America’s Future with Terrorism

America was elevated into the forefront in the fight against terrorists after 9/11. We have been fighting the war against terrorism for over ten years and we are still going strong. There have been a few minor terrorist incidents within the United States since 9/11, but large scale incidents have not happened. There are many questions that linger because of this lack of terrorist activity. For example, why have there been minimal terrorist attacks in the United States since 9/11, and will the terrorists attack in the future? These two questions I will attempt to answer in this blog.

            If a terrorist organization wants to attack the United States from a base in the Middle East or Africa, they will have a difficult task ahead of them. America has a natural defense to terrorists on other continents: oceans. On either side of the United States you have oceans that form a large barrier/buffer zone between us many other nations. This barrier helps us defend against many of the international terrorist attacks. Distance makes the logistical part for international terrorists that want to conduct a terrorist attack harder. 

In order to conduct a large scale terrorist attack within the United States the terrorist organizations must have a large funding system. This was the case with 9/11 and Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda had a large bank account and was able to fund the terrorists in the United States all the way from Afghanistan. According to the 9/11 commission, to plan and conduct their attack the 9/11 plotters spent between $400,000 and $500,000. To plan and conduct an operation like 9/11 you need to have an organization like Al Qaeda funding your bank account. There are only a few independent terrorist organizations that are capable of doing this; the U.S. counter terrorist groups have them under close surveillance. 

9/11 opened Pandora’s Box in the fight against terrorism. Now there is a greater consequence to having a large enough bank account and being a terrorist organization: you attract a lot of attention. The CIA and FBI will likely be monitoring an organization of this size. The FBI and CIA will monitor their communication networks and follow-up on credible threats a lot better than before 9/11. Therefore, I think we are more capable of stopping a plot of large magnitude than before 9/11. 

It is a difficult task for international terrorists to come into the United States from another country and conduct a major attack on us. However, I think terrorists will eventually try and conduct a Mumbai style attack on U.S. soil. The Mumbai terrorist attack according to the New York Times was a “machine-gun and grenade assault on at least two five-star hotels, the city’s largest train station, a Jewish center, a movie theater and a hospital.” It was conducted by 10 Islamic fundamentalists from Pakistan and they killed over 300 people. There are many factors that let the terrorists in Mumbai to carry out such a horrific attack, like their police force was under-trained and under-equipped, but I think their surprise attack could be copied in the U.S. This operation was very small in scale in relation to 9/11, but was very effective. 

  If terrorists want to attack the United States, small scale attacks will be the best way that they can do it. This will be the best way they could fly under the radar. There was one such small scale attack on U.S. soil by a solitary terrorist: Maj. Hasan and Ft. Hood. Hasan was influenced by a radical Islamic cleric in Yemen named Anwar al-Awlaki. He sought to become a martyr and conduct a suicide mission. Hasan went onto Ft. Hood and killed 13 people with a semi-automatic pistol. He was able to avoid detection by keeping his operation small in numbers.

All this being said I think it would be easier for a home grown terrorist (individual or small group) to conduct small scale attacks on multiple targets. Although small terrorist attacks are really hard for law enforcement to track and stop, post-9/11 we do have better tools that allow law enforcement more authority. Domestic changes in U.S. search and seizure policy has made being a terrorist a harder accomplishment.

Improvements such as the Patriot Act have allowed the U.S. law enforcement to closely monitor suspected terrorists. The Patriot Act restricts American citizen’s civil liberties, but it also protects us from terrorist operations. There have also been vast improvements in TSA regulations and screening has made airlines safer. All of these changes were made in response to 9/11 and I believe if it were not for these changes America would be vulnerable to another large scale attack. 

 During the next few decades this cat and mouse game will be the status quo of terrorism. America has had the advantage in the decade after 9/11 because we were vigilant, but I think that if we get complacent there will be new attacks. We need to continue to be on our toes and allow law enforcement more tools to monitor terrorists. There needs to be understanding that the pendulum has swung towards public safety over civil liberties because of the risk of terrorism. It will eventually swing the other way, but for now I will sacrifice some of my liberties for safety.  

           

References

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/27/world/asia/27mumbai.html?pagewanted=all

www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/911_TerrFin_App.pdf

Domestic Changes after 9/11

             After 9/11 there were significant events that occurred that still affect our world today. These events were set in motion to try and rid the world of terrorism. Efforts to rid to world of terrorism have cost Americans some of their civil liberties in order to protect the greater good. The War on Terror is the common term for the American foreign policy regarding terrorists after 9/11. It was first used by the Bush Administration to describe the operations around the world used to combat terrorism. The common assumption about the War on Terror is that it is all about the major operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, but that the war on terror not only changed things outside the U.S. but within it too. The two major changes that occurred in the United States after 9/11 are the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Patriot Act.

