Domestic Terrorism

Domestic
 by Rise to Peace

Domestic Terrorism in 2022: Key Risks and Trends

As 2022 commences, the domestic security landscape continues to evolve and mutate. The COVID-19 pandemic, and our efforts to contain it, have upended many people’s way of life, causing enormous disruptions and forcing substantial economic and psychological hardship upon communities.

The pandemic has also led to a significant increase in the amount of time individuals spend online, socializing with others and attempting to make sense of their changing world, further deepening humans’ technological dependence. Meanwhile, climate change continues to present an enormous global challenge, with the much anticipated COP26 meeting being widely hailed a disappointment.

As our world continues to change, so does the domestic security threat. As society attempts to make sense of the COVID-19 pandemic, and communities suffer the economic fallout of its impact, vulnerable individuals and fragile communities will become increasingly susceptible to extremist ideology.

As distrust in governments and institutions continues to grow, and global challenges remain unmet, individuals will increasingly use online platforms to find like-minded individuals, developing networks to provide a sense of community, security, and identity. This deepening tribalism has the potential of fragmenting society into a patchwork of hostile, ideological communities.

The Global Jihadist Movement

Although it now receives less attention amongst the global community than it did during the peak periods of the Global War on Terrorism, or indeed, during the more recent years of ISIS’ prominence, the global jihadist movement continues to represent a substantial domestic threat, remaining one of the most lethal terrorist risks.

Despite the apparent demotion of the Islamist terror threat to a second-tier priority amid the United States’ shift in focus to great power competition and pandemic response, the threat of jihadi terrorism remains active. Whilst recent years have seen several of the most notable international jihadi terrorist organizations, including al-Qaeda and ISIS, weakened by the counter-terrorism efforts of western forces, many of their overseas offshoots and affiliates remain mobile.

Despite its abhorrence to many Muslims around the world, extremist Islamist ideology continues to resonate with radicalized individuals throughout the west. The Taliban’s recapture of Afghanistan represents a major propaganda victory for the global jihadi movement.

Moreover, the Taliban’s severe approach to counterinsurgency warfare has inflamed the country’s security crisis, exacerbating the risk of civil war. This potential conflict may find itself joining the array of other armed campaigns waged by Islamists throughout Africa, further expanding the potential of overseas battlefields to become magnets for foreign fighters from the West.

This internationalization of the jihadist terrorist effort is a major security threat, motivating domestic extremists to take violent action against their own societies and providing combat-training for western recruits, many of whom will evade capture in returning to their home countries.

Right-Wing Extremism

After the September 11 attacks, the United States’ national security community maintained a two-decades-long focus on combating international jihadist terrorism. Estimates as to the cost of this global endeavor reach as high as $8 trillion, and by the end of 2019, the United States was engaged in counter-terrorism missions across 80 countries. Given this extraordinary focus on combatting the global Islamist terror threat, it is perhaps unsurprising that combatting the rapid expansion of domestic, far-right extremism remained somewhat peripheral.

White supremacists, neo-Nazis, and other right-wing extremist actors, groups, and ideologies now present a clear domestic threat. Racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, and white supremacy are increasingly motivating attacks throughout the West. Indeed, the Global Terrorism Index has reported a 320% increase in far-right terrorist attacks between 2013 and 2018, many of which were concentrated throughout Western Europe, North America, and Oceania, in cities such as Pittsburgh, El Paso, Oslo, and Christchurch.

The armed insurrection at the Capitol on 6 January 2021 demonstrated the extent of the right-wing extremism threat within the United States. The attack involved over 100 injuries and caused $30 million in damages. It also provided a showcase of the various groups, beliefs, and ideologies that permeate the broader right-wing extremist milieu within the United States.

Among these was the QAnon movement, an online meme that has evolved into one of the most influential conspiracy theories in the United States. The iconography of the movement was on display throughout the Capitol attack, on signs, banners, and clothing. Indeed, QAnon is becoming increasingly pervasive throughout the broader conservative movement, with over half of Republicans saying that at least “some parts” of the QAnon worldview are accurate.

In 2019, the Federal Bureau of Investigation drew attention to the radical adherents of QAnon as a domestic terrorism threat. Certainly, their core belief in a powerful and secretive global cabal of nefarious, Satan-worshiping elites certainly has the potential to incite other violent actions.

Moreover, the COVID-19 pandemic has injected an array of novel and outlandish conspiracy theories into the extremist milieu of the far-right. These theories often form part of elaborate mis- and disinformation campaigns involving government corruption, social control, and even depopulation. These beliefs can serve as powerful catalysts for radicalization and violent extremist action.

