Print
Cite
FBI Director James Comey, CIA Director John Brennan, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson listen during President Barack Obama's speech about the National Security Agency (NSA) at the Justice Department in Washington on January 17, 2014. (Lamarque/Reuters)
Share
Senior U.S. intelligence and counterterrorism officials increasingly warn of the threat of “lone wolf” individuals attempting terror attacks within the United States. These potential perpetrators are characterized as externally motivated, but predominantly self-directed in plotting and attempting acts of politically and/or ideologically motivated violence. They need not travel to purported foreign “safe havens” to receive training or guidance, nor be in direct contact with terrorist organizations based abroad. Rather, their inspiration, in large part, appears to stem from the principles and narratives promoted by Islamist jihadist groups.
On February 12, National Counterterrorism Center Director Nicholas Rasmussen told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence:
“We face a much greater, more frequent, recurring threat from lone offenders and probably loose networks of individuals. Measured in terms of frequency and numbers, it is attacks from those sources that are increasingly the most noteworthy…”
On February 26, during the annual worldwide threats hearing, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper warned:
“Home-grown violent extremists continue to pose the most likely threat to the homeland.”
Last Friday, Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson stated on MSNBC:
“We’re in a new phase…in the global terrorist threat where, because of effective use of social media, the Internet, by ISIL, al-Qaeda, we have to be concerned about the independent actor who is here in the homeland who may strike with little or no warning…”
Finally, yesterday, former CIA deputy director Michael Morell described the messaging efforts of jihadist groups generally and the self-declared Islamic State (IS) more specifically:
“Their narrative is pretty powerful: The West, the United States, the modern world, is a significant threat to their religion. Their answer to that is to establish a caliphate. And they are being attacked by the U.S. and other Western nations, and by these apostate regimes in the region. Because they are being attacked they need support in two ways; people coming to fight for them, and people coming to stand up and attack coalition nations in their home.”
In summary, the most likely—though not most lethal—terror threats to Americans come from individuals living within the United States who are partially motivated to undertake self-directed attacks based upon their perception that the United States and the West are at war with the Muslim world.
Remarkably, these two observations have had virtually no impact on U.S. foreign policy discourse. In Washington, there is an agreed-upon, bipartisan understanding that under no circumstances will officials or politicians acknowledge, or even explore, the concept that foreign policy activities might play a role in compelling U.S. residents, who would not otherwise consider terrorism, to plot and attempt attacks. This is somewhat understandable given that there are many different backgrounds, experiences, and precursors that lead people to become violent extremists. Yet, whereas there are constant hearings and debates—even White House summits—about how to “counter violent extremism,” there is rarely any consideration of which U.S. foreign policy activities might themselves be precursors to U.S. terrorism.
In fact, the only foreign policy decisions that the Obama administration admits might inspire terrorism are those made by Obama’s predecessor. The first is one that the White House has tried to reverse since January 2009: detaining terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Most recently, at a House Armed Services Committee hearing on March 18, Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter endorsed closing the military prison because, “It still provides a rallying point for Jihadi recruiting.” The other decision is the 2003 invasion of Iraq; as President Obama stated on March 17, “ISIL is a direct outgrowth of al-Qaeda in Iraq that grew out of our invasion, which is an example of unintended consequences.”
Of course, another unintended consequence emerged from the U.S.-led airwar in 2011 that ensured the toppling of Muammar al-Qaddafi in Libya. As a U.S. military official told the Wall Street Journal today, “ISIL now has an operational presence in Libya, and they have aspirations to make Libya their African hub. Libya is part of their terror map now.” Compare this recent warning to how the State Department described Libya on the eve of the 2011 airwar: “The Libyan government continued to demonstrate a strong and active commitment to combating terrorist organizations and violent extremism through bilateral and regional counterterrorism and security cooperation, particularly on the issue of foreign fighter flow to Iraq.” Now, foreign fighters are flowing from Iraq and Syria to establish a stronghold in Libya. This is clearly an unintended, though not at all unsurprising, consequence, but not one that the Obama administration will acknowledge because it happened under its watch.
More critically, what foreign policy activities are bolstering the narrative of Islamic jihadist groups today? Is it really just the 122 terror suspects still in Guantanamo? What about drone strikes, which themselves are universally hated? Or, what of the support for President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi in Egypt, whose government sentenced that country’s first elected leader to death this week? Finally, is the U.S.-led airwar against IS fueling that narrative and making the likelihood of lone wolf attacks within the United States more likely?
What else is the United States doing abroad that could be making Americans less safe from lone wolf terrorism at home? Why is this never asked or considered when officials and politicians discuss how the thirteen-and-a-half-year war on terrorism is progressing?