            After 9/11 there was an outcry from the public for the government to make us safer. The Bush Administration felt it necessary to make an organization that would be able to work cohesively and be able to communicate better to protect the United States against terrorism and disasters. For this reason his administration created the Department of Homeland Security. This is an organization that is a conglomerate of 36 previously independent government bureaucracies. The DHS combined together mostly all the agencies that had to deal with protecting American citizens at home. One of the most significant parts about this new agency is that it was made into a cabinet position. 

            Having the DHS gives America a better chance in preventing another terrorist attack All of the agencies that were joined together now have a spot at the presidents table, to communicate issues within the United States. Previously these loosely allied agencies only shared critical information with each other on a need to know basis. Its creation also made one of the biggest departments in the United States. According to their website there are currently around 230,000 employees from 36 different departments that currently work for the agency. This makes it the fourth largest president cabinet position.

One downside to having a large bureaucracy is that it inhibits the response time if an incident occurs. One of the biggest criticisms that was made about the DHS was its response to Hurricane Katrina. Its response was very slow because since it is such a large agency, it took a long time to figure out who was in charge in that area. The DHS brings consolidation, but with this consolidation comes bureaucracy. Bureaucracy requires strict rules and planning to operate so it naturally will take more time to function.  This was not the only significant change to the U.S. in the post 9/11 America though. After 9/11 America has gone through one of the most important changes in the way we police our citizens. 

            One of most significant changes, in the past few decades, to law enforcement power was the Patriot Act. This Act was passed in the days following September 11^th to provide better security to our nation. Within the title of the law itself it states its purpose: “to deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes.” As it states in the title, Patriot Act largely expands law enforcement's surveillance and investigative powers. This has largely been the controversy surrounding it.

            The U.S. Patriot Act’s enhancement of law enforcements surveillance and investigatory power is very significant because it restricts American citizens 4^th Amendment rights. The 4^th Amendment prohibits unlawful searches and seizures. It helps define law enforcements powers when they are conducting routine police activities. The Patriot Act adds more powers to a police officer’s belt in restricting the persons 4^th Amendment rights, if they suspect the person might be a terrorist. This restriction makes everyone, regardless if you are a criminal, more vulnerable to police intrusion.

            When defining the Patriot Act in relation to its effectiveness, it is necessary to get all aspects of how it affects us as citizens. The Patriot Act is the classic crime control model of policing policy. It prioritizes the greater goods safety over the rights of the individual. A lot of pro-police people, like me, are very much in favor of this type of bill, but there is a necessity for individuals to know just how intrusions of the government affect your civil liberties. Government has the ability to greatly restrict our rights. If we allow the government to become too strong then we will get a government like the Soviet Union had: a government with unlimited power.

            I’m not going to go into a philosophical debate about how big government is bad, but I think that there needs to be restrictions of the government intrusions into our lives. We need to hold true the values that our forefathers created. The Patriot Act is a great tool for law enforcement, but I think that it should only be used when necessary. Over stretching of the acts intended use should be heavily sanctioned. One of the best parts of this act is its ability to be extended or stopped. It has been extended by Bush and Obama because they felt that it is necessary in order to protects U.S. citizens.

            The Patriot Act and the creation of the DHS give American law enforcement an advantage in dealing with suspected terrorists. We wanted change in policing America after 9/11. There were things that needed to change because we failed to stop 9/11. I think that we made the right choices in the Patriot Act and the creation of the DHS, but we need to be wary of the intrusion of the government into our lives. 

If you are an advocate for the crime control model then ask yourself “how much government intrusion am I willing to have in my life to protect the public?” If you are a due process model thinker ask yourself “are my personal freedoms, without government intrusion, so important that I am willing to have another 9/11?” The thing that I am trying to express is that there is no clear answer in law enforcement. There needs to be sacrifices with the two sides in order to have the right balance. The government, therefore law enforcement, forms its laws based on the public’s ideology at the time, so it is important to know where you stand. I think that the most important part of American democracy is public outlook, if you want to be part of the solution ask yourself, “What is my opinion?”