Anti-Technology Radicalism, Eco-Fascism, and the War on Civilization

Several of these pandemic-led conspiracy narratives involve an obsession with recently introduced technologies, including mobile passports, mRNA vaccines, human microchip implants, and 5G telecommunication systems. As of now, opposition to these technologies is largely organized in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the various conspiracy theories surrounding it.

However, security experts have warned that these beliefs, and the actions they have incited, including the destruction of vaccine vials and 5G communication towers, have the potential of morphing into a broader, unified movement against technology; this form of extremism has been referred to as anti-technology radicalism.

Indeed, as artificial intelligence, robotics, and the other emerging technologies of the fourth industrial revolution further exacerbate existing social and economic grievances, including job insecurity and a deepening wealth gap, it is possible the anti-technology movement will expand into a fully-fledged domestic security threat.

This aversion to technological advances is also connected to a growing form of extreme eco-fascism. As climate change creates new social stresses, and individuals become increasingly frustrated by government inaction, right-wing extremists are adapting environmental concerns to fit their narratives and worldview. This is achieved by adopting environmental language for nativist, nationalist, and racist ends, emphasizing notions of “blood and soil”: the idea that particular ethnocultural groups share a symbiotic connection with their homeland.

Through the lens of these right-wing extremists, the answer to the environmental crisis is the strengthening of borders, the increased marginalization of racial minorities, and an obsessive focus on ethnocultural identity.

Both the El Paso and Christchurch terrorists alluded to eco-fascist ideology in their manifestos, and indeed both anti-technology radicalism and eco-fascism feed into a broader neo-Luddite movement encompassing an array of other concerns, including urbanization, consumerism, and industrialization. This anti-technology, neo-Luddite movement will continue to recruit followers as the climate crisis expands and emergent technologies arise. Indeed, as researchers have noted, it may well already be set on an escalatory path toward a war against techno-industrial civilization itself.

Left-Wing Extremism

Whilst jihadists and right-wing extremists most likely remain the strongest and most lethal domestic security threat, the uncertainty and disruption engendered by the COVID-19 pandemic, economic instability, climate change, and emergent technologies may activate largely dormant forms of political violence, including left-wing extremism.

As economic insecurity and social disruption is increasingly forced upon individuals and communities, they will be vulnerable to left-wing narratives that emphasize violent action as a means to redress wealth inequality, government incompetence, and corporate malfeasance.

Currently, left-wing extremists, including violent anarchists, radical strands of Black nationalism, and antifa, present a significantly weaker threat than jihadists or right-wing extremists. Nonetheless, violent far-left actors have demonstrated their ability to incite civil unrest.

Recent history has demonstrated that far-left actors are willing to use improvised weapons, such as projectiles, commercial fireworks, and petrol bombs to target police, property, and other avatars of perceived social injustice. Indeed, firearms are increasingly appearing at left-wing protests, and recent arson and car ramming attacks could suggest left-wing extremists are growing more willing to deploy violence in service of their ideological agenda.

Reciprocal Radicalization and Fringe Fluidity

Whilst the increase in the threat of far-left violence is driven, in large part, by individuals’ growing sense of social and economic grievance, and its capture by extremist actors, the expansion of the left-wing extremist threat may also be connected to the recent upsurge in far-right violence. This process, wherein extremist groups fuel one another’s rhetoric and behavior, is known amongst researchers as reciprocal radicalization.

This process, also known as co-radicalization, cumulative extremism, and interactive escalation, describes a situation wherein extremists groups mutually reinforce the radicalization of their opponent groups, producing a self-feeding cycle of hatred, intolerance, and resentment.

Whilst the process was first described by researchers investigating the relationship between militant Islamists and anti-Islamists, this phenomenon of reciprocal radicalization also feeds the increasing hostilities seen in confrontations between far-left and far-right actors.

However, security experts warn that the prevalence of these simple ideological dichotomies in describing the extremist landscape, such as those drawn in descriptions of the relationship between militant Islamists and anti-Islamists, or left-wing and right-wing extremists, is deeply limiting.

Increasingly, lone actors and small groups of domestic extremists, these being the most likely perpetrators of violent attacks within the United States, are motivated by diverse ideological amalgamations of extremist beliefs. These extremists are motivated by so-called “salad bar” ideologies that draw from numerous, and sometimes even contradictory, ideological foundations.

The adoption of pro-environmental rhetoric amongst right-wing extremists is a classic example of this absence of ideological rigidity, a phenomenon that has been labeled by researchers as fringe fluidity and ideological convergence. Here, the lines between left-wing ideology, of which pro-environmental beliefs have long been associated, and right-wing ideology merge together.

