With the news of 5 Northern Virginia men being detained in Pakistan coming to light, I thought it would be useful to revisit the broader issue of homegrown terrorism. To be clear, however, I am not saying that any of the 5 men arrested are terrorists already. Facts and information still need to be carefully and objectively assessed.
But is another major terrorist attack on US soil likely or even possible?
Peter Bergen has long argued that the potential for an Al Qaeda attack on US soil in the near future is virtually nill. I don’t know any analyst can be so certain that they claim that another 9/11 “is no longer plausible.” No longer plausible? Meaning 0% chance?!
Then came all the recent reports of Somali Americans linked to al-Shabaab , Najibullah Zazi, Fort Hood, etc.
Bergen then slightly modified and recently followed up with an article on the same issue on the Af/Pak Channel. Essentially, his argument rests on the assumption that the American Dream (and all that comes with it) is integral in keeping Muslims in the US from subscribing to or contracting the Al Qaeda virus:
That said, a key reason the United States escaped a serious terrorist attack has little to do with either the Bush or Obama administrations. In sharp contrast to Muslim populations in European countries like Britain — where al Qaeda has found recruits for multiple serious terrorist plots — the American Muslim community has largely rejected the ideological virus of militant Islam. The “American Dream” has generally worked well for Muslims in the United States, who are both better-educated and wealthier than the average American.
For European Muslims there is no analogous “British Dream,” “French Dream,” or, needless to say, “EU Dream.” None of this is to say that the limited job opportunities and segregation that are the lot of many European Muslims are the causes of terrorism in Europe — only that such conditions may create favorable circumstances in which al Qaeda can recruit and feed into Bin Laden’s master narrative that the infidel West is at war with Muslims in some shape or form all around the world.
I see many flaws with this argument.
First, many al-Qaeda members, particularly the leadership, have higher levels of education and wealth. As Mr. Bergen himself notes in previous commentary, terrorism is largely a “bourgeois endeavor”, not the result of being poor or uneducated. It is quite odd that if so many terrorists do have higher levels of education and wealth, better-education and wealth are the explanations for why an individual is not likely to be a terrorist.
Second, an individual with higher education and more money could be more prone to terrorism – not less – because they have greater knowledge and therefore higher expectations regarding their own social mobility, the conduct of their government and international institutions, and the social well-being of their community (whether it be ethnic, religious, local or abroad). In other words, being better educated means you will probably have a better understanding of the world around you, for better or for worse. If these expectations are not being met, the likelihood that the person will wish to take action, violently or non-violently, likely increases depending on the circumstances and perceived gravity of the situation.
Third, the “American Dream” means different things to different people. Sure, to some it may mean just being well off, having a family, and a white picket fence, etc. But to others it may mean something completely different. To say that the American Dream has generally worked for most Muslims assumes that all or most Muslims have the same concept of that dream. Unfortunately, a Muslim who lives in the US and has achieved the stereotypical American Dream, probably still feels uneasy — at best — about US conduct in Iraq, Afghanistan and here at home since 9/11.
Moreover, living in America does not guarantee that you will attain such a dream — only the opportunity to do so. While there may be much better opportunity and likelihood for success, many in the US — Muslim and non-Muslim alike — still fall short. Therefore, even if the pool of potential radicals in the US is considerably smaller than in other countries, the pond still exists. As Bergen points out, Najibullah Zazi (a highschool dropout) and Bryant Neal Vinas (a college dropout) may have been fish in this pond.
Fourth, American Muslims may have indeed largely rejected al-Qaeda’s ideological virus. However, that does not necessarily mean it’s because they are better assimilated or better off in American society than in other countries. While it is reasonable to link alienation of a group to higher susceptibility of radicalism it does not necessarily follow that assimilation leads to the rejection of radicalism.
Furthermore, it only takes a handful of radicalized individuals who have not rejected the virus to carry out a devastating attack in the US. Thankfully, our intelligence and law enforcement personnel are working diligently around-the-clock to thwart such threats (and have done a remarkable job thus far). But they have to be right every time, while a few terrorists only have to be lucky once.
What all of the homegrown and non-homegrown terrorist profiles have in common is that each individual strongly perceived a sense of injustice, resulting from specific policies that were deemed a grave threat to the individual, their community, and/or Islam. The policies do not change simply because someone lives inside the US. However, the perception of those policies may. Living inside the US may also provide otherwise susceptible individuals with potential “antidotes” to the al-Qaeda ideological virus such as other means of peaceful dissent, the right to vote for US leadership, and/or a more balanced perspective of the US and its policies. Other factors are also likely to be at play.
Perpetuating a flawed assumption that the American Dream is a key reason Americans will be safe only locks the US into a false sense of security and invulnerability that it suffered pre-9/11. Better intelligence and intelligence coordination, law enforcement, border protection, aviation security, and vigilance amongst ordinary citizens, engaging the US Muslim population, some of which Mr. Bergen does mention, will help to thwart most terrorist attacks. But, unfortunately, another major attack on US soil is still a real threat.
[...] For years, the conventional wisdom in policy, academic, and intelligence circles regarding the potential radicalization of Muslims in the US was that because Muslims in the US were much more assimilated and integrated to broader society, they were significantly less vulnerable to catching an Al-Qaeda esque ideological virus. In graduate school, prior to the spate of cases that directly challenged this wisdom, I wrote my thesis in which one of the arguments I made was that there was virtually nothing intrinsic to the United States that would prevent Americans from radicalizing, especially when the US continued to conduct military operations in Muslim countries around the world. Although I agree that there are certain aspects of the US that diminish the ability for violent, radical thought to penetrate and permeate through society — they are nonetheless insufficient to completely blocking the virus. (To read earlier posts on this topic, click on the Homegrown Terrorism category or here). [...]