References

 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ56/content-detail.html

http://www.justice.gov/archive/ll/highlights.htm

http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/

Ignorance: Misconceptions about Islam and Terrorism

Religious extremism has been a factor in many of the world’s most atrocious crimes, like the Spanish Inquisition, the Holocaust, the Iran-Iraq War, and much more. Today there is nothing different. We now have Islamic fundamentalism and it is the new form of religious terrorism. Although religious extremism is usually a small group of individuals, as in the case of Al Qaeda, there are people who assume that the whole religion is extreme based on the actions of a few. In the case of Islam, there are many misunderstandings in the American public about the link between it and terrorism. The misconceptions of the American public about Islam are driven by the actions of two things: the terrorist group Al Qaeda and the fear mongering of some outside groups within the United States. Islamic extremists and groups that spread fear about Islam share one common trait that makes them very dangerous: ignorance.

                Without a doubt Al Qaeda is at the tip of the spear with regards to the religious sect of terrorism. Al Qaeda has been one of the top terrorist organizations in the world for the past few decades. Their ideology of the Islamic faith is one of radicalism. Their interpretation of the Quran and the Hadith (both Muslim holy books) can be seen as radical because it reflects the views of two men, Osama Bin Laden and Sayyid Qutb. These two men changed the world’s perspective of Islam. They both express a hatred for the western powers and want Islam to be the ruling authority throughout the world. Like any other religion, Islam has always had its extremists, like Saudi Arabia and its implementation of Sharia law and Iran with the Ayatollah, but Al Qaeda’s formation is one of the first times in which a strictly Islamic form of terrorism was formed. Al Qaeda, Bin Laden, and Qutb have formed an ideology of their own because Islam’s laws are subject to interpretation just as many other religion’s laws are.

A Muslim’s interpretation of the Quran and Hadith can vary greatly within the different sects of Islam just as a Christian’s interpretation of the Bible has forced the separation between Protestants, Orthodox, and Catholics. This interpretation, or “Tafsir” as Dr. Godlas says, of the Quran and Hadith is where we get the different sects or beliefs of Islam. Al Qaeda’s interpretation of the Hadith and Quran is simply more fundamentalist in nature. There are different levels of church and state within the Muslim countries. In Turkey there is a separation of church and state while in Iran and Saudi Arabia government and religion are basically one in the same. Instead of a state controlling the religion like in Iran and Saudi Arabia, Al Qaeda is a group that found sanctuary in Afghanistan and continues to put forth their doctrine.

The basic beliefs within Al Qaeda are the establishment of Sharia Law and the jihad against foreign non-believers or non-Muslim countries. Within the majority of the Muslim world Al Qaeda is seen as a radical group that interprets the Quran and Hadith based on certain verses. Dr. Hussein Ibish (2008) says in his article, “Radical interpretation of selected verses from Quran” that Al Qaeda shares common ground with the most extreme interpretations of Islamic scriptures and practices. He says that Al Qaeda shares their interpretations with some Christian and Jewish groups’ interpretation of the Quran. The meaning of the shared interpretation is that the ignorant views that some people have about Islam are the same views Al Qaeda has in its doctrine. This has caused people that are outside of the Islamic faith to stereotype the Islamic faith as an inherently violent religion.

The interpretation of the Quran by the extremists in the West is almost as bad for Islam as the actions of Al Qaeda. It has spread the fear of Muslims throughout the American population. The western extremists have created, as Dr. Ibish says, an Islamophobia. No such incident explains this better than the “International Burn a Quran Day” started by Terry Jones and the Dove World Outreach Center.  This was an event scheduled for the ninth anniversary of September 11^th. They wanted to expose Islam for its violent and extremist nature and punish Muslims by burning the Quran. The irony in all of this is that they themselves were being extremist in nature. Their actions were seen to many in the Christian community as wrong.

The type of fear mongering that Terry Jones and his church have spread is  directly related to their views on Islam, whereas the violence and terrorism that Al Qaeda has done is in direct response to their views on the west and non-believers.  Terry Jones and his followers are displaying the same type of rhetoric as Al Qaeda just in a non-violent way. The fear of Islam is based on their inability to cope with the fact that Islam has become a dominant religion in the world. The type of fear mongering that is expressed here has been done in the past by many other religious figures in America. Peter Skerry, of Boston College says that some Protestant leaders have feared many other religions coming into the United States, like the Catholics immigrants coming from Europe. He notes that there has always been fear over new religions and there will always be ways to overcome this intolerance too.

I think that Peter Skerry is absolutely correct in his assessment of the American public. There is a part of the religious circle in the United States that always fears religious outsiders. When there is fear it clouds up peoples judgments and we get uninformed fear. What these ignorant people probably don’t know is that Islam is a religion of peace that closely resembles the Christian and Jewish faiths. The God of Christianity and the Allah of Islam are one in the same. The uninformed also need to know that most religions are going to have some sects within their religion who have their extremist/supremacy views.

