Modern Domestic Terrorism Threats in America and an Exploration in Counterterrorism Solutions

“Their state rejects peace as a matter of principle; that it hungers

for genocide; that its religious views make it constitutionally incapable of

certain types of change, even if that change might ensure its survival; and

that it considers itself a harbinger of—and headline player in—the

imminent end of the world.” (Wood 2)

Introduction 

Violent ideological groups, lone wolves, and domestic actors comprise some of the main threats to U.S. national security today, varying between leader-led and leaderless structures of an organization. In some cases, a combination of all three exists, such as a group of independent lone wolves radicalized by extremist groups residing in the U.S., having found a belief system over chat rooms on the internet, as the story so often goes. 

As Bergen and Sterman described, individuals with easy access to guns and other weapons “radicalized by a diverse array of ideologies absorbed by the internet” have been deemed the main terrorist threat in the United States in modern times (1).

Additional factors like political pressures and divisive content agitate brewing tensions; online communications have enabled a cross-pollination of conflicts and rivaling opinions resulting in increased violence worldwide (Bergen and Sterman 2). 

The Threats

Violent ideological groups are as much a threat because of their religion of violence as the deep, near-unbreakable bonds the groups form. The lone wolf and domestic actors are essentially benign threats without devotion to an ideological belief system that supports violence and encourages and rewards it. “Over the past couple of years, groups such as IS and Al-Qaeda have turned to the Internet as a recruitment tool, presenting their ideology in often fairly slick packaging” (Stern 2010). It is essential to bring attention to the delineation between peaceful and violent ideologies because allowing the freedom to possess different beliefs is vital to any democratic society. Particularly in the United States, a country founded on such principles. As Bergen described, the deep social bonds developed by members of terror networks played a more critical role in influencing devotion to a cause than the belief in the ideology in itself (51). This provides a segway into the cases of the lone actors emerging as a modern domestic threat on American soil, as they are often American citizens. Vulnerable individuals susceptible to radicalization either discover such communities online or are targeted by a member of a terrorist group. 

A particular challenge to the threat of the lone wolf is their ability to be invisible from a governmental threat perspective. It is challenging to pick out from a group a member of a terrorist organization when they blend in physically, are U.S. citizens who may have never even left the country, and lead relatively normal American lives. As Bergen describes, many are “middle-class… well educated, mentally stable, and often married with children” (51). How to identify and track suspected terrorists is an emerging challenge. Furthermore, the label of the lone wolf is deceiving in the sense that these types of terrorists are often communicating with and are part of a terror organization, buying into the deeply rooted system of comradery as described previously. This devotion to the ideological system and the support they are receiving from it acts as a reinforcing driver. They may appear alone but are not.

This relationship, as described, crosses over into the issue of the domestic threat. As discussed previously, a lone individual (who may or may not be an American citizen) that has been radicalized is extremely difficult to track and monitor. Giving them the upper hand as domestic threat actors on home soil. Similarly, it does not take an ancient religion that preaches violence to bring about an apocalypse for domestic terrorists to emerge, such as jihadists. Recently, terrorist attacks have been leveraged to voice a stance freely, especially by lone wolf actors radicalized more often than not by groups reaching them through social media and message boards. Individuals might act independently in pursuit of their beliefs or with the intention to make a statement to protest one thing or another are examples of motives. Terrorist attacks may not always be against the “establishment”; groups and individuals could be targeted for reasons that are anti-semitic, anti-refugee, based on race, based on religion, gender, or political party (amongst others). This issue is not restricted only to those who practice using violence to convey a theological message; more specifically, targeting American entities and citizens as a part of that message which is usually the stereotype terrorists fall into. The Islamic State is an example of this, essentially noting that the terrorist persona of 9/11 has evolved into a threat much closer to home, a lot less foreign, and exceedingly difficult to prevent.

