In the light of several incidents or alleged plots that have been in the news in recent months -- the Fort Hood shootings and the break-up of a terrorist ring in Colorado -- it is appropriate to be re-examine the terrorist threat to the U.S. homeland, and how the debate over troop levels in Afghanistan might affect it.
The most important patterns in international terrorism, with particular reference to threats to the U.S. homeland, in the eight years since the 9/11 attacks can be summarized in two trends pointing in different directions. The first is that the group that accomplished 9/11, al Qaeda, is -- although still a threat -- less capable of pulling off something of that magnitude than it was in 2001. This is possible in large part because of a variety of measures that the outrage of the American public made politically possible in a way that was not possible before 9/11. These include enhanced defensive security measures at home as well as expanded offensive efforts overseas that have eroded al Qaeda's organizational infrastructure.
The other major pattern or trend is that the broader violent jihadist movement of which al Qaeda is a part is probably at least as large and strong as it was eight years ago. Here again, some of our own actions have been major contributors. The war in Iraq was one such action. It provided a jihadists' training ground and networking opportunity similar to what the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan had provided two decades earlier. And in the words of the U.S. intelligence community, the war in Iraq became a cause célèbre for radical Islamists.
The overall result of these two trends is a terrorist threat that is more diffuse than it was several years ago. The centers of action and initiative for possible attacks, including ones against the U.S. homeland, are more numerous than they were several years ago.
Against this backdrop is the specter -- raised anew by some of the recent incidents -- of people in the United States, including U.S. citizens, adopting some variant of radical Islamism and perpetrating terrorist attacks within the United States. The possibility is worthy of attention, if for no other reason because of the operational advantages and opportunities this represents for terrorists. Home-grown perpetrators have significant advantages over foreign operatives who, like the 9/11 terrorists, come into the country from abroad to commit their deed. The natives do not have to deal with enhanced border control procedures. They do not stand out. They are, in short, harder to detect. And they are more familiar with the territory and with their targets.
These operational advantages would make U.S. citizens or residents attractive recruiting targets for foreign terrorist groups hoping to conduct operations within the United States. But for the same operational reasons, any U.S. persons who do become terrorists would present a significant counterterrorist challenge even without having any affiliation with al Qaeda or some other foreign group.
A common and reassuring observation among those who have studied the problem of home-grown terrorism is that the United States is less vulnerable than most European countries to terrorism and other political violence committed by their own Muslim populations. The reason is that American Muslims are better integrated and less ghettoized than their counterparts in Europe. But ghettoes are not a necessity, and community integration is not a foolproof safeguard, when it comes to individuals or small groups committing what still can be significant acts of violence.
Incidents to date cannot be described as yet adding up to a significant home-grown Islamist terrorist problem in the United States. But episodes like the shooting at Fort Hood suggest the possibility of more, and the sort of reasons and motivations that could make for more. And this does not depend on any recruiting successes or training activity by the likes of al Qaeda.
The security measures implemented since 9/11 increase the importance of lone individuals or very small groups that may emerge within the United States, relative to the importance of an established foreign terrorist organization such as al Qaeda. Those security measures have made it harder to conduct a terrorist spectacular like 9/11, where the resources, sophistication, and experience of such an organization would be most relevant. This leaves the many more mundane but less rectifiable vulnerabilities in American society. A disturbing and unavoidable fact is that just about anyone can stage a shoot-'em-up in any of countless public places in the United States. This is low-tech and unsophisticated, but it can cause enough carnage to make a significant impact on the American consciousness. The likely shape of future terrorist methods of attack in the United States is best represented by what happened at Fort Hood, or by the "D.C. sniper" episode that traumatized the national capital area a few years ago, an episode about which we were reminded when the principal perpetrator was executed just last week.
12NEXT Save over 50% when you subscribe to FP.
Marc Piscotty/Getty Images
Paul R. Pillar is a former intelligence officer and the director of graduate studies at Georgetown University's security studies program. This article is adapted from testimony given to the House Committee on Homeland Security today.
What Is an "Obamarriage"?
Pakistan's President Could Be Ousted Soon
Is There a Palin Doctrine?
What Asian Leaders Wanted to Hear
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE
DEPETRIS@WORDPRESS.COM
10:25 PM ET
November 19, 2009
Look on the bright side
Unfortunately, the United States may very well have to contend with the homegrown terrorist threat in the next few years. The attack at Ford Hood that killed a substantial number of American personnel is only the most recent illustration of terrorist activity within the United States. Thankfully, the U.S. intelligence community has made significant strides over the past eight years in dealing with the terrorist threat; capabilities that have helped thwart a number of devastating attacks on American targets. Countless lives have been saved, but some lives have also been lost. The Ford Hood massacre could set a dangerous precedent for international terrorism in general. An updated news report states that Al'Qaeda's jihadist message has already been disseminated through at least one hundred web sites.
With that being said, I still have to respectfully disagree with Dr. Pillar's view on Afghanistan. Although Dr. Pillar is certainly one of the most widely-respected scholars in the counterterrorism field (in fact, this is one of the main reasons why I am applying to Georgetown's SSP for graduate school), I have to question his main argument; namely that the war in Afghanistan is not making the U.S. homeland safer from terrorist incidents. Undoubtedly, the U.S. Military is currently bogged down in a conflict that closely resembles an Afghan civil-war. This past October, U.S., casualties rose to the highest level since the invasion was launched in October of 2001. And of course, Afghanistan- much like Iraq in 2005 and 2006- is becoming a new front for Islamic jihadists to resist western occupation.
But while all of these negative developments are dominating the headlines, we tend to disregard the positive implications of what we have achieved in Afghanistan over the past eight years. Dr. Pillar states that American involvement in Afghan politics has proven to be a recruiting device for the Al'Qaeda terrorist network, but we have to remember that this is the same campaign that has significantly degraded Al'Qaeda's tactical abilities. Intelligence services predict that there are no more than one hundred AQ fighters in Afghanistan today, thanks in large part to the enhanced surveillance and sophisticated counterterrorism missions that have killed or captured key AQ lieutenants and militants.
Perhaps Al'Qaeda is trying to export their message to American Muslims because they now lack a physical sanctuary to plot and carry-out spectacular attacks against western targets. In my view, the fact that homegrown terrorism is starting to increase is a sign of inherent progress against terrorism overseas- particular in a country that was once THE hotbed of terrorist activity. Indeed, American indiscriminately killing other Americans is a terrible scenario, and the U.S. Government must do everything in their power to prevent this from happening. But claiming that America's mission in Afghanistan is undermining U.S. security seems dubious.
If Al'Qaeda still possessed a physical safe-haven, I would find it rather hard to believe that they would spend an enormous amount of time and energy spreading their agenda overseas. Unfortunately, due to the severe degradation of AQ Central in Afghanistan, they are now dependent on technology for successful recruitment. If only the U.S. spent as much time fighting terror domestically as they did in the Middle East and South Asia.
-Daniel R. DePetris http://depetris.wordpress.com
MOSTREAD
MOSTCOMMENTED
MOSTREAD
Read Full Article »