Terrorism at Capitol - Greatest Danger Is From Small Groups or Even Individuals Who Are Attracted To Violence
By
Martha Crenshaw
Feb. 10,
2021
In the
aftermath of the assault on the Capitol, much of the nation’s attention was
focused on “why.” But another question is equally important: “What next?”
The problem
the authorities faced on Jan. 6 was not an inability to respond, but failure to
anticipate the threat. Going forward, counterterrorism efforts should emphasize
connecting the dots in the far-right extremist universe — not a simple task,
given the dispersed and fast-moving nature of the threat. I have studied
terrorism for well over 40 years; we can draw lessons from experiences around
the world to consider both what might happen if the far-right groups that shook
Washington turn to terrorism, and how we react if they do.
Capitol Hill: Photo Courtesy New York Times
-----
To begin
with, it is unlikely those who promoted the Jan. 6 assault will ever again draw
such impressive crowds into the streets. Followers are likely to be intimidated
by the prospect of punishment or disillusioned by failure and a sense of
abandonment. The chaotic assault on the Capitol may have exceeded the bounds of
tolerance of even the most ardent “Stop the Steal” loyalists. Their fervour may
dissipate, especially if those elites in power who called for confrontation
switch course or stay quiet.
But the
true believers who remain after mass action recedes will likely grow even more
intolerant, rigid and inclined to see traitors at every turn. Any cooperation
on President Biden’s agenda will be interpreted as selling out.
Newcomers
to the cause, intoxicated by the breaking of powerful taboos, may reinforce
violent far right groups in a shifting dynamic of radicalization. Struggles for
power within this far-right, white supremacist, neo-Nazi milieu would intensify
the volatility and unpredictability of the threat.
One
consideration for the authorities is how much further divorced from reality
these groups may become. When groups move underground under pressure from
security forces, they become more clandestine by necessity. Cut off from
outside contact, they enter a subjective reality, much like an end-of-the-world
cult.
As Leon
Festinger wrote in “When Prophecy Fails,” published in 1956, the reaction of an
end-of-the-world cult to the abject failure of their predictions is not to
alter their beliefs according to the reality in front of them; it is to
reinforce convictions and proselytize even more. These groups become paranoid
about security, trust fewer people and rely exclusively on their comrades for
psychological reassurance. Groups are also more likely than individuals to take
risks.
Among the
die-hards who remain convinced that the election results were fraudulent and
that overthrowing the government is morally justified, the most dangerous are
those experienced in violence. Scholars who analysed the terrorist groups that
emerged in the wake of the left-wing student, labour and war protests of the
late 1960s and 1970s (such as the Red Brigades in Italy) found that their
members were likely to be people who used violence in protests or who resisted
arrest.
Many of
those leading the charge at the Capitol are already well acquainted with
violent tactics and the guns that go with them. The Oath Keepers attract people
with military or police training. Proud Boys, Three Percenters, the Base, the
Rise above Movement and other far-right radicals are, or can easily be, well
armed. The sheer availability of weaponry in the United States increases the
risk of terrorism. Terrorist groups in other democracies have usually scrambled
to find weapons; the Irish Republican Army in Northern Ireland, for instance,
had to resort to getting arms from Libya.
A movement,
driven underground and shorn of its more moderate elements, may seek methods of
amplifying its message and heightening conflict. And at its most basic,
terrorism is violent communication and an economical form of violence. It
requires only a modest deployment of effort and resources to achieve a large
psychological shock effect. The act itself communicates a message.
Terrorism
can also provoke retaliation — which might involve government repression or
even exactly the sort of race war or apocalyptic conflict some far-right
militants seek. The political scientist Ian Lustick once described one form of
terrorism as “solipsistic” violence intended to excite the faithful, not
terrify the enemy. The question is how to prevent an endless spiral of violence
generated by radicalization and counter mobilisation.
The
substrate from which terrorism blossoms, though, is verbal and visual
communication. Technology enables the far-right and conspiracist world to
communicate remotely, binding together the movement, but also increasing
distrust and fear of infiltration. The result is that democracies must search
for ways to combat propaganda and disinformation and to make it harder to
recruit and raise funds.
As a
result, governments and private enterprises such as Facebook and Twitter have
responded to online appeals for violence by restricting extremists’ ability to
communicate. There are precedents for suppression; the British government, for
example, at one point tried to keep the I.R.A. off radio and television.
But in
democracies such restrictions come up against rules and norms protecting
freedom of speech, association and assembly, so countermeasures that restrict
access to communication or outlaw particular groups are predictably
contentious, adding to distrust of government. This paradox is faced by all
democracies.
As such,
this is not just a question for the Biden administration. Spectacular terrorist
attacks attract imitators elsewhere. This trend is related to “lone wolf”
terrorism — when individuals act without the logistical support of a group. But
these “lone” terrorists often consider themselves as members of a group, act in
the name of a shared global ideology and encourage others to follow their
example.
Over the
past decade such a chain of linked mass-casualty attacks extended from Norway
to to New Zealand. If it becomes harder to coordinate organized terrorism,
individual zealots may replace groups, and individual attacks are harder to
prevent than group-organized violence. It is difficult, for instance, for the
prosecution to prove that a conspiracy exists when a group does the planning,
but impossible if the individual was motivated by online manifestoes.
Our preoccupation
since the Sept. 11 attacks with the Islamist and jihadist threat may have
blinded us to the fact that terrorism can start at home, with familiar
ideologies. How to react when the terrorists are not “other” but part of us?
In the
1990s an Israeli political scientist, Ehud Sprinzak, wrote about a “crisis of
legitimacy” at the heart of domestic terrorism. He pointed to a long process of
erosion of governing structures and prevailing social and political norms that
precedes terrorism. A crisis of the legitimacy of democratic institutions aptly
describes what the United States faces now, but the crisis need not culminate
in terrorism if we understand how it happens.
Policymakers
must resist demands for rapid, all-encompassing solutions. What is required is
thoughtful consideration of our response options in light of the evidence we
have in front of us. Let us not forget that actions taken in the immediate
aftermath of a catastrophe are often driven more by emotion than by rational
calculation. And that once taken, they are hard to reverse.
The
greatest danger is from small groups or even individuals who are attracted to
violence, well-armed and motivated to act out of ideological conviction,
commitment to defending a shared identity, and fear of irrelevance. An
important step in restoring democratic legitimacy will be when the community
that they claim to represent rejects them.
-----
Martha
Crenshaw is a senior fellow emerita at the Freeman Spogli Institute for
International Studies at Stanford and a professor emerita at Wesleyan
University.
Original
Headline: I’ve Studied Terrorism for Over 40 Years. Let’s Talk About What Comes
Next.
Source: The New York Times
New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African
Muslim News, Arab World
News, South Asia
News, Indian Muslim
News, World Muslim
News, Women in
Islam, Islamic
Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia
in America, Muslim Women
in West, Islam Women
and Feminism