This week's readings will focus on the most recent US national strategy for countering foreign terrorism as well as delve into domestic sources of terrorism.
Please offer your perspectives on each document throughout the week.
As a human rights specialist, our basic rights are always my main priority. The reason counter terrorism is so important, especially in the United States, is because we are promised "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." It is clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence. Counter-terrorism helps defend all of these rights that are inalienable. Terrorist that strategize and try to jeopardize our safety must be stopped. It says on page 19 of the article that Trump notes "America is a sovereign nation and our first priority is always the safety and security of our citizens. The United States must, therefore, relentlessly focus on countering terrorism that jeopardizes American citizens and interests. We will not dilute our counterterrorism efforts by attempting to be everywhere all the time, trying to eradicate all threats." I like that the president is focused on protecting his people first and foremost. It is important to put an emphasis on the protection of our citizens as well as those around the world. I do agree that the process should start with his own people and then gradually spread to other parts that need assistance.
I agree with your sentiments, and would like to add that in order to carry out the protection of the citizenry this statement and similar statements speak of, we have given up some of our individual liberties. Do you think that legislation like the PATRIOT ACT have gone too far?
@Eric Bruckenstein I think your commentary is noteworthy Eric. While focusing on the United States first is beneficial, I wonder if the Trump administration properly collaborated with other actors to mitigate terrorism efforts.
Agreed. I too believe the priority of any U.S. President or country's leader should be the safety and security of its own citizens first and foremost. I also like what you said about 'gradually' spreading to other parts of the world that needs assistance. Both you and the president seem to agree, dealing with terrorism as a multilateral approach seems to be one of incrementalism at least from what Trump says in the article and in the context of your post, as opposed to a more preventative and aggressive approach to terrorism domestically.
This was a fascinating article, and one in a genre I have not read much of before. From within my specialty, I think that I can make a connection, or rather a contrast, between the document and the Chinese approach to Uyghur "terrorism" in Xinjiang, which is overbearing and directly targeted against the ethnic group. For example, China defines virtually anything culturally Uyghur as an expression of pro-terrorist sentiment, even something as innocuous as a style of dress of hair.
Interesting connection Reid, I like how you connected your topic to this article and last week's topic. I think that the collaboration component is missing in the Chinese approach to addressing "terrorism." While an international definition of terrorism exists, China has chosen to use/interpret it differently in order to make it fit their aims.
@Brea Purdie @Reid Parker Certainly, terrorism is just a convenient term in many cases so far as China is concerned. And with a lack of freedom of the press there's less pressure for the state to apply an equitable definition to the term.
Pages 1-11 of the document are insightful. While the Trump administration adopted an America First policy, I can't help but notice that they shoulder a large portion of the burden on other international players (pg 10 last para). In regards to what forms of collaboration will be implemented amongst allies in order to combat terrorism, it's vague. I do commend his honest approach of stating that he will place the United States' self-interests first, which is a turn from previous leadership acting as the "police of the world." This is also shown as there isn't mention of increased spending for other countries to combat terrorism. Instead, the money will be going towards domestic counterterrorism efforts.
The America First policy enacted by Trump can also be seen in connection to Latin American immigration. Under this administration, southern border security was prioritized over providing aid to Latin American countries that failed to "stem the outflow of northbound migrants.(McDonnel, NPR)"
In both cases, the Trump administration adopted a hard approach that has lasting repercussions for the Biden administration.
To be fair, it is a document aimed specifically at domestic terrorism, so it makes sense that details about foreign terror assistance would be left out. How lasting do you think that those repercussions will be, as Biden sets out to reverse most of what Trump has done?
To be fair, it is a document aimed specifically at domestic terrorism, so it makes sense that details about foreign terror assistance would be left out. How lasting do you think that those repercussions will be, as Biden sets out to reverse most of what Trump has done?
Even with domestic terrorism, international actors need to be included as there are global support networks for domestic terrorists. Having some level of international collaboration is necessary. I’m not exactly sure how lasting these repercussions will be. While I can’t speak on terrorism, immigration advocacy groups were already planning courses of action based on Biden’s election promises. As a result, they’re currently swamped with migrants and low on aid/support due to “jumping the gun” so to speak. With this level of swiftness in mind, I would guess that these next 4 years will be spent attempting to mitigate this issue.
I liked that the document wasted no time making an example of ISIS' online/media presence as a tool for radicalization and recruitment. This avenue for recruitment strikes me as something of a given within the United States. However, in states like China where information is not as freely and readily available to the average person, there is less room for the state to fall back on curtailing such methods.
That is to say, in a state where the flow of information is already standardized and restricted, information used by extremist groups is already moving underground, whereas in a more open society that information may first show itself on the surface web, for example, rather than being moved to a darknet. It'll be interesting to consider how states that govern differently may approach this problem differently.
This was a very fascinating read. I have to say, much like Eric—I too had difficulty trying to relate terrorism to my specialty (European environmental/climate change policy). However, the nexus between climate change and terrorism might not necessarily be so far apart. As climate and weather patterns shift, the resulting environmental crisis could arguably be leveraged as a tool for terror and political violence. Globally, environmental stress due to unpredictable weather catalyzes political violence which further undermines already weak governments. In the United States specifically, environmental crisis could be considered a “threat multiplier” that could enable terrorism, overwhelm response capabilities, and threaten populations and critical infrastructure.
The emerging threat is not about eco-terrorism (a term used to describe acts of violence in support of ecological or environmental causes). Rather, there is a growing potential for vulnerable ecosystems to be exploited or destroyed as a means to intimidate or provoke a state of terror in the general public for a political, ideological, or philosophical agenda. Severe drought as a result of climatic weather shifts raises vulnerability of water systems as reservoirs continue to dry up. As global fresh water supplies become increasingly scarce, extremist groups are stepping up attacks and manipulating supply as a strategic tactic of coercion.
This could also be applied to the wildfires specifically here in the U.S. The exposure of U.S. communities to wildfire makes wildfire a potentially potent weapon for economic warfare and mass destruction. One military officer wrote in his 2005 thesis titled “PYRO-TERRORISM—THE THREAT OF ARSON INDUCED FOREST FIRES AS A FUTURE TERRORIST WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION”: “An opportunistic terrorist can unleash multiple fires creating a conflagration potentially equal to a multi-megaton nuclear weapon.” Wildfires can have a profoundly negative effect on a region’s economy: the damage from California’s 2018 conflagrations is estimated at $400 billion.
