Counterterrorism in the U.S.

Seeing footnote A in the CVE Task Force Reference Aid acts like the fine print with the devil in the details. It's interesting to note that there exists a government definition for domestic terrorism, and has extra punishments for it, yet didn't designate any organization as one nor have existant punishments independent of other crimes. It makes you wonder if the term "terrorism" really only applies to foreigners and can conflate those sentiments in an insidious xenophobic way. It is also curious that the footnote mentions domestic terrorism giving enhanced sentences connected to other crimes, meaning it can't be stood alone. I have a minor hunch that the number of attacks between 2000 and 2016 is too low and may be underreported, or there are more since 2016 considering the past year of racial tensions. The Asian American community has had an uptick in attacks since the pandemic started and been underreported for instance. Also being pushed and punched spontaneously sort of undermines the "not premeditated" part, so I wonder where bare-handed attacks rank. I also wonder how the social media trend for WSEs will go now that the private sector is finally taking steps to address this issue. That progress started off from Election season flagging Trump's and others' potential misinformation and disinformation, then escalating into account bans from the Capitol Hill riots. Going back to yesterday's document, they'll probably become even sneaker as "ghost skins". China and Kazakhstan also reflect a similar parallel with the US strategy of limiting communications with foreign extremists with the Internet, in which China suspects the Uighurs of doing so with those in Kazakhstan. This probably adds on to the use of social media being restricted for Uighurs to talk to their families and friends abroad.

I took a class last semester that was fully dedicated to the first amendment. Reading this reminded me of how fragile and confusing it is to draw a line between freedom of speech and speech that can cause harm. In the case of Dylan Roof, he voiced his opinions on social media which is a form of protected speech, so it would be unconstitutional to carry out an interrogation with him just based on his opinion. In his case he took action based on his words but becasue of the constitution I think that there would be controversial opinions on depriving him from his freedom of speech and expression.

While this has little to do with my specialization of Chinese maritime policy but today's reading is very interesting. WSE is contrary to American values, and while any of these groups continue to do harm to some of the most vulnerable communities in the United States then no one is safe. Until the US is able to deal with the threat of WSE then anyone with these beliefs or sympathy should be held with contempt. Individuals with these beliefs are the same as any extremist, ignorant and need to have their beliefs challenged at all times. Isolation and pressure is what creates groups like this and in the social media age it is easier then ever to have someone connect themselves with these groups and enter the world of WSE.

Again we are confronted with the issue of individual rights and where they stand in relation to the lines followed in order to protect civilians. I was a bit surprised, though impressed, with how detailed some of the behavioral indicators provided in the document were. I feel, so long as we keep the application of these signs fair, this is a decently comprehensive piece. Though, as Daivd already mentioned with the WeChat example, the nature in which these criteria are applied and how we respond to that application is beyond critical.

Although it is important for us to use any means necessary to help prevent WSE's, it is important to note that we still need to protect our freedoms and theirs. We cannot breach their rights to privacy even if they are suspected of committing unlawful acts without going through the proper channels. It is unnerving to see that these WSEs are so geographically dispersed because it means that they can strike many different locations at any given time. Many people tend to forget that there are rights that people have. Even if they commit egregious crimes, we still need to make sure they see a fair trial, that they are treated correctly, and that their rights are protected. I do think this is a very serious issue for our country and it is one we cannot take lightly. We just need to make sure to uphold the rights of every citizen, no matter their beliefs.

Today's document does a good job of summarizing key facts about white supremacists in the US and examples of attacks. However, it only covers attacks up until 2016. I imagine this account would have even more detail if it covered cases from 2017 to the present.

Additionally, the behavioral indicators show how difficult catching and preventing WSE attacks can be. Many of the behaviors listed could be linked to a number of nefarious or illegal activities. The common denominator in all of them is establishing a link with white supremacist ideology and a desire to purse white supremacist goals. Unless certain individuals are actively being monitored, those connections might not be made until it is too late.

I found it interesting that DHS has a list of possible indicators that could predict WSE violence before it happens. While most of these are constitutionally protected, ticking several of these boxes could be an accurate indicator of future radicalization to violence.

China employs similar indicators to extremism within its borders, heavily monitored and censored on all forms of social media. Some of these I have stated in the past, such as the posting of Islamic prayers on WeChat. Although the CCP's actions against their Uyghur population are meant to combat terrorist ideologies, the parallels between American WSE and domestic terrorist extremism in Xinjiang are striking. There have been attacks by Uyghur extremists against minority group, the Han Chinese, in the Xinjiang province and China approaches the issue similar to how the US approaches WSE. Both of these issues are seen by their respective States as a domestic terrorist threat.

White supremacy really has no relevance to Eastern Asia, beyond maybe a marginal discussion of tourist conduct in those states, but this article's list of indicators of possible radicalization was an interesting read; made sense.

Unfortunately, I couldn’t tie this article with my field of specialization. However, I wanted to still express my thoughts while reading this piece. I think it’s pretty crazy how now, radical groups can use social media to get their point across to millions. In the past, the government didn’t have to deal with social media. I can’t imagine what the future holds and how extreme groups like this one will get through to people.

