United States

Afghan evacuees
 by Rise to Peace

Afghan evacuees in UAE still wait to be resettled in US

Tens of thousands of Afghan evacuees at Emirates Humanitarian City (EHC) and the Tasameem Workers City (TWC) in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (UAE), seeking answers from U.S. Government (USG) while in limbo.

Following the August 2021 collapse of the Afghanistan government and subsequent takeover by the Taliban, the U.S. military evacuated over 100,000 people from Afghanistan during the largest noncombatant evacuation operation (NEO) airlift in history. While tens of thousands of these evacuees were brought into the U.S., others are still in limbo in third countries.

During the NEO operation, the United Arab Emirates agreed to temporarily house an estimated “5000” evacuees in their Emirates Humanitarian City refugee camp while the U.S. could process their immigration cases. The USG evacuation was operating normally with 2-3 chartered flights from the UAE to the U.S. until November 07, 2021 where flights suspended. 

On February 09, 2021, evacuees protested “demanding” answers from the U.S. government which resulted in mass media coverage and eventually grabbed the attention of the US government officials. On February 15, 20 representatives of evacuees (10 women and 10 men) held a meeting with the U.S. State Department and UAE officials, it was announced that the evacuees had agreed to temporarily end their demonstrations to allow their cases to be processed.

Unlike other Afghan refugee camps in Ramstein Air Base in Germany and US army base in Qatar where evacuees have had relatively quick entry processes into the U.S., these individuals live in a state of fear and uncertainty as to their futures.

Evacuees have criticized the insufficient amount of personnel at the site to process and transfer them out of the camp. Additionally, individuals report that when they seek answers from U.S. Embassy staff about their transfer status, they are told a generic answer that lacks clarity. 

https://twitter.com/ahmadsmohibi/status/1491898712024625155?s=20&t=RSKn0nZPfrVhQzmDI-CrgA

This is not the first time Afghan evacuees have protested for U.S. resettlement. In November 2021, Rise to Peace reported an estimated 9,000 Afghan refugees were being housed in Abu Dhabi at the Emirates Humanitarian City refugee camp and demanding answers to their entry status.

Six later, these refugees, including many families, still do not see a clear future ahead of them. Their path to placement in the U.S. is ambiguous and they remain in bleak circumstances within the refugee camp. Some living in the camp have described conditions to be “prison-like”.

Beginning February 9, 2022, refugees in the facility began demonstrations, demanding transparency on their resettlement status. Photos are circling the internet of young children within the camp holding signs that read, “Move Us To The United States As Soon As Possible” and “I Don’t Want To Be Here For More Time”.

Many of these children have gone without any kind of education for the past six months, simply receiving the bare necessities while awaiting resettlement. After initially hoping for speedy entry into a new home country, many families worry for their children’s development. Additionally, there are widespread concerns about the mental health of those being housed in the camps.

One of the loudest concerns from the evacuees at the Emirates Humanitarian City is the uncertainty of when they will be processed and brought to the United States, most notably for those who have valid documents or family sponsorship. Many say they were working with U.S. diplomats and military before the Afghan government collapsed and now feel abandoned in their time of need.

Brynn Larimer, Counter-Terrorism Research Fellow

Ahmad Shah Mohibi, Founder of Rise to Peace Twitter: @ahmadsmohibi

in Afghanistan / Rise to Peace blog / United States 0 comments
Insurgency
 by Rise to Peace

Insurgency within the United States: Absurd or Inevitable?

“No one wants to believe that their beloved democracy is in decline, or headed toward war,” says Barbara F. Walter, a professor of political science at the University of California. But “the United States, a democracy founded more than two centuries ago, has entered very dangerous territory.” Speculation of a second civil war within the United States was once an outlandish proposition, a fantasy confined to the eccentric fringes of political discourse. Today, the threat of an insurgency within the country has invaded mainstream culture and commentary.

“Headed for Civil War”

Since the start of 2022, headlines that were once unthinkable have been emblazoned across the pages of the U.S.’s most popular news publications. “Is a Civil War ahead?” enquires the New Yorker, “Are We Really Facing a Second Civil War?” reads a column in the New York Times, “Is America Headed to a New Civil War?” asks the Washington Post.

