The Changing Face of Domestic Terrorism

There have been no major terrorist attacks inside the US since the fall of 2001. Is this because the intelligence and law enforcement communities have been successful at their efforts to prevent attacks? In part this is certainly true, but much of their focus has been on international terrorism rather than domestic terrorism.

In 2001, former FBI director Louis J. Freech testified before the Senate that the Bureau “views domestic terrorism as the unlawful use, or threatened use, of violence by a group or individual that is based and operating entirely within the US or its territories without foreign direction and which is committed against persons or property with the intent of intimidating or coercing a government or its population in furtherance of political or social objectives.” This definition encompasses attacks carried out by such divergent groups as the Klu Klux Klan (KKK), the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), Animal Liberation Front (ALF), single-issue anti-abortion activists and other domestically based and led terrorists.

The terrorist threat from inside the US has not disappeared. While law enforcement and intelligence agencies such as the FBI continue to focus on Al Qaeda as our biggest threat, we are still at risk of attack from within. If domestic terrorism is not recognized and countered by officials, the threat presented by domestic terrorist individuals and groups within the US may grow to unacceptable levels. We must not blind ourselves from seeing the significant terrorist threats next door.

How has the domestic terrorist threat changed since September 11, 2001? There are at least five trends related to the changing threat of domestic terrorism inside the US, and here we examine those trends and what they mean for protecting the homeland.

Trend #1: Changes to the Appreciation of and Response to the Threat
When President Bush issued the National Strategy for Securing the Homeland, it heralded changes in the awareness and response to terrorism at the very top. President Bush and a bipartisan congress created the Department of Homeland Security and increased homeland security discretionary funding.

As the President implemented changes in strategy and organization, the FBI, according to current Director Robert S. Muller, tried to shift its focus from law enforcement and prosecution to the prevention of terrorist attacks against the US. This was soon followed by changes in resource allocation, centralization, intelligence integration and collaboration to make this new focus operational. State and local law enforcement then stepped up their efforts in response to the direction set by the federal example and increased federal funds.

Trend #2: A Focus on Al Qaeda
In 2003 Larry Mefford, Assistant Director, Counterterrorism Division, of the FBI, testified that addressing the threat from Al Qaeda was the FBI’s number one priority. Mefford went on to characterize other FBI domestic challenges, but neglected to mention the most prolific groups or the more traditional domestic threats.

Similarly, FBI Director Mueller testified on several occasions that Al Qaeda was the number one threat to US citizens, and reports suggest the DHS has focused on Islamist groups – foreign and domestic – omitting right-wing terrorist groups in an internal list of the threats to the nation’s security.

This focus on Islamic fundamentalist groups may provide other radical organizations in the US the opportunity to consolidate and grow. At the same time, the authorities’ renewed focus on terrorism is likely to make financing, personnel recruitment and equipment acquisition more difficult.

In the late 1990s, law enforcement made significant inroads into the domestic extremist groups. Groups such as the National Alliance, the Covenant, Sword and the Arm of the Lord (CSA) and the Aryan Nations were unable to function illegally without attracting attention. Laws enacted since 2001 have further increased the difficulty of perpetrating terrorism, and the laws’ harsher sentences may deter some individuals. The Patriot Act in particular has been seen as an important tool. It increased the ability of federal officials to track and intercept communications, gave them powers for combating money laundering and new authority to reduce the exploitation of US borders.

Trend #3: Specific Issue Groups Becoming More Prolific
The ideologies of single issue groups can be divergent and hard to define. The adherents often form loose networks rather than the traditional terrorist cell structure. In the aftermath of 9/11, some experts believed fundraising would be difficult and there would be less tolerance for these types of groups. That optimism, however, was unfounded. Groups such as the ALF and the ELF continue to attack.

ALF, started in the UK in the 1970s, engages in “direct action” to prevent harm to animals in the course of research or business. ELF splintered from “Earth First!” and in 1993 declared solidarity with ALF. Both groups now use criminal tactics, primarily arson, to cause economic damage to targets they perceive as injuring animals or the environment.

Together, ELF and ALF have committed more than 600 criminal acts in the US since 1996, resulting in damages in excess of $43 million. According to the RAND MIPT Terrorism Chronology database, there were 37 acts of domestic terrorism from January 1999 until September 8, 2001. Of those, ELF or ALF perpetrated 29. The remaining five attacks were associated with right-wing or anti-abortion ideologies.