Such an interesting article. I found it disturbing knowing that white supremacist infiltration in law enforcement can cause damage and jeopradize the nation's safety. I find it interesting that religious terrorism is not longer the greatest threat to the United States when it was our only focus for many years. I believe white supremacists is on the rise especially during the recent U.S. capitol invasion. This is perfect for my specialty in counterterrorism and I have made a couple of postings that Domestic Terrorism is a threat to the United States.

Today's readings left me feeling like I had to take a sit and focus on relaxing most of the muscles in my back for 15 minutes or so. Many times when my family has asked me what I'll do with a degree in political science, I joke with them and say that I'm dedicating myself to questions I know I can't answer until I die. But, when it comes to the question of white supremacy groups in the U.S., this isn't a joke. I genuinely don't believe I'll ever have an adequate answer for what is to be done about white supremacy, other than hoping it fades with time, which pains me to imagine, as it seems like a criminally lazy way of approaching the question, in my eyes. The FBI document made mention of the paradox that the freedom of association we enjoy in the U.S. presents. I'm ambivalent towards continuing to ponder that aspect of the question at hand, as I'm struggling to find out how practically it can be applied or restricted in both the public and private sector. I liked that the FBI document made mention of the fact that the lack of corroborated accounts of infiltration could go either way, either effective cover up, or lack of infiltration. It's been a while since I read a political piece that I felt had as fair and comprehensive of a perspective as this one.

I found these articles quite interesting and while I do agree with what the articles are saying they do not touch as much on my specialization. If we look at the historical damage that white supremacists have done throughout the history of the United States then it far exceeds the damages done by any outside terrorist organization. The oldest terrorist organization within the United States are white supremacist organizations. This is somewhat counter to the People's Republic of China where many terrorist organizations are minority based.

In China there are considered Three Evils, terrorism, separatism, and religious extremism. For the Han majority they do not need to commit terrorism based on racial lines or against other ethnic groups, as the PRC does that for them. With the deadliest terror attacks in modern China being mostly done by terrorist groups from western China, which is where many minority populations live. There will never be a Han Supremacist movement anytime soon in China, because the Han already agree they are above the other minorities of China.

I found this article to be very insightful and brought to my attention aspects of white supremacy I haven’t previously considered. Particularly, the infiltration of law enforcement by individuals on behalf of white supremist groups. Specifically, once these individuals infiltrate law enforcement, the information sharing is one I find to be the most concerning. Either by individuals who infiltrate law enforcement or already established law enforcement members who have ties to these organizations. Knowledge is power, and as we’ve seen, information sharing can be one of the most useful methods to counterterrorism or the most detrimental (information sharing amongst nations as one of the good practices in a previous article). I would definitely like to see an expansion on the intelligence gaps in the last section and to know the answers to some of the questions the FBI is trying to answer. Specifically, these two: “Are white supremacist groups engaging in systematic efforts to infiltrate law enforcement communities?” and

“To what extent are law enforcement communities operating in environments sympathetic to white supremacist beliefs that could potentially hinder investigations into criminal white supremacist activities?”

I don’t know much about the interviewing process to work in law enforcement but perhaps it would be useful to know any ties to political organizations etc. that might be viewed as a conflict of interest? I could see the hesitation with establishing and enforcing that, but with law enforcement being a government entity/extension of the government, would it not be relevant? Maybe, maybe not? I know the Hatch Act of 1939 prohibits political activity by certain federal employees at the workplace (except for the president and vice president), but I wonder if something similar could be applied on the local levels or in some variation?? I wonder what steps have been taken in the last 14/15 years to prevent or combat this?

This was a really grim but eye-opening read. I was struck by how the infiltration of one single white supremacist can have a cascading effect. A white supremacist in law enforcement can provide intelligence, volunteer its resources, abuse authority, passively tolerate racism, provide access to restricted areas, and benefit other white supremacist groups. One bad actor can make colossal damage.

It is also interesting that this document is from 2006 and said that white supremacists have historically and will continue to attempt to infiltrate law enforcement. It made me wonder what actions have been taken in the last 14 years to try to combat this? Furthermore, I can't help but see some similarities between the recent storming of the Capitol and the Black Lives Matter movement that culminated over the summer.

Despite this document being published in 2006, this information is still crucial in understanding the insurrection at the Capitol. People actively apart of twitter, specifically "Black Twitter" made jokes about why this was allowed to occur, and on the whereabouts of law enforcement. Two viral responses to this were that "The protesters had to change into their work (police) uniforms later" and that you never see "Clark Kent and Superman in the same room." This document reflects this sentiment. I think their sentiment of white supremacists being a large threat is understandable. Because of their infiltration of government agencies, ability to hinder state capacity, and ability to blend in at all levels of American society, this demographic has the potential to do serious harm. While I'm not shocked at the findings, I'm surprised to see how this is still an ongoing issue in the government sector. It's important to comprehend the effect that this has on the workforce. If many government agencies have white supremacists in them, the vetting process will definitely be saturated with racial bias. I would even make the argument that this is a reason as to why many agencies lack diversity in higher positions.