The publication of these stories follows the recent release of two books detailing the looming threat of widespread civil unrest and political violence breaking out within the United States. In “How Civil Wars Start: And How to Stop Them”, Barbara F. Walters describes how American democracy has already passed through phases of “pre-insurgency” and “incipient conflict,” and that the attack on the Capitol may signal its entry into “open conflict.” According to Walters, the U.S. is “closer to civil war than any of us would like to believe.”

Meanwhile, as described in his book “The Next Civil War: Dispatches From the American Future”, Stephen Marche writes “the United States today is, once again, headed for civil war, and, once again, it cannot bear to face it.”

Whilst nearly three-quarters of Americans think that ordinary people rejecting political hostility and divisiveness would be a good thing for their country, less than one in ten believe this will happen. Indeed, with 42% believing it will increase, it is little surprise that polling following the Capitol Hill riot found that 51% of Americans foresaw political violence increasing in the coming years.

Further, a 2021 national survey by pollster John Zogby concluded that 46% believe a civil war is likely, and a new report by NPR/Ipsos published early this year has revealed that 70% of Americans agree “America is in crisis and at risk of failing.”

Discussion of a violent insurrection within the United States has been dismissed as absurd, sensationalist, alarmist, and even irresponsible by some commentators. But, as the immense pressures of collapsing institutional trust, obscene economic inequality, intensifying racial tensions, climate-related crises, and technological disruption push American society to breaking point, ordinary citizens are increasingly vulnerable to radicalization, captured by the allure of extremist narratives that celebrate political violence.

As crisis and strife shake the country and as citizens come to see violence as their only means of political expression, the question must be asked: could an armed insurgency really emerge within the United States?

Democracy in Decline

“Civil wars ignite and escalate in ways that are predictable; they follow a script,” writes Walters, a member of the Political Instability Task Force (P.I.T.F), a C.I.A. advisory panel that predicts outbreaks of civil war.

By law, the task force cannot apply its evaluative models to the United States, but in her new book Walters applies the same predictive criteria used to assess the emergence of political conflict within countries such as Ukraine, Northern Ireland, or Rwanda to the United States. “I’ve seen how civil wars start, and I know the signs that people miss. And I can see those signs emerging here at a surprisingly fast rate” Walter says. She concludes that the U.S. is on the threshold of “open insurgency,” an outbreak of sustained political violence involving terrorism and guerrilla warfare.

In her book, Walters outlines the strongest predictors of civil conflict. The first is whether a country is moving toward or away from democracy. When a country becomes an “anocracy”–that is, a country that is not a full democracy or autocracy–its likelihood of descending into civil violence significantly increases.

Despite the powerful mythologies surrounding American democracy, a majority of its citizens express skepticism. According to a 2018 report by the Pew Research Center, 63% believe the U.S. government does not reflect the views of most Americans, 69% do not believe the government is open or transparent, and 72% believe that campaign contributions lead to greater political influence.

These views are supported by extensive research. In December 2021, a report by the Stockholm-based International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance designated the United States a “backsliding democracy.” Further, a widely reported 2014 study from two prominent U.S. political scientists, drawing data from over 1,700 policy initiatives across a two-decade period, concluded that “economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interests have little or no independent influence.” According to the authors, the U.S. can now be described as a “civil oligarchy.”

Indeed, according to analyses cited by Walters from the Center for Systemic Peace’s “polity score” index, which rates countries on a scale from +10 (fully democratic) to -10 (fully authoritarian), the U.S.’ score of +10 in 1974 has steadily declined, reaching +5 in 2020. Any country between -5 and +5 on the polity scale can be considered an anocracy, says Walters. Here, countries are three times more likely to experience civil war than full democracies. According to Walters, “a country standing on this threshold–as America is now, at +5–can easily be pushed toward conflict.”

Ethnic Factionalism

The second major risk factor for civil conflict is what the P.I.T.F. calls “factionalism,” a specific form of political polarization wherein identity becomes the dominant feature of party affiliation. According to Walters, “countries that factionalize have political parties based on ethnic, religious, or racial identity rather than ideology, and these parties then seek to rule at the exclusion and expense of others.”

According to Walters, the United States is currently undergoing a process of ethnic factionalization. “As late as 2008, white Americans were equally likely to vote for Democrats as they were to vote for Republicans”, Walters says. “That changed when Obama was elected and the white working class began to gravitate towards the Republican party.”

“Today, the Republican party is 90% white”, says Walters. “That is, by the task force definition, a country with an ethnic faction.” These factions become particularly dangerous during a phenomenon known as “downgrading” wherein a dominant group loses social status and political influence. According to Walters, “the groups that tend to start civil wars are the groups that were once dominant politically but are in decline. They’ve either lost political power or they’re losing political power.”

