Need Writing assistance

Law101

HSE450Chapter1.docx

Home >Government homework help >Need Writing assistance

Taylor, R. W., & Swanson, C. R. (2019). Terrorism, Intelligence, and Homeland Security (2nd ed.). Pearson.

Chapter 1

Understanding Terrorism

It is important, perhaps essential, to understand terrorism. There are a number of reasons why:E

For most of its long history, terrorism’s impact was subnational, national, or regional. In the American psyche, the subject did not loom large. In 2000, a Gallup Poll showed 4 percent of Americans were “very worried” about terrorism, while another 20 percent reported being “somewhat worried.”1 People around the globe who have lived with terrorism are wary about how they live their lives. Following the 9/11 attacks in 2001 on New York City and Washington, D.C., our vulnerability was exposed and our sense of security shaken. The attacks could have been even worse had the fourth hijacked plane, United Flight 93, reached its target, possibly the White House or the Congress. The passengers aboard it had learned how the other three planes hijacked that day had been used. They were determined to not let that happen and heroically fought to take Flight 93 back, but all aboard died as it crashed in the Pennsylvania countryside.

In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, Americans changed how they lived: 33 percent of respondents in a national survey reduced their air travel and 25 percent reported avoiding certain cities and crowded places that might be targets of a terrorist attack.2 In prudent anticipation of future attacks, some businesses now provide their employees with emergency kits,3 an unknown number of families have created emergency plans, and confidence in the ability of governments to protect people has been damaged.4 The threat of terrorism is associated with the proliferation of “preppers” and “survivalists.” Who are acquiring the skills, goods, and remote homesites they will need to provide for their families and groups if our government falters.

The 9/11 attacks precipitated the largest and most expensive reorganization in our history. Among the changes was creation of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. In two full-fledged ground wars and numerous other actions, we have spilled the blood of our men and women in the military and spent what is estimated as $1 trillion. Still, a 2016 poll revealed 42 percent of Americans say they are less safe than before 9/11.5 The attacks also prompted the United Nations (UN) Security Council to form a Counter Terrorism Committee (CTC).

Terrorism can be adapted with frightening speed to the needs of many causes. It is the violent equivalent of a Swiss Army knife because it can be used in so many ways and from come from many different directions. Faced with a loss of territory in Iraq and Syria while fighting an international force, the Islamic State (IS) adapted. During 2015–2017, it spread fear cheaply, gained publicity, inspired others to attack, and gained recruits by launching a series of attacks in Western Europe by small, but deadly, teams of terrorists. Only a very small number of refugees from the Middle East were involved in such attacks, but there was a strong backlash in several European countries against admitting them and some calls for the deportation of all such refugees.

Those attacks produced one to hundreds of casualties. Illustratively, in Northern France during 2016, two men claiming to be IS affiliated burst into a mass, forced the eighty-five-year-old Catholic priest to his knees, and filmed the cutting of his throat. One of the killers was wearing a police monitoring bracelet for twice traveling to Syria under false names. The conditions of bail for the nineteen-year-old allowed him to turn his monitoring bracelet off for a few hours every morning.6 That time coincided with the murder of the priest. In Brussels, Belgium on August 24, 2017, a Belgium national of Somalian heritage shouting Allahu akbar (God is Great) attacked two soldiers with a knife, wounding both before being shot and killed.7 Armed soldiers are not a “soft” target.” Yet, there have been other attacks on soldiers which may reflect an IS decision to include targets that represent authority to reduce confidence in government’s ability to protect the people. Counterterrorism has been a governmental focus for several years. More so than any other European Union country, Belgium has more citizens who joined IS or another terrorist group, fought in Iraq and/or Syria, and returned to their country of origin.8

While continuing to attack the West, IS, however, has not abandoned its ground warfare in Iraq, Syria, or elsewhere. By late 2017, IS had substantially been reduced or driven out of most of Iraq and much of Syria. Some experts believe they will attempt to established their sought-after caliphate there. IS is covered in more detail in Chapter 3, “Understanding the Middle East and Islam.”

Some attacks can be thought of and carried out fairly quickly by a lone person or a handful of people with limited resources. Although a great deal of attention is focused on radicalized Muslims from abroad, “homegrown terrorists” may live next door to you. In the decade after 9/11, nine American Muslims a year have produced an average of six terrorist plots per year, most of which were disrupted, resulting in a total of fifty deaths.9 The comparable annual average figures for right-wing extremist groups are 337 attacks and a total of 254 dead. In a survey of 383 law enforcement agencies, 74 percent saw homegrown anti-government extremists as the most severe threat.10

Homegrown terrorists have no formal connection to, or receive material support from a terrorist movement, but may have some psychological affinity with one, or have their own particular cause, such as calling attention to deforestation in Brazil. We all have a responsibility to be aware of possible terrorist threats and should, as suggested by DHS, “report something if we see something.”11

Terrorism as an International Phenomenon

The American preoccupation with protecting the homeland, as well as citizens, interests, and facilities abroad, can lead us into thinking that terrorism is a uniquely American problem. The data reveals a different picture. The top-ten countries most affected by terrorism, in rank order, are: Iraq, Afghanistan. Nigeria, Pakistan, Syria, Yemen, India, Egypt, Libya, and the Philippines. The United States ranks 36th on that list.12

In one recent year, there were 12,089 terrorist attacks with 29,376 deaths around the world.13 World deaths due to terrorism began rapidly escalating in late 2010, when the “Arab Spring” pro-democracy movement started in Tunisia and in 2011 rolled into other countries, including Yemen Syria, and Libya. While other countries also saw violence, elsewhere things went no further than demonstrations. In Syria, the pro-democracy movement demanded the ousting of President Bashar al-Assad. Moreover, the movement was energized by years of government repression, corruption, and an unemployment rate that bounced from 8.3 percent to 14.9 in a single year. In 2011, the Syrian War broke and is well beyond a simple pro-democracy versus the existing government and has interveners on both sides, including Russia, the United States, opposing terrorist groups, Kurds, and others. The Syrian War gets additional attention in the last section of this chapter.

QUICK FACTS

The Beginning of the Arab Spring

On December 17, 2010, a twenty-six-year-old man had a college degree, but no job. He began selling fruits and vegetables in an open-air market. A local official seized his goods and humiliated him. In reaction to the incident, he set himself on fire. Rioting broke out and government forces responded. Several days later, another jobless man climbed an electric pole, yelled, “No, for misery!” and “No, for unemployment.” He touched the wires and electrocuted himself.

The President of Tunisia had held office for nearly twenty-four years. Among the ills the country was experiencing was high unemployment. Nearly 25 percent of male graduates and 44 percent of women graduates are unemployed. Their education prepared them for jobs that simply didn’t exist.14

After weeks of rioting across the country, the president resigned and the Arab Spring was launched. Refer to the discussion in Chapter 4, “The Rise of Radical Islam,” relating to “how” the Arab Spring impacted the development of radical Islam.

Terrorists are active around the world. In a single year, the Taliban’s Islamic terrorists launched 1,093 separate attacks, creating 4,512 fatalities. In doing so, it became that year’s chief perpetrator of such actions.15 The Taliban straddles the Pakistan–Afghanistan border.

In Pakistan, Christians make up 2 percent of the population and are a constant target of terrorists like the Taliban, which insists on strict interpretation of Islamic law. On an Easter Sunday in 2016, predominately Christian women and children were in a park when a suicide bomber struck. At least 69 were killed and another 341 suffered injuries. The attack was claimed by the Taliban splinter group,16 Jamaat- ul-Ahrar/Jamaatul Ahrar, formed in 2015.

The Taliban came to power in Afghanistan during 1996 and lost it in 2001, when the Americans invaded following 9/11. The invasion was precipitated by the Taliban’s government’s refusal to: (1) extradite Usama bin Laden17 for his role in 9/11 and (2) expel his terrorist group, al Qaeda (The Base). Currently, the Taliban is an insurgency seeking to regain control of Afghanistan. It is very active in executing terror attacks in Pakistan and Afghanistan. In 2014, seven gunmen, affiliated with Tehrik-i-Taliban, wearing suicide vests scaled the wall of an Army run school in Peshawar, Pakistani. They killed nine staff members and 132 children between eight and eighteen years old. All attackers were killed by Pakistani special forces. The attack was in response to Pakistani military operations against the terrorists. The brutal attack illustrates one problem President Trump has in trying to get Pakistan in doing more against the Taliban, which has been surging in Afghanistan, during 2016 into 2017, where more Americans will soon be deployed. Pakistan faces an ugly choice: do more and experience additional heinous attacks by terrorists or do little or nothing and lose important American support.

In 2014, IS entered Khorasan, an old name for Afghanistan, and had more setbacks than successes, battling the government, the Taliban, and U.S.-led coalition forces. By the Spring of 2017, the U.S. military believed IS had been reduced to 700 fighters.18 However, Taliban strength increased and by the end of 2016, it controlled 15 percent more territory as compared to 2015.19

As a result, General Nicholson, leader of coalition forces in Afghanistan, told Congress on February 9, 2017, that his forces were in a stalemate with the Taliban and several thousand more troops were needed.20 Several months later, President Trump authorized up to 3,900 more troops, noting that future conditions may require additional military deployments.21In the fall of 2017, the Taliban unleashed a terrorism campaign in Afghanistan. Three attacks during September and October produced 98 deaths. On October 17, 2017, attackers in Ghazni boldly stormed a security compound and killed 25 police officers and six civilians.

Terrorism in the Pacific, South America, and Europe

The Philippines continue to be plagued by Abu Sayyaf (Arabic, Bearer of the Sword) and a surprisingly growing presence of IS. Abu Sayyaf may be morphing from a terrorist group to becoming a bandit gang. In a 12-month period, they attacked at least 13 foreign ships and took over 50 hostages they held for ransom. During that 12-month period, they appear to have committed more acts of piracy/hostage-taking as compared to initiating attacks on the government, although the government has initiated clashes with Abu Sayyaf. On at least one occasion when the ransom was not paid, Abu Sayyaf beheaded the hostage, a Canadian, man dumping his head in a street. Abu Sayyaf also has a record of raiding resorts and taking Western hostages for ransom. Abu Sayyaf’s goal is to establish an Islamic state in the Southern Philippines.23

Terrorism in the Pacific, South America, and Europe

QUICK FACTS

Who Are the Kurds?

