With the dusk of the Global War on Terror, the United States now faces a resurgence of domestic terrorist groups. Terrorist groups in the United States have qualities that make them harder to defeat. However, the United States can utilize the lessons learned in the previous war to defeat this old enemy.
By Terence Hui
Introduction
January 6th, 2021, a date as infamous as December 7th and September, 11th. While the other dates mark attacks from foreign agents, January 6th was particularly special due to its attackers being American citizens. While Pearl Harbor and the Twin Tower attacks united the nation against the common enemy, the attack on the Capitol divided the country. The United States government is beginning to take these threats seriously with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) labeling far-right extremists as the most significant domestic terrorist threat. However, the effort to pursue such groups has been overly lax. The United States should utilize counterterrorism tactics utilized against Foreign Terrorist organizations (FTOs) such as ISIS or Al Qaeda against dangerous extremist groups.
Lincoln once said that “a house divided against itself cannot stand. “Three years after that speech, extremists declared secession from the Union. For virtually all of modern US history, the possibility of a second American Civil War sounded absurd to us. However, according to YouGov America, about 43% of Americans believe that a second American Civil War is likely. Another 62% of Americans predict that political violence will increase in the future. These fears are not unfounded as there are expected to be 488 anti-government groups operating in the United States as of 2021. Furthermore, anti-government incidents such as the planned kidnapping of Michigan governor Whitmer drove fear into the United States. With the size and rhetoric of these groups, the American government must start pursuing these groups with more zeal.
Difficulties of Domestic Counterinsurgency
1. Decentralization
There are three key issues that make going after domestic terrorism so difficult in the United States: the decentralized nature, legality, and political climate. Utilizing the attack on the U.S. Capitol as an example, there were over a dozen organizations that were involved in the attacks, expanding from hate groups such as the NSC-131 to anti-government militias such as the Oathkeepers. Arie Perliger, an extremist researcher, notes that all the groups were motivated by a similar goal to “disrupt, to dismantle, to undermine the capabilities of the federal government.” The decentralized nature, described as leaderless resistance, is similar to the cell system utilized by other terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda. The cell system itself was an effective system of evading enemies, as it allows for flexible operations but it also ensures that lower leadership does not compromise the wider group. What is more frustrating about domestic terrorism, was that while Al-Qaeda cells were still united by top leadership, the groups in the United States organize as groups united in an ideological coalition. Kathleen Belew, a professor studying the white-power movement, notes that this decentralized nature is by design, “the aim of leaderless resistance is to prevent the infiltration of groups, and the prosecution of organizations and individuals, by formally dissociating activists from each other and by eliminating official orders.” This issue is further propagated with the emergence of lone wolf attacks, incidents that are difficult to detect by law enforcement.
2. Legal Constraints
Another issue with domestic counterterrorism is the constraints the justice system has placed on the prosecution. The most obvious legal issue brought up by most scholars is the issue of the First Amendment. When it comes to extremism, there has always been a fuzzy line to what constitutes free speech. The Department of Justice (DoJ) has noted that stopping the recruitment of terrorists online is difficult with their need to uphold the First Amendment. While the issue of the First Amendment is important, I believe the larger issue is the hurdles placed against prosecutors of domestic terrorism. Using January 6 as an example again, out of 910 participants who were arrested, only about 80 were sentenced to incarceration, with the median sentencing time being 45 days. To put this in perspective, the average sentence for federal drug possession is about 5 years. Federal Judges have pushed for harsher sentences for the attackers, however, the prosecution has often sought misdemeanor charges such as “parading, demonstrating or picketing inside the Capitol building.” There is a connection between leniency and the fuzzy classification of domestic terrorism.
U.S. Constitution Art. III, Section 3, Cl. 1, says that “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.” Key legal terms to pick out of this phrase are “levying war” and “adhering to their Enemies.” Levying war, as interpreted by Chief Justice John Marshall, revolves around action and no action. He claims that conspiracy to levy war against the United States is not a legal basis for treason. Levying war is “if a body of men be actually assembled for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable purpose, all those who perform any part.” The other problematic phrase, “adhering to their Enemies,” is similarly vague. What constitutes an “enemy” of the United States? According to 50 USCS § 2204, an enemy of the United States is a “country, government, group, or person that has been engaged in hostilities, whether or not lawfully authorized, with the United States.” There have been many interpretations of what this could mean. For instance, retired officers John Nagl and Paul Yngling have interpreted this to mean those who violate the norms of the constitution, including former President Donald Trump. However, James Joyner, Professor at the Marine Corp University, argues that it is the power of the executive and legislative to define who are the enemies. The final nail in the coffin is the two-witness rule, which requires two witnesses to the same overt act to convict a person of treason. The rule is further complicated by the 5th Amendment, which makes it harder for witnesses to testify especially if they themselves were involved with the conspiracy. This breeds a culture of risk aversion for prosecutors.