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." -George Santayana

I think that the threat of white supremacists infiltrating law enforcement is terrifying. There are always issues of racism when it comes to police. Seeing that white supremacists want to get into police forces is a very concerning sight. Being Jewish makes me extremely warry when it comes to seeing those that are anti-minority in positions of power. We do not want to see history repeat itself, there is a large threat that comes with having hateful people leading. It is good that the government recognizes this threat and is planning ways to take action against this very relevant issue. It will be interesting to see how they plan to weed out those people that have ties to hate groups.

While the topic of white supremacy is completely outside the context of my specialty, and claims of "greatest terror threat" a competition I don't want to get into, I still found the documents to be interesting reads. The part about being aware that an inward focus is necessary to guard a group against infiltration/subversion from existing elements within was good to see, and could be applied to virtually any group, even outside of counterterror applications.

Even though we have been talking a great deal about foreign terrorist threats, it is important not to export the ideas of extremism and racial supremacy. The same psychological processes can and have played out entirely within US borders.

This document does an efficient job of summarizing the risks and realities of White supremacists in law enforcement and the national security implications of these developments.

One line that stands out to me in particular is how infiltration can lead to "passive tolerance of racism within communities served." It is important to remember that white supremacy does not always have to be explicit as killing members of a minority community. Americans can be harmed by something as simple as law enforcement turning a blind eye to their mistreatment.

I took particular notice to how one group infiltrating law enforcement can benefit many other white supremacist groups. The sharinging of law enforcement intelligence regarding operations/ actions against white supremacist groups can be ascertained by a single infiltrator and then distributed to other supremacist groups. This presents a big problem for law enforcement, as their operations against these groups can be thwarted from within the community. Currently, these groups are individual factions with no cohesive authority governing their actions. If these groups resolve its factionalism and unite under a single cause, the threat of infiltration will only continue to rise. A single, nationwide supremacist group would have greater capacity to coordinate its efforts to infiltrate law enforcement.

Another point of concern is not specific members infiltrating law enforcement, but sympathizers already within the law enforcement community that can aid and abed supremacist groups. The document highlights that US domestic policy debates can create hostility among law enforcement and cause them to volunteer intelligence/ support for white supremacist groups they sympathize with. The immigration debate was one issue of concern, as some in law enforcement wish to see reduced immigration; believing it would reduce crime in a parallel manner.

One intelligence gap in the document that is of primary concern is to what extent white supremacists have already infiltrated the law enforcement community. Until the FBI can discover the extent of the infiltration/ sympathizers within the broader law enforcement community, we will not know how big of a threat this causes.

In the United States, many believe race is an issue due to groups like white supremacy groups. However, reading this article, it made me wonder if Latin American countries have “white supremacy” groups or race issues. With research, I notice that in Latin American countries, most self-identity by the color of their skin rather than their actually ethnicity. I found my research interesting and encourage many to research race in Latin American cultures.

Seeing as how the FBI report is about infiltration into law enforcement, I can see why this clearance was for needs-to-know basis. I'm curious on when this was released for the general public now that we're seeing this report from 2006, and since it still has the "sensitive" part to control how it's released. It's also very timely with the Capitol Hill investigations of extremists in the Capitol Hill police and the ones removed from the 15,000 National Guard deployed. I like how the FBI provided a two-way relationship for the source of extremist recruitment. It's not just the extremists recruiting from law enforcement, but the law enforcement personnel themselves having preexisting inclinations to join extremists and recruit/distribute more personnel/weapons for them. In fact, it's more so from the law enforcement self-initiating rather than any organized attempt from white extremist groups (at least, based on findings provided here and possible successful, undetected infiltration). Due to the uncertainty, I wonder about Survivorship Bias, if the ones they see most prevalent in findings is actually an indicator of being the minority rather than majority. For clarification of Survivorship Bias see "In the Military" example with airplanes: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias What also comes to mind is the need to figure out the process of radicalization not just in society, but if there is anything law enforcement/government/military/organization structure-unique that contributes to such socialization. That way it would contribute to conflict prevention in the long run. I'm wondering on how some of these findings affect much execution though? Identifying that the threat is most serious in breaches of Intelligence collection is a bit of a no-brainer since those roles should probably be one of the most safeguarded for any reason already. I suppose practices in hiring would mean identifying relationships to the applicant, though that should have already been part of Federal government background investigations before hiring. White supremacy points to more signs of what to look for, I suppose (without knowing the before and after effects in hiring practices of how they investigate, it would be hard to tell). The spillover implications with racism and other potential abuses of authority was a good reminder to probably put in place certain HR indicators for ghost skins. Also, just like how there is concern for white supremacists to gain knowledge on what the FBI looks for in their groups, does the FBI and the broader law enforcement personnel study their handbooks (example: Turner Diaries)? In terms of methodology, it's nice to know that FBI reports are similar to student research. Some primary sources of information can be conducted through interactive ways and open-source material alike. Parallels are drawn with how FBI does their investigations, students can collect information through interviews and surveys too. Both the FBI and students use academic papers and news articles. All of these are seen in the citations. This was also definitely more interesting to read compared to the prior vague, redundant, technical policy documents on a broader scale (though I recognize both to be necessary in serving their own respective purposes).