The Kurdish people (or Kurds) are a large ethnic group of some 30 million people inhabiting the mountainous region straddling the borders of Turkey, Iraq, Syria, Iran, and Armenia. Although they represent the fourth-largest ethnic group in the Middle East (behind Arabs, Turks, and Persians), they have never had a permanent nation state. In recent years, they have greatly influenced various conflicts in the region, especially in Iraq, Syria, and Turkey. For instance, the Kurdish Workers Party, or PKK, is a designated terrorist organization that has killed more than 25,000 people in Turkey over the last two decades. And in Syria and Iraq, the Syrian Kurdish Democratic Unity Party (PYD) and the Popular Protection Units (YPG) have emerged as powerful offensive allies in the fight against the Islamic State. The Kurds make up a sizeable part of the population in several Middle East countries:

Syria: Along with other minorities, the Kurds comprised about 10 percent of Syria’s pre-war population of 23 million people.

Iraq: Kurds make up about 20 percent of the country’s 37 million people and are located primarily in the mountainous northeastern part of the country.

Iran: Approximately 10 percent of the country’s 82 million people are Kurdish and are concentrated in the northwest part of the country near the Iraqi and Turkish borders.

Turkey: The largest concentration of Kurds in the Middle East, comprising over 20 percent of the nearly 80 million people in Turkey, is located in the southern and southeastern provinces of Turkey.

Sources: Dion Nissenbaum, Gordon Lubold, and Julian E. Barnes, “U.S. to Arm Kurds, Vexing Turkey,” Wall Street Journal, May 10, 2017, p. A1, A8.

BBC News, “Who are the Kurds?” March 14, 2016. See: www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29702440

The motive for the murder is unknown, but three theories have emerged: (1) First, the killer was opposed to the increased economic ties between Turkey and Russia and the Russians’ actions in the destruction of Aleppo, Syria, and support for Syrian President Assad; (2) Senior Turkish officials blamed Fethullah Gulen and his Gulenist Terror Organization. The Turkish language letters for the group are FETO. In 2016, there was a failed coup attempt against Turkish President Erdogan, which was blamed on the Islamic Imam Gulen, who lives in Pennsylvania. Turkey identified FETO as a terrorist organization and also asked the United States to extradite Gulen, which it declined to do. Given that history, it seems natural that Turkey would identify Gulen as being behind the assassination; and (3) suspicion has also been cast on the Kurds who are fighting against IS, which is allied with President Assad. It is a messy situation with several tentacles stretching toward entirely different motives as the explanation.26

It is said that those who make their living reading crystal balls are doomed to eat broken glass. Nonetheless, we accept the risk and assert there will be no quick and easy resolution to terrorism. The continuous possibility of an attack is akin to learning to live with an incurable disease.

Families are stressed by the deployment of their members to combat zones, struggle to adjust if they return with injuries, and grieve over their deaths. Service members who are deployed face dangers, often over multiple deployments. Their collective sacrifices give us a measure of security and deserve our respect. To demonstrate that respect, many people are joining efforts to help returning veterans adjust to their homecoming.

The Potential for a "New War"

Robb makes a compelling argument that terrorists could wage a different kind of war against the United States, a “New War” that has the potential to have a major impact on America’s homeland without weapons of mass destruction (WMDs).27 Such a New War would be driven by two components: (a) crippling our infrastructures by cyber attacks, which can be launched covertly from anyplace in the world and would make our lives more difficult and (b) as IS is already doing in Western Europe, sending or activating small teams to wreak havoc and death. Cyber attacks can be waged indefinitely and launched covertly from anyplace in the world.

Information Link

For a global examination of terrorism, visit the U.S. Department of State, Country Reports on Terrorism. U.S. law requires the secretary of state to provide Congress, by April 30 of each year, a full and complete report on terrorism with regard to those countries and groups meeting criteria set forth in its legislation.

Terrorists have not forsaken using improvised explosive devices (IEDs), suicide bombers, or attacks on specific targets, such as the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, during 2012, which killed Ambassador Stevens and others. However, the larger New War goal of sophisticated terrorist movements opposed to the United States is to render it economically impotent and unable to “throw its weight around in the Middle East.”28 Fallows thinks that while we have seemingly blunted al Qaeda’s huge, spectacular attacks, a shift to New War attacks may prove to be more threatening.29 Robb asserts any New War will feature Black Swan events, which are so different from what we know that they will be difficult to predict.30

How would a New War be potentially able to make America economically impotent? It relies on the new strategic weapon of “system disruption,”31 attacking elements of the infrastructure, including oil pipelines and refineries, and communication, transportation, electrical, and water systems. The 9/11 attacks illustrate this type of warfare because the towers were filled with banking, finance, insurance, and other important infrastructure enterprises. Al Qaeda spent perhaps $250,000 on those attacks, and in response, America has expended $500 billion32 in the decades that followed.33 In 2001, anthrax-tainted mail killed five people in the United States, cases that remain unsolved. In response, the U.S. Postal Service developed countermeasures costing $5 billion or $1 billion per fatality.34 Attacks on Iraq’s infrastructure disrupted its economy: Electricity was only available 8–12 hours daily, corporations were leaving the country, new investment money was scarce, and unemployment was a staggering 50 percent.35 A single attack on an Iraqi oil pipeline cost $2,000 and none of the attackers were caught, but it produced an income loss of $500 million, creating a return of 25,000 times the cost of the attack.36 In mid-2014, intelligence sources indicated that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was being targeted by the terrorist movement the Islamic State (IS).37 In Chapter 4, we focus on the Islamic State as it has evolved over the last four years. Targets identified include desalinization plants, petroleum facilities, and government buildings,38 all fitting within the strategy of system disruption.

To the public, IS seemingly came out of nowhere in 2014, but intelligence services were previously aware of it. Unlike other terrorist organizations that want to brutally inflict violence until their grievances, terms, or demands are met, IS’s endgame is the establishment of an Islamic world under very conservative and strict Islamic law by establishing a global caliphate. Refer to Chapter 4, “The Rise of Radical Islam,” for a much more in-depth discussion of the Islamic State.

As an example, in 2016, near Damascus, Syria, IS fighters pushed two blindfolded gay men off a roof and watched them hit the concrete, where they were stoned by women and children.39 In 2013, a conservative Islamic scholar spoke at a mosque 30 miles from Orlando, Florida. Included was the idea that gay people should be killed “out of compassion” because they offend the human race and God.40 A twenty-nine-year-old American-born man of parents from Afghanistan entered the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida, three years after the “out of compassion” comment. Pulse was frequented by the lesbian, bi-sexual, gay, transgender, queer (LGBTQ) community.41 Spraying the nightclub with gunfire, he killed 49 and wounded 53 before being killed by police after a several-hour ideal. Speaking with police by telephone while in Pulse, the man pledged allegiance to IS. A key question is whether he knew about and acted upon the Islamic scholar’s words.42 Then-President Obama called it a simultaneous act of terrorism and a hate crime.

As could be predicted, the radical right-wing groups (such as the Neo-Nazis, Skinheads, and Christian Identity Churches) within the United States applauded the Pulse nightclub shooting. Racist hate groups like the Skinheads are among the most dangerous radical-right groups in the United States and in Europe. Violent, and holding Neo-Nazi values about blacks, Jews, LGBTQs, foreigners, and others, they are organized into compact “crews” or act individually. They travel frequently and without notice, making it difficult for police to track them. The movement began in England and is now in its fourth decade in America.

The Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina, was founded in 1816 and has a distinguished history of more than 200 years. The Church’s history spanned slavery, the reconstruction of the South following the American Civil War, the Ku Klux Klan, the Jim Crow laws, segregation, the Civil Rights Movement, and the continuing discrimination against African Americans. None of that prepared anyone for one of the most horrific white supremacist attacks. On the evening of June 17, 2015, a twenty-one-year-old man filled with hatred entered the Church where congregants were gathered and began shooting them. When it was over, nine people were dead, including Reverend Pinckney, the Pastor of the Church. The crimes were so ugly many people could not fathom the enormity of them. Although the gunman, Dylann Roof, has been tried, convicted on federal charges, and sentenced to death, his execution is by no means certain. Appeals might go on for years and the federal government hasn’t executed anyone since 2003.

QUICK FACTS

Ex-Girlfriends Testify Against Skinhead

A skinhead was on trial in Pennsylvania for murdering a black man. His ex-girlfriends testified against him, recounting how he had described the murder in detail. His motive, according to the women, was that he wanted to earn the spider web tattoo that skinheads wear to show they have killed an African American. Other violent aspects of his violence detailed in the testimony were his raping one of the women and beating her dog to death with a baseball bat.

"New War" Targets

America has many infrastructure vulnerabilities, including oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico, concentrated oil pipeline systems, lengthy railroad routes, numerous unprotected bridges and tunnels, and other sites, including the yet-to-be built second pipeline called Keystone. The new Keystone would run 1,179 miles from Alberta, Canada, to Steele City, Nebraska, carrying 830,000 barrels of oil daily. In Steele City, the privately financed pipeline would join an existing one that goes to American refineries on the coast of the Gulf of Mexico.

If systematically attacked by New War tactics, life as we know it would be considerably altered. In a New War, protecting the infrastructure is at least as important as fighting terrorists “over there” and perhaps even more difficult.

Finally, terrorism compels local, state, tribal, and national governments to have significant policy and diplomatic discussions about how to combat it. The National Security Agency’s (NSA) massive anti-terrorism data collection programs were much in the news the last several years, illustrating how dealing with terrorism has implications for all of us. A recent survey discovered that 54 percent of respondents disapproved of the U.S. government’s collection of telephone and Internet data, while 42 percent approved. However, a substantial portion, 74 percent, said they were not willing to sacrifice civil liberties to be safe from terrorism.43

Data such as this provokes serious national conversations about the balance between national security and Constitutional rights. We need to be able to follow such conversations knowledgeably because they are at the very heart of the relationship between a government and its citizens. This issue is discussed in Chapter 10, “Intelligence, Terrorism, and the U.S. Constitution.” Benjamin Franklin captured the essence of this discussion in 1759, when he observed, “They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Although the U.S. government is charged with preventing new attacks, it must simultaneously preserve those Constitutional liberties and rights that define it. Every citizen is affected by how well that balance is struck.