Walters points to the downgrading status of white Americans as a powerful risk factor for civil conflict. For many, the election of President Obama represented the emergence of a multiracial democracy that threatened the long-standing political hegemony of white America. Indeed, based on their demographic trajectory, white Americans are destined to become a minority within the United States over the next 20 to 30 years.

“We know historically that these types of groups tend not to go down without a fight,” says Walters. Given her analysis, it is little surprise that the number of armed militia groups within the United States surged from just 42 prior to Obama’s election, to over 300 within his first two years in office.

“A Party That Doesn’t Benefit from Democracy”

As the social and political status of white America continues to downgrade, with the country on course to becoming majority non-white within the coming decades, the ethnic factionalization of the Republic party could represent a serious threat to American democracy.

“It’s going to get harder for [the Republicans] to win elections as long as they embrace only this one subset of the population,” says Walters. “Suddenly we have a party that doesn’t benefit from democracy anymore, that doesn’t want democracy, that’s doing everything they can to cement in advantages that will lead to minority rule.”

These efforts to retain political influence in spite of the huge demographic shifts reshaping the United States have led Republicans to embrace various policies that have been criticised as anti-majoritarian, and even anti-democratic, by some commentators, such as electoral reforms that disadvantage non-white citizens, the redrawing of voting districts, and the packing of federal courts.

However, perhaps most concerning is the Republican party’s growing distrust in the electoral system itself. Nearly three-quarters of Republicans doubt the legitimacy of President Biden’s election victory, with 57% saying they will not vote for any future candidate who even recognises his victory. Further, whilst 90% of Democrats say they have trust in the 2024 election, this is true for just one in three Republicans.

Claims of election fraud have become a feature of mainstream Republican rhetoric. Regarding election integrity, Republican Rep. Madison Cawthorn of North Carolina has said, “if our election systems continue to be rigged, then it’s going to lead to one place and that’s bloodshed.” Whilst other Republican lawmakers, such as Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, has called for a “national divorce” between Republican and Democratic states, providing an outline for a breakup of the United States.

With faith in American democracy in freefall amongst Republicans, political violence is becoming increasingly normalized. In describing the actions of the Capitol Hill rioters, 56% of Republicans said they were “defending freedom,” 46% said it was “patriotism,” over a quarter expressed direct approval. Indeed, Republicans (30%) are almost three times as likely as Democrats (11%) to agree that “true American patriots might have to resort to violence in order to save our country.”

“It’s Really Unlikely to Happen”

However, there are strong reasons to think that the U.S. may not be headed for widespread civil conflict. “One important thing to know about civil war is that it’s very rare,” says Jay Ulfelder, a former P.I.T.F. research director and a fellow at the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at Harvard Kennedy School.

“Onsets of new civil wars are quite rare, especially in the last several decades. We’re usually talking not more than a few around the world in any given year. And, very importantly, almost never in very wealthy countries, and certainly not in very wealthy democracies — that almost never happens. One of the rare exceptions is the conflict in Northern Ireland. But that kind of thing is virtually unheard of in wealthy, ostensible democracies in the last half-century. My knee-jerk reaction is that it’s really unlikely to happen [in the United States].”

Even if there were to be an outbreak of civil conflict within the U.S., it would bear little to no resemblance to the symmetrical, state-backed conflict of the 1860s. “One of the reasons most Americans can’t even conceive of a second civil war here is because they’re thinking of the first one,” says Walters. “They’re thinking about two large armies meeting each other on a giant battlefield, men in uniforms dragging cannons.”

According to Walters, “twenty-first century civil wars tend to be more like insurgencies, they tend to be decentralized, fought by lots of small groups, militias, paramilitary groups. Sometimes [they’re] working together, sometimes not, and they’re using unconventional tactics.” Indeed, a Northern Ireland-type insurgency appears the most plausible model for civil conflict within the United States.

These types of insurgencies are almost unseen in wealthy democracies. Indeed, whilst countries that fall into the anocracy zone are at heightened risk of civil conflict, Walter’s list of contemporary anocracies that have collapsed into full-scale civil war consists exclusively of countries shifting from authoritarianism to democracy. “It’s not clear, however, that the move from democracy toward authoritarianism would be destabilizing in the same way”, writes New York Times columnist, Michelle Goldberg. Indeed, as Walter concedes, “the decline of liberal democracies is a new phenomenon, and none have fallen into all-out civil war–yet.”