Today's reading left me with a few questions."Enhance reach into denied areas overseas." How will this impact state sovereignty? I understand the importance of counterterrorism, but relations with other states will deteriorate if we breach this.

I wonder if the plan to "effectively use law of armed conflict detention as a counterterrorism tool" will be continued under the Biden administration. The discussion on Guantanamo Bay has been ongoing. While this section doesn't directly connect to Latin American Immigration, the disruption of terrorists traveling was demonstrated in the travel ban implemented by the Trump administration is related. In a previous post, I discussed Biden's transition into office, and the effect that it had on immigration at the border. I wonder how the new administration will implement counterterrorism efforts while maintaining relations with other nations.

After reading pages 19-25 what stood out to me was "We must seek partners, not perfection--- and to make allies of all who share our goals". Sharing resources with international allies and partners is essential in combating and reducing terrorism and showing terrorists that we are determined to put an end to them. In addition, engaging non-military personnels in counterterrorism is essential. However, we have to keep in mind that civilian lives are as important and that they should not be ignored when combating terrorism.

Given how much we've discussed counter-terrorist tactics over the past few discussions, I was surprised to only find rehabilitation mentioned once here - unless I missed something. Being as the issue of prisons, particularly private prisons, has been so publicized in the past two elections, I'm curious if there will be any major changes to the U.S. prison system, and how they may tie into counter-terrorist strategy. I agree that rehabilitation is necessary for an effective long-term strategy of counter-terrorism, though I'm not sure if this strategy is meant to be explicitly long-standing. I didn't like the vague nature of the summary presented for the sharing of information as the conclusion section drew closer. Despite the detail presented in previous sections, I would expect a more comprehensive summary, though there may be security concerns in relation to the details provided in such a document?

I think that as it states on page 21, we want to pursue terrorists to their source and target key groups. I would like to point out that with developments in weapons and technology it is now possible more than ever to avoid civilian casualties when carrying out missions to uproot terrorist groups. It is important that we protect innocent lives as much as possible and never get carried away with taking the life of a single terrorist at the cost of any innocent life. We can also work with nations where the terrorists are located to try and protect as many lives as possible. I just see that the United States can sometimes get carried away when carrying out these missions and I think it is essential to isolate the terrorists before carrying out any attacks.

As I was reading today's selection, the section that most stood out to me was the counterterrorism practices listed on page 22, which could have easily been lifted out of last week's best practices in International Counterterrorism Frameworks. However, I identified some original building blocks around coordinating with technology providers to prevent propagandizing, and working with international allies. At the risk of sounding redundant, the contrast between the material in this piece and the Chinese approach to "counterterrorism", which lacks a formal definition and which has no official rehabilitation program of which to speak, with the result of haphazard online bans and theoretically infinite detention at detention facilities.

Reading the final pages of this document, I was struck by two particular sentences.

The first was in the section about a prevention architecture to thwart terrorism. "We will also seek to promote voices of pluralism and tolerance." This sounds like it was added almost as an afterthought. Indeed, I don't recall any initiatives by the previous administration that sought to curb radicalization through "promoting voices of pluralism."

We saw from the GCTF documents last week that rehabilitation and reintegration is an important component of countering radicalization, but these can only work if its possible for those who were once radicalized to feel like they can be welcomed back into society. Part of the reason they were radicalized in the first place was because they lacked a sense of belonging (which extremist groups exploited). If populations that terrorists recruit from continue to be vilified in our society, the danger will not alleviate.

The second sentence is the quote at on the final page. "Our friends will never question our support, and our enemies will never doubt our determination." The first half of that sentiment has certainly not been the case over the last 4 years. Despite the document's earlier insistence that "American first does not mean America alone," this has often been the reality, even outside the field of counterterrorism.

Transatlantic relations were deeply rattled during the Trump administration. Regardless of who was right or wrong on certain security issues, doubt and questioning the credibility of the United States has become more common.

Page 19 caught my attention when describing the increased risk of attacks on critical infrastructure in cyberspace. It states "we will ensure redundancy of our systems, including systems in cyberspace, and develop measures for rapid recovery for systems if an attack should occur, facilitating their quick return to normal operations."

While not a direct terrorist attack, the SolarWinds hack is believed to have affected the networks of over 250 federal agencies and private companies. The Treasury Department, the State Department, the Commerce Department, the Energy Department and parts of the Pentagon were just a few of the targets. The breach was detected by FireEye, a private company. Ultimately, this was an utter failure of our cyberdefense.

The full extent of the cyber attack and the sensitive information that was found are still unknown. However, the recovery will be costly. It will likely takes months and billions of dollars to rebuild the networks securely. So as the NSCT says (but the US has so far failed to do) we need better infrastructure for rapid recovery.

In the remainder of the NSCT document, a few things stood out regarding China's approach to its counter-terrorism strategy. The US employs strategies to combat extremist ideology from becoming a common identity among recruits, as well as support locally-driven prevention tactics to thwart the rise of terrorist ideologies. China uses both of these tactics, although not in a clear and precise manner cohesive with international standards and practices.