The Concept of Terrorism

There was terrorism before there was a word for it. The Romans conquered portions of the Middle East in the first century B.C. In Palestine for decades afterward, the Jewish Sicarii (dagger men) concealed knives under their robes and used them to murder Romans and their supporters in crowds. For example, in the market and on festival days, the Sicarii would strike and then quickly disappear into the crowd. The Sicarii believed that Jews were the chosen people and being subordinated to the Roman Emperor was antithetical to their religious beliefs, making them staunchly anti-Roman.44 In Iran during the eleventh–twelfth centuries, a branch of Islam, the Nizari Ismailis, killed opposing leaders in the Middle East and became known as the “assassins.”45 There were nine European Crusades to the Holy Land, lasting from roughly the end of the eleventh to the end of the thirteenth century. During their travel to Palestine, some Crusaders slaughtered entire Jewish communities because they were not Christians.46

“Terrorism” only emerged as a term during the late Eighteenth century in France. Early terrorism in the United States was typically racial, labor, or anarchist related. Examples include the following: (1) In 1856, John Brown, a vicious opponent of slavery, and his five sons went to Pottawatomie County, Kansas, where they murdered and mutilated five pro-slavery settlers.47 Three years later, he seized a federal armory, thinking he could provoke and arm an uprising against slavery (see Figure 1–2). (2) Founded in 1867, the Knights of the White Camellia were a secret racist Southern society akin to the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), which was established two years earlier.48 In order to get their candidate elected in 1868, the Knights terrorized Louisiana voters for two weeks before the election with secret murders and raids that left 2,000 voters dead or injured.49 The Knights’ candidate handily won the election. (3) Throughout the 1880s, Asians, especially the Chinese, were targeted for murder, assaults, and forced evacuation across all parts of the State of Washington.50 (4) In 1886, a person believed to be an anarchist threw a bomb in Chicago’s Haymarket Square that killed seven policemen present at a demonstration by striking workers.51 (5) In 1892, Alexander Berkman, a Russian-born anarchist, shot and stabbed industrialist Henry Clay Frick in his Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, office, wounding him.52 Frick was chairman of the Carnegie Steel Company, where nine steelworkers were killed during a labor dispute. (6) Radical union leaders planted a bomb in the offices of the Los Angeles Times in 1910 that killed 21 people.53 The bombing was in retaliation for the paper’s anti-union stance. (7) In 1915, Eric Muenter planted a bomb with a timing device that detonated in the Reception Room of the U.S. Senate to dissuade the United States from entering World War I on the side of Great Britain and France. When arrested, he committed suicide by beating his head against the wall of his jail cell.54 (8) A man driving a horse-drawn cart stopped at Wall Street in New York City in 1920 and disappeared into a crowd. Minutes later, a bomb exploded, killing at least 30 people and injuring 300 others.55 The attack was attributed to anarchists and never solved (see Figure 1–3). During the 1880s–1920s, anarchists were also active in Europe, the most important example of which is the assassination in 1914 of Austria’s Archduke Ferdinand and his wife Duchess Sophie, which led to World War I.

Terrorism as Peripheral to U.S. Affairs

Despite such terrorist events, America’s level of concern regarding terrorism has historically been quite low. As recently as 60 years ago, it got little attention. It was something that happened oceans away, “over there,” in Europe and in the Middle East as several cases illustrate. In Spain, the Euskadi Ta Askatasuna (ETA, Basque Homeland and Freedom) was formed in 1959 with a goal to create a separate homeland in Northern Spain for ethnic Basques.56 ETA quickly adopted terror tactics, such as assassinations. The Baader-Meinhof Group (BMG) wanted to create more socialist states in Europe, and between 1968 and 1977 carried out deadly bombings.57 Its successor was the Red Army Faction (RAF), which decided in 1998 that its goals could not be achieved and ceased operations. The Palestinian nationalist group Black September Organization massacred members of the Israeli delegation to the 1972 Summer Olympics in Munich, Germany.58 The 1970s saw a handful of aircraft hijackings or “skyjackings.” Despite these variations in attack modes, the country of Israel and its citizens have been the most consistent target of terrorists. Arguably, it has been under siege since its formation in 1948.

Despite these events, terrorism has until relatively recently been at the margin of U.S. policy. A variety of events account for this position. It was a distant event that was not directed at the United States. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) had people focused on manned orbits of the earth and a landing on the moon. The American Civil Rights Movement was also prominent in news media reports. Finally, the Vietnam War consumed our resources and energy, particularly from 1965 through 1975.

Terrorism in the Late 20th Century

From the 1960s to 9/11, several important radical movements, such as Students for a Democratic Society, existed in the United States, and some terrorist attacks were launched on Americans abroad. The Black Panther Party (see Figure 1–4), founded in 1966, was militant and violent from its beginnings, although it also provided some social assistance programs. It generally viewed governments as racist and repressive. Beginning in 1969, the Weather Underground, the “Weathermen,” sought to overthrow the federal government, bombing the Capitol Building and the Pentagon in 1970 and 1971, respectively.

The Assassination of Rabbi Meir Kahane

Rabbi Kahane formed the Jewish Defense League, a right-wing group, to protect elderly and poor Jews living in unstable neighborhoods in New York City.59 El Sayyid Nosair, a naturalized U.S. citizen born in Egypt, was acquitted of murdering Kahane in 1990, but received a prison sentence for possessing a pistol.60 Nosair did so in the belief that Kahane declared war on Muslims, openly advocating genocide and ethnic cleansing.61 Nosair later received a life sentence for being a co-plotter of the 1993 bombing attack on the World Trade Center.

In 1979, Iranian Muslim extremists seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and held Americans hostage for over a year. In 1988, two Libyan men planted a bomb on Pan Am Flight 103 that was flying from London to New York City. It exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing all 259 passengers and 11 Scots on the ground.62 From 31,000 feet, the explosion rained debris over 845 square miles,63 creating what may be the largest crime scene ever processed. The motive for the bombing is believed to have been the reaction of Libya’s leader, the late Muammar Gaddafi, to several sharp, but brief, military actions in which his country lost aircraft and a naval vessel to the United States. In 1983, truck bombs exploded in the U.S. Marine Corps compound in Beirut, Lebanon, killing 241 Marines and twenty-one members of other services.

In 1998, the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were simultaneously hit by truck-driving suicide bombers. Thousands of people were injured and 224 died from those attacks. President Clinton responded by authorizing cruise missile attacks on terrorist facilities in Afghanistan and the Sudan.64 A U.S. missile strike was made on a pharmaceutical factory in the Sudan on the grounds it was making chemical weapons, but the accuracy of that assessment has been debated within the American government.

In 1993, radical Muslims made their first attack on the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York City. A Ryder truck with 1,200 pounds of explosives was parked in the underground garage of one of the towers.65 When the explosives detonated, a hole 100 feet wide and several stories deep was created. Six people were killed, more than 1,000 injured, and 50,000 people were evacuated.66 Only one of the seven perpetrators has escaped capture and conviction. In custody, one of the perpetrators said the plan was to have the North Tower knock down the other tower.67 Eight years later, the 9/11 attacks did cause both towers to collapse. In Yemen during 2000, two suicide terrorists detonated a boat filled with explosives alongside the USS Cole. This attack produced casualties and major damage, but more important, it also seized the attention of the American government. However, the event that would transform our national agenda was yet to occur.

The attacks on September 11, 2001, were devastating, frightening, and compelled a national response. The attacks focused the United States on preventing terrorism from reaching our shores. Terrorism is currently the most important word in our political vocabulary and America annually spends billions of dollars combat it.68 Despite America’s relatively short history of dealing with terrorism, knowledgeable observers have distinguished between the “old” and “new” terrorism. One of the early voices in calling attention to the new terrorism was Laqueur, who in 1999 foresaw that, “A new age of terrorism is dawning, but the old terrorism is far from dead.”69 Other historical accounts of terrorism appear in connection with other topics in subsequent chapters.

A Working Definition of Terrorism

There is a growing body of literature on terrorism, but there is still much to learn. However, two case studies demonstrate that we have come a long way from our earliest understandings of terrorism:

The word “terror” gained currency in the modern era during the French Revolution (1789–1799), which was caused by political, economic, and social upheaval. Robespierre bears substantial responsibility for the period within the revolution called the Reign of Terror (September 1793–July 1794).70 It would have been better for France if Maximilien Robespierre had remained an unimportant lawyer in Northern France.71 Instead, he joined the revolutionary government in 1793. Robespierre quickly developed an appetite for using the guillotine to instill fear, and during the reign of terror, over 16,000 people lost their heads to the guillotine,72 including the king and his wife.

Robespierre lost the support of the people when he allowed a law to be passed that permitted the execution of those who were merely suspected of not supporting the revolution. Finally, the guillotine claimed Robespierre himself before the regime of terror ran its course. He attempted suicide to avoid public execution, but the gunshot merely shattered his jaw. In a 1794 speech, Robespierre claimed, “Terror is nothing but prompt, severe, and inflexible justice. It is thus the emanation of virtue.”73 Ultimately for him, it seems that terror and virtue became synonymous.

In 1877, Colonel Trepov was the Governor of St. Petersburg, Russia, and had a man flogged for not removing his hat as Trepov approached.74 Outraged at this injustice, Vera Zasulich shot and severely wounded Trepov the next year. At trial, she was successfully defended by two claims by the defense. First, she was described as “a girl,” although she was twenty-nine years old. Second, because she was acting to right a wrong as a terrorist, Vera could therefore not be a criminal.75

A general working definition of terrorism is the deliberate, unlawful use of threats, force, or actual violence to inculcate fear, intended to intimidate or coerce individuals, groups, or governments to change their political, social, religious, or ideological basis. Although noted in Box 1–1, it bears repeating that presently the main victims of terrorist violence are usually unarmed civilians unable to defend themselves. Table 1–1 summarizes the United States’ legal definitions for international and domestic terrorism.

BOX

1–1 Black Swan Events

Black Swan events are so different from past experience that analysts will be unable to anticipate them. They are unpredictable. The following examples from 2015 illustrate Black Swan events: (1) the attack on the staff of Charlie Hebdo, a satirical magazine in France. During it, 12 people were murdered and 11 injured. In the three-day manhunt that followed, French citizens were fearful, not knowing what to expect next. The killers were from al Qaeda’s Yemen affiliate, Ansar al-Sharia; and (2) at a San Bernardino County Department of Public Health training session and Christmas party, an American-born man of Pakistani descent and his wife, a Pakistani permanent resident of the United States, who are believed to have become self-radicalized, engaged in a mass shooting. When the two fled, they had killed 14 people and wounded 22 others. Later that day, the pair died in a shootout with police.

The Challenges of Defining Terrorism

Because the United States is just one political state and suffered significant terrorist attacks, it was easier to enact and amend terrorist legislation. In contrast, the United Nations has not been able to draft a definition of terrorism acceptable to all member nations because they reserve the political right to themselves to determine what acts constitute terrorism. In 2002, the European Union offered a framework for terrorism legislation that was adopted by all of its members. In 2008, that framework was amended by prohibiting certain activities associated with terrorism, for example, teaching others how to make bombs and use firearms for terroristic purposes.76 Members of the European Union are free to add their own legislative concerns to the European Union’s supplied framework.