Although it is not easy to relate to our specialties, I like that it caused me to think more about it until I could draw some lines between the two. It feels like a puzzle and I tend to enjoy it. I'm glad you were able to find a way to connect it to yours and make such a good post.
I thought the article was insightful to see Trump's policy preferences regarding terrorism. In regards to Russia, the Kremlin has long abused its expansive definition of terrorism for political persons, accusing those they believe to be enemies of the state as terrorists. I think Russia could learn from the US and adopt a more thorough and detailed plan to stop terrorism. Secondly, Russia has relatively few terrorist attacks but is involved around the world providing arms or backing various countries/groups in conflicts. Thus, I think for National Strategy on Counterterrorism to be effective, there needs to be actionable steps and policies put in place to hold other countries accountable in stopping terrorism.
I fully agree to this when National Strategy needs actionable steps in policies to hold other countries responsible, however don't we stop trade with any terror organizations and look down upon countries that may have an impact domestically?
"We must seek partners, not perfectection - and to make allies of all who share our goals. Accordingly, from civil society and state, local, tribal, and territorial governments to private sector partners and foreign allies, the full range of our partnerships must be enhanced to effectively prevent and counter terrorist activities" - Former President Donald Trump.
This document provides a clear outline of the strategy the US has employed since 2018, and could not be more different from the approach China has used to combat terrorism in its western Xinjiang province. China largely sees it's terrorism problem as a home-grown issue and has not yet released any comprehensive strategy similar to the National Strategy for Counterterrorism (Bellacqua and Tanner, 2016). China has however shown signs that it is strengthening its approach to terrorism through various speeches by Chinese President Xi Jinping to the Politburo, the principal policy-making body of the CCP.
Regarding the NSCT, it highlights several objectives that China is less than willing to adopt, including building a holistic picture of terrorists' identities and establishing a broad range of counterterrorism partnerships abroad. China has no publically available, clear definition of what a terrorist is or what actions constitute terrorism. China's current Counterterrorism Law, passed in 2015, partially defines terrorist behavior or activities that advocate terrorism. These can include anything from posting an Islamic prayer online or having an Islamic-traditional long beard, things that are not labelled terrorist activities by international institutions (Bellacqua and Tanner, 2016).
Because China sees it's terrorism problem as a domestic affair, it does not share its strategies with the international community and does not seek to build broad anti-terror partnerships with foreign nations, as the NSCT highlights several times. China does cooperate with the US and its allies on combating international funding of terrorist groups such as; safeguarding ports, hindering international trafficking of materials, and money-laundering. One aspect of the NSCT that China does fully employ is an integration of federal, state, and local counter-terrorism information sharing. Recent partnerships in this regard are the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the Regional Anti-Terror Structure, which share information about ISIS and suspected Uyghur terrorists in Xinjiang and across mainland China (Bellacqua and Tanner, 2016).
Until China provides a clear outline of its approach to counterterrorism, the international community will continue to question its approach to Xinjiang terrorist activities. China could better coordinate its strategy with the international community and prevent further radicalization in Xinjiang by employing international standards and practices, without potential human rights abuses against the Uyghur population.
Bellacqua, James & Tanner, Murray (2016). China's Response to Terrorism. US.
China Economic and Security Review Commission. 4-182.
These sections of the NSCT document provide the framework for identifying and locating known/ potential terrorist threats to the US. "We will enhance the collection, discovery, and exploitation of identity information supporting the counterterrorism mission, particularly biometric data. We will also identify and use other categories of identity information, including publicly available information, financial intelligence, and captured enemy material" (NSCT, 2018). While this sounds similar to China's identification of terrorists in Xinjiang, the two countries could not take a more different approach.
China is known to use surveillance to monitor and restrict certain ideologies from popping up in the mainland. Beijing extended this practice to Hong Kong, one of two SAR's, after the 2019 National Security Law went into effect. Where the US does not see political discourse and disagreement as terrorism, China does. Local authorities in Xinjiang have detained up to 1.5 million Uyghurs on grounds of suspected terrorism, although there is no official number from the CCP. It is a hard argument for China to make that everyone in the Xinjiang camps are suspected terrorists, but their definition of a terrorist is still shrouded in ambiguity.
This is a serious issue. China surveilles their population way too much. It is an encroachment on their citizens' right to privacy. It is sad that they see differing opinions and dissent as terrorism and try to remove anyone that disagrees with them. Terrorism should have a clear definition so that things like this can come to an end.
This sounds similar to Russia. The state uses its counterterrorism legislation against its political opposition. The state has also applied the term terrorist to independent media and religious organizations, even Jehovah's Witnesses who clearly denounce all violence. I don't know how it would happen, but something needs to be done to stop the criminalization of the freedoms of religion, expression, association, etc. under the counterterrorism umbrella.
I said something similar for my post: China is the poster child for wielding counterterrorism policies as just one more tool of state control over dissenting views. I think its an overarching theme that you and I will keep coming back to this month.
While reading pages 1-11 of the NSCT document, three sentences stuck out to me regarding my field of international affairs with a South American Specialization. The first was "Our borders and all ports of entry into the United States are secure against terrorist threats”. This is rather good for the United States but bad for South American illegal trading. Due to the United States past of not being secure in our ports, many Latin American gangs would send illegal drugs through ports. Now that port entries are going to be more secure against terrorist threats it's also possible that there will be a shortage of drugs which is good for American citizens.
The second sentence that stuck out to me was “Foreign partners address terrorist threats so that these threats do not jeopardize the collective interests of the United States and our partners”. This is great because this creates a global unity against any terrorist organizations. However, with many Latin American countries, the governments are corrupt and a lot of the time gangs and or terrorist groups run the countries internally. People in Latin American countries may want to go against terrorist groups but can't due to government circumstances.
Lastly, “Public sector partners, private sector partners, and foreign partners take a greater role in preventing and countering terrorism". This stuck out to me because its stating that leaders in other countries need to be leaders and go against terrorist organizations. Historically, Latin American countries are known to have corrupt leaders because they are influenced by money from gangs or terrorist organizations. This states that leaders need to take a stand and fight for their countries.