Indeed, a number of prominent terrorist and extremist actors have demonstrated this ideological fluidity, such as: Andrew Anglin, the founder of The Daily Stormer, one of the most popular neo-Nazi websites, was once a devoted vegan and self-described anti-racist who advocated a range of left-wing causes; Nicholas Young, a fanatic supporter of militant Islamism sentenced to fifteen years in prison for aiding ISIS, was also a devoted neo-Nazi; and Adam Gadahn, the American al-Qaeda spokesman who was once one of the most wanted terrorists in the world, experimented with Evangelical Christianity before converting to radical Islam.

This fringe fluidity, powerfully exemplified by the far-right’s growing fetishization of militant Islam, represents a significant challenge to security experts’ traditional understanding of extremist ideology. Its growing prominence amongst violent extremist actors is a concerning trend. Iindeed their attempts to reconcile disparate, and even oppositional, elements of different ideologies, including those drawn from jihadism, neo-Nazism, anti-technology radicalism, eco-fascism, and left-wing extremism, demands a deep overhaul of the long-held assumptions and established analytic frameworks that have dominated security experts’ efforts to combat violent extremism.

Conclusions

As mistrust in government, institutions, and the established social order continues to grow, fueled by the fallout of the COVID-19 pandemic, the acceleration of the global climate crisis, and the disruption of emerging technologies, individuals and communities become increasingly vulnerable to radicalization.

Indeed, according to the National Intelligence Council’s Global Trends 2040 report, published in March 2021, “large segments of the global population are becoming wary of institutions and governments that they see as unwilling or unable to address their needs. People are gravitating to familiar and like-minded groups for community and security, including ethnic, religious, and cultural identities as well as groupings around interests and causes, such as environmentalism.” This trend, should it continue, will drive violence, extremism, and terrorism within the United States and beyond, as ideological groups increasingly come to see the world in terms of “us versus them.”

The U.S. government should work, in conjunction with the private sector and civil society organizations, to counter these trends. Efforts must be made to address the grievances that fuel extremist recruitment, including the various socioeconomic and psychological stresses that have been amplified by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Currently, the most lethal threat remains that posed by jihadists and right-wing extremists. Nonetheless, security officials must remain cognizant of other domestic security threats, including those presented by eco-fascists, anti-technology radicals, and left-wing extremists. These new potential security threats will likely be empowered by government inaction on climate change and the disruptive impact of emergent technologies.

Moreover, domestic terrorist attacks are increasingly perpetrated by lone individuals or small extremist groups. These actors are often motivated by incoherent amalgamations of ideological belief, challenging security experts’ established understanding of extremist ideology. Efforts must be made to expand and adapt the methods used to counter this growing form of extremism; indeed a major overhaul of long-established counter-terrorism frameworks may be demanded.

As global and domestic circumstances change, driven by the COVID-19 pandemic, socioeconomic disruption, climate change, and the impact of new technologies, the threat of domestic extremism will rise. To address this challenge, the United States must work to protect vulnerable individuals and communities, providing support that helps mitigate the allure of extremist ideology. Nonetheless, the U.S. should sustain its commitment to countering jihadism and right-wing extremism, whilst also developing its ability to adapt to new security threats and the emergence of new forms of extremism.

As 2022 commences, the domestic security landscape continues to evolve, driven by the disruption and instability of our changing world. Should the U.S. hope to counter this upheaval, and its exploitation by extremist forces, then it must work to revitalize broken communities, rebuild public trust, and restore a sense of civic unity.

 

Oliver Alexander Crisp, Counter-Terrorism Research Fellow

in Domestic Terrorism / Rise to Peace blog 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 Sydney Neuman

An Assessment of the Current Terror Threats to the United States

As the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks approaches and coronavirus is in rapid circulation, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has issued a new National Terrorism Advisory System bulletin, warning of the threat of extremist violence in the United States. This advisory is an update of the previous assessment. It is not based on any specific threat information, but rather represents the DHS’s analysis of the condition of the United States.

Coronavirus Threat

The DHS has warned local police departments that opposition to another pandemic-related lockdown policy could constitute a “terror threat.” However, this new advisory is “not based on any actual threats or plots” but has stemmed from the “rise in anti-government rhetoric.” This is largely connected to mask and vaccine mandates. The advisory states that, “through the remainder of 2021, racially- or ethnically-motivated violent extremists (RMVEs) and anti-government/anti-authority violent extremists will remain a national threat priority for the United States.” It warns that these extremists may seek to exploit the resurgence of COVID-19. Pandemic-related stressors have contributed to an increase in societal strains and tensions. In turn, this could lead to several plots by domestic violent extremists.