China's method of combating extremist ideology is absolute censorship of any and all thoughts, expressions, or actions that go against the national identity or policies of the CCP. Extreme censorship of the Uyghur population has been in place for several years now, blocking/ banning online accounts and flagging the user as a potential extremist. China also has not set definition of a terrorist or extremist ideology, making their use of censorship broad and absolute.

China also does not, at least publically, support reintegration of reformed extremists, a tactic employed in the NSCT. Beijing claimed in 2019 they had released the uyghurs from the re-education camps, yet no detainee on record had a set release date and recent satellite images show new construction expanding housing capacity at the camps. Reports from families of detained persons call the supposed release of prisoners false, since they have not seen their family members since the initial detention.

Beijing has delegated much of these anti-terror powers to local Xinjiang officials. This has proved problematic, since Beijing often forwards human rights accusations towards Xinjiang officials and does not take responsibility for grievances within the camps or province. China could better outline their actions, with clear definitions, to effectively combat terrorism and better coordinate prevention with local authorities.

On page 23, this statement stuck out to me the most, “The United States will, therefore, partner with governments and organizations, including allied nations, the technology sector, financial institutions, and civil society. We will use diplomatic engagement with partner governments and further mobilize existing coalitions and multilateral and international fora to increase the will of capable partners to act against threats while encouraging the implementation of international counterterrorism standards and the coordination of international burden-sharing efforts”. With my specialization on international affairs in South America, this statement made me hopeful that the Latin American countries that are struggling with terrorist organizations, partner with the United States. This can help all countries because if we show global unity, it will be hard for terrorist organizations to go against all countries.

Pages 13-18 of the document seeks to define/describe the current adversaries of the United States. The most captivating part of this piece was on page 18. The description of "racially motivated extremism, animal rights extremism, environmental extremism, sovereign citizen extremism, and militia extremism" was insightful.

In connection to Latin American immigration, it's important to note that the proxy wars during the Cold War have had lasting impacts on this region. Trump's declaration that Iran is doing the same makes me wonder about the future of this region. In Latin America, immigration is only a byproduct of governments not meeting the needs of the people in them. Two results that come from this is extremism or an exodus. Either way, examining the reasons why people are doing the things that they do are imperative, and this document highlighting the different extremist groups is interesting.

Looking at page 13 is very interesting especially with a view at China and how it sees terror. With the People's Republic of China being a newer entity on the world stage the idea of terrorism and the perception around terrorism is different then those around it. With the CCP viewing terrorism as anything that threatens national security or causes unrest within China. With how the CCP has been suppressing anti-CCP groups that go against the CCP and their view of how China should be it will be interesting to see how China evolves its perspective. Because right now they are doing what the United States is doing only with different groups looking down the barrel.

Reading pages 13-18 I found it focused on the strategies that the United States use in countering terrorism. However, the United States is still at great risk of a terrorist attack because of the increasing technologies and networks that terrorists are employing in order to generate an attack. The United states is at risk of an attack by Al-Qaeda and ISIS, as these two groups have made it clear that they can and will generate an attack on the U.S. As mentioned terrorist groups “ stoke and exploit weak governance, conflict, instability,...” this is especially true nowadays because of the COVID-19 pandemic. I have posted a few articles on the impact of the pandemic on terrorism and there is fear that an attack might take place. This is because the U.S. and the whole world is focused on containing the virus and creating a more stable life for people. As a result, I think this is a great opportunity for radicals to generate an attack especially when people have their guards down.

On page 13 this statement stood out to me the most, "Overseas, they thrive in countries with weak governments and where disenfranchised populations are vulnerable to terrorists' destructive and misinformed narratives, and they are adaptive in the face of pressure from countries with strong governments". In South America, there are three main terrorist organizations: "Two Colombian guerrilla groups—the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the National Liberation Army (ELN)—and one Peruvian guerrilla group, the Shining Path (SL)". In Columbia, these two terrorist organizations have been doing unexplainable acts since the 1940's due to the communism that occurred in the past. Columbia has had a history of not having a strong government and it being very corrupt. Around 2016, the Colombian government has tried to get these terrorist organizations under control and are still trying to till this day. In Peru, the Shining Path terrorist organization began in the 1970's due to the split of the communist party. Again, the government wasn't strong and in Peru the government is very corrupt. Not much is sad about what the Peruvian government is doing about this terrorist organization. However, I do agree with Former President Trump's statement up above because these Latin American countries show that terrorist organizations do "thrive on weak governments".

I would like to specifically talk about how well organized this plan is. International terrorism has an influence on radicals in every country and even in America. Many forms of recruitment are through forums online. In 2005 alone there were well over 4000 websites which were about recruitment (Waskiewicz 2). On page 8 of the document it states "al-Qa'ida's global network remains resilient and poses an enduring threat to the homeland and United States interests around the world. " which is primarily internet based. When it comes to my specialty in Defense Innovation, my thoughts are to create R&D defense strategies to mitigate any problems that arise when it comes to financial instability due to an attack. From a homeland security perspective, creating departments to help combat the terrorism forums and recruitment websites is crucial. Some dangerous people like Abu Khalid Abdul Latif who was going to bomb a Seattle Military Facility. When it comes to stopping things from happening in regards to terrorists, cyber security and operations are highly valuable.