Yeah, Latin American countries do have unfortunate levels of corruption...while it would be an overly broad and silly question to ask "how do you think they can clean their situation up", I am legitimately curious about anticorruption efforts in Latin America, particularly in Brazil under Bolsonaro.
The charts on page13 express the strategic goals of the US in its fight against terrorism and defines ideal end-states by which we can determine if those goals are being met, while pages 15-18 identifies known current terrorist threats to the US and/or Europe, with an overwhelming focus on Islamic terrorism and its sources (Iranian funding, currently active groups, the utility of the current migrant waves to Europe, etc). The obvious connection between today's selection and my specialty is the Chinese methodology/approach to identifying terrorism, which is (as I and several other interns have pointed out) to simply label any ideology or group that the CCP doesn't like as fitting the bill, from expressions of culture by Uyghur Muslims or protests in Hong Kong. In addition, I was interested to note that despite being aimed specifically at countering terrorism in the US, the document did take the time to discuss the situation of our allies (the identification of danger to European countries via mass migration allowing terrorists to infiltrate, “Foreign partners address terrorist threats so that these threats do not jeopardize the collective interests of the United States and our partners”, etc).
It is sad that if the CCP doesn't like a group they label them as terrorists. Citizens should be allowed to express their disagreement with the government in peaceful ways. The United States had marches all across the country for the Black Lives Matter movement. I believe one of the reasons that the protests in Hong Kong turn into riots is because the police provoke and attack protestors. If the government were to let people express their opinions, it would be in a less aggressive manner. Instead China uses tear gas and paint to mark protestors for later arrests. I also like that you touched on how it mentions our allies. It is important for allies to support one another as much as possible and combine our efforts against threats like terrorism.
I liked your point about the need of mutual cooperation between states to hinder terrorist organizations. China employs the 'go-it-alone' strategy and has faced much backlash from the international community over its handling of Xinjiang. Until China can coordinate and cooperate with international standards and practices for combating terrorism, it will continue to receive criticism and accusations of human rights abuses.
I think that boiling down the idea of how China views terrorists to those the CCP "doesn't like" is not looking away from the mindset that the CCP labels people terrorists. The CCP are looking less for groups that are perceived as being against "public peace". The CCP view the minority populations as a threat to the peace within a culturally homogenous China. The goal of using force on the Uyghur population is to allow for that portion of China to become more homogenous and less independent. In comparison to Hong Kong which at the moment is being coaxed back into becoming a regular part of China and not a separate entity like it was in the past. The CCP and China as a whole has a very different perception of a terrorist then the US and other western countries and until the CCP changes its view on terrorism then China will not change its' view.
State sponsored terrorism is not something that we can support. Being Jewish, I can draw a very real connection to this. Israel is always struggling with Palestinian state sponsored terrorists. When you hear about terrorism you think that it is just radicalized people that want to harm others. When I heard that a state was funding them and giving money to their families when they died it disgusted me. "Iran remains the most prominent state sponsor of terrorism, supporting militant and terrorist groups across the Middle East and cultivating a network of operatives that pose a threat in the United States and globally." I understand that we want to protect the United States most of all, and the idea is that going abroad to fight in other countries is not ideal. I think that it is important that we do what we can to prevent these militants from ever entering the United States. We should also be able to go abroad to deal with countries that want to support terrorism. We should try and deal with the problem before it arrives at our shores. Whether it be through sanctions or military intervention, I truly believe it is in our country's best interest to deal with this before it gets out of control.
I agree that prevention is preferable to reaction, but I question the effectiveness of military intervention when it comes to stopping terrorism.
Afghanistan's Taliban once sheltered Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, but the US still finds itself in the "graveyard of empires" long after the death of Osama and the sidelining of his group. After nearly 20 years of fighting, and though troop numbers are lower than ever, the US is still having to negotiate with the Taliban if it is going to maintain any hope of leaving.
The regional chaos brought on by the invasion of Iraq had the opposite effect of stopping terrorism - it allowed it to proliferate. Besides the Sunni and Shi'a militias that rose and fell over the years, the collapse of the Iraqi state (authoritarian as it might have been) led to the eventual rise of ISIS.
I find it difficult to believe that direct military action against Iran would have any effects other than providing more impetus for more regional instability and further radicalization.
Prevention of terrorism, especially state-sponsored, is very important and would be the most ideal outcome. However, like @Griffen Ballenger I question using military intervention. For example, the killing of Soleimani exponentially increased the tensions between the US and Iran with Iran promising revenge. This extrajudicial act likely violated international law. At what point does the US pass limit "police the world" while fighting against terrorism?
I see your point, especially dealing with Israel and Palestine, it's a rock and a hard place. I wonder how we may deal with the problem overseas without brewing resentment and building ourselves a reputation as an occupational force. I'm not sure anybody wins with military action. However, international affairs isn't a zero-sum game, so I may have to eat my hat here.
Russia's terrorism policy is extremely feeble and rests upon the state's self-interest. Russia has been a major power broker in the Middle East, especially since Trump withdrew most of the US troops. The section on page 16 about "Counter Existing and Emerging Terrorist Funding Methods" stood out to me. Moscow wants to gain power and money, and it doesn't really matter to them how they get it. Russia has been supporting the Assad regime in Syria and is the second largest arms exporter after the US. Also, in the fight against ISIS, Russia has shared intelligence with the Taliban. Arguably, despite ISIS' global ambitions and brutality, the Taliban is a greater threat to Afghanistan. It is highly unlikely will undertake better counterterrorism policies because it would not serve their interests.
I'm glad that you noted Russia and the implication of governments acting in self-interest. I wonder what future problems will occur for Russia as a result of "playing for both sides?" Seeing this occur in countries would make it difficult to collaborate on counterterrorism efforts if each party knows whats truly guiding the other.
In the context of my specialty, I'm looking forward to reading further into this document, in hopes that a few points made in today's section will be elaborated on further. The document makes a few points toward the end of today's section regarding identity information and data collection, while mentioning maintaining a respect for individual rights a few paragraphs later.