QUICK FACTS

The French Revolution, Royalty, and the Guillotine

In 1793, both King Louis XVI and his wife Marie Antoinette (1755–1793) were executed by the guillotine. It is alleged that when she heard peasants were complaining they had no bread to eat, she said, “Let them eat cake.” While this “indictment” of her has been repeated often, there is no evidence that she actually uttered this phrase.

Ethnic Arabs have suffered from acts of terrorism, often from neighboring nations. Arab states were early adopters of measures to combat terrorism. In 1997, the Arab League Ministerial Council resolved to fight terrorism in its 22-nation region with respect to its threats to security, economic, ideological, and social matters. This was followed in the next year by the Arab Convention for the Suppression of Terrorism. The Council of Arab Ministers of the Interior and the Council of Arab Ministers of Justice adopted a definition of terrorism: “Any act or threat of violence, whatever its motives or purposes, that occurs for the advancement of an individual or collective criminal agenda causing terror among people, causing fear by harming them, or placing their lives, liberty or security in danger, or aiming to cause damage to the environment or to public or private installations or property or to occupy or to seize them, or aiming to jeopardize a national resource.”77

Information Link

Visit the United Nations at www.unodc.org/tldb/pdf/conv_arab_terrorism.en.pdf and read the “1998 Arab Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism.”

Mainline Muslims have been invested in seeing that their religion not be caught up in definitions of terrorism, which is both predictable and appropriate.

While the “new terrorism” targets non-combatants, this practice is in sharp contrast to selective terrorism. The Irish attempted to gain their country’s independence from the British Commonwealth during the Anglo-Irish war of 1919–1921. Lacking a “real” military, their ragtag Irish Republican Army (IRA) fought a guerilla war. The IRA picked the places to attack and then quickly faded away. The IRA’s commander, Michael Collins (see Figure 1–5), used selective terrorism, targeting supporters, key members, and the institutions of the British Commonwealth. This is sharp contrast to the practice associated with the new terrorism of using indiscriminate violence to cause mass casualties among defenseless civilians.

Terrorism: Individual Perspective and Culture

Our views of terrorism are principally shaped by our individual perspectives and culture, a thread that runs throughout this book. A person’s perspectives come from a process that incorporates multiple sources of data and at least some analysis of it. In contrast, culture is a pervasive collective experience that tends to produce people who share many values and ideas.

Individual Perspective

Individual perspective results from the process of evaluating issues, events, other people, groups, and nations and the underlying beliefs, intentions, and actions in order to assign meaning to them.79 Individual perspective is produced out of a thoughtful and deliberate process that is to some degree analytical. In contrast, opinion is formed internally and may not rest on external observations or any degree of analysis. Opinion may be favorable, neutral, or malignant, such as racial hatred.

QUICK FACTS

The European Union’s Framework for Terrorism

The EU’s terrorism framework consists of:

An objective element, as it refers to a list of instances of serious criminal conduct (murder, bodily injuries, hostage-taking, extortion, fabrication of weapons, committing attacks, threatening to commit any of the above, etc.) and

A subjective element, as these acts are deemed to be terrorist offences when committed with the aim of seriously intimidating a population, unduly compelling a government or international organisation to perform or abstain from performing any act, or seriously destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic, or social structures of a country or an international organization.78

Reduced to a simple image, individual perspective is “what side of the street you stand on” for any given issue. Different people can see or know about the same event, but assign different meanings to it. The Boston Tea Party illustrates this point. In 1773, a group of 116 colonial men, some poorly disguised as Indians, boarded three ships at Boston’s Griffin’s Wharf, forced the crews below decks, and threw 90,000 pounds of the British East India Company’s tea into the harbor (see Figure 1–6). Some colonists saw this is a bold act protesting English tax policy, whereas others were appalled by the act. Many colonists wanted no part of the subsequent revolution against England and moved to Canada, the Caribbean, and back to England. People in England saw the Boston Tea Party as defiance of the authority of Parliament and King George III. It is likely that everyone roughly had the same information. However, they formed radically different conclusions based on their perspectives. The Boston Tea Party happened before the idea of America becoming an independent nation took root in the colonies. However, it was an early event on the road to the American Revolution (1775–1783) and some theorists think it falls into the separatist/nationalism category of terrorism discussed in Chapter 8, “Typologies of Terrorism: The Right and Left Wings and Separatist or Nationalist Movements.”

Terrorism: Individual Perspective and Culture

Individual Perspective

QUICK FACTS

The European Union’s Framework for Terrorism

The EU’s terrorism framework consists of:

Individual Perspective of the 9/11 Attacks

Another example of individual perspective comes from the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. The most common individual perspective is that al-Qaeda was responsible. However, conspiracy theorists have offered “competing” explanations, such as the government knew about the plot but didn’t stop it because they wanted a reason to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. That reasoning is reminiscent of the allegation that President Roosevelt had prior knowledge of the Japanese plan to attack Pearl Harbor, but allowed it to happen to overcome Congress’s sentiment to remain neutral in the war that was already being waged in Europe and Asia.

Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State view the United States and other Western powers through a radicalized, extremist Muslim prism. The late head of al-Qaeda, Usama bin Laden (1957–2011), helped plot the 9/11 attacks that turned four hijacked airliners into guided missiles. There were no survivors on any of the hijacked aircraft. American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175 brought down the World Trade Center’s Twin Towers in New York City, killing 3,000 civilians (see Figure 1–7). Trapped on burning floors, some people leapt to their death to avoid being burned alive.

The attacks sent shock waves through city, state, and federal governments. Leaders debated whether more waves of attacks with deadlier weapons were coming. There was also a great deal of misinformation, such as the report that the U.S. Capitol had been bombed. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) ordered the immediate landing (“pancaking”) of nearly 4,500 flights in America’s airspace. Some 350,000 passengers found themselves grounded miles from their destinations.80 All arriving international flights were immediately diverted to Canada. Both of these actions were taken because the United States was unsure of how many other planes might be used as weapons. Other measures implemented included the evacuation of some elements of the federal government from Washington, D.C., and closing the U.S.-Mexican border.

Cultural Perspective

President George W. Bush characterized the September 11, 2001, attacks as “evil, despicable acts,”81 and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat also condemned the attacks.82 However, others in Middle Eastern countries crowded into the streets and celebrated joyously, praising Allah and chanting “Allah u Akbar.”

Culture is defined as the shared beliefs, experiences, and behaviors that cause its members to substantially view things in a similar manner. In contrast to individual perspective, culture is a collective, accumulated experience. This shared experience often distinguishes one culture from another, including language, values, customs, history, law, and religion. Of course, sharing a common culture is not a guarantee that all members will have the same perspectives.

Anwar al-Awlaki (1971–2011) represents someone who was born in one culture, but changed his cultural identity. He was born in New Mexico to Yemeni parents and earned degrees from Colorado State and San Diego State universities. After becoming a Muslim cleric, al-Awlaki was linked to over 19 terrorist operations.83 He was adept at using social media to spread his propaganda messages of hatred and violence against the West and to attract and radicalize recruits. Radicalization describes the process of acquiring and holding extremist views. Violent extremism describes violent action taken on the basis of those extreme beliefs.84

The present radical Muslim culture views Western nations in general, and the United States in particular, very negatively. The people of Western nations are seen as the new or neo-crusaders making war on Islam, occupying its countries, misleading some of its leaders, plundering its riches, and defiling its women and holy sites. These issues are discussed in more detail in Chapter 4, “The Rise of Radical Islam.”

BOX

1–2 The Old and New Terrorism

These descriptions of the “old” and “new” terrorism are broad. As a consequence, there are exceptions to the way they are profiled here. Moreover, the “old” never really disappeared. Instead, the amount of terrorism fitting its description simply declined. Simultaneously, the “new” had its roots in the old, yet produced its own identity. To some extent, the new terrorism arose as the motives changed from predominately secular, non-religious reasons to a high frequency of religion-based reasons. As a result, the news media, governments, and scholars substantially shifted their attention to the new forms of terrorism. The descriptions of “old” and “new” terrorism provide some understanding of where terrorism has been and how it has changed.

The “old terrorism” generally is described as having specific political, social, and economic goals.85 Because many, if not most, old terrorism goals were subnational, they had some potential of being achieved by negotiation between the terrorists and the national government. As an illustration, ETA was ultimately able to obtain a Basque “homeland” with substantial autonomy within Spain. The old terrorism movements had a clearly defined organizational structure86 and they targeted symbols of the government or social order being opposed.87 Illustrations include embassies, national airlines, banks, and kidnappings and assassinations of business, military, and diplomatic personnel.88 A communiqué in the name of the movement was issued after an attack that claimed responsibility for the attack and explained why it was carried out. In short, the old terrorism was comprehensible, albeit reprehensible.89

It is often difficult to specify with precision when a new trend begins. Some authorities point to 1979, when radicalized Muslims in Tehran, Iran, took U.S. Embassy staff hostage, as the onset of the “new terrorism.” Others point to attacks in 1993 and 1995 as its starting period. In 1993, radicalized Muslims exploded a truck bomb in the parking garage under the North Tower of the World Trade Center.90 In addition to the deaths and injuries, some $500 million in damages were caused.91 In 1995, sarin, a nerve agent, was released in the Tokyo subway system by Aum Shinrikyo. The sarin killed six and 6,000 others received medical treatment. Aum is a religious cult that teaches that the end of the world is near and only its believers will survive the apocalypse.92

The new terrorism deliberately targets unarmed civilians with the desire to inflict mass casualties. The number killed is of vital importance because mass casualties create greater fear in the general population. A radical religious interpretation undergirds many terrorist attacks around the globe. Believing they are carrying out the will of God, some terrorists willingly become suicide bombers because they believe immediate entry into Paradise will be their reward.

The new terrorist organizational structures are often difficult to discern because many of the new terrorism groups are autonomous or only loosely affiliated.93 Unlike the prior generation of terrorism, the new terrorism is more international.94 Such movements also inspire the “amateur” lone wolf attacks.95 The new terror organizations are nimble, quick to learn, and increasingly technologically savvy and operationally competent.96 Terrorist movements based on radical religious interpretations may not claim responsibility for their attacks. They are uninterested in negotiating settlements, and some groups seem eager to acquire weapons of mass destruction (WMDs).97

It is important to note that as terrorism continues to evolve, there are new “new terrorisms.” Illustratively, system disruption attacks as well as cyber attacks represent a “New War,” and IS’s conquering lands in which to establish a new country is also a new iteration, as is its recently adopted practice of sending small teams to kill people in Western Europe, while continuing its large-scale combat operations in Iraq and Syria. Many of these new types of events are discussed throughout the book.