Houses of Worship and Commercial Gatherings Threat

Also included in Friday’s advisory, is a warning of the threat of RMVEs that sometimes target houses of worship and crowded commercial facilities or gatherings. As more institutions are beginning to reopen including schools, churches, synagogues, and mosques, there are several dates of religious significance. This includes the Jewish holidays Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur coming up in September. These significant dates could provide an increased target of opportunity for violence though there are currently no credible or imminent threats identified to these locations.

Online Threat

One other major warning of the advisory is for people to continue to be cautious of false narratives, conspiracy theories, and misinformation being spread online and through online communities. It states that:

“Ideologically motivated violent extremists fueled by personal grievances and extremist ideological beliefs continue to derive inspiration and obtain operational guidance through the consumption of information shared in certain online communities.”

Violent extremists may use messaging platforms or techniques to obscure operational indicators that provide specific warnings of a pending act of violence. Russian, Chinese, and Iranian governments, have all been linked to media outlets, aiming to “sow discord” and amplify conspiracy theories. These are largely concerning the origins of COVID-19 and the effectiveness of vaccines. This rhetoric has also led to amplifying calls for violence targeting persons of Asian descent.

Afghanistan Threat

While the report does not specifically mention the worsening situation in Afghanistan, it mentions acknowleges that:

“Al- Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula recently released its first English-language copy of Inspire magazine in over four years. This demonstrates that foreign terrorist organizations continue efforts to inspire U.S.-based individuals susceptible to violent extremist influences.”

It is a huge concern to both US government officials and their citizens that Al-Qaeda could rebuild in Afghanistan. Consequently, this may be a signifiacant threat under the Taliban rule. Unfortunately, this will lead to an increased threat of terror to the United State. Subsequently, this could become a major target of terrorist plots.

How the DHS is Responding

The DHS is taking various steps in response to these new threats. They are monitoring all online platforms to identify and evaluate calls for violence. This includes online activity associated with the spread of disinformation, conspiracy theories, and false narratives. The report moreover encourages the public to maintain awareness of the evolving threat environment and report suspicious activity.

The DHS is coordinating with state and local law enforcement and public safety partners. They aim to maintain situational awareness of potential violence in their jurisdictions and maintain open lines of communication with federal partners. Finally from a more broad standpoint, the DHS states that it will “remain committed to identifying and preventing terrorism and targeted violence while protecting the privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties of all persons.

in Rise to Peace blog / United States 0 comments
Encouraging messages written on signs by London Underground staff for commuters the morning after the 2016 Westminster terror attack. The “Blitz Spirit” of WW2 is often invoked to rally community moral in London after terrorist incidents.
 by Rise to Peace

How Local Identities Can Shape a More Balanced Response to Terror

The traumatic impacts of terrorist attacks reverberate far beyond physical injuries and loss of life. Victims must often cope with the loss of family and friends, damage to the wider community and social structures, as well as the potential personal and wider economic consequences. In the search for security and stability, exposed individuals often demand a radicalization of their society’s values and a rapid expansion of the state security apparatus. Against the backdrop of Terror Management Theory and the concept of Psychological Resilience, this article aims to open a new perspective on responses to terrorism based on local identities.

Terror Management Theory

Terror Management Theory was designed around the research of Ernest Becker, it refers to how people cope with fears and anxiety facing the idea of their mortality when there is an event that removes their psychological protective structures. According to this theory, individuals psychologically cope with terrorism by stressing their society’s world views and security structures. This gives them a sense of meaning, justice, and orderly life. In political terms, they typically demand a strengthening of their country’s economic, military, or judicial power.

In Western Democracies, responses to terrorism are primarily organized in the form of nation-states. Nations and their normative and organizational structures are survival vehicles because they make people stick together in an uncertain and dangerous world. However, at the same time, seeking shelter in one’s own national identity and beefing up security structures can lead to fewer concerns about privacy rights and racial or religious prejudices, as many examples from the recent past have shown.

Different peoples respond differently to trauma, some will be more tolerant and less alarmist than others. Societies that embrace dynamic multiculturalism can reduce the risk of aggressive measures against certain racial and religious groups in the aftermath of terrorist attacks. However, effective multiculturalism only really occurs as a consequence of personal contact with out-group members, on a local scale.

Building Psychological Resilience by Fostering Local Identities

Psychological resilience, in general, has to do with a population’s “ability to find a new balance in life after a dramatic incident has occurred.” There are three separate levels that can be distinguished. The first, individual-level resilience is developed by one’s own personality and individuals’ surroundings. This takes the form of personal determination, self-confidence, friends, neighbors, and family.