Read more on the beginning involvements of terrorism when online forums and YouTube was big on recruitment in the link below.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-112hhrg74647/html/CHRG-112hhrg74647.htm

Pages 13-18 of the NSCT offer some crucial points in not only U.S. strategy for counterterrorism, but how it relates to our allies. For instance, pg 13 states U.S. strategic objectives for counterterrorism along with the lines of effort in which they’re carried out. I think this is one of the most helpful pieces of information to include with an article like this when a president is articulating a national strategy—specifically one for counterterrorism.

In terms of how it relates to our allies, I don’t think a lot of people would be opposed to helping our allies either preemptively or in the case of a terrorist attack, especially if it was a matter of national security and was in our own interests to ‘nip it in the bud’ in order to protect American lives.

More specifically, I want to note what was said on pg 16-17. “There is also a broad range of revolutionary, nationalist, and separatist movements overseas whose use of violence and intent to destabilize societies often puts American lives at risk. For example, the Nordic Resistance Movement is a prominent transnational, self-described nationalist-socialist organization with anti-Western views that has conducted violent attacks against Muslims, left-wing groups, and others. The group has demonstrated against United States Government actions it perceives are supportive of Israel and has the potential to extend its targeting to United States interests. Similarly, the neo-Nazi National Action Group, a terrorist organization that was banned by the United Kingdom in 2016 for its promotion of violence against politicians and minorities, operates mainly in the United Kingdom but has engaged with like-minded groups in the United States, Estonia, France, Germany, Latvia, and Poland—expanding the potential influence of its violent ideology. Such groups may avoid or deprioritize targeting United States interests for now to avoid detracting from their core goals but frequently conduct assassinations and bombings against major economic, political, and social targets, heightening the risk to United States personnel and interests overseas.”

There is no question this is problematic, but I think this also only highlights the importance of taking action against domestic terrorism or terrorism abroad facing our allies. The Trump administration adopted a hard approach to terrorism and I think it will be interesting to see what approach the Biden administration adopts, specifically in terms of Iran-U.S. relations (given that Iran remains the most prominent state sponsor of terrorism).

In the context of my specialty, I'm looking forward to reading further into this document, in hopes that a few points made in today's section will be elaborated on further. The document makes a few points toward the end of today's section regarding identity information and data collection, while mentioning maintaining a respect for individual rights a few paragraphs later. I'll start to sound like a broken record if I continue to bring up Xinjiang and China's loosely applied definition of terrorism, however I think this brings up an interesting comparison between China and the U.S. While the U.S. doesn't have China's track record of using terrorist labels as an excuse for to carry out unlawful and inhumane detention and imprisonment, at the Party level, China's objectives are much more static. As a one-party state, the Party agenda in China in terms of terrorism has remained mostly unchanged, while the objectives of the "ruling" party in the U.S. change to some degree with every midterm, and every four to eight years in the most extreme circumstance. This presents an interesting balancing game, in my opinion. As a state that has concerns in both counter-terrorism AND individual liberty, as well as a government composed of more moving parts than that of a one-China state, how can the U.S. most effectively ensure that individual citizens remain protected from the misuse of tools committed to counter-terrorism? For example, from the Obama administration to the Trump administration, the attitude and discourse surround protesters, whether they be politically charged, socially charged, etc, changed radically. President Trump took a much more open and outspoken stance on protests than his predecessor. I hope that as this document progresses it will address how the American system of checks and balances will ensure that the individual can be protected from the misuse of counter-terrorist tools by an extremely dynamic and fluid state.

Russia's terrorism policy is extremely feeble and rests upon the state's self-interest. Russia has been a major power broker in the Middle East, especially since Trump withdrew most of the US troops. The section on page 16 about "Counter Existing and Emerging Terrorist Funding Methods" stood out to me. Moscow wants to gain power and money, and it doesn't really matter to them how they get it. Russia has been supporting the Assad regime in Syria and is the second largest arms exporter after the US. Also, in the fight against ISIS, Russia has shared intelligence with the Taliban. Arguably, despite ISIS' global ambitions and brutality, the Taliban is a greater threat to Afghanistan. It is highly unlikely will undertake better counterterrorism policies because it would not serve their interests.

State sponsored terrorism is not something that we can support. Being Jewish, I can draw a very real connection to this. Israel is always struggling with Palestinian state sponsored terrorists. When you hear about terrorism you think that it is just radicalized people that want to harm others. When I heard that a state was funding them and giving money to their families when they died it disgusted me. "Iran remains the most prominent state sponsor of terrorism, supporting militant and terrorist groups across the Middle East and cultivating a network of operatives that pose a threat in the United States and globally." I understand that we want to protect the United States most of all, and the idea is that going abroad to fight in other countries is not ideal. I think that it is important that we do what we can to prevent these militants from ever entering the United States. We should also be able to go abroad to deal with countries that want to support terrorism. We should try and deal with the problem before it arrives at our shores. Whether it be through sanctions or military intervention, I truly believe it is in our country's best interest to deal with this before it gets out of control.