How are the old terrorism and the lone wolf attacks contrasted?

Issues in Conceptualizing, Defining, and Understanding Terrorism

A number of factors contribute to the difficulties we have in understanding terrorism, including (1) multiple and complex definitions have proliferated; (2) the evidence base for terrorism is insufficient; (3) terrorism is a contested concept; (4) terrorism is evocative—it appeals to emotion and not intellect; (5) political power often determines those who are labeled “terrorists”; and (6) past prosecutorial decisions within the United States have confused people.

QUICK FACTS

Not all Muslims are Arabs

Intuitively it seems correct to think that all Muslims are Arabs. Statistically, there are about 1.6 billion Muslims in the world.98 Most—66 percent—live in just 10 countries: Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Egypt, Iran, Turkey, Algeria, and Morocco.99 Worldwide, only 18 percent of the entire Muslim population is actually Arab.100

BOX

1–3 Anwar al-Awlaki

Born in Las Cruces, New Mexico, Anwar al-Awlaki became a leading member of al-Qaeda’s affiliate in Yemen. He was a senior recruiter as well as a spiritual motivator for al-Qaeda. He met with Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (the Christmas Day bomber), who in late 2009 attempted to blow up a Northwest Airlines plane with a bomb concealed in his underwear. Major Nidal Malik Hasan, who killed 13 people and wounded many others at Fort Hood, Texas, exchanged emails in 2009 with al-Awlaki. Faisal Shahzad, who tried in 2010 to set off a car bomb in New York City’s Times Square, called al-Awlaki an “inspiration.”

Because al-Awlaki was involved in many operations, the federal government took the unprecedented action of placing him on a 2010 “capture or kill list” approved by President Barack Obama. After several attempts to capture him failed, al-Awlaki was killed in Yemen (September 30, 2011) by a Hellfire missile fired from a remotely flown drone.101 Al-Awlaki’s death caused significant controversy. The “targeted killing” of an American citizen was unprecedented in the United States. He was never charged nor convicted of a crime, yet was killed by a CIA-led drone attack. The same attack killed three other individuals linked to al-Qaeda.

Should the U.S. intelligence and military forces use drones to kill terrorist suspects, including American citizens, in foreign countries?

BOX

1–4 al-Awlaki’s Daughter Killed in Yemen Raid

In 2017, a U.S. Special Operations raid in Yemen to seize computers for intelligence purposes ended unsuccessfully with one American death.

An additional casualty of the raid was Nawar, the eight-year-old daughter of al-Awlaki, who was accidentally shot in the neck during what was described as a brutal gunfight. Her grandfather, a former government minister, said, “I don’t think this was intentional.”102

Should the U.S. intelligence and military forces use drones to kill terrorist suspects, including American citizens, in foreign countries?

Definitions Have Proliferated

The existence of many definitions of terrorism was mentioned earlier in this chapter and needs further comment. There is a natural, physical world that exists and can be scientifically analyzed, for example, the composition of soil. To make sense of other things, we intellectually construct meanings. The Fujita Scale (F-Scale) was created in 1971 to measure the intensity of tornadoes. The F-Scale and other constructs are artifacts or products of our intellect.

What we call reality largely consists of the world we create in our heads, which are filled with social constructs. They help us understand and organize our lives by virtue of the meaning we attach to them. Examples include marriage, loyalty, social status, happiness, and “bad neighborhoods.” Some things such as gender have inherent qualities, but we create stereotypes about them, for example, “Women aren’t good at science” and “Men are sloppy.”

Terrorism is a non-natural world event and cannot be measured and characterized with scientific accuracy. Terrorism requires constructs to explain it. Figure 1–10 depicts how we construct our understanding of terrorism. It is a process that can be endlessly repeated, which accounts for numerous and complex definitions. Scholars and governmental agencies often develop definitions of terrorism that meet their needs. The combined efforts to define terrorism have created what Jenkins describes as the “Bermuda Triangle of Terrorism.”103 Definitions are intended to allow people to accurately distinguish one construct from another so that when we apply a label, such as terrorism, it is done with clear meaning. However, the surplus of terrorism definitions prevents us from doing so.

The Evidence Base for Terrorism Is Insufficient

The terrorism evidence base supporting planning, strategic thinking, and policymaking is weak. A 2008 review of 14,006 terrorism articles over a 32-year period revealed that 54 percent of them were written in 2001 and 2002,104 immediately following 9/11. Articles in peer-reviewed journals numbered only 4,458.106 Ninety-six percent of those were “think” pieces, only 3 percent were based on empirical analysis, and case studies accounted for just 1 percent.107 Without a publically accessible empirical database, the question can be fairly raised: What do we really know about terrorism? Undoubtedly, such data exists within the control of intelligence and some other agencies and much of it should not be revealed because it may disclose methods and agents. Still, the lack of publically accessible empirical data may contribute to some misunderstandings about terrorism.

Terrorism Is a Contested Concept

Hezbollah (Arabic for the “Party of God”) is a Muslim group that is simultaneously viewed as a political organization, terrorist group, and militia. It is primarily located in the Middle Eastern country of Lebanon and is headed by the radical cleric Sheik Hassan Nasrallah. Hezbollah was formed in response to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982. Hezbollah receives substantial arms, training, money, and intelligence from Syria and Iran.108 This support is a force multiplier, which increases Hezbollah’s operational capabilities and lethality. In late 2012, Hezbollah obtained a drone from Iran and assembled it. Hezbollah flew the unmanned aircraft into Israel, where it was shot down.109 The addition of many strike-capable drones to Hezbollah’s inventory would be a significant escalation of its operational capabilities. Syria describes Hezbollah as a militia resisting Israeli aggression.

Military clashes between Hezbollah and Israel Defense Forces (IDF) are not uncommon, and there was some escalation in late 2016 and early 2017. In the latter year, Hezbollah set off a roadside bomb that is believed to have killed two IDF members of an armored patrol and a Spanish UN Peace Observer. Amid other clashes, Israeli planes struck an arms shipment intended for Hezbollah, apparently from the Assad-led government.

Hezbollah has operatives worldwide—in Europe, South and North America, and Africa. It is not presently viewed as a security threat by Latin American nations. They see it as a legitimate political organization.110 However, some host nations have concerns that Hezbollah’s presence could complicate their relationship with the United States.

Latin America’s view of Hezbollah as a legitimate political organization hampers America’s counterterrorism efforts. Hezbollah’s presence in Latin America gives it a closer geographic location to the United States than its Middle East home. From this forward position, Hezbollah could more easily launch attacks on the United States at the urging of its state sponsors of terrorism, Syria and Iran. Hezbollah is based on the minority Shi’a tradition of Islam and opposes the primary tradition of Sunni Islam, more commonly found throughout the Middle East and the world. Hence, on religion, Hezbollah is at odds with most Islamic nations. The principles of Shi’a and Sunni Islam are discussed in Chapter 3, “Understanding the Middle East and Islam”; the radical perspectives of Hezbollah are elaborated upon in Chapter 4, “The Rise of Radical Islam.”

QUICK FACTS

“Paper Terrorism”

Related to the proliferation of terrorism definitions is that “terrorism” is an elastic term that can be used in many contexts. “Paper terrorism” refers to bogus suits, baseless liens, and other measures that are filed to clog the courts, harm the credit of public officials, hold up the sale or refinancing of property, and consume public resources to deal with them. A “sovereign citizen,” angered by getting a traffic citation, filed false liens totaling $800,000 against the chief of the police department employing the officer who issued the citation.111

To bolster their frivolous actions, “sovereigns” create fictitious or misuse genuine documents, their own license plates, and driver’s licenses. Right-wing anarchists at heart, sovereigns believe all existing governments are illegitimate.112 Sovereigns tend not to be violent, but the potential of dealing with sovereigns does pose a threat. During 2000–2012, sovereigns killed six police officers.113

Perhaps most paper terrorism is initiated by members of the Sovereign Citizen anti-government movement and sympathizers. There may be 300,000 sovereigns in a loose collection of groups.114 The FBI considers sovereign-citizen extremists as a domestic terrorism movement.115 At least 15 states have made it a crime to file “paper terrorism”–type actions. The Sovereign Citizen movement is further discussed in Chapter 8, “Typologies of Terrorism: The Right and Left Wings and Separatist or Nationalist Movements.”

Hamas (The Palestinian Islamic Resistance Movement) is another radical fundamentalist Muslim Middle East organization designated as an FTO (foreign terrorist organization) by the U.S. government. Hamas is opposed to the existence of Israel and maintains a well-armed militia or paramilitary arm. It also provides substantial social services in Gaza, the West Bank, and Israel. Hamas funds have traditionally come from private donors in Saudi Arabia, oil-rich Persian Gulf nations, and charities operated for its benefit. Syria and Iran also provide support to Hamas.

Since the legislative elections of 2007, Hamas has been consolidating its control in the Gaza Strip (see Figure 1–11). Under the 1947 United Nations plan that partitioned Palestine, Israel was created. The Gaza Strip was to be an independent Arab country. However, Arab leaders rejected the plan because it created a Jewish homeland from territory formerly occupied by Arabs and religious sites sacred to Islam were located in Israel. The Gaza Strip is now claimed and governed by the Palestinian Authority under the 1993 Oslo Peace Accords between Israel and the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO). The Gaza Strip’s long border with Israel has been problematic, and the historical development of this conflict is further explored in Chapter 2, “Political Ideology and the Historical Roots of Terrorism.” Attacks by terrorists on Israel and retaliation raids can easily be launched because of their geographical proximity.

In 2012, Hamas was actively fighting against terrorist groups affiliated with al-Qaeda because their presence and activities threatened an unofficial cease-fire between Hamas and Israel.116 Israel killed the Hamas military commander Ahmed al-Jabari in 2012. As a consequence, a wider exchange of rockets took place between the two countries. This violence threatened to spiral out of control, but fortunately did not, begging the hotly contested question of “who is the terrorist?” To make matters even more confusing, Hamas won a majority of seats in the Palestinian Parliament in the January 2006 election, making it the legitimate ruling power in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank and forcing the United States and Israel to now negotiate with “former terrorists.” In 2014, Hamas fired hundreds of rockets into Israel, which responded with hundreds of air strikes on launch sites, munitions storage locations, and Hamas command and control centers. This threatened to engulf the region in a wider conflict until an uneasy peace was restored.