Logical reasoning without ethnocentric views will help combat ignorance. I understand that we will never have the perfect society with no fear of others, but if one hopes to achieve order or tolerance, there must be some form of logic. A logical population starts with a well-informed public. Therefore people must step outside their comfort zones and learn about other religions. I have always said that ignorance is the enemy of logic so if we are ever going to  have a population without people like Osama Bin Laden, Sayyid Qutb, or Terry Jones we must be open to hear other religions’ philosophies and analyze those philosophies without prejudice.

I was once one of the ignorant people I refer to because I used to think that my religion was right and everyone else was wrong. I was 15 when 9/11 happened and I stereotyped Muslims to be terrorists. I saw them cheering and burning American flags in the hours after the towers fell. Once I had more world experience I realized that the people who carried out those acts were only a small sect of a larger group. I opened up my mind to the possibility that I was wrong about Muslims. I’ve learned that all religions have their good sides and bad. We should not put the blinders on and ignore all other views.

References

Godlas, A. 2003. The Qur'an and Qur'anic Interpretation  http://www.uga.edu/islam/quran.html

Ibish, Hussein. 2008.Radical interpretation of selected verses from Quran http://www.muslimbridges.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=534:radical-interpretation-of-selected-verses-from-the-quran&catid=83:radical-interpretation-of-quran&Itemid=110

Skerry, Peter. 2010. Do Americans Fear Muslims. http://hpronline.org/united-states/do-americans-ear-muslims/

Was the American Revolution an act of Terrorism?

              Perspective is important when trying to decipher history. It is very important that we view the events of yesterday in a sense that leaves our biases out of the equation. There are many events in history that are clouded by the predispositions we have. The events are either too close to our hearts for us to be impartial, too far away to understand, or have our prejudices forced upon them. One such event that can be misinterpreted because it holds a special place in every American’s heart is the American Revolution. The American Revolution is taught in American schools as the thirteen colonies uniting and defeating a tyrannical king, but were the actions of the colonist’s terrorism by nature? To answer that question we must look at a different perspective on the American Revolution.

The first thing we must look at when determining if the colonists were terrorists is the British definition of terrorism. It is important to look at the British definition of terrorism in the 18^th century because we want to see if the actions of the colonists were considered terrorism in the eyes of the British and not our own eyes. The British did not have a definition of terrorism like ours today, but had a specific “code of conduct” to follow for civil and military affairs. Even though Britain didn’t have a definition of what a terrorist is there are parallels between what we do with terrorists nowadays and what the British did with deviant behavior during the American Revolution.

Deviance is defined by Robert Keel of the Sociology department of the University of Missouri as, “a negotiated order. Deviance violates some groups assumptions about reality (social order). It violates expectations” (Keel, 2007). There are many examples in which the British dismissed the actions of the American government as deviant. They viewed the acts as something that didn’t conform to the norms of society. Society’s norms are usually defined by the most influential people; in this case it’s Britain because it was the most dominant/powerful nation in the world. The question is: Do these acts of deviance constitute terrorism in the eyes of the British? There are two acts of deviance that were predominant in the American Revolution that are closely related to the terrorism that we are facing today: the privateering of vessels to act as the American Navy and the tactic of Asymmetrical warfare.

                 The act of privateering American vessels to fight the war was seen to the British as a violation of the norms of combat. As Jesse Lemisch of George Mason’s University says, “it compensated for that weakness at sea by engaging in a very effective form of legalized piracy called privateering. Privateers were denounced by the British in ways that resonate with the denunciation of terrorists that we hear these days” (Lemisch, 2002). Privateers were sanctioned pirates that were given authority by the Continental Congress. They would attack a British ship and steal its goods and split it amongst themselves as a way to deplete British supply lines.

This was America’s way to counter the British and their powerful Navy. The parallel situation that America faces today, and calls terrorism, is the Somali pirates that have attacked ships near Africa. Although different in practice because American privateers attacked British ships and not civilians, the same theory of deviance applies because of the nature of the atypical behavior. Americans also used another tactic which the British thought was deviant: Asymmetrical warfare.

                Asymmetrical warfare is a type of fight in which one side, usually the weaker side, uses an unconventional type of warfare. An example of unconventional warfare is the Viet Cong’s use of hit, run, and blend into the community.  The American Revolution was the first war in the modern era in which this style was used. This style was very different than the normal line formation that standard militaries used at the time. America used a combination of guerilla warfare and line warfare and was very effective. The hit and run of guerilla warfare was very demoralizing to the British Regulars.

