman, K., Blanchard, C., Humud, C., Margesson, R., & Tiersky, A. (2014). The "Islamic State" Crisis and U.S. Policy. Washington, D.C.: US Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service.
Lygutas, A. (2009). Human rights in the context of counter-terrorism measures: United States of America. Jurisprudence, 3(117), 145-161.
Mazhar, M. S., & Goraya, N. (2011). Drone war against Pakistan: An analytical study. Journal of Political Studies, 18(2), 187-206.
Mueller, J., & Stewart, M. (2012). The Terrorism Delusion: America's Overwrought Response to September 11. International Security, 37(1), 81-110.
Poland, J. (2005). Understanding Terrorism: Groups, Strategies, and Responses. London: Prentice Hall.