I'll start to sound like a broken record if I continue to bring up Xinjiang and China's loosely applied definition of terrorism, however I think this brings up an interesting comparison between China and the U.S. While the U.S. doesn't have China's track record of using terrorist labels as an excuse for to carry out unlawful and inhumane detention and imprisonment, at the Party level, China's objectives are much more static. As a one-party state, the Party agenda in China in terms of terrorism has remained mostly unchanged, while the objectives of the "ruling" party in the U.S. change to some degree with every midterm, and every four to eight years in the most extreme circumstance.
This presents an interesting balancing game, in my opinion. As a state that has concerns in both counter-terrorism AND individual liberty, as well as a government composed of more moving parts than that of a one-China state, how can the U.S. most effectively ensure that individual citizens remain protected from the misuse of tools committed to counter-terrorism? For example, from the Obama administration to the Trump administration, the attitude and discourse surround protesters, whether they be politically charged, socially charged, etc, changed radically. President Trump took a much more open and outspoken stance on protests than his predecessor. I hope that as this document progresses it will address how the American system of checks and balances will ensure that the individual can be protected from the misuse of counter-terrorist tools by an extremely dynamic and fluid state.
Pages 13-18 of the NSCT offer some crucial points in not only U.S. strategy for counterterrorism, but how it relates to our allies. For instance, pg 13 states U.S. strategic objectives for counterterrorism along with the lines of effort in which they’re carried out. I think this is one of the most helpful pieces of information to include with an article like this when a president is articulating a national strategy—specifically one for counterterrorism.
In terms of how it relates to our allies, I don’t think a lot of people would be opposed to helping our allies either preemptively or in the case of a terrorist attack, especially if it was a matter of national security and was in our own interests to ‘nip it in the bud’ in order to protect American lives.
More specifically, I want to note what was said on pg 16-17. “There is also a broad range of revolutionary, nationalist, and separatist movements overseas whose use of violence and intent to destabilize societies often puts American lives at risk. For example, the Nordic Resistance Movement is a prominent transnational, self-described nationalist-socialist organization with anti-Western views that has conducted violent attacks against Muslims, left-wing groups, and others. The group has demonstrated against United States Government actions it perceives are supportive of Israel and has the potential to extend its targeting to United States interests. Similarly, the neo-Nazi National Action Group, a terrorist organization that was banned by the United Kingdom in 2016 for its promotion of violence against politicians and minorities, operates mainly in the United Kingdom but has engaged with like-minded groups in the United States, Estonia, France, Germany, Latvia, and Poland—expanding the potential influence of its violent ideology. Such groups may avoid or deprioritize targeting United States interests for now to avoid detracting from their core goals but frequently conduct assassinations and bombings against major economic, political, and social targets, heightening the risk to United States personnel and interests overseas.”
There is no question this is problematic, but I think this also only highlights the importance of taking action against domestic terrorism or terrorism abroad facing our allies. The Trump administration adopted a hard approach to terrorism and I think it will be interesting to see what approach the Biden administration adopts, specifically in terms of Iran-U.S. relations (given that Iran remains the most prominent state sponsor of terrorism).
I would like to specifically talk about how well organized this plan is. International terrorism has an influence on radicals in every country and even in America. Many forms of recruitment are through forums online. In 2005 alone there were well over 4000 websites which were about recruitment (Waskiewicz 2). On page 8 of the document it states "al-Qa'ida's global network remains resilient and poses an enduring threat to the homeland and United States interests around the world. " which is primarily internet based. When it comes to my specialty in Defense Innovation, my thoughts are to create R&D defense strategies to mitigate any problems that arise when it comes to financial instability due to an attack. From a homeland security perspective, creating departments to help combat the terrorism forums and recruitment websites is crucial. Some dangerous people like Abu Khalid Abdul Latif who was going to bomb a Seattle Military Facility. When it comes to stopping things from happening in regards to terrorists, cyber security and operations are highly valuable.
Read more on the beginning involvements of terrorism when online forums and YouTube was big on recruitment in the link below.
On page 13 this statement stood out to me the most, "Overseas, they thrive in countries with weak governments and where disenfranchised populations are vulnerable to terrorists' destructive and misinformed narratives, and they are adaptive in the face of pressure from countries with strong governments". In South America, there are three main terrorist organizations: "Two Colombian guerrilla groups—the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the National Liberation Army (ELN)—and one Peruvian guerrilla group, the Shining Path (SL)". In Columbia, these two terrorist organizations have been doing unexplainable acts since the 1940's due to the communism that occurred in the past. Columbia has had a history of not having a strong government and it being very corrupt. Around 2016, the Colombian government has tried to get these terrorist organizations under control and are still trying to till this day. In Peru, the Shining Path terrorist organization began in the 1970's due to the split of the communist party. Again, the government wasn't strong and in Peru the government is very corrupt. Not much is sad about what the Peruvian government is doing about this terrorist organization. However, I do agree with Former President Trump's statement up above because these Latin American countries show that terrorist organizations do "thrive on weak governments".
Reading pages 13-18 I found it focused on the strategies that the United States use in countering terrorism. However, the United States is still at great risk of a terrorist attack because of the increasing technologies and networks that terrorists are employing in order to generate an attack. The United states is at risk of an attack by Al-Qaeda and ISIS, as these two groups have made it clear that they can and will generate an attack on the U.S. As mentioned terrorist groups “ stoke and exploit weak governance, conflict, instability,...” this is especially true nowadays because of the COVID-19 pandemic. I have posted a few articles on the impact of the pandemic on terrorism and there is fear that an attack might take place. This is because the U.S. and the whole world is focused on containing the virus and creating a more stable life for people. As a result, I think this is a great opportunity for radicals to generate an attack especially when people have their guards down.
Looking at page 13 is very interesting especially with a view at China and how it sees terror. With the People's Republic of China being a newer entity on the world stage the idea of terrorism and the perception around terrorism is different then those around it. With the CCP viewing terrorism as anything that threatens national security or causes unrest within China. With how the CCP has been suppressing anti-CCP groups that go against the CCP and their view of how China should be it will be interesting to see how China evolves its perspective. Because right now they are doing what the United States is doing only with different groups looking down the barrel.