E Pluribus Unum

In sum, whilst there is reason to be concerned about civil conflict breaking out within the United States, commentators must remain measured and balanced. Inflammatory and hyperbolic language surrounding a potential insurgency can be dangerous.

“The belief that there was going to be a civil war in Ireland made everything worse. Once that idea takes hold, it has a force of its own,” writes Fintan O’Toole, drawing on his childhood experience of the Northern Ireland conflict. “The logic of the preemptive strike sets in: Do it to them before they do it to you…Premonitions of civil war served not as portents to be heeded, but as a warrant for carnage.”

However, whilst commentators must remain cognizant of their role in shaping public discourse, they should not ignore the risk of increasing political violence. The United States meets the two key predictive criteria for civil conflict, and as democracy backslides and racial polarization increases, the threat of insurgency only looms larger.

According to Walters, the multivariate modelling of the P.I.T.F. predicts that any country that meets these criteria is at around a 3.4% annual risk of civil war. Whilst this may seem small, this risk compounds over time; should a country consistently meet these criteria over a 20-to-30-year period, the threat of civil violence is enormous.

Fortunately, these trends can be reversed. The United States must work to protect its democracy, and to restore faith in elections. Further, efforts must be undertaken to prevent the ethnic factionalization of the political landscape. Government, the private sector, and civil society organizations all have an important part to play in this comprehensive effort at restoring trust in American democracy and rebuilding a sense of civic unity. The United States must remember that the reconciling of difference is at the core of its national ethos. Whether those differences be in ideology or identity, there is one truth that this country should never forget: e pluribus unum – out of many, one.

 

Oliver Alexander Crisp, Counter-Terrorism Research Fellow

in Rise to Peace blog / United States 0 comments
U.S. Military
 by Rise to Peace

An Overview of Extremism in the U.S. Military

On January 6, 2021, a violent mob of Trump supporters launched an attack on the United States Capitol. They tore through the security perimeter, overwhelming police lines and invading the building. As the rioters attempted to break down the makeshift barricades defending the House Chamber, armed guards drew their weapons and members of Congress removed their lapel pins so as not to be identified. For U.S. Representative Jason Crow, a Colorado Democrat trapped inside the chamber, the intentions of the rioters were clear, “they were going to try to kill members.”

One year after the January 6 attack, the identities of those involved are being revealed, exposing a leading role for individuals with ties to the U.S. military. Of the 727 defendants charged in the attack, at least 81 have a record of military service, including Ashli Babbitt, an Air Force veteran fatally shot attempting to breach Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office suite. Over one quarter of these individuals were commissioned officers, and 44% had a history of deployment.

Of particular concern for security experts is that 37% were associated with violent extremist groups, including the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers, making those rioters with military backgrounds over four times more likely to be part of such groups than rioters without. Indeed, this data reflects previous findings from the Justice Department’s Terrorism Research and Analysis Project, which suggest a significant over-representation of individuals with military backgrounds in right-wing extremist groups, including positions of leadership.

The prominence of these individuals in the attack highlights concerns of an upsurge in right-wing extremism within the U.S. military. Whilst officials attribute this growing extremism to broader social trends, security experts warn that the radicalization of service members, many of whom have undergone specialized military training, represents a critical threat. Indeed, according to Kristofer Goldsmith, former chief investigator at Vietnam Veterans of America, “we’re already in the early stages of an insurgency in the United States.”

Between 1990 to July 2021, at least 354 individuals with military ties committed criminal acts motivated by extremist aims, according to a research brief by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism. It was found that between 1990-2010 there was an average of six criminal cases per year, but in the last decade that figure has tripled to 21 cases per year.

Whilst most of these acts are perpetrated by veterans, the “vast majority of [whom] actually became extremist after they were in the military,” according to Mark Pitcavage, a specialist on far-right groups for the Anti-Defamation League, the Department of Defense has also reported extremist activity among active-duty troops, including around 100 substantiated cases in 2021 alone. Indeed, according to a poll by the Military Times, over one third of active-duty troops have witnessed displays of white nationalism or ideologically-motivated racism in the U.S. military.

