During the primary and the general election, candidate Donald Trump repeatedly made statements that indicated that he supported a stringent immigration policy which could possibly be used to deal with the threat posed by lone wolf attacks on the homeland. A question begs, is a strong immigration policy a substitute for a national counter radicalization strategy? Put another way, in a time of increasing domestic terrorist attacks on the homeland, should the United States maintain a sound immigration policy and a national counter radicalization policy? This post argues that an immigration policy is a significant instrument to thwart terrorists from entering the country, but without a national counter radicalization strategy, the United States will continue to be attacked by lone wolf-style terrorist attacks.
Background
Counter radicalization as a concept includes the following: It “is not primarily a law enforcement tool. Law enforcement, however, has a role to play. It represents a “bridge” between counterterrorism and counter-radicalization, and helps to inform both.”[1]
As a concept, “counter-radicalization seeks to prevent non-radicalized populations from being radicalized. The objective is to create individual and communal resilience against cognitive and/or violent radicalization through a variety of non-coercive means. The U.S. government frequently uses the term “Countering Violent Extremism” to describe counter radicalization efforts abroad.”[2]
A central role in dealing with radicalization concerns “the government’s role” which “… is limited to convening relevant parties so that new networks and partnerships (including those between communities and the private sector) can be leveraged.”[3]
There are “three types of programs” associated with counter radicalization. Those programs include deradicalization, disengagement, and radicalization prevention.[4] These concepts are critical to understanding and defeating violent extremism in the United States. The problem: the U.S. government does not make use of any of three types of programs.
Bush And The Decision Not To Implement A Counter Radicalization Strategy
In the wake of attacks on September 11, 2001, the United States government instituted a host of counterterrorism measures designed to confront a myriad of transnational threats to include Al Qaeda, the Islamic State, and a host of other terrorist entities around the world. However, “…Washington has been surprisingly shy about devising a strategy to prevent extremism.”[5]
President George W. Bush’s administration devised the post-9/11 counterterrorism infrastructure that, for the most part, still exists. Despite the success of a series of counterterrorism initiatives, President Bush failed to implement a national counter radicalization strategy.
At issue, why did President Bush not create a national counter radicalization strategy? Unlike many European governments, which created a semblance of a strategy, the Bush administration argued that no domestic jihadist threat emerged in the United States after 9/11. Second, unlike Europe, Muslims in the U.S. successfully integrated. The thinking is that integration served as “an antidote” that prevented attacks on the homeland. Third, President Bush’s unwavering faith in administration “aggressive counterterrorism tactics” represents another factor to support the view among policy makers that no counter radicalization strategy was required. Lastly, when required the administration utilized the Patriot Act which “granted the US government extensive surveillance powers” to target citizens and non-citizens suspected of supporting terrorism.[6]
Another factor that precluded any administration effort is the excuse that bureaucratic impediments stood as a major obstacle to deal with the threat posed by radicalization. Some in the administration argued it is arduous to coordinate federal, state, and local agencies and law enforcement to collectively act to confront radicalization.[7]
Some of the Bush administration’s arguments have merit. The president’s arguments however did not prevent the New York Police Department (NYPD) from creating a counter radicalization report. New York of course was attacked on 9/11, but it is overlooked that a host of other terrorist conspiracies were thwarted by the NYPD since the September 11, 2001 attacks. The report eventually served as a useful tool to deal with radicalization. Given current events and the outcome of two law suits which ruled “the NYPD had unlawfully conducted investigations of Muslims,”[8] “A Symbolic Purging of the NYPD Radicalization Report” quietly took place. Still, during the initial years after the release of the NYPD report, several agencies and departments in the U.S. government attempted and failed to create a counter radicalization strategy.
Obama and Counter Radicalization
There are multiple reasons why President Obama should have created a counter radicalization strategy. Near the conclusion of Obama’s first year in office, an Al Qaeda-inspired terrorist attack occurred in Fort Hood, Texas on November 5, 2009. This mass shooting represented one of a series of successful attacks on the homeland that occurred under Obama. In the final analysis, as the first term ended, President Obama failed to enact a counter radicalization strategy.[9]
In the absence of a serious response to radicalization in the homeland, the administration had to deal with criticism from multiple quarters. In a vivid and piquant response to administration efforts, in 2010 Bruce Hoffman and Peter Bergen offered this critique: “It is fundamentally troubling, given this collection of new threats and new adversaries directly targeting America, that there remains no federal government agency or department specifically charged with identifying radicalization and interdicting the recruitment of U.S. citizens or residents for terrorism.”[10]
Perhaps in response to the criticism of the failure to create a counter Al Qaeda’s ideology, the administration unveiled the Plan for Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extremism in the United States in late 2011. This half-hearted initiative was not viewed a serious plan to halt the increasing terrorist attacks that were conducted by Americans inspired by a foreign terrorist entity. The Boston Marathon Bombing on April 15, 2013 on the homeland further validated the shortcomings of administration efforts in dealing with the problem of radicalization.
Beginning in early 2014, another terrorist group, The Islamic State, inspired a new and far more dangerous wave of terrorist attacks on the homeland. The Orlando, Florida night club terrorist attack on June 13, 2016 and the terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California on December 2, 2015 represent the signature attacks that demonstrate the lethality of the new era of terrorist attacks.