As a human rights specialist, our basic rights are always my main priority. The reason counter terrorism is so important, especially in the United States, is because we are promised "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." It is clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence. Counter-terrorism helps defend all of these rights that are inalienable. Terrorist that strategize and try to jeopardize our safety must be stopped. It says on page 19 of the article that Trump notes "America is a sovereign nation and our first priority is always the safety and security of our citizens. The United States must, therefore, relentlessly focus on countering terrorism that jeopardizes American citizens and interests. We will not dilute our counterterrorism efforts by attempting to be everywhere all the time, trying to eradicate all threats." I like that the president is focused on protecting his people first and foremost. It is important to put an emphasis on the protection of our citizens as well as those around the world. I do agree that the process should start with his own people and then gradually spread to other parts that need assistance.
I agree with your sentiments, and would like to add that in order to carry out the protection of the citizenry this statement and similar statements speak of, we have given up some of our individual liberties. Do you think that legislation like the PATRIOT ACT have gone too far?
@Eric Bruckenstein I think your commentary is noteworthy Eric. While focusing on the United States first is beneficial, I wonder if the Trump administration properly collaborated with other actors to mitigate terrorism efforts.
Agreed. I too believe the priority of any U.S. President or country's leader should be the safety and security of its own citizens first and foremost. I also like what you said about 'gradually' spreading to other parts of the world that needs assistance. Both you and the president seem to agree, dealing with terrorism as a multilateral approach seems to be one of incrementalism at least from what Trump says in the article and in the context of your post, as opposed to a more preventative and aggressive approach to terrorism domestically.
This was a fascinating article, and one in a genre I have not read much of before. From within my specialty, I think that I can make a connection, or rather a contrast, between the document and the Chinese approach to Uyghur "terrorism" in Xinjiang, which is overbearing and directly targeted against the ethnic group. For example, China defines virtually anything culturally Uyghur as an expression of pro-terrorist sentiment, even something as innocuous as a style of dress of hair.
Interesting connection Reid, I like how you connected your topic to this article and last week's topic. I think that the collaboration component is missing in the Chinese approach to addressing "terrorism." While an international definition of terrorism exists, China has chosen to use/interpret it differently in order to make it fit their aims.
@Brea Purdie @Reid Parker Certainly, terrorism is just a convenient term in many cases so far as China is concerned. And with a lack of freedom of the press there's less pressure for the state to apply an equitable definition to the term.
Pages 1-11 of the document are insightful. While the Trump administration adopted an America First policy, I can't help but notice that they shoulder a large portion of the burden on other international players (pg 10 last para). In regards to what forms of collaboration will be implemented amongst allies in order to combat terrorism, it's vague. I do commend his honest approach of stating that he will place the United States' self-interests first, which is a turn from previous leadership acting as the "police of the world." This is also shown as there isn't mention of increased spending for other countries to combat terrorism. Instead, the money will be going towards domestic counterterrorism efforts.
The America First policy enacted by Trump can also be seen in connection to Latin American immigration. Under this administration, southern border security was prioritized over providing aid to Latin American countries that failed to "stem the outflow of northbound migrants.(McDonnel, NPR)"
In both cases, the Trump administration adopted a hard approach that has lasting repercussions for the Biden administration.
To be fair, it is a document aimed specifically at domestic terrorism, so it makes sense that details about foreign terror assistance would be left out. How lasting do you think that those repercussions will be, as Biden sets out to reverse most of what Trump has done?
To be fair, it is a document aimed specifically at domestic terrorism, so it makes sense that details about foreign terror assistance would be left out. How lasting do you think that those repercussions will be, as Biden sets out to reverse most of what Trump has done?
Even with domestic terrorism, international actors need to be included as there are global support networks for domestic terrorists. Having some level of international collaboration is necessary. I’m not exactly sure how lasting these repercussions will be. While I can’t speak on terrorism, immigration advocacy groups were already planning courses of action based on Biden’s election promises. As a result, they’re currently swamped with migrants and low on aid/support due to “jumping the gun” so to speak. With this level of swiftness in mind, I would guess that these next 4 years will be spent attempting to mitigate this issue.
I liked that the document wasted no time making an example of ISIS' online/media presence as a tool for radicalization and recruitment. This avenue for recruitment strikes me as something of a given within the United States. However, in states like China where information is not as freely and readily available to the average person, there is less room for the state to fall back on curtailing such methods. That is to say, in a state where the flow of information is already standardized and restricted, information used by extremist groups is already moving underground, whereas in a more open society that information may first show itself on the surface web, for example, rather than being moved to a darknet. It'll be interesting to consider how states that govern differently may approach this problem differently.
This was a very fascinating read. I have to say, much like Eric—I too had difficulty trying to relate terrorism to my specialty (European environmental/climate change policy). However, the nexus between climate change and terrorism might not necessarily be so far apart. As climate and weather patterns shift, the resulting environmental crisis could arguably be leveraged as a tool for terror and political violence. Globally, environmental stress due to unpredictable weather catalyzes political violence which further undermines already weak governments. In the United States specifically, environmental crisis could be considered a “threat multiplier” that could enable terrorism, overwhelm response capabilities, and threaten populations and critical infrastructure.
The emerging threat is not about eco-terrorism (a term used to describe acts of violence in support of ecological or environmental causes). Rather, there is a growing potential for vulnerable ecosystems to be exploited or destroyed as a means to intimidate or provoke a state of terror in the general public for a political, ideological, or philosophical agenda. Severe drought as a result of climatic weather shifts raises vulnerability of water systems as reservoirs continue to dry up. As global fresh water supplies become increasingly scarce, extremist groups are stepping up attacks and manipulating supply as a strategic tactic of coercion.
This could also be applied to the wildfires specifically here in the U.S. The exposure of U.S. communities to wildfire makes wildfire a potentially potent weapon for economic warfare and mass destruction. One military officer wrote in his 2005 thesis titled “PYRO-TERRORISM—THE THREAT OF ARSON INDUCED FOREST FIRES AS A FUTURE TERRORIST WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION”: “An opportunistic terrorist can unleash multiple fires creating a conflagration potentially equal to a multi-megaton nuclear weapon.” Wildfires can have a profoundly negative effect on a region’s economy: the damage from California’s 2018 conflagrations is estimated at $400 billion.