History of Extremism in the U.S. Military

Right-wing extremism in the U.S. military is far from new, according to Cassie Miller, a research specialist for the Southern Poverty Law Center, “historically, this has been a problem for the military.” In the 1960s, Black soldiers in Vietnam filed reports of white soldiers flying Confederate flags and celebrating the death of civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. by parading in Ku Klux Klan-style robes.

In the 1970s, the K.K.K. was found to be operating openly at a U.S. Marine Corps base in California. In 1986, the Southern Poverty Law Center issued its first warning to the Pentagon concerning racially-motivated extremism in the U.S. military. In 1995, Army veteran Timothy McVeigh, an anti-government extremist detonated a truck bomb beneath a federal building in Oklahoma, killing 168 people in the deadliest domestic terrorist attack in U.S. history.

The January 6 attack, alongside a recent spate of foiled extremist plots, suggests a new surge in right-wing extremism within the U.S. military. These include an attempt by an Army private to orchestrate a murderous ambush on his own unit by passing secret information to a satanic neo-Nazi group; a plan to bomb a Black Lives Matter protest by three Nevada men with military backgrounds; and a failed ploy to kidnap the governor of Michigan involving two former Marines. “There is a crisis issue,” says Representative Jason Crow, a retired Army officer and member of the House Armed Services Committee, “the rise of extremism and white supremacy in the ranks.”

After January 6

Following the Capitol Hill riot, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin instituted a highly unusual military-wide “stand down” to address extremism within the ranks. Mr. Austin ordered that all military commands use this pause in operations to reinforce restrictions on extremist activity and to discuss troops’ views on the issue. After the stand down, a working group was established to support a Pentagon-led review of the prohibitions on extremist activity amongst service members.

“We don’t know the full breadth and depth of this,” said Department of Defense (D.O.D.) spokesman John Kirby at the time, describing the prevalence of extremism within the U.S. military. “It may be more than we’re comfortable feeling and admitting, and probably a lot less than the media attention surrounding it seems to suggest it could be. But where is it? It’s just not clear.”

Last month, following the conclusion of its review, the D.O.D. announced a set of updates to its guidelines on tackling extremism in the ranks. The new policies include strict prohibitions on social media activity. Under the new restrictions, “liking” or sharing extremist material will be considered advocacy and could result in disciplinary action. They also clarify behaviors considered active participation in extremist groups, such as rallying and fundraising.

Moreover, the updates involve enhanced screening of recruits. The military services all apply some degree of screening for extremism among their new entrants, including criminal background checks and the Marine Corps’ “moral qualification screening” forms. The guideline updates will further enhance these procedures. Further, efforts will be made to prepare retiring troops from being recruited by extremist groups.

Shortcomings in the Current Approach

Some experts warn that the guidelines are insufficient for tackling extremism among U.S. troops. The new D.O.D. rules do not prohibit membership of extremist organizations, such as the K.K.K. or the various right-wing militias seen at the Capitol Hill riot. Whilst the armed forces strongly discourage membership of extremist groups, this behavior is difficult to challenge in its protection under the First Amendment.

Concerns have also been raised regarding the enforcement of the new rules. The guidelines on prohibited social media activity do not include a list of banned organizations and have been described as “loosely defined” by a former chief prosecutor for the U.S. Air Force.

Moreover, it is unclear how the new rules will be enacted. “There’s no methodology in there,” said Kirby, announcing the new guidelines. Commanders are expected to be notified of concerns through “various streams of reporting.” Experts are concerned that the near total discretion of commanders to implement the new guidelines will further entrench the scattershot enforcement of counter-extremism procedures.

Further, whilst the D.O.D.’s review recommends the establishment of a dedicated central office for addressing extremism among troops, this proposal has not been implemented, and the Pentagon lacks a dedicated budget for counter-extremism work within the ranks.

“I really think the best option for their side of things would be to kind of create more of a centralized office that is staffed by a bunch of case managers … focusing on nonpunitive measures first,” said Andrew Mines, a research fellow at the Program on Extremism at George Washington University. “You can give commanders all the training you want, they’re still never going to be at the point where they have the same kind of competencies and expertise that folks with mental health background, with kind of generalist backgrounds in extremist organizations and extremist ideology”

Conclusions and Recommendations

In sum, the efforts of the D.O.D. in their updated guidelines do not go far enough to address increasing extremism in the armed forces. Whilst “the overwhelming majority of the men and women of the Department of Defense serve this country with honor and integrity,” said Mr. Austin, security experts are concerned by surging right-wing extremism among the ranks of the U.S. Armed Forces. “If leadership is not in touch with the people they’re leading, this kind of thing can happen,” stated Mr. Austin while discussing the January 6 attack before the Senate Armed Services Committee. “I don’t think this is anything you can just put a Band-Aid on and fix.”