The charts on page13 express the strategic goals of the US in its fight against terrorism and defines ideal end-states by which we can determine if those goals are being met, while pages 15-18 identifies known current terrorist threats to the US and/or Europe, with an overwhelming focus on Islamic terrorism and its sources (Iranian funding, currently active groups, the utility of the current migrant waves to Europe, etc). The obvious connection between today's selection and my specialty is the Chinese methodology/approach to identifying terrorism, which is (as I and several other interns have pointed out) to simply label any ideology or group that the CCP doesn't like as fitting the bill, from expressions of culture by Uyghur Muslims or protests in Hong Kong. In addition, I was interested to note that despite being aimed specifically at countering terrorism in the US, the document did take the time to discuss the situation of our allies (the identification of danger to European countries via mass migration allowing terrorists to infiltrate, “Foreign partners address terrorist threats so that these threats do not jeopardize the collective interests of the United States and our partners”, etc).

While reading pages 1-11 of the NSCT document, three sentences stuck out to me regarding my field of international affairs with a South American Specialization. The first was "Our borders and all ports of entry into the United States are secure against terrorist threats”. This is rather good for the United States but bad for South American illegal trading. Due to the United States past of not being secure in our ports, many Latin American gangs would send illegal drugs through ports. Now that port entries are going to be more secure against terrorist threats it's also possible that there will be a shortage of drugs which is good for American citizens.

The second sentence that stuck out to me was “Foreign partners address terrorist threats so that these threats do not jeopardize the collective interests of the United States and our partners”. This is great because this creates a global unity against any terrorist organizations. However, with many Latin American countries, the governments are corrupt and a lot of the time gangs and or terrorist groups run the countries internally. People in Latin American countries may want to go against terrorist groups but can't due to government circumstances.

Lastly, “Public sector partners, private sector partners, and foreign partners take a greater role in preventing and countering terrorism". This stuck out to me because its stating that leaders in other countries need to be leaders and go against terrorist organizations. Historically, Latin American countries are known to have corrupt leaders because they are influenced by money from gangs or terrorist organizations. This states that leaders need to take a stand and fight for their countries.

These sections of the NSCT document provide the framework for identifying and locating known/ potential terrorist threats to the US. "We will enhance the collection, discovery, and exploitation of identity information supporting the counterterrorism mission, particularly biometric data. We will also identify and use other categories of identity information, including publicly available information, financial intelligence, and captured enemy material" (NSCT, 2018). While this sounds similar to China's identification of terrorists in Xinjiang, the two countries could not take a more different approach.

China is known to use surveillance to monitor and restrict certain ideologies from popping up in the mainland. Beijing extended this practice to Hong Kong, one of two SAR's, after the 2019 National Security Law went into effect. Where the US does not see political discourse and disagreement as terrorism, China does. Local authorities in Xinjiang have detained up to 1.5 million Uyghurs on grounds of suspected terrorism, although there is no official number from the CCP. It is a hard argument for China to make that everyone in the Xinjiang camps are suspected terrorists, but their definition of a terrorist is still shrouded in ambiguity.

"We must seek partners, not perfectection - and to make allies of all who share our goals. Accordingly, from civil society and state, local, tribal, and territorial governments to private sector partners and foreign allies, the full range of our partnerships must be enhanced to effectively prevent and counter terrorist activities" - Former President Donald Trump.

This document provides a clear outline of the strategy the US has employed since 2018, and could not be more different from the approach China has used to combat terrorism in its western Xinjiang province. China largely sees it's terrorism problem as a home-grown issue and has not yet released any comprehensive strategy similar to the National Strategy for Counterterrorism (Bellacqua and Tanner, 2016). China has however shown signs that it is strengthening its approach to terrorism through various speeches by Chinese President Xi Jinping to the Politburo, the principal policy-making body of the CCP.

Regarding the NSCT, it highlights several objectives that China is less than willing to adopt, including building a holistic picture of terrorists' identities and establishing a broad range of counterterrorism partnerships abroad. China has no publically available, clear definition of what a terrorist is or what actions constitute terrorism. China's current Counterterrorism Law, passed in 2015, partially defines terrorist behavior or activities that advocate terrorism. These can include anything from posting an Islamic prayer online or having an Islamic-traditional long beard, things that are not labelled terrorist activities by international institutions (Bellacqua and Tanner, 2016).

Because China sees it's terrorism problem as a domestic affair, it does not share its strategies with the international community and does not seek to build broad anti-terror partnerships with foreign nations, as the NSCT highlights several times. China does cooperate with the US and its allies on combating international funding of terrorist groups such as; safeguarding ports, hindering international trafficking of materials, and money-laundering. One aspect of the NSCT that China does fully employ is an integration of federal, state, and local counter-terrorism information sharing. Recent partnerships in this regard are the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the Regional Anti-Terror Structure, which share information about ISIS and suspected Uyghur terrorists in Xinjiang and across mainland China (Bellacqua and Tanner, 2016).

Until China provides a clear outline of its approach to counterterrorism, the international community will continue to question its approach to Xinjiang terrorist activities. China could better coordinate its strategy with the international community and prevent further radicalization in Xinjiang by employing international standards and practices, without potential human rights abuses against the Uyghur population.