Although it is not easy to relate to our specialties, I like that it caused me to think more about it until I could draw some lines between the two. It feels like a puzzle and I tend to enjoy it. I'm glad you were able to find a way to connect it to yours and make such a good post.
I thought the article was insightful to see Trump's policy preferences regarding terrorism. In regards to Russia, the Kremlin has long abused its expansive definition of terrorism for political persons, accusing those they believe to be enemies of the state as terrorists. I think Russia could learn from the US and adopt a more thorough and detailed plan to stop terrorism. Secondly, Russia has relatively few terrorist attacks but is involved around the world providing arms or backing various countries/groups in conflicts. Thus, I think for National Strategy on Counterterrorism to be effective, there needs to be actionable steps and policies put in place to hold other countries accountable in stopping terrorism.
I fully agree to this when National Strategy needs actionable steps in policies to hold other countries responsible, however don't we stop trade with any terror organizations and look down upon countries that may have an impact domestically?
"We must seek partners, not perfectection - and to make allies of all who share our goals. Accordingly, from civil society and state, local, tribal, and territorial governments to private sector partners and foreign allies, the full range of our partnerships must be enhanced to effectively prevent and counter terrorist activities" - Former President Donald Trump.
This document provides a clear outline of the strategy the US has employed since 2018, and could not be more different from the approach China has used to combat terrorism in its western Xinjiang province. China largely sees it's terrorism problem as a home-grown issue and has not yet released any comprehensive strategy similar to the National Strategy for Counterterrorism (Bellacqua and Tanner, 2016). China has however shown signs that it is strengthening its approach to terrorism through various speeches by Chinese President Xi Jinping to the Politburo, the principal policy-making body of the CCP.
Regarding the NSCT, it highlights several objectives that China is less than willing to adopt, including building a holistic picture of terrorists' identities and establishing a broad range of counterterrorism partnerships abroad. China has no publically available, clear definition of what a terrorist is or what actions constitute terrorism. China's current Counterterrorism Law, passed in 2015, partially defines terrorist behavior or activities that advocate terrorism. These can include anything from posting an Islamic prayer online or having an Islamic-traditional long beard, things that are not labelled terrorist activities by international institutions (Bellacqua and Tanner, 2016).
Because China sees it's terrorism problem as a domestic affair, it does not share its strategies with the international community and does not seek to build broad anti-terror partnerships with foreign nations, as the NSCT highlights several times. China does cooperate with the US and its allies on combating international funding of terrorist groups such as; safeguarding ports, hindering international trafficking of materials, and money-laundering. One aspect of the NSCT that China does fully employ is an integration of federal, state, and local counter-terrorism information sharing. Recent partnerships in this regard are the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the Regional Anti-Terror Structure, which share information about ISIS and suspected Uyghur terrorists in Xinjiang and across mainland China (Bellacqua and Tanner, 2016).
Until China provides a clear outline of its approach to counterterrorism, the international community will continue to question its approach to Xinjiang terrorist activities. China could better coordinate its strategy with the international community and prevent further radicalization in Xinjiang by employing international standards and practices, without potential human rights abuses against the Uyghur population.
Bellacqua, James & Tanner, Murray (2016). China's Response to Terrorism. US.
China Economic and Security Review Commission. 4-182.
Very well written! I agree with you that China needs to come up with any comprehensive strategy to go against terrorism in their country.
These sections of the NSCT document provide the framework for identifying and locating known/ potential terrorist threats to the US. "We will enhance the collection, discovery, and exploitation of identity information supporting the counterterrorism mission, particularly biometric data. We will also identify and use other categories of identity information, including publicly available information, financial intelligence, and captured enemy material" (NSCT, 2018). While this sounds similar to China's identification of terrorists in Xinjiang, the two countries could not take a more different approach.
China is known to use surveillance to monitor and restrict certain ideologies from popping up in the mainland. Beijing extended this practice to Hong Kong, one of two SAR's, after the 2019 National Security Law went into effect. Where the US does not see political discourse and disagreement as terrorism, China does. Local authorities in Xinjiang have detained up to 1.5 million Uyghurs on grounds of suspected terrorism, although there is no official number from the CCP. It is a hard argument for China to make that everyone in the Xinjiang camps are suspected terrorists, but their definition of a terrorist is still shrouded in ambiguity.
This is a serious issue. China surveilles their population way too much. It is an encroachment on their citizens' right to privacy. It is sad that they see differing opinions and dissent as terrorism and try to remove anyone that disagrees with them. Terrorism should have a clear definition so that things like this can come to an end.
This sounds similar to Russia. The state uses its counterterrorism legislation against its political opposition. The state has also applied the term terrorist to independent media and religious organizations, even Jehovah's Witnesses who clearly denounce all violence. I don't know how it would happen, but something needs to be done to stop the criminalization of the freedoms of religion, expression, association, etc. under the counterterrorism umbrella.
I said something similar for my post: China is the poster child for wielding counterterrorism policies as just one more tool of state control over dissenting views. I think its an overarching theme that you and I will keep coming back to this month.
While reading pages 1-11 of the NSCT document, three sentences stuck out to me regarding my field of international affairs with a South American Specialization. The first was "Our borders and all ports of entry into the United States are secure against terrorist threats”. This is rather good for the United States but bad for South American illegal trading. Due to the United States past of not being secure in our ports, many Latin American gangs would send illegal drugs through ports. Now that port entries are going to be more secure against terrorist threats it's also possible that there will be a shortage of drugs which is good for American citizens.
The second sentence that stuck out to me was “Foreign partners address terrorist threats so that these threats do not jeopardize the collective interests of the United States and our partners”. This is great because this creates a global unity against any terrorist organizations. However, with many Latin American countries, the governments are corrupt and a lot of the time gangs and or terrorist groups run the countries internally. People in Latin American countries may want to go against terrorist groups but can't due to government circumstances.
Lastly, “Public sector partners, private sector partners, and foreign partners take a greater role in preventing and countering terrorism". This stuck out to me because its stating that leaders in other countries need to be leaders and go against terrorist organizations. Historically, Latin American countries are known to have corrupt leaders because they are influenced by money from gangs or terrorist organizations. This states that leaders need to take a stand and fight for their countries.