The Pentagon also needs to expand support for retired troops. Veterans are key targets for extremist groups, and data suggests that they are particularly vulnerable to the recruitment efforts of these organizations. Indeed, most extremists with military backgrounds underwent radicalization after leaving the armed forces. Therefore, while the new guidelines include some provisions for retiring troops, more work needs to be done in this area, and the Department of Veterans Affair should introduce a dedicated counter-extremism program.

Finally, the D.O.D. must investigate the underlying social and psychological drivers of extremism in its ranks. Officials recognize that surging right-wing extremism among troops can be attributed to broader trends in Western society. Yet the updated approach does little to acknowledge or address these deeper grievances surrounding American democracy, and the various economic and cultural frustrations empowering extremist recruitment efforts. Indeed, according to Mines, if you “don’t focus on the primary prevention side, you’re always going to be playing whack-a-mole.”

Extremism in the ranks of the world’s most powerful military force is a serious security risk, both within the United States and beyond. Tackling this threat will require a more effortful approach than simply restricting social media activity or enhancing screening protocols.

The Pentagon should adopt a comprehensive strategy to address extremism within the armed forces. As social division in the United States continues to grow, with trust in institutions collapsing, and Americans increasingly drawn toward extremist narratives, it becomes ever more important that attitudes, beliefs, and ideologies discordant with American values do not go unchallenged in the armed forces. The task is huge, but it must be undertaken, and it will require far more than a simple Band-Aid.

 

Oliver Alexander Crisp, Counter-Terrorism Research Fellow

in Rise to Peace blog / United States 0 comments
Foreign Governments
 by Rise to Peace

Fanning the Flames: How Foreign Governments Fuel Domestic Extremism

Information warfare, according to Dan Kuehl of the United States’ National Defense University, is the “conflict or struggle between two or more groups in the information environment.” The rapid expansion of the online information space has significantly bolstered the efficacy of these information warfare tactics, offering governments unfettered access to one of the most influential and all-encompassing arenas of public discourse. Increasingly, governments exploit this access to undermine rival nations, waging disinformation campaigns to exacerbate social cleavages, divide communities, and fuel discontent.

The extent to which foreign actors have permeated U.S. online society is somewhat staggering. Troll farms, professional groups that coordinate internet activity to disseminate and amplify online propaganda, reached around 140 million Americans a month in the run-up to the 2020 presidential election. As of late 2019, 15,000 Facebook pages with a majority U.S. following were being run by these troll farms, many of which are based far from American shores, in countries such as Russia, Kosovo, and Macedonia.

These pages included: the largest Christian American page on Facebook, with 20 times more followers than the next largest and reaching 75 million U.S. users per month; the largest African-American page on Facebook, reaching 30 million U.S. users per month; and the fifth-largest women’s page on Facebook, reaching 60 million U.S. users per month. Of the top 15 African-American pages, two-thirds were run by troll farms, and of the top 20 Christian pages, this figure reached 95%.

According to the reports, the target demographics of these troll farms mirror those selected by the Russia-backed Internet Research Agency in its effort to undermine U.S. political discourse during the 2016 election. Indeed, a 2018 Buzzfeed News investigation revealed that at least one member of the Internet Research Agency had visited Macedonia around the emergence of its first troll farms, and Facebook’s own cybersecurity chief has noted that Iranian troll farms have begun implementing Russian tactics. The behavior of these troll farms points to a disturbing conclusion: a well-organized and broadscale effort, orchestrated by foreign actors, to control the information ecosphere of American society.

Understanding the Threat

This effort to infiltrate the U.S. digital landscape represents a serious national security threat. Indeed, the intention of these foreign actors is to destabilize American society. This is achieved by inflaming social tensions, provoking civil unrest, and strengthening extremist narratives. One approach adopted by these foreign actors is the dissemination and amplification of conspiracy theories.

In 2019, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) labeled these theories as a domestic terrorism threat and drew attention to the radical adherents of QAnon conspiracy, who they described as “conspiracy theory-driven domestic extremists.” QAnon is a wide-ranging theory with an enormous number of offshoots and internal debates. But, at its core, is the belief that a powerful global cabal of Satan-worshippers is seeking to control society.