From September 2001 through mid-2005, ELF or ALF perpetrated 32 of the 54 incidents in the database. While this is the majority of attacks, none have caused deaths and the groups purposely, according to their own statements and observed acts, avoid harming people while causing economic damage. Radical splinter or related groups espousing the causes of ELF and ALF have turned violent in Europe, however, and this may spread to the US.

Trend #4: Military Training and Radicalization
Timothy McVeigh was a disillusioned former army soldier who perpetrated the second most deadly terror attack in the US in Oklahoma City in 1995. Now some experts are concerned the Iraq war may be providing both a training ground and anti-government motivation for future domestic terrorists.

Some serving and former US military personnel have espoused racist and extremist views associated with domestic terrorism, although this is infrequent. For instance, four soldiers stationed at Fort Monroe in the early 1980s were forced to resign due to their membership in the KKK. Similarly, the founder of the White Patriots Party was a former sergeant in the 82nd Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, North Carolina and three marines were discharged for membership in this organization. In the late 1990s, a former Marine who converted to Islam helped radical elements to takeover a Seattle mosque.

While outside the FBI definition of pure domestic terrorist action, terrorist Ali Mohammad served in the Special Forces of the US Army before leaving the military to train bin Laden followers. Was he recruited somewhere along his military career in a recruitment system that still exists in North America? There is evidence that military members are still attractive targets for recruitment in neo-Native/Identity type extremist organizations.

Several recent incidents have also involved current or former military members in anti-government or racist activities. For example, Rafael Davila, a former Army National Guard intelligence officer, was indicted in Washington for allegedly stealing and planning to distribute classified military documents to white supremacists. Similarly, in 2005, two Oregon Army National Guard soldiers who had been stationed in Egypt were charged with hate crimes after beating a hotel owner because they thought he was Arab.

Given the prevalence of stop loss orders that extend overseas tours, the unpopularity of the war in Iraq at home, the reported shortfalls of needed supplies and equipment in Iraq and the sheer number of deployed troops, it is possible that the ranks of domestic terrorist groups may be enlarged by military personnel or that these same people may act as lone terrorists.

Trend #5: Changes in Right Wing Extremist Groups
Several Christian Identity/neo-Nazi based groups have undergone significant changes since 2001. The original Aryan Nations were effectively dismantled in 2001, as a result of a civil suit by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). The national organization was further weakened by the deaths of leader Harold Redfeairn and founder Richard Butler.

The SPLC lawsuit created instability, which spurred the creation of splinter groups. Splinter groups can be more violent than the original groups, and several former Aryan Nation members are still exploiting the Identity message. Similarly, the 2002 death of National Alliance leader, William Pierce – author of The Turner Diaries – left a power vacuum; however Pierce’s successor, Erich Gliebe, has grown the organization. Splinter groups formed from this conflict may be more prone to aggression, although they have not perpetrated any major attacks to date.

The threat from these groups may increase over the next several years for several reasons, including: law enforcement and intelligence officials’ focus on threats related to Al Qaeda, giving right wing groups a chance to solidify and strengthen; the war in Iraq, which has provided fertile training grounds and motivations for potential right wing soldiers, and; the appeal and strength of these groups has traditionally cycled.

For now, groups motivated by Identity theology continue to flourish while mostly avoiding confrontation with the law. The more revolutionary focused groups of the 1980s, such as the now defunct Order, CSA and the Aryan Nations in Idaho, are much less of a threat. The KKK, often described separately from the extreme-right, can also be included in the Identity theology-influenced genre of activists and terrorists. Easily identified and infiltrated by local, state and federal law enforcement, the future terrorist activity of followers will likely continue to follow the leaderless resistance and lone wolf models to avoid detection.

Domestic right-wing extremists will continue to target law enforcement officials, government workers and minority groups. Local and state officials need to maintain their oversight. Left wing terrorist groups, while not discussed in detail here, may also pose an increasing threat to economic and law enforcement targets. Violent protests against the perceived effects of trade globalization on human rights, labor rights and the environment may build on the global protests.

Summary
The events of 9/11 shifted the FBI’s focus to international terrorist groups inside the US. The threat of domestic terrorists launching large-scale attacks to inflict mass casualties is low compared to that of international terrorist groups, due, in part, to longstanding efforts to disrupt these groups. The most significant domestic terrorism threat over the next five years will continue to be the “lone wolf” terrorist. Inspired by the ideologies of formal terrorism groups or radical religion, these terrorists’ relative anonymity limits law enforcement detection capability and makes prevention extremely difficult, while their ability to mount successful and high profile terrorist events remains.