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
It seems that our current foreign policy has no teeth. Does President Obama think he can gum the enemy to death? He blames his predecessor for the woes of the Middle East, but it seems to me that his hasty and not well-thought plan of exiting Iraq has more to do with the present danger of ISIS. We’ve not had reliable intelligence on the ground since that exit and that has hindered the success of targeting our air strikes. Noble idea to no have boots on the ground, but it sin’t working. The US is leading from behind these days and I don’t see how that is going to keep the US citizens safe, either at home or abroad.
Terrorism from either side is viewed as revenge… purely and simply.
The history of terrorist strikes by fundamentalist Islamic radicals against the United States did not begin with the first assault at the World Trade Center North Tower in 1993 which was then followed by the Khobar Towers attack in 1996, the U.S. embassy bombings in Africa in 1998, the attempt to sink the USS Cole in 2000 and the Al Qaeda master stroke perpetrated in 9-11/2011. The strife began in April 1983 when the U.S. embassy and then months later the U.S. Marine barracks in Lebanon were hit with vehicular suicide bombers. In that decade however there were no drone missions conducted against key Islamic extremists nor were there any Sunni/Shia prisoners being held indefinitely in Guantanamo and Egyptian President al-Sisi back then was just a junior officer who in 1977 had graduated from the Egyptian Military Academy. The Obama administration as well as the media outlets have to cease their politically correct posturing and comprehend the nature of the conflict that has been raging on since the 1980’s. To create an erroneous perception of what is occurring is to maintain the citizenry ignorant of the true nature of the enemy and in the long run invite disaster to befell the USA, Israel and the West.
“Yet, whereas there are constant hearings and debates—even White House summits—about how to “counter violent extremism,” there is rarely any consideration of which U.S. foreign policy activities might themselves be precursors to U.S. terrorism.”
And so it should be.
Wow, I never thought I would read a piece like this at CFR. Mr. Zenko is basically making the case that U.S. foreign policy formulation should take into consideration what INDIVIDUALS who object MIGHT do. Not other nations, not terrorist networks, but individuals.
Mr. Zenko, it is impossible to run the foreign policy of the world’s superpower by letting your decision-making process be held hostage by a few individual extremists, home-grown or not. Basically, being seen appeasing them is a sure-fire way of inviting more threats, and of course appeasing them is blatantly undemocratic. The U.S. government’s ultimate task is to safeguard the interests of its citizens, and not to avoid stepping on the toes of the few extremists in its midst.
“The time has come for us to be honest with ourselves and indeed each other…” said Uhuru Kenyatta, Kenya’s president
“They need not travel to purported foreign “safe havens” to receive training or guidance, nor be in direct contact with terrorist organizations based abroad. Rather, their inspiration, in large part, appears to stem from the principles and narratives promoted by Islamist jihadist groups.”
In this one sentence is the reason why the West is failing to stem the tide of cultural derived terrorism for it denies the fact the ‘principles and narratives’ of the Islamist jihadist groups come from exactly the same source utilised by so called Muslim moderates reflecting back Others beliefs, ethics, and values to diminishing degree in the Muslim behavioural variance from where these exact same Islamist jihadist members are coming from.
It amazes me that no one has studied why whatever the West does the Muslim groups adapt and even inform more terror. Why in the West we give Muslims their own Sharia courts in Britain, we give them counselling on the benefits of Western culture Liberty and equality, we throw millions of dollars at de-radicalization programs, we provide Public money for their schools, tax free status of religious institutions, and yet terror grows.
Has anyone compared the Islamic/Muslim cultural codex construct of Other with that of the Nazi cultural codex construct of Other? I have they are exactly the same. The reason being both codex contain particularly iniquitous constructs of Other.
My view is the same as Plato “It is the cultural codex stupid, written in error by poets misrepresenting themselves as Gods scribes, change it or change nothing.”
This the ‘Truth’ we have to face and it has nothing to do with the nature of “U.S. Foreign Policy Making” this is simply a symptom of denying the true cause of Islamic/Muslim terror its cultural codex construct of Other it is removed from the Public Square or the terror continues intensifies as the Muslim culture not just the few adapt seeking to enforce their political ideology into space around them. Why terror? Who would accept even in part such iniquitous constructs without force.
“The time has come for us to be honest with ourselves and indeed each other. The radicalisation that breeds terrorism is not conducted in the bush at night. It occurs in the full glare of day in homes, in madrasas and in mosques with rogue imams. We must ask the question — where are the parents and families (communities, education and religious institutions) of those who are being radicalized?” said Uhuru Kenyatta, Kenya’s president “Our task of countering terrorism has been made all the more difficult by the fact that the planners and financiers of this brutality are deeply embedded in our communities.”
My opinion on Ramadi (Iraq): http://cedreargentina.blogspot.com.ar/2015/05/iraq-battle-of-ramadi.html