3. Political Climate
The final issue with combatting domestic terrorism in the United States is the political climate of the United States. After the January 6 attacks, despite prominent republicans denouncing the insurrection, such as Mitch McConnell, the GOP has become hostile to the investigation. Conservative outlets have described the investigation and trials as “Nancy Pelosi’s witch hunt.” Others call the attack “legitimate political discourse” and have begun censuring lawmakers who denounce the insurrection. Daryl Johnson, a former Homeland Security analyst, has noted that there was a “political backlash to the label “right-wing extremism.” So controversial was Johnson’s report, that Republican lawmakers demanded that the recommendation be rescinded from Homeland Security. David Leonhart blames this increasing radicalization on not only the growing radical ranks among the Republican party but the increasing disconnect between government policy and the citizens. Leonhart directly blames the low living standards on the increased frustration with government policy which pushes individuals to radical extremism.
Solutions
The Stick:
The simple key to thwarting domestic terrorism in the United States is for the government to treat these groups as terrorist organizations, no different from Al Qaeda. Our strategy to defeat terrorism in the United States should be no different from counterinsurgency (COIN) strategies in the Middle East. The tactics, however, should not utilize the abrasive nature of former COIN operations, rather should attempt to utilize carrot and stick to win hearts and minds.
Starting with the stick, the United States government will need to stop playing a passive role when it comes to domestic terrorism and become more aggressive. The government will need to utilize its legislative, economic, and military power.
In regards to legislation, lawmakers will need to amend the sins of the founding fathers and begin ratifying laws that would impose harsher penalties on domestic terrorism. Individual terrorists must be punished with long prison sentences, larger fines, etc. While law enforcement has been placing more resources into counter-extremism in the United States, it will be futile if the penalties are not harsh enough. The first step will be the clarification of treason, and tying it to domestic terrorism. By the interpretation of many policymakers, domestic terrorists are enemies of the United States, the issue currently is the culture of risk aversion for prosecutions. With a proper and clear definition, prosecutors will become bold to bring charges against terrorists. Lawmakers could also open the gates to ensure financial penalties are placed on the groups.
Economics is one of the most underlooked aspects of counterinsurgency, however, also one of its most successful. For example, one of the most successful anti-terror campaigns in the United States was conducted by the Internal Revenue Service. The IRS managed to dismantle the KKK in the 40s on back taxes, which devastated the group. Going after the finances and property of known members will deter further members from committing acts of terrorism. The biggest advantage the United States has against domestic terrorism is that the government can track the funds of groups and individuals with more ease compared to foreign targets. The government should utilize this advantage to cripple the terrorist’s support base.
Under the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, the United States military (with the exception of the National Guard) is prohibited from launching domestic counterterrorism operations. So when I say military power, I imply the use of force from law enforcement and federal agents. Nevertheless, aggressive tactics utilized by the military should be adopted by law enforcement to counter domestic terrorism. The biggest strength of domestic terrorism is its decentralized nature, however, it could also be its biggest weakness. Throughout its history, the KKK has been torn up inside by internal fighting between small groups. The government should begin playing these groups off one another by utilizing infiltration to sow discord, deliberately arresting certain individuals to break the chain of command, leaking information, etc.
The increase in intensity against domestic terrorism will however come with issues. With the cases of David Leonhart and the January 6th committee, there was a political backlash. There is also a risk of the intensity driving disgruntled citizens further into extremism, with the groups painting themselves as martyrs and fueling their anti-government ideology. The solution to this issue would be incentives to stay away from those groups, the carrot.
The Carrot:
Arie Kruglanski notes that the road to radicalization first starts with grievances. These grievances could include injustice, inequality, discrimination, or an identity vacuum. Counterinsurgency should aim to remove these grievances by investing in the community of those prone to domestic terrorism.
Meredith LeAnn Lerma found that there is a positive correlation between “higher unemployment rates and the likelihood of violent far-right extremist incidents in a county.” Similar to how the United States modernized in Afghanistan, the United States should begin investing in its own economic development. The best way the United States could improve its economic growth is by investing in its infrastructure, which many economists credit to economic growth. Furthermore, there is a current lack of social mobility within the United States, causing further grievances. Economists have pointed to an investment in education and housing to help upward mobility in the populace. Education will also destroy the mythos terrorist groups often create to lure members to their cause, further isolating these groups.
The issue with economic investment is rallying the political support behind it. President Joe Biden’s most recent economic plan was met with dissent both from the GOP and within its own party. Furthermore, economic investments could be viewed with suspicion by some radical groups, especially those with anti-government sentiments. These problems are linked to the increased polarization of politics in recent years and will need to be solved through concessions and reconciliation.
Conclusion
Domestic terrorism is a uniquely difficult problem in the United States, due to legal hesitance, political climate, and enemy decentralized leadership. However, the biggest reason why it was allowed to grow was due to a history of frivolous attitudes. With the attack on the Capitol, policymakers are beginning to take the threat more seriously, but have yet to treat the threat as they would treat Foreign Terrorist Organizations. The United States is currently embattled with a growing insurgency within its borders, and it’s up to policymakers to contain this threat.
Comentarios