Bellacqua, James & Tanner, Murray (2016). China's Response to Terrorism. US.

China Economic and Security Review Commission. 4-182.

I thought the article was insightful to see Trump's policy preferences regarding terrorism. In regards to Russia, the Kremlin has long abused its expansive definition of terrorism for political persons, accusing those they believe to be enemies of the state as terrorists. I think Russia could learn from the US and adopt a more thorough and detailed plan to stop terrorism. Secondly, Russia has relatively few terrorist attacks but is involved around the world providing arms or backing various countries/groups in conflicts. Thus, I think for National Strategy on Counterterrorism to be effective, there needs to be actionable steps and policies put in place to hold other countries accountable in stopping terrorism.

This was a very fascinating read. I have to say, much like Eric—I too had difficulty trying to relate terrorism to my specialty (European environmental/climate change policy). However, the nexus between climate change and terrorism might not necessarily be so far apart. As climate and weather patterns shift, the resulting environmental crisis could arguably be leveraged as a tool for terror and political violence. Globally, environmental stress due to unpredictable weather catalyzes political violence which further undermines already weak governments. In the United States specifically, environmental crisis could be considered a “threat multiplier” that could enable terrorism, overwhelm response capabilities, and threaten populations and critical infrastructure.

The emerging threat is not about eco-terrorism (a term used to describe acts of violence in support of ecological or environmental causes). Rather, there is a growing potential for vulnerable ecosystems to be exploited or destroyed as a means to intimidate or provoke a state of terror in the general public for a political, ideological, or philosophical agenda. Severe drought as a result of climatic weather shifts raises vulnerability of water systems as reservoirs continue to dry up. As global fresh water supplies become increasingly scarce, extremist groups are stepping up attacks and manipulating supply as a strategic tactic of coercion.

This could also be applied to the wildfires specifically here in the U.S. The exposure of U.S. communities to wildfire makes wildfire a potentially potent weapon for economic warfare and mass destruction. One military officer wrote in his 2005 thesis titled “PYRO-TERRORISM—THE THREAT OF ARSON INDUCED FOREST FIRES AS A FUTURE TERRORIST WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION”: “An opportunistic terrorist can unleash multiple fires creating a conflagration potentially equal to a multi-megaton nuclear weapon.” Wildfires can have a profoundly negative effect on a region’s economy: the damage from California’s 2018 conflagrations is estimated at $400 billion.

I liked that the document wasted no time making an example of ISIS' online/media presence as a tool for radicalization and recruitment. This avenue for recruitment strikes me as something of a given within the United States. However, in states like China where information is not as freely and readily available to the average person, there is less room for the state to fall back on curtailing such methods. That is to say, in a state where the flow of information is already standardized and restricted, information used by extremist groups is already moving underground, whereas in a more open society that information may first show itself on the surface web, for example, rather than being moved to a darknet. It'll be interesting to consider how states that govern differently may approach this problem differently.

To be fair, it is a document aimed specifically at domestic terrorism, so it makes sense that details about foreign terror assistance would be left out. How lasting do you think that those repercussions will be, as Biden sets out to reverse most of what Trump has done?

Pages 1-11 of the document are insightful. While the Trump administration adopted an America First policy, I can't help but notice that they shoulder a large portion of the burden on other international players (pg 10 last para). In regards to what forms of collaboration will be implemented amongst allies in order to combat terrorism, it's vague. I do commend his honest approach of stating that he will place the United States' self-interests first, which is a turn from previous leadership acting as the "police of the world." This is also shown as there isn't mention of increased spending for other countries to combat terrorism. Instead, the money will be going towards domestic counterterrorism efforts.

The America First policy enacted by Trump can also be seen in connection to Latin American immigration. Under this administration, southern border security was prioritized over providing aid to Latin American countries that failed to "stem the outflow of northbound migrants.(McDonnel, NPR)"

In both cases, the Trump administration adopted a hard approach that has lasting repercussions for the Biden administration.

This was a fascinating article, and one in a genre I have not read much of before. From within my specialty, I think that I can make a connection, or rather a contrast, between the document and the Chinese approach to Uyghur "terrorism" in Xinjiang, which is overbearing and directly targeted against the ethnic group. For example, China defines virtually anything culturally Uyghur as an expression of pro-terrorist sentiment, even something as innocuous as a style of dress of hair.

As a human rights specialist, our basic rights are always my main priority. The reason counter terrorism is so important, especially in the United States, is because we are promised "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." It is clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence. Counter-terrorism helps defend all of these rights that are inalienable. Terrorist that strategize and try to jeopardize our safety must be stopped. It says on page 19 of the article that Trump notes "America is a sovereign nation and our first priority is always the safety and security of our citizens. The United States must, therefore, relentlessly focus on countering terrorism that jeopardizes American citizens and interests. We will not dilute our counterterrorism efforts by attempting to be everywhere all the time, trying to eradicate all threats." I like that the president is focused on protecting his people first and foremost. It is important to put an emphasis on the protection of our citizens as well as those around the world. I do agree that the process should start with his own people and then gradually spread to other parts that need assistance.