Yeah, Latin American countries do have unfortunate levels of corruption...while it would be an overly broad and silly question to ask "how do you think they can clean their situation up", I am legitimately curious about anticorruption efforts in Latin America, particularly in Brazil under Bolsonaro.
The charts on page13 express the strategic goals of the US in its fight against terrorism and defines ideal end-states by which we can determine if those goals are being met, while pages 15-18 identifies known current terrorist threats to the US and/or Europe, with an overwhelming focus on Islamic terrorism and its sources (Iranian funding, currently active groups, the utility of the current migrant waves to Europe, etc). The obvious connection between today's selection and my specialty is the Chinese methodology/approach to identifying terrorism, which is (as I and several other interns have pointed out) to simply label any ideology or group that the CCP doesn't like as fitting the bill, from expressions of culture by Uyghur Muslims or protests in Hong Kong. In addition, I was interested to note that despite being aimed specifically at countering terrorism in the US, the document did take the time to discuss the situation of our allies (the identification of danger to European countries via mass migration allowing terrorists to infiltrate, “Foreign partners address terrorist threats so that these threats do not jeopardize the collective interests of the United States and our partners”, etc).
It is sad that if the CCP doesn't like a group they label them as terrorists. Citizens should be allowed to express their disagreement with the government in peaceful ways. The United States had marches all across the country for the Black Lives Matter movement. I believe one of the reasons that the protests in Hong Kong turn into riots is because the police provoke and attack protestors. If the government were to let people express their opinions, it would be in a less aggressive manner. Instead China uses tear gas and paint to mark protestors for later arrests. I also like that you touched on how it mentions our allies. It is important for allies to support one another as much as possible and combine our efforts against threats like terrorism.
I liked your point about the need of mutual cooperation between states to hinder terrorist organizations. China employs the 'go-it-alone' strategy and has faced much backlash from the international community over its handling of Xinjiang. Until China can coordinate and cooperate with international standards and practices for combating terrorism, it will continue to receive criticism and accusations of human rights abuses.
I think that boiling down the idea of how China views terrorists to those the CCP "doesn't like" is not looking away from the mindset that the CCP labels people terrorists. The CCP are looking less for groups that are perceived as being against "public peace". The CCP view the minority populations as a threat to the peace within a culturally homogenous China. The goal of using force on the Uyghur population is to allow for that portion of China to become more homogenous and less independent. In comparison to Hong Kong which at the moment is being coaxed back into becoming a regular part of China and not a separate entity like it was in the past. The CCP and China as a whole has a very different perception of a terrorist then the US and other western countries and until the CCP changes its view on terrorism then China will not change its' view.
State sponsored terrorism is not something that we can support. Being Jewish, I can draw a very real connection to this. Israel is always struggling with Palestinian state sponsored terrorists. When you hear about terrorism you think that it is just radicalized people that want to harm others. When I heard that a state was funding them and giving money to their families when they died it disgusted me. "Iran remains the most prominent state sponsor of terrorism, supporting militant and terrorist groups across the Middle East and cultivating a network of operatives that pose a threat in the United States and globally." I understand that we want to protect the United States most of all, and the idea is that going abroad to fight in other countries is not ideal. I think that it is important that we do what we can to prevent these militants from ever entering the United States. We should also be able to go abroad to deal with countries that want to support terrorism. We should try and deal with the problem before it arrives at our shores. Whether it be through sanctions or military intervention, I truly believe it is in our country's best interest to deal with this before it gets out of control.
I agree that prevention is preferable to reaction, but I question the effectiveness of military intervention when it comes to stopping terrorism.
Afghanistan's Taliban once sheltered Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, but the US still finds itself in the "graveyard of empires" long after the death of Osama and the sidelining of his group. After nearly 20 years of fighting, and though troop numbers are lower than ever, the US is still having to negotiate with the Taliban if it is going to maintain any hope of leaving.
The regional chaos brought on by the invasion of Iraq had the opposite effect of stopping terrorism - it allowed it to proliferate. Besides the Sunni and Shi'a militias that rose and fell over the years, the collapse of the Iraqi state (authoritarian as it might have been) led to the eventual rise of ISIS.
I find it difficult to believe that direct military action against Iran would have any effects other than providing more impetus for more regional instability and further radicalization.
Prevention of terrorism, especially state-sponsored, is very important and would be the most ideal outcome. However, like @Griffen Ballenger I question using military intervention. For example, the killing of Soleimani exponentially increased the tensions between the US and Iran with Iran promising revenge. This extrajudicial act likely violated international law. At what point does the US pass limit "police the world" while fighting against terrorism?
I see your point, especially dealing with Israel and Palestine, it's a rock and a hard place. I wonder how we may deal with the problem overseas without brewing resentment and building ourselves a reputation as an occupational force. I'm not sure anybody wins with military action. However, international affairs isn't a zero-sum game, so I may have to eat my hat here.
Russia's terrorism policy is extremely feeble and rests upon the state's self-interest. Russia has been a major power broker in the Middle East, especially since Trump withdrew most of the US troops. The section on page 16 about "Counter Existing and Emerging Terrorist Funding Methods" stood out to me. Moscow wants to gain power and money, and it doesn't really matter to them how they get it. Russia has been supporting the Assad regime in Syria and is the second largest arms exporter after the US. Also, in the fight against ISIS, Russia has shared intelligence with the Taliban. Arguably, despite ISIS' global ambitions and brutality, the Taliban is a greater threat to Afghanistan. It is highly unlikely will undertake better counterterrorism policies because it would not serve their interests.
It amazes me that, given what you said, Russia has not been designated as a state sponsor of terrorism since they share intelligence with the Taliban.
I'm glad that you noted Russia and the implication of governments acting in self-interest. I wonder what future problems will occur for Russia as a result of "playing for both sides?" Seeing this occur in countries would make it difficult to collaborate on counterterrorism efforts if each party knows whats truly guiding the other.