BOX

1–5 The United States’ View of Hezbollah

The U.S. Department of State lists Hezbollah as a foreign terrorist organization (FTO). An organization is listed as such if it engages in terrorist activity or has retained the capacity or intention to do so and it threatens U.S. nationals or America’s national security.

Hezbollah’s portfolio includes (1) two suicide truck bombings in 1983 in Beirut, Lebanon—the first was at the U.S. Embassy and the second at a peacekeeping compound largely staffed by American Marines; (2) the suicide bombings in Argentina of the Israeli Embassy (1992) and a Jewish Center (1994); and (3) the 1996 suicide bombing of Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia that killed nineteen Americans, one Saudi, and 372 members of other nationalities.

There are several actual terrorist organizations that include “Islamic Jihad” in their full name. After Hezbollah’s most notable attacks, a mysterious “Islamic Jihad” claimed credit for them. In some quarters, it is believed this particular Islamic Jihad is a fictional group whose purpose is to confuse enemies and draw attention away from Hezbollah.117

Why is it difficult to accurately link a specific act of terrorism to particular terrorist groups? Are there drawbacks to labeling a group an FTO?

Terrorism Is Evocative—It Appeals to Emotion and Not Intellect

Something that is evocative has the power to stir people. It produces strong feelings and causes them to recall potent images and revisit powerful memories. The mention of terrorism on the news rivets our attention and we are compelled to pay attention until we know the details. The public reaction to the 9/11 attacks was evocative and instructive. In the immediate wake of the attacks, a majority of Americans reported difficulty paying attention at school or work, felt depressed, and experienced sleep disruption or anger.118 People with direct experience were six times more likely to experience post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and they were nearly three times more prone to anxiety disorder.119 They also had twice the probability of having some emotional difficulty.120 Once a terrorist attack is experienced, the fear or anticipation of future attacks is intensified.121 This intensification occurs because the attack becomes part of our frame of reference and lexicon. The attacks become embedded in our collective national conscious and some blame the government for failing to protect them. Some conspiracy-minded people believe the government committed the attacks or were complicit in them. A Pew Research Poll gathered data from persons who were at least eight years old on 9/11. Of them, 97 percent remembered where they were and what they were doing on that day.122 By comparison, only 58 percent remembered where they were when the Berlin Wall fell.

Nations use the “terrorism” label to describe certain types of violent acts committed against them. However, they sometimes seem to lack the capability of critical introspection, which would require them to closely examine their own violent reprisals carried out in response to those acts.123 Terrorism is a term that is so evocative and laden with meaning that many of us cannot entertain the thought that our allies or the United States would commit terroristic acts. Indeed, Americans generally believe that terrorism is “what the bad guys do.”124 What better way to distort the sovereign and legitimate interest of people than to associate them with illegitimate actions or sources? Such phrases as “guerrilla warfare,” “revolutionary movement,” and “radical extremist” only heighten ideological sentiment and play to emotion rather than intellect.125

The Ottoman Empire fought World War I as a German ally. At the end of the war, England and the allied powers occupied a large portion of the former Ottoman Empire. That area included what is now Syria, Palestine, Jordan, Lebanon, and Iraq. In 1923, one remnant of the Ottoman Empire became the Republic of Turkey. Britain ruled Palestine from 1923 to 1948.

Both before and after World War II, the Jewish people agitated for a homeland in Palestine and committed acts of terrorism. Illustratively, in 1944, Jewish operatives assassinated Lord Moyne (1880–1944), the British Minister of State, in Cairo to hasten the departure of the British from the Middle East. Two years later, they bombed the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, causing over 200 casualties. The hotel was headquarters for the British Army and the offices of the Civil Administration of Palestine. In 1948, Yitzak Shamir, who later served two terms as Israel’s Prime Minister, was part of a team in Jerusalem that assassinated Swedish Count Folke Bernadotte (1895–1948), a U.N. negotiator sent to the Middle East to mediate the Arab-Jewish violence that followed the partitioning of Palestine.

Many of the acts called terrorism by the British were committed by the Irgun Zvai Leumi, an underground Jewish defense organization. Its leader, Menachem Begin (1913–1992), later served his nation in different leadership positions, including that of Prime Minister. Begin was known to have a body double or look-alike at public functions to confuse would-be assassins.

Armed Drones

In the war against terrorism, the United States uses armed drones to inflict casualties and destroy targets. America considers it an effective military use of technology (see Figure 1–12). However, those on the receiving end are likely to view it as terrorism because it, albeit unintentionally, causes the deaths of unarmed non-combatants. Although no country wants to be accused of terrorism, the military value of the drones is such that the United States defends their use and suffers the allegations. The potential use of drones for surveillance domestically is controversial in the United States, an issue covered in Chapter 10, “Intelligence, Terrorism, and the U.S. Constitution.”

Some people recall evocative events with great accuracy. In contrast, others disassociate with gruesome details to prevent being emotionally overwhelmed. They develop “cognitive blind spots” to preserve themselves. In one study, subjects were asked to put five key events about 9/11 in order. Surprisingly, 63 percent could not do so, even though they believed it was “the most unforgettable day” of their lives.126 The greater the time lapse between an evocative event and an attempt to recall the details, the more likely distortions will occur for one reason or another.127 Distortions occur when the mind unconsciously “fills in” blank spots in its memory. Another source of distortion comes from people receiving information after an event and unconsciously incorporating it into their memories, accepting it as their own genuine experience. People who are highly cooperative are particularly susceptible to “filling in” their memories.128

Political Power Determines Who Are Terrorists

It is well understood that governments have the political authority to apply labels; examples include “mentally ill,” “poverty level,” “child molester,” and “disabled.” These labels carry significant consequences; for example, they may determine eligibility for various types of assistance or preclude people from certain rights.

BOX

1–6 Drone Use Attracts Sharp Criticism

Former President Jimmy Carter criticized the use of drones to kill terrorist leaders as an abuse of human rights. A Pakistan official says drone strikes made in his country bases are a violation of its sovereignty and he believes the attacks push people toward extremist groups. At the same time, he thinks, it pulls people away from democracy. Others have described the strikes as terroristic, arbitrary, and summary executions.

The exact number of civilian deaths from drones is unknown, or those reported are in dispute. Washington officials report a downward trend in civilian deaths. Some believe the reduction is caused by a “new method of scorekeeping.” If a military-age male is killed during a drone strike, he is counted as an enemy unless his innocence is proved posthumously. The United States has “downsized” drone munitions to reduce casualties and employs longer periods of surveillance to ensure target identification. In Chapter 10, “Intelligence, Terrorism, and Homeland Security,” we further discuss the use of drones domestically, as well as by the Islamic State against coalition forces in Syria and Iraq.

Do you think this use of drones constitutes an act of terrorism?

The difference between a group being labeled “insurgent” or “terrorist” may turn less on what they actually do and more on what the ruling government calls it in pursuit of national policy agendas. Chechnya is a rural, lightly populated land rich in oil, natural gas, and other deposits.129 Geographically, it is a combination of flatlands and the Caucasus Mountains. Chechens have been recognized as a distinctive people since the seventeenth century and are mostly Muslims. During 1818–1917, the Russians conquered and ruled Chechnya. Since that time, Russia has periodically been faced with Chechen independence movements. For instance, during World War II, the Chechens’ hatred of Russia resulted in their cooperation with the Nazis. In retaliation, at the end of the war, Russian dictator Josef Stalin deported the Chechens to Siberia and Central Asia.132

QUICK FACTS

Weaponized Drones

Weaponized drones are known to have been used in Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Libya, Algeria, Pakistan, Nigeria, and Syria. The United States also flies drones out of a little-known base in Cameroon to fight Boko Haram130 and has used them in the Philippines against terrorist leaders of Abu Sayyaf and Jemaah Islamiyah.131

During the late 1950s, surviving Chechens were allowed to return to their homeland. Since then, several insurgencies, some using terrorist tactics, have been waged against Russia. Following 9/11, Russian President Vladimir Putin “relabeled” the insurgents as “terrorists.” Russia ostensibly seemed to join the global war on terror.133 In 2004, Chechen terrorists seized control of a school in Beslan, Russia, and held 1,300 hostages, most of them schoolchildren and teachers. The Chechens threatened to kill their hostages if Chechen prisoners were not released. A three-day standoff ended when Russian security forces stormed the school. In the end, over 700 hostages were wounded and 186 children and 145 adults were killed!134

Because Russia seemed to be “on board” with the fight against terrorism, the West substantially turned a blind eye to the “botched” Beslan siege. By relabeling Chechen insurgents as “terrorists,” Russia’s subsequent conduct averted a more immediate and higher level of international scrutiny and criticism.

Past Prosecutorial Decisions Confuse Us

The public does not have an expert knowledge of terrorism. We form our opinions on a basic and incomplete understanding of events and the laws that we think should be applied. It is not surprising that sometimes we agree and at other times disagree with how the government charges suspects. At the heart of our confusion is the expectation that certain perpetrators should be charged with terrorism, and instead authorities charge them with a conventional criminal act.

Analysis of two prominent cases is used to examine the points made above: (1) Abdulhakim Muhammad’s murder and wounding of servicemen at a recruiting office and (2) Major Nidal Hasan’s shooting rampage at Fort Hood.

Case Study 1

American-born Carlos Bledsoe converted to Islam in Memphis, Tennessee, as a teenager and later took the name Abdulhakim Muhammad.135 He spent 16 months in Yemen and received training in a terrorist camp.136 He was deported from Yemen on several charges, including overstaying his visa, carrying falsified Somali identification papers, and possessing other forged documents.137

The twenty-three-year-old Muhammad shot a soldier to death and wounded another outside a Little Rock, Arkansas, recruiting office. Prior to the shooting, he was of interest to the FBI, but they lacked sufficient cause for a full investigation and no further action was taken. After the recruiting office shooting, the federal government deferred prosecution to the State of Arkansas, which charged Muhammad with capital murder, attempted capital murder, and ten counts of unlawful discharge of a firearm.138 Muhammad pled guilty to the charges to avoid the death penalty. He is currently serving life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Although there was a connection with a foreign terrorist organization and several claims by Muhammad that he was on jihad or “holy war,” to protest American attacks on his Muslim brothers, terrorism was not charged, raising questions. Some wonder if we are trying to classify as many events as possible as anything but terrorism to artificially keep the number of such attacks low and the public feeling safe. Others ponder whether Muhammad was charged with murder because a terrorism trial would have forced the disclosure of counterintelligence assets and capabilities. Some people believe if Muslims are involved in terrorist violence, they are charged with something other than terrorism to avoid a backlash by Islamaphobic “loose cannons” against the vast majority of Muslims who are loyal citizens. In the final analysis, it may simply be that the evidence better suited a capital murder as opposed to a terrorism charge against Muhammad.