It does not start and end with foreign belief systems; however, White House press secretary Jen Psaki recently stated, “January 6 was one of the darkest days in our democracy,” referring to the insurrection, an attack on the Capitol comprised of mostly Americans. Reportedly more than 700 people have been charged in connection with the attack (LeBlanc Malloy). This incident further illustrates the evolution of terror in the United States. 

Changes to the Current U.S. Counterterrorism Strategies

Violent ideological groups often provide the match when it comes to combustible situations. Acting as a threat embedded within the communities they form, they also provide a pathway for lone-wolf radicalization and contribute to the disgruntled chaos that drives domestic terrorism; this issue should hold priority in being addressed first.

As described previously, these groups are often more loyal to their community than any one figurehead or leader; it is more of a challenge to inflict change when we are talking about generations of belief systems and ways of life. With that in mind, the first best strategic approach would be to focus on prevention. In the cases where a strong community supports violence, the best way to inflict change may be through education and by providing opportunities for a better life. In the cases of lone wolves susceptible to radicalization, providing better support to communities at an immediate and local level can help lessen the allure of joining. Finally, all three threats can be boiled down to psychological issues, and the strategies used to address them should be tailored around that. 

At a local level, states can evaluate the strength of their community programs and other wellness activities. Compared to Europe and other first-world populations, the U.S. is notoriously spaced out, particularly in middle America, away from littoral areas and urban metropolises. A weak community and feelings of isolation create ripe conditions for radicalization as individuals seek to fill the human necessity of community online. Elements of the FBI’s counterterrorism strategies have been recognized as controversial as they have often spent time and resources hunting individuals with some success (Bergen 98). However, with the rise of cases, this strategy has become more like an intense and unwinnable game of wack-a-mole.

Nevertheless, what do we do in the meantime? These strategies make sense to address these issues in the long run, but what strategies can we adopt to address these issues today? While being cautious regarding privacy rights, modern threats require modern solutions, and the U.S. should be utilizing every technological tool in the toolbox. This issue is gaining momentum because of current technologies, and this may be our best bet at countering the development of these issues. Every day A.I. tools are becoming more advanced and useful; we should leverage this to monitor vast amounts of public internet traffic, looking for specified criteria. After feeding a piece of A.I. software every case we can find on terrorism, it may be able to look for patterns that a human cannot recognize. Additionally, A.I. tools can sort through information at speeds humans cannot match, which will help us stay caught up in responding to immediate threats. Remaining conscientious of privacy rights and actively working to prevent censorship would be high priorities; however, this should be fine if the tool is being used on publicly available information. 

Conclusion

These issues run deep at the tribal level of understanding of human nature. It will take years of implementing measures to counter terrorism development at the local level. As discussed, the immediate threat has transitioned from foreign threat actors to American citizens adopting and acting on violent belief systems. To address these issues today and tomorrow, we need to be using what tools we have and maximize our strengths as one of the leading nations in the world. Furthermore, part of that is American ingenuity and the freedom to create and use technologies to their full extent.

---

Bergen, Peter, United States of Jihad: Investigating America's Homegrown Terrorists, New York:Crown, 2016

LeBlanc, Paul, and Allie Malloy. “Biden and Harris to Deliver Remarks on January 6 Anniversary.” CNN, 3 Jan. 2022, edition.cnn.com/2022/01/02/politics/biden-january-6-speech/index.html.

Sanborn, Jill. "Confronting the Rise in Anti-Semitic Domestic Terrorism"; Statement at Hearing titled “CONFRONTING THE RISE IN ANTI-SEMITIC DOMESTIC TERRORISM,PART II”; February 2020

Stern, J. 2012. ‘A Radical Idea.’ Hoover Digest, 2012(1). Available online at: http://www.hoover.org/research/radical-idea

Sterman, Peter Bergen and David. “The Real Terrorist Threat in America: It’s No Longer Jihadist Groups.” Foreign Affairs, 5 Jan. 2023, www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2018-10-30/real-terrorist-threat-america.

Wood, Graeme. “What ISIS Really Wants.” The Atlantic, 15 Feb. 2022, www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980.