The Islamic State’s extensive use of social media to inspire individuals in the United States to join their jihad and to provide inspiration for attacks inside the country clearly demonstrated that this terrorist entity represents a threat to homeland like no other previous group. The pressing need for a counter radicalization strategy is further confirmed when one considers that over one hundred Americans have been arrested for conspiring to support the Islamic State.
With the rise and intensity of ISIS-inspired terrorist attacks occurring inside the country, in February 2015, instead of creating a counter radicalization strategy in response to ISIS’s efforts inside the country, the Obama administration announced a three-day White House Summit on Countering Violent Extremism. The summit resulted in requests for funding of several domestic initiatives.[11] In the end, ultimately Obama’s ‘Countering Violent Extremism’ Program Collapses Into Absurdity.
Trump and The Desperate Need For A National Counter Radicalization Strategy
On June 13, 2016, in the aftermath of the ISIS-inspired attack on the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando, Florida, Trump spoke on the link between Terrorism, Immigration, and National Security. In a major section of the address, Trump made this statement: “When I am elected, I will suspend immigration from areas of the world [until] … there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies, until we understand how to end these threats.”[12]
Trump’s address contained other significant passages. For example, Trump argued, “We need to respond to this attack on America as one united people—with force, purpose and determination.”[13] Additionally, Trump uttered these words: “After a full, impartial and long overdue security assessment, we will develop a responsible immigration policy that serves the interests and values of America.”[14]
There are two significant issues associated with these statements. With respect to the first statement, defeating the Islamic State on the battlefield is a necessary objective after American citizens are killed in a foreign inspired terrorist attack. But immigration by itself does not represent a serious instrument in the prevention of future domestic terrorist attacks on the homeland. A strategy that deals with radicalization, whether via social media, through prisons, and in other forms is what is required to secure the homeland.
The problem associated with the second statement, and similar statements made by the president elect since the address, is that Trump has incorrectly assumed that extreme vetting will prevent future attacks on the country. There is no doubt that such vetting will assist in securing the homeland from ISIS-inspired (or any other radical terrorist group for that matter) attacks. That said, it will do nothing to stop those Americans that have already been radicalized along with the sleeper cells that already reside in the country (and those in the process of radicalization, and those that will be radicalized by a subsequent terrorist group) awaiting orders to launch their attacks.
In the same speech, Trump made this important statement: “I will do the right thing—I want to straighten things out and to Make America Great Again.”[15] When President Trump formally creates a national counter radicalization strategy, it will serve another purpose—keeping America safe again. Should Trump succeed in creating a sustainable and “comprehensive counter radicalization strategy,”[16] he will succeed in an area in which his predecessors have failed. Finally, President Trump must come to grips with what the White House and law enforcement across the United States must recognize that “partners in the Muslim community [are] … vital to any counter radicalization program.”[17]
[1] Dr. Peter Neumann, “Preventing Violent Radicalization in America,” National Security Preparedness Group, Bipartisan Policy Center, June 2011. http://bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-cont ent/uploads/sites/default/files/NSPG.pdf.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] The definitions of the concepts are as follows: “Deradicalization measures seek to lead an already radicalized individual to abandon his or her militant views. Disengagement entails a less dramatic shift whereby an individual abandons involvement in a terrorist group or activities while perhaps retaining a radical worldview. Radicalization prevention measures seek to prevent the radicalization process from taking hold in the first place and generally target a segment of society rather than a specific individual.” See Lorenzo Vidino, “Explaining the Lack of an American Domestic Counter-radicalization Strategy.” [No Date] http://www.mei.edu/sites/default/files/ Vidino.pdf.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Brian Michael Jenkins and Richard Daddario, “A Symbolic Purging of the NYPD Radicalization Report” The Hill, January 26, 2016. http://www.rand.org/blog/2016/01/a-symbolic-purging-of-the-nypd-radicalization-report.html.
[9] Farah Pandith, “The Rise of Radicalization: Is the U.S. Government Failing to Counter International and Domestic Terrorism?” Council on Foreign Relations, July 15, 2015. i.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/Farah%20Pandith%207.15.15.pdf.
[10] Vidino, “Explaining the Lack of an American Domestic Counter-radicalization Strategy.”
[11] For example, the Obama administration sought “$15 million in appropriated funding for the Department of Justice (DOJ) to support community-led efforts to build resilience and counter violent extremism in the President’s Budget for Fiscal Year 2016.” Additionally, the administration awarded “nearly $3.5 million in National Institute of Justice research and evaluation grants to address domestic radicalization to violent extremism for the third year.” For more on the administration initiatives, see White House Summit on Countering Violent Extremism, The White House, Washington, D.C., February 18, 2015. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015 /02/18/fact-sheet-white-house-summit-countering-violent-extremism.
[12] Donald Trump Addresses Terrorism, Immigration, and National Security,” Donaldjtrump.com. June 13, 2016. https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-addresses-terror ism-immigration-and-national-security.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Lorenzo Vidino, “Countering Radicalization in America Lessons from Europe,” United States Institute of Peace Special Report, November 2010. file:///C:/Users/John%20Davis/One Drive/Countering_Radicalization_in_America%20USIP%20.pdf.
[17] Vidino, “Countering Radicalization in America Lessons from Europe,” United States Institute of Peace Special Report, November 2010.