Case Study 2

Nidal Malik Hasan (see Figure 1–13) was born in Virginia to Palestinian parents and raised as a Muslim. As an adult, he became a physician and advanced to the rank of major in the Army. Hasan, a psychiatrist, was assigned to Fort Hood, Texas, while awaiting deployment to Afghanistan, which would have been his first assignment to a combat zone, an assignment he resented as a devout Muslim. He met and conversed with several well-known Muslim radicals, including Anwar al-Awlaki, with whom he had a long relationship over the Internet. In 2009, Nidal Malik Hasan shot 13 people to death in a medical processing unit at Fort Hood and wounded 32 others while shouting “Allahu Akbar” as he fired.139 All but one of his victims were soldiers.

Just before the shootings, Hasan gave away all of his possessions,140 something sometimes done in anticipation of one’s own impending death. When moving, we might have a yard sale or give some things away, but it is unlikely that we would dispose of everything. Speculatively, Hasan was prepared to die or perhaps wanted to die during his attack. However, he was unsuccessful in his attempt to become a martyr and was, instead, wounded and paralyzed from the waist down while on his shooting spree. Hasan was convicted in a military court of charges that included 13 counts of premeditated murder, but not any terrorism charges.141 Sentenced to death, Hasan is currently imprisoned at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. The Army has not executed a soldier since 1961.

The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) characterized the Fort Hood shootings as “workplace violence.” The federal government asserts that because there was no co-conspirator and no foreign direction, the Fort Hood shooting was not terrorism. Officially, Hasan simply snapped, “went postal,” and started shooting—there was no violent radical religious underpinning.

Characterizing the attack as workplace violence seemingly ignores what we know about Hasan’s Islamic radicalization, his advocacy for extremism, his series of communications with al-Awlaki, and his shouts of “Allahu Akbar” as he murdered people. In contrast to the DoD’s position, a 2011 Senate report sharply concluded the Ft. Hood attack was “the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11.”142

The decision not to charge Hasan with terrorism raises important issues. In some circles, it is believed Hasan was charged with murder because federal agents and military officials mishandled identifying him as a terrorist threat and wanted to shift attention from themselves to Hasan. A murder charge is more immediately understood as compared to the more complicated terrorism charge. Others assert the military wanted to appear politically correct, and not anti-Muslim, and therefore used the murder rather than a capital terrorism charge.

These possibilities notwithstanding, it may simply be that the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) does not, in and of itself, contain a capital terrorism charge. Under the UCMJ’s Article 134, the federal Assimilative Crimes Act (ACA) can be used to “incorporate” state and certain federal laws into the UCMJ for the state in which the military installation is located. However, no capital crimes can be incorporated.143 Thus, to charge Hasan with capital terrorism, the Army would have to waive jurisdiction to the federal courts, a choice that senior military commanders reasonably did not make when a workable murder charge was available.

BOX

1–7 Could the Fort Hood Shootings Have Been Prevented?

A case can be argued that Hasan’s signs of religious radicalization were glossed over, ignored, or given insufficient weight by his superiors and federal agents. Nine different points support this position.

Hasan’s supervisors at the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center expressed serious concern about his questionable behavior and judgment. Among their concerns were his strident views on Islam and worries about his competence. Despite these concerns, they gave him positive performance evaluations that helped promote him.144

Hasan made three PowerPoint presentations titled “Why the War on Terror Is a War on Islam” when he was supposed to be presenting medical information.145

In a class presentation, Hasan argued that U.S. military operations were not based on legitimate national security needs. He claimed that they were actually a war against Islam. The class was halted when the audience of military officers erupted in opposition. Some class members labeled him a “ticking time bomb.”146

A questionnaire to be distributed to Muslim soldiers was prepared by Hasan. It included a question asking whether they should help enemies who were Muslims.147 The question could also be understood to be encouraging the soldiers to be disloyal. The questionnaire was not approved for distribution.

Hasan told several contemporaries that he thought Sharia law takes precedence over the U.S. Constitution. This position is contrary to Hasan’s military oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.148

Three 9/11 hijackers attended a Northern Virginian mosque at the same time Hasan did. His prayer leader was the radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who also presided over the funeral of Hasan’s mother.

In 2004, Anwar al-Awlaki went to Yemen. He was detained for allegedly plotting to kidnap a military attaché assigned to the U.S. Embassy.149 Hasan ultimately exchanged some 20 emails with Anwar al-Awlaki, who federal agents knew was a radical extremist. Prior to Hasan’s attack, federal agents were aware of only some of those emails. Federal agents concluded no threat or crime was involved and further investigation was not warranted because Hasan was thought to be conducting terrorism research using his actual name.150

The background check for a high-level security clearance for Hasan was seriously flawed. It did not include interviews with him, his coworkers, or supervisors.151 Properly conducted, the issuance of the security clearance would have been at least problematic and Hasan would have been subject to a more thorough scrutiny.152 Such an examination may have led to Hasan’s separation from the military. A senior FBI official testified that, in retrospect, Major Hasan should have been interviewed after the emails with al-Awlaki were known.153

In the aftermath of the shooting, nine Army officers were disciplined for inaction, ranging from an oral reprimand to what is considered a career-ending letter of censure.154 One officer explained some of the lapses: “People are afraid to come forward and challenge someone’s ideology … because they’re afraid of getting an equal-opportunity complaint that will end their careers.”155

Do you think the Fort Hood shooting involving Nidal Malik Hassan could have been prevented? At what point do you think there was enough information to closely investigate him?

BOX

1–8 Title 18, United States Code, Section 249, The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes Prevention Act (HCPA, 2009)

State and federal hate crimes legislation has enhanced or “accelerator sanctions” for crimes rooted in hate or bias. Terrorism charges follow the same principle. It is the means by which society signals its revulsion about such offenses by specifying severe sentences for them. The HCPA was passed because of the realization that federal and state hate crimes legislation was inadequate. Two incidents provided the impetus for HCPA’s passage.

In 1998, James Byrd, a forty-nine-year-old African American, was seized by three white men in Jasper, Texas.156 He was chained by his ankles to the back of a pickup truck and dragged down a road. The next morning, police found 75 pieces of his body along a three-mile stretch of bloodstained road; his torso and an arm were located a mile from his head. Two of the three perpetrators were members of a white supremacist organization with racist tattoos. One man is serving a life sentence and the second is appealing his death sentence. The third perpetrator was executed in 2011 by lethal injection.

In 1998, two twenty-one-year-old men saw Matthew Shepard drunk in a lounge. They offered him a ride with the intent to rob him.157 The two perpetrators were disappointed they only got $30. Believing Shepard to be gay, the men savagely beat him. They tied him to a post, where he was found 18 hours later. Shepard died after five days in the hospital. His assailants later pled guilty. Shepard’s parents did a remarkable thing and asked the court to show mercy in sentencing their son’s killers. Both men pleaded guilty to murder and were given life sentences.

The heart of HCPA makes it unlawful to willfully cause bodily injury—or attempting to do so with fire, firearm, or other dangerous weapon—when (1) the crime was committed because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin of any person; or (2) the crime was committed because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person and the crime affected interstate or foreign commerce or occurred within federal special maritime and territorial jurisdictions.

The law also provides funding and technical assistance to state, local, and tribal jurisdictions to help them to more effectively investigate, prosecute, and prevent hate crimes.

The law provides for a maximum 10-year prison term, unless death (or attempts to kill) results from the offense, or unless the offense includes kidnapping or attempted kidnapping, or aggravated sexual abuse or attempted aggravated sexual abuse. For offenses not resulting in death, there is a seven-year statute of limitations. For offenses resulting in death, there is no statute of limitations.

What do you think produces the kind and extent of hatred portrayed in the Byrd and Shepard cases? What, if any, potential connections do you see between the HCPA and terrorism?

Multiple Influencing Factors

These two case studies illustrate that the specific charges applied in terrifying and perhaps terroristic events are impacted not only by the fact situations, but also by a matrix of legal, operational, and political factors whose weight the public rarely learns. Moreover, we are not privy to the clash of views and needs among agencies in making such decisions. To some degree, our confusion about what is terrorism is grounded in the reality that charging decisions are a “witch’s brew” of factors. One alternative is to conclude that the federal government invariably makes charging decisions solely on the legal merits of cases. The second and perhaps more likely alternative is that the United States is devolving itself from the “war on terrorism”—which means charging as many terrorists as possible in America with specific criminal acts instead of terrorism whenever possible.

Traditional and Irregular War and War Crimes

Traditional and Irregular War

War can result from the failure of political states to resolve their disputes by diplomatic agreement. The United States views war as sanctioned violence to achieve a political purpose. By doctrine, the U.S. Department of Defense recognizes two types of warfare: (1) traditional/conventional and (2) irregular.

Conventional warfare occurs between nations and relies on direct military confrontation to defeat an adversary’s armed forces, destroy its war-making capacity, or seize or retain territory in order to force a change in the adversary’s government or policies.158 Conventional war seeks to force “decisive battles” that will end the war.

In irregular war (IW), a less powerful adversary seeks to disrupt or negate the military capabilities and advantages of a more powerful military force, which usually serves that nation’s established government. IW usually involves a state and an opposing sub-state force, although sometimes it may include several sub-state forces.

IW encompasses “small wars,” insurgencies, low-intensity warfare, and similar terms, and is a messy and ambiguous term that does not lend itself to concise definitions.159 Khalil characterizes this lack of concise definitions as being so messy that it is “futile” to try and distinguish between terrorists and insurgents.160

Because states are typically better organized and armed than the sub-state forces opposing them, the sub-state forces cannot engage them in conventional military engagements. They therefore use guerilla and often terror tactics, resulting in a style of warfare called asymmetrical. To illustrate, enemies of the United States would be pressed to defeat America in a conventional war because of our military strength. They would seek to fight us by mixing modern technology and irregular warfare. They do not seek military victory on the field. Our enemies’ goal is to exhaust our national will by undermining and outlasting our public support, as happened in Vietnam.

In Afghanistan, the United States and its allies are fighting the Taliban in a type of IW called an insurgency. An insurgency is an organized movement aimed at overthrowing a duly constituted government through the use of subversion and armed conflict.161 It is a protracted political-military struggle designed to weaken the government’s control and legitimacy and increase that of the insurgents.162 In insurgencies, political power is the central issue.163 As an aside, many countries, including the United States, did not regard the Taliban government in Afghanistan to be duly constituted.