The FBI assessed that these theories, including QAnon, “very likely will emerge, spread, and evolve in the modern information marketplace, occasionally driving both groups and individual extremists to carry out criminal or violent acts.” In a more recent assessment from earlier this year, the FBI described how morphing attitudes within the QAnon movement will likely incline its adherents towards “real world violence–including harming perceived members of the “cabal” such as Democrats and other political opposition.” Indeed, during the January 6 Capitol insurrection, QAnon flags and signs were visible within the crowd, and more than 20 self-identified QAnon adherents have been arrested in relation to the attack.

Despite the bizarre claims of the QAnon movement, it appears to have been far more prominent than once assumed. A poll of a nationally representative sample of 9,308 U.S. adults published earlier this year found that between 20 and 23 percent of Americans self-identify as QAnon believers, a figure far higher than previous surveys indicated.

The theory’s popularity seems, at least in part, to be driven by foreign governments seeking to exploit tensions within the U.S. Indeed, a report published by the New York-based Soufan Center revealed that around 20% of all QAnon-related Facebook posts between January 2020 and February 2021 originated outside the United States, a significant proportion of which came from Russia and China. “Throughout 2020,” the report reads, “the consistent foreign amplification of QAnon narratives online illustrates that externally driven disinformation efforts have contributed to the efficient spread of conspiracy theories.”

“We are seeing common narratives that seem to be resonating with individuals who are looking for extremist ideological beliefs to serve as the justification for violence being introduced by foreign nation-states” said Department of Homeland Security Counterterrorism Coordinator John Cohen, speaking shortly after the unveiling of President Joe Biden’s new National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism earlier this year. “There are threat actors, whether it’s foreign governments like Russia or Iran or China… that are taking advantage of that anger and the polarization of our society.”

Efforts to Divide American Society

The efforts of these foreign actors stretch far beyond the QAnon movement. Russian Facebook pages and accounts have been used to plan dozens of politically divisive demonstrations across the United States. For example, in 2016, two Russian Facebook pages organized dueling rallies in front of a Houston Islamic center. One of these rallies, organized by the Heart of Texas group, announced their demonstration to “Stop Islamification of Texas,” whilst another Russian-based group organized a “Save Islamic Knowledge” rally at the same time and location.

Both left-wing and right-wing causes have been weaponized by Russian actors, who have used targeting advertising, private messaging campaigns, and even offers of reimbursement for travel expenses, to incite a range of demonstrations, from the Being Patriotic group’s “March for Trump” rally in New York to the United Muslims of America group’s “Support Hillary. Save American Muslims” rally.

More recently, Russia and China have sought to spread various coronavirus-related conspiracies, including disinformation and propaganda about the origins of COVID-19, unproven treatments for the disease, and the efficacy and risks of the vaccine rollout. Europol has already warned that the efforts to combat COVID-19 have escalated the threat of violence extremism and Michele Grossman, from the Centre for Research and Evidence on Security Threats, has described COVID-19 as a “swiftly weaponized gift,” for those “who seek to escalate violent conflict, accelerate civil unrest, and enhance social and political polarization.”

“They are constantly exploring, looking, poking, prodding,” says Matthew Masteron, former senior cyber security advisor at the Department of Homeland Security, “looking for ways to cast doubt, to divide us along racial lines, along political lines, along whatever societal divisions we already have in existence.”

Conclusions

The United States must work to counter the disruptive online influence of foreign actors in their attempts to divide American society. This challenge will require cooperation from the U.S. government, the private sector, civil society, and others in promoting a healthy, online information ecosphere. The United States must strike an important balance in this effort, ensuring that it protects public discourse from foreign subversion whilst also preserving freedom of expression.

Efforts must also be made to tackle the widespread social grievances from which extremist groups draw support, and the underlying disaffection of Americans drawn to violent political action. Indeed, the FBI have stated that “the uncovering of real conspiracies or cover-ups involving illegal, harmful, or unconstitutional activities by government officials or leading political figures” contributes to the growing intensity of the extremist threat.

As the United States continues to grow more polarized, and as more Americans are drawn to political violence, it is more urgent than ever that the U.S. address these issues. Indeed, analysis by Barbara F. Walter from the Political Instability Task Force, a CIA advisory panel, has recently warned that the U.S. is “closer to civil war than any of us would like to believe.” If the United States is to avoid this fate, it must work with intense resolve to strengthen enlightened public discourse and to rebuild the unity of its fractured society.