In the context of my specialty, I'm looking forward to reading further into this document, in hopes that a few points made in today's section will be elaborated on further. The document makes a few points toward the end of today's section regarding identity information and data collection, while mentioning maintaining a respect for individual rights a few paragraphs later. I'll start to sound like a broken record if I continue to bring up Xinjiang and China's loosely applied definition of terrorism, however I think this brings up an interesting comparison between China and the U.S. While the U.S. doesn't have China's track record of using terrorist labels as an excuse for to carry out unlawful and inhumane detention and imprisonment, at the Party level, China's objectives are much more static. As a one-party state, the Party agenda in China in terms of terrorism has remained mostly unchanged, while the objectives of the "ruling" party in the U.S. change to some degree with every midterm, and every four to eight years in the most extreme circumstance. This presents an interesting balancing game, in my opinion. As a state that has concerns in both counter-terrorism AND individual liberty, as well as a government composed of more moving parts than that of a one-China state, how can the U.S. most effectively ensure that individual citizens remain protected from the misuse of tools committed to counter-terrorism? For example, from the Obama administration to the Trump administration, the attitude and discourse surround protesters, whether they be politically charged, socially charged, etc, changed radically. President Trump took a much more open and outspoken stance on protests than his predecessor. I hope that as this document progresses it will address how the American system of checks and balances will ensure that the individual can be protected from the misuse of counter-terrorist tools by an extremely dynamic and fluid state.
Pages 13-18 of the NSCT offer some crucial points in not only U.S. strategy for counterterrorism, but how it relates to our allies. For instance, pg 13 states U.S. strategic objectives for counterterrorism along with the lines of effort in which they’re carried out. I think this is one of the most helpful pieces of information to include with an article like this when a president is articulating a national strategy—specifically one for counterterrorism.
In terms of how it relates to our allies, I don’t think a lot of people would be opposed to helping our allies either preemptively or in the case of a terrorist attack, especially if it was a matter of national security and was in our own interests to ‘nip it in the bud’ in order to protect American lives.
More specifically, I want to note what was said on pg 16-17. “There is also a broad range of revolutionary, nationalist, and separatist movements overseas whose use of violence and intent to destabilize societies often puts American lives at risk. For example, the Nordic Resistance Movement is a prominent transnational, self-described nationalist-socialist organization with anti-Western views that has conducted violent attacks against Muslims, left-wing groups, and others. The group has demonstrated against United States Government actions it perceives are supportive of Israel and has the potential to extend its targeting to United States interests. Similarly, the neo-Nazi National Action Group, a terrorist organization that was banned by the United Kingdom in 2016 for its promotion of violence against politicians and minorities, operates mainly in the United Kingdom but has engaged with like-minded groups in the United States, Estonia, France, Germany, Latvia, and Poland—expanding the potential influence of its violent ideology. Such groups may avoid or deprioritize targeting United States interests for now to avoid detracting from their core goals but frequently conduct assassinations and bombings against major economic, political, and social targets, heightening the risk to United States personnel and interests overseas.”
There is no question this is problematic, but I think this also only highlights the importance of taking action against domestic terrorism or terrorism abroad facing our allies. The Trump administration adopted a hard approach to terrorism and I think it will be interesting to see what approach the Biden administration adopts, specifically in terms of Iran-U.S. relations (given that Iran remains the most prominent state sponsor of terrorism).
I would like to specifically talk about how well organized this plan is. International terrorism has an influence on radicals in every country and even in America. Many forms of recruitment are through forums online. In 2005 alone there were well over 4000 websites which were about recruitment (Waskiewicz 2). On page 8 of the document it states "al-Qa'ida's global network remains resilient and poses an enduring threat to the homeland and United States interests around the world. " which is primarily internet based. When it comes to my specialty in Defense Innovation, my thoughts are to create R&D defense strategies to mitigate any problems that arise when it comes to financial instability due to an attack. From a homeland security perspective, creating departments to help combat the terrorism forums and recruitment websites is crucial. Some dangerous people like Abu Khalid Abdul Latif who was going to bomb a Seattle Military Facility. When it comes to stopping things from happening in regards to terrorists, cyber security and operations are highly valuable.
Read more on the beginning involvements of terrorism when online forums and YouTube was big on recruitment in the link below.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-112hhrg74647/html/CHRG-112hhrg74647.htm
On page 13 this statement stood out to me the most, "Overseas, they thrive in countries with weak governments and where disenfranchised populations are vulnerable to terrorists' destructive and misinformed narratives, and they are adaptive in the face of pressure from countries with strong governments". In South America, there are three main terrorist organizations: "Two Colombian guerrilla groups—the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the National Liberation Army (ELN)—and one Peruvian guerrilla group, the Shining Path (SL)". In Columbia, these two terrorist organizations have been doing unexplainable acts since the 1940's due to the communism that occurred in the past. Columbia has had a history of not having a strong government and it being very corrupt. Around 2016, the Colombian government has tried to get these terrorist organizations under control and are still trying to till this day. In Peru, the Shining Path terrorist organization began in the 1970's due to the split of the communist party. Again, the government wasn't strong and in Peru the government is very corrupt. Not much is sad about what the Peruvian government is doing about this terrorist organization. However, I do agree with Former President Trump's statement up above because these Latin American countries show that terrorist organizations do "thrive on weak governments".
Nvm Got it. Thanks
Reading pages 13-18 I found it focused on the strategies that the United States use in countering terrorism. However, the United States is still at great risk of a terrorist attack because of the increasing technologies and networks that terrorists are employing in order to generate an attack. The United states is at risk of an attack by Al-Qaeda and ISIS, as these two groups have made it clear that they can and will generate an attack on the U.S. As mentioned terrorist groups “ stoke and exploit weak governance, conflict, instability,...” this is especially true nowadays because of the COVID-19 pandemic. I have posted a few articles on the impact of the pandemic on terrorism and there is fear that an attack might take place. This is because the U.S. and the whole world is focused on containing the virus and creating a more stable life for people. As a result, I think this is a great opportunity for radicals to generate an attack especially when people have their guards down.
Looking at page 13 is very interesting especially with a view at China and how it sees terror. With the People's Republic of China being a newer entity on the world stage the idea of terrorism and the perception around terrorism is different then those around it. With the CCP viewing terrorism as anything that threatens national security or causes unrest within China. With how the CCP has been suppressing anti-CCP groups that go against the CCP and their view of how China should be it will be interesting to see how China evolves its perspective. Because right now they are doing what the United States is doing only with different groups looking down the barrel.