What “muddies the waters” when thinking about the Taliban as insurgents is the fact that it uses terror tactics in addition to more conventional armed conflict methods and receives both material and operational support from al-Qaeda and other Islamic radical groups, which attacked the U.S. Embassy and NATO Headquarters in Kabul, Pakistan, in 2011. Originally an anti-Soviet movement, the Taliban network became a mafia-like criminal enterprise that morphed into a terrorist organization and became officially identified as such by the U.S. Department of State.

War Crimes

Terrorism is not a type of irregular warfare; it is a tactic. International Humanitarian Law (IHL) prohibits, without exception, all acts during war that would constitute terrorism. Such acts are charged as war crimes; examples include executing civilians and prisoners of war (see Figure 1–14), taking hostages, bombing civilian population centers, reprisals against non-combatants, failing to provide medical care to captured prisoners, declaring that no quarter will be given, deliberately targeting religious and medical personnel, attacking non-defended locations, using prisoners for scientific experiments, and destroying property not required by military necessity.

QUICK FACTS

Nazi Reprisals Later Tried as War Crimes

In 1942, German General Reinhard Heydrich was assassinated in Prague by Czechoslovakian partisans. In reprisal, the Germans surrounded the villages of Lidice and Lezaky, which were believed to be the home of some partisans. All men and many boys were quickly executed. Women were sent to concentration camps. Some young children were adopted by German families, but others were gassed. Both villages were razed to the ground and their names removed from all German maps. After World War II ended, some Germans were charged with war crimes for their acts at Lidice and Lezaky. Lidice was rebuilt after the war, although Lezaky was not.

The United Nations (UN) International Criminal Court (ICC) is located in The Hague, Netherlands, and is the body that adjudicates war crimes. A more contemporary case was the trial of former Yugoslavia President Slobodan Milosevic (1941–2006), the so-called “Beast of the Balkans,” on 66 counts of crimes against humanity, including genocide during the Balkans War of the 1990s. Tens of thousands of Bosnian Muslims were massacred during ethnic cleansing. Milosevic died in custody before his trial was concluded.

The Syrian War

The Syrian War began as part of the Arab Spring in mid-2011 and, unfortunately, continues today. As of the fall of 2016, 250,000 people had been killed and 4.2 million people have left Syria to become refugees in other countries. Within Syria, 7.6 million people were forced to relocate to avoid living on a battlefield. Many of the buildings in the country have been destroyed from air strikes and artillery shells. Both sides have committed atrocities. Terrorist or other armed groups have used children as soldiers, kidnapped people, targeted civilians, and used summary executions freely.164

The flashpoint for the beginning of this insurgency was a minor event. In the surge of excitement of the pro-democracy Arab Spring, fifteen teenagers wrote anti-government graffiti on a wall. In the city of Deraa, people protested the arrests and called for their release and greater democracy and freedom for all people.165 At some point, the arrested teenagers were reportedly tortured.166 The protests continued, and on March 18, 2011, the Army opened fire on the protesters, killing four of them. The next day at the funerals for those who were killed, the Army fired on mourners, killing another person.

It appears that the killings by the Army tapped into the public’s stored-up anger or rage because of decades of repression by President Assad, who had ruled since 1971. Within weeks, the next development unfolded, which included calls for Assad to resign and, across Syria, hundreds of thousands of people taking to the streets in protests.167 The government’s reaction was like a reflex; they moved to crush all dissent, but that action had an opposite effect: It stiffened the resolve of the protestors.168 Assad made some conciliatory gestures, such as freeing prisoners and lifting an emergency ban, but it was a case of too little, too late.

More people were killed at demonstrations, and the public began arming itself, first for protection, but later to drive the government’s security forces away. Violence escalated and rebel brigades were formed to fight government forces for control of areas and cities. The Free Syrian Army (FSA) was formed in August 2011 to provide centralized leadership for the numerous independent insurgent factions. At the apex of the FSA was its Supreme Military Council. By 2012, the insurgents had reached the capital of Damascus and the second-largest city, Aleppo. Over a period of years, well over 100 different groups joined the FSA, including terrorists. Al Qaeda in Iraq sent fighters to overthrow Assad. They split into two warring camps that still fight government forces and each other: al-Nusra Front and the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), now the Islamic State (IS). Roughly, the Levant consists of the countries that form an arc across Northern Africa.

In mid-2016, the al-Nusra Front rebadged itself as Jabhat Fateh al Sham. Other supporters of the insurgents include the U.S.-led coalition, Turkey, Kurds (Syrian Democratic Forces), France, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf States. To help remove Assad from power, the United States has pursued an awkward policy of logistically helping the “moderate rebels,” some of whom are almost certainly terrorists seeking to carve out a homeland for themselves or to capture the government’s weapons depots. During the war, Assad used chemical warfare. The United Nations required him to surrender the chemical weapons to inspectors, but there’s some question whether some of them may have been kept.

Examples of those aligned with Assad and the Syrian government and providing fighters and materials include Iran, its Revolutionary Guards (Quds Force), and its proxy, Hezbollah, Russia, and IS. Russia uses airstrikes against IS in support of Turkey and has some advisors on the ground, as does the United States.

Complicating the situation is that the population of Syria is religiously predominately Sunni Muslims and Assad, who is an Alawite, has ruled them since 1971. The Alawite religion is considered a part of the Shi’a tradition within Islam. Among the foreign fighters who have entered Syria and are Muslim, the Shi’a versus Sunni distinction reflects the major schism in that religion that has existed for close to 1,500 years. This split in religious traditions within Islam is further discussed in Chapter 3, “Understanding Islam and the Middle East,” and Chapter 4, “The Rise of Radical Islam.”

Chapter Summary

Summary by Learning Objective

State six reasons why it is important to understand terrorism.

(1) For most of its history, terrorism was subnational or regional. In recent decades, a few movements have shown the ability to launch attacks transnationally. This leaves people wary and changes how some people live. (2) Terrorism can be adapted with terrifying speed to the needs of many causes. It is the violent equivalent of a Swiss Army Knife. (3) Terrorism is not a uniquely American problem. (4) There will be no quick and easy resolution to terrorism. The continuous possibility of attacks is like learning to live with an incurable disease. (5) Families stress over their members being sent to a combat zone and dealing with some members who are injured or killed. These families deserve our respect. (6) Terrorism evolves and adapts, presenting a series of new challenges.

Trace the history of key events in terrorism from the nineteenth century to 9/11/2001.

(1) John Brown’s murder and mutilation of pro-slavery Kansas settlers in 1856. (2) Knights of the White Camellia terrorized voters in 1868 to get their candidate elected. (3) During the 1880s in the State of Washington, Asians, and particularly the Chinese, were targeted for murder, assaults, and forced evacuations of that state. (4) In 1886, a bomb killed seven police officers at a demonstration of striking workers in Chicago’s Haymarket Square. (5) In 1892, Henry Clay Frick, a Pittsburgh industrialist, was shot and stabbed in his office, but survived. (6) The Los Angeles Times was bombed in 1910 for its anti-union stand. (7) The Reception Room of the U.S. Senate was bombed in 1915 to prevent America from entering World War I in Europe. (8) The 1920 unsolved Wall Street bombing. (9) In 1959, ETA began a campaign for a homeland for Basques in Northern Spain, quickly turning to the use of terrorist tactics. (10) Formed in 1966, the Black Panther Party was quickly militant and violent. (11) During 1968–1977, the Baader-Meinhof Group used terrorist tactics to try and create socialist governments in Europe. (12) Beginning in 1969, the Weather Underground (“Weathermen”) tried to overthrow America’s national government. (13) The Palestinian nationalist group Black September massacred members of the Israeli delegation to the 1972 Munich Olympics to call attention to their cause. (14) During the 1970s, terror groups hijacked a series of airplanes in an attempt to have authorities release imprisoned members of their group. (15) In Tehran, Iran, militant Muslims took members of the U.S. Embassy hostage. (16) In 1983, suicide truck bombers attacked the U.S. Marine Corps Compound in Beirut, Lebanon, killing 221 Marines and 21 other service members. (17) Two Libyan terrorists planted bombs on Pan Am Flight 103, which exploded over Scotland, killing the crew and all passengers as well as people on the ground in 1988. (18) In 1988, the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were simultaneously attacked by terrorist Muslims driving suicide bomb vehicles. (19) In 1993, militant Muslims made their first attack on the North Tower of the World Trade Center by exploding a truck bomb in the parking garage. (20) In 2000, while in a Yemeni port, the USS Cole was attacked by Muslim terrorists who drove a boat alongside the Cole and detonated the cargo of explosives, causing substantial damage to the American ship. (21) The 9/11 attacks.

Contrast individual and cultural perspectives of terrorism.

Individual perspective results from the process of evaluating issues, events, other people, groups, and nations, and the underlying beliefs, intentions, and actions in order to assign meaning to them. Individual perspective is produced out of a thoughtful and deliberate process that is to some degree analytical.

Cultural perspective is the shared beliefs, experiences, and behaviors that cause its members to substantially view things in a similar manner. In contrast to individual perspective, culture is a collective, accumulated experience. This shared experience often distinguishes one culture from another, including language, values, customs, history, law, and religion.

Explain why there are so many definitions of terrorism.

There is a natural world filled with real, tangible things, such as weather and soil composition. Such things can be observed, measured, and analyzed. Our heads are also filled with what we call reality. In fact, these are social constructs that give us meanings about love, status, loyalty, and other non-natural world phenomenon. Terrorism is not a natural world phenomenon. It requires the development of social constructs to explain it. Individual observers and scholars of terrorism create social constructs to meet their needs, resulting in a staggering number of definitions of terrorism; additional definitions spring from other sources, such as the law and the definitions adopted by operating agencies. The result is a vast surplus of complex and varying definitions.

Identify any six of the ten acts punishable as war crimes.

(1) Executing civilians and prisoners of war, (2) taking hostages, (3) bombing civilian population centers, (4) reprisals against non-combatants, (5) failing to provide medical care to captured prisoners, (6) declaring that no quarter will be given, (7) deliberately targeting religious and medical personnel, (8) attacking non-defended locations, (9) using prisoners for scientific experiments, and (10) destroying property not required by military necessity.

Summarize the event that led to the Syrian War.

As word of the pro-democracy Arab Spring spread, 15 teenagers in Deraa, Tunisia, wrote anti-government messages on a wall. They were arrested. People protested the arrests and called for their release and more democracy. At some point, the teenagers were tortured. Demonstrations continued and security forces fired on one, killing four people. The funerals were also fired on, killing another person. Within weeks, demonstrations swept the country, calling for the resignation of the president, who did so several weeks later.