Francis Marion aka The Swamp Fox

 Francis Marion was the figure head of this type of warfare. If you have ever seen the movie The Patriot, he was the basis for the character Mel Gibson portrayed. According to Amy Crawford of the Smithsonian Magazine, “Though often outnumbered, Marion's militia would continue to use guerilla tactics to surprise enemy regiments, with great success…Marion and his followers played the role of David to the British Goliath." Line formations were still the normal way of combat until WWI, so it is safe to say that Francis Marion was thinking outside the box. The guerrilla type warfare was labeled by the British as unconventional and they tried very hard to capture Marion. This is similar to the war in Iraq where American soldiers are attacked by Iraqi militias with unconventional means and are labeled as terrorists.

We cannot define the American Revolutionaries actions as terrorism but a deviant act. The connection between the American Revolutionaries and terrorism is not the acts themselves but the nature in which the British saw those acts. American Revolutionaries did not attack innocent British civilians; they attacked British combatants/supplies in a way that was contrary to the normal type of warfare for the period. Although there are parallels between the current terrorism situation and the American Revolution it would be unfair to judge the past based on our perception. 

References

Crawford, Amy. The Smithsonian Magazine (2007) The Swamp Fox. Retrieved from http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/biography/fox.html

Keel, Robert. University of Missouri (2007) Introduction to the Sociology of Deviance. Retrieved from http://www.umsl.edu/~keelr/200/intrdev.html

Lemisch, Jesse. George Mason’s University- History News Network (2002). Privateering, the American Revolution, and the Rules of War: The United States Was Born in "Terrorism" and Piracy. Retrieved from http://hnn.us/articles/915.html

Terrorism: Not an Easy Definition

Terrorism is a major world problem that affects every person regardless of age, gender, race, ethnicity, economic status, or any other variable. Terrorism is a fluid, ever changing type of mechanism that is utilized by individuals or groups to gain or keep power. The targets of these terrorists are usually innocent people. Terrorism has been defined in many different ways throughout time and what people considered terrorism thousands of years ago might not be considered terrorism today. Defining terrorism is like trying to define an abstract piece of art: everyone will see it in a different way.

The definition of terrorism is very important here because it gives us perspective on how people viewed these acts during these times and places. The world has no consensus on what exactly constitutes a terrorist; this might be due to cultural differences, differences of opinion, religious values and so on. An example of the different views of terrorism can be summed up by the phrase, “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom-fighter” which means quite simply that not all acts of terrorism will be seen the same way, even if there is innocent blood spilt. Another example is within the United States government and the different definitions of terrorism that the C.I.A. and F.B.I. have.

The F.B.I. and the C.I.A. have similar but different definitions of terrorism. The C.I.A. defines terrorism as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents” (C.I.A., 2011). The F.B.I. defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof in furtherance of political or social objectives” (F.B.I., 2011). If our own top counter-terrorism agencies don’t have the same definitions, then how is the world supposed to agree on what constitutes a terrorist? Would you expect a Pakistani Muslim to have the same definition of terrorism as an American Protestant?

Picture what a terrorist looks like. What are they wearing? How do they speak? Are you thinking of Joseph Stalin or Adolph Hitler? The majority of people in the United States today would think of a Middle Eastern or Arab person when they thought of a terrorist, but religious terrorism is only the newest form of terrorism. While the religious form of terrorism is horrible, the most lethal form of terrorism has, in the past, came in the form of state ran terrorism.

There are two state ran terrorist organizations that stand out among the rest: Joseph Stalin and Adolph Hitler. Hitler was the architect of the Holocaust, which was the systematic extermination of the Jews and all other non-Aryan persons. One of Stalin’s crimes was The Great Purge and it is explained by Adam Jones (2002) as “tens of millions of ordinary individuals were executed or imprisoned in labor camps that were little more than death camps.” So we shouldn’t make the mistake of defining what makes a “terrorist” based solely on the current Islamic extremists in the Middle East. It is imperative that we realize that terrorism has many forms and not turn a blind eye to the horrors of the past. 

References

C.I.A. Central Intelligence Agency. Terrorism FAQs. Retrieved September 16^th 2011 from https://www.cia.gov/news-information/cia-the-war-on-terrorism/terrorism-faqs.html

F.B.I. Federal Bureau of Investigation. What We Investigate. Retrieved September 17^th 2011 from http://www.fbi.gov/albuquerque/priorities

Jones, Adam. Gendercide. 2002. Case Study: Stalin's Purges. Retrieved September 17^th 2001 from http://www.gendercide.org/case_stalin.html