After that, the community level is seen. This involves the emotional ties to a geographical place that the victim can call “home.” This may be a sense of communal belonging. Finally, the third level has to do with the characteristics of the attack. The scale, violence, and aftermath. Naturally, those closer to, or deeply affected by the terrorist event will have endured more trauma to their own resilience.

Hence, the national response to terrorism will be directly affected by how society responses at a communal level. State responses to terrorism is a dimension we mostly associate with terrorism in political terms because the nation-state appears to be the only organization that can effectively guarantee physical security. However, this view underestimates the psychological help local networks and identities can give. As research has shown, strong social networks on the level of neighborhoods, districts, or local clubs and organizations do not only have a positive effect on education and wealth, but also on physical and social security, happiness, and identity, and bringing together diverse groups strengthens social tolerance.

Applying for state support at this local level could present a way to give individuals affected by terrorism psychological coping mechanisms beyond that of the nation-state and its structures. This would allow for a more balanced and measured response to terrorist attacks. Further research that explicitly links the rich literature on local communities and identities to terrorism could advance this approach further and contribute to preventing excesses in response to terrorism.

 

in Rise to Peace blog 0 comments
 by Sydney Neuman

Deradicalization and Combating Domestic Terrorism in the U.S

On January 6th, 2021, white supremacists and militias breached the Capitol, deploying the use of violence and force. In light of this, government officials and researchers are working to identify the factors contributing to domestic terrorism in America.

Domestic Radicalization

In 2020, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) recorded 110 domestic extremist attacks. Of those, two-thirds were from the far-right and about a quarter from the far-left. The remainder were driven by religious or “ethnonationalism” causes.

In the technological world we live in, social media provides the main clues experts use to learn about the radicalization process and when, where, and why this violence occurs. In 2016, social media played a role in the radicalization processes of nearly 90% of the extremists. The internet gives experts access to study extremist viewpoints and conspiracy theories that are being circulated. This is often the most vulnerable of people.

Deradicalization

However, it is not enough for people to disengage, people need to be deradicalized. Deradicalization is the process of making an individual become less radical in their political or religious beliefs. Disengagement didn’t necessarily reduce their level of radicalization, meaning that these individuals have stopped enacting extremist crimes but may still hold radical views. Most psychological counterterrorism strategies have been developed for international use for Islamist extremists. Thus, experts worry that these interventions might not translate to U.S.-based groups. Evidence has shown that using former group members is one of the best ways to encourage individuals to leave extremist groups. They provide social support and can reflect on the challenges and fears associated with leaving.

A recent study by Gina Ligon, the Director of National Counterterrorism Innovation, Technology, and Education Center at the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) and her colleagues, found that one of the main reasons people disengage from extremist groups is for the same reason many people leave jobs or other organizations. They dislike their boss. They came to this conclusion after reviewing nearly 100 exit interviews with left-wing and right-wing domestic extremists. Ligon identified: “it wasn’t that they realized their beliefs were wrong, it was that they didn’t trust their leaders or were dissatisfied with the way the group was being managed.”

Combating Domestic Terrorism

Towards the end of the Trump administration, DHS was provided with around $500,000 for a project at American University to study the “growing threat of violent white supremacist extremist disinformation.” The program is aimed at preventing the spread of disinformation through what researchers call “attitudinal inoculation.” Attitudinal inoculation aims to give people who may be vulnerable to disinformation the skills to recognize it and argue against it. This can be comparable to how a vaccine builds antibodies to a virus before the body encounters it.

However, during the Trump administration, DHS officials were directed to use the term “violence prevention,” instead of  “domestic terrorism.” Elizabeth Neumann, DHS’ Assistant Secretary for Counterterrorism and Threat Prevention states:

“We did expand domestic terrorism prevention under Trump. But, when it came to questions of how we could change the domestic terrorism statute to charge people more easily, there were no adults at the White House who were willing to go there. Nor was anyone willing to define the threat.” 

The DHS under the Biden administration is very outspoken about naming and preventing domestic violent extremism. In response to the uptick, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is expanding research into violent extremism in the United States. The Biden Administration is expanding grants to the DHS’ Office of Targeted Violence and Terrorism Prevention. Similarly, the Homeland Security Department is looking to collaborate more closely with private social media companies. This includes Facebook and Twitter to spot indicators of potential violence.

However, there is a widespread belief within DHS that it should not be the federal government’s role to censor people or organizations, especially if the pressure is exerted by a Democratic administration on conservative media. The government will need to continue research and adapt to this goal of combating domestic terrorism in the United States. It has become very clear that there will not be a quick or easy solution to this growing issue.

 

in Rise to Peace blog / United States 0 comments