 

Oliver Alexander Crisp, Counter-Terrorism Research Fellow

in Rise to Peace blog / United States 0 comments
 by Ahmad Mohibi

Daesh Within the DMV? Assesing the ISIS-K Threat in Northern Virginia

Bereft of the territory which they conquered at their height, ISIS seeks to restore their ability to instill fear in those who don’t share their fringe ideology. Recent operations conducted by the group such as their attack on the Kabul airport are congruent with this aim. With their fervent desire to be seen once again as the preeminent jihadist group, officials within the United States have sounded the alarm over potential lone-wolf attacks within Northern Virginia. These warnings from the law enforcement community come at a time where ISIS has increased its online activity.

At the height of their power in 2015, ISIS shocked the world with how swift they were able to capture large swaths of territory within the Levant by exploiting political instability. Through this success, they were able to create a global network of affiliates like ISIS-K and inspire lone-wolf attacks throughout the world. The most infamous of these attacks was the 2015 Paris attacks which were carried out by radicalized European-raised nationals. The Paris attacks ultimately took the lives of 130 people with injuries sustained by many more.

The attacks also provided the impetus for a wide coalition of nations with differing interests to combat the group and its affiliates. Air support tied to Operation Inherent Resolve proved critical in aiding regional forces in reducing the amount of territory held by ISIS. As a result of these multilateral efforts, ISIS had lost almost all of its territory by 2017. Furthermore, Operation Inherent Resolve proved effective at dismantling the leadership of ISIS.

As ISIS lost territory in the Levant, they began to direct resources toward ISIS-K to bolster their presence within Central Asia. ISIS-K has also received hardened veterans as well as foreign fighters dedicated to furthering the aims of the organization. The ultimate goal of the affiliate is the establishment of a Caliphate within the region in which they operate. They have also been known to advocate for attacks against the West.

Moreover, the withdrawal of the United States from Afghanistan has proved to be beneficial for ISIS-K. The withdrawal allowed for many of their members to be released from prison who could aid in their pursuit of a Caliphate. In addition, the lack of military pressure by the United States allows them ample space to revive an operational capacity similar to what they had in the Levant. To achieve this they will likely seek to radicalize foreigners to carry out lone-wolf attacks. Successful attacks would bring them prestige for recruitment while they direct their efforts to establish their Caliphate. Furthermore, by occupying Afghanistan they lay claim to a heritage of Islamist groups of the past who have successfully resisted great powers such as the Soviet Union and the United States. With this in mind, ISIS-K will likely attract foreign fighters using this as a tool for recruitment.

The chaos caused by the withdrawal has caused a multitude of refugees who sought asylum to avoid living under Taliban rule. With the primary focus of the United States being to safely evacuate Americans out of the country, the disarray allowed for a lack of vetting of those seeking to exit Afghanistan. According to those on the ground, there could have been the possibility of ISIS-K members entering the United States with asylum seekers. The prospect of this proves a challenge to our national security.

To meet the challenges presented by ISIS-K the United States must be cognizant of the threats which are posed by the group. One such threat is that the group may adopt new technology in the same manner in which their predecessor did. As the technology evolved, ISIS had been able to create videos that inspired waves of attacks to be conducted in their name. Secondly, the group has entrenched itself in one of the most geographically intense terrains on the globe. As a result, the group will likely be active for years to come given the advantage which their geography affords them.

Although the chance of a successful ISIS-K attack within Northern Virginia is slim, the U.S. should take concrete steps in mitigating an attack. This can be achieved by building trust in local Muslim communities with law enforcement agencies within the DMV region. Furthermore, the U.S. could also partner with tech companies to block content from ISIS-K. They can also work with regional partners to weaken the operational capabilities of the group within Afghanistan. Finally, the United States can also set up a strict vetting regime to screen for potential extremists. By thwarting a potential attack, the political capital which the group uses to recruit and fundraise is significantly reduced.

ISIS-K represents the latest iteration of a jihadist group that has learned from their predecessors. The group also seems to be poised to experience an increase in their breadth of capabilities and foreign combatants. Without proactive action by the United States and the international community, the group could very well establish a Caliphate within Central Asia. In doing so, the group would have safe haven to orchestrate plots worldwide on those it considers its targets. While their capacity to carry out an attack on the homeland is limited now, their ability to do so only increases with time.

in Rise to Peace blog / United States 0 comments