Homegrown Violent Extremism

Erroll Southers

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2014
• Print ISBN: 9781138415669
• eBook ISBN: 9781317522423
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Criminology
• Index: Social Sciences

In the country's changing threat environment, homegrown violent extremism (HVE) represents the next challenge in counterterrorism. Security and public policy expert Erroll Southers examines post-9/11 HVE – what it is, the conditions enabling its existence, and the community-based approaches that can reduce the risk of homegrown terrorism. Drawing on scholarly insight and more than three decades on the front lines of America's security efforts, Southers challenges the misplaced counterterrorism focus on foreign individuals and communities. As Southers shows, there is no true profile of a terrorist. The book challenges how Americans think about terrorism, recruitment, and the homegrown threat. It contains essential information for communities, security practitioners, and policymakers on how violent extremists exploit vulnerabilities in their communities and offers approaches to put security theory into practice.

Chapter 1

Defining Homegrown Violent Extremism

Homegrown violent extremism (HVE) represents the next challenge for counterterrorism, but addressing the threat with effective risk-reduction and intelligence-driven security demands a clear understanding of what constitutes HVE. What is “homegrown?” Is HVE synonymous with domestic terrorism?

Much like the word “terrorism,” there is no comprehensive definition for HVE. For homegrown and foreign actors alike, there is no consistency with regard to race, religious belief, national origin, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation or indeed, any other characteristic (aside from the desire to attack structures or people to achieve an ideologically driven societal, governmental, or economic goal).

Recognizing that one size does not fit all in the counterterrorism lexicon, this book uses the following definition as a baseline for comparative analysis of the homegrown phenomenon:

HVE describes a terrorist act within the context of ideologically motivated violence or plots, perpetrated within the United States or abroad by American citizens, residents or visitors, who have embraced their legitimizing ideology largely within the United States.

Within this definition are three primary terms requiring further description. These are a definition of a “terrorist act;”; an examination of what constitutes extremism and violent extremism; and the characteristics of a “homegrown” adversary.

1.1 What is Terrorism?

There are few words more emotionally or politically charged than “terrorism.” Even before the world entered the post-9/11 era, attempts to define terrorism confounded academics. There is a general agreement that terrorism is bad and associated with nonacceptable, criminal behavior. Yet, there is a long history behind terrorist action, raising a multitude of definitional gray areas.

Historically, the term is of French origin, first used to describe the state-sponsored tactics employed by the Committee of Public Safety and the Revolutionary Tribunal under Robespierre’s so-called Regime de la Terreur (“Reign of Terror”). Robespierre used terrorism as a national security strategy, which consisted of widespread surveillance and the threat and use of brutal, often lethal, tactics that deterred domestic anarchy. For Robespierre, terrorisme implied a sense of altruism and collective benefit, which resulted in nearly half a million arrests (by some estimates) and tens of thousands of dead French citizens.

While the term originated in relation to state-sponsored activities, in contemporary usage, terrorism is more commonly applied to the actions of individuals or nongovernmental groups. Yet, there is not a consistent definition in use around the world, which raises challenges for counterterrorism efforts. After the Sixtieth General Assembly of the United Nations convened in 2005, the representative for Iceland, Hjalmar Hannesson, concisely defined the dilemma posed by inconsistent definitions. He said, “nations had to come to agreement on a definition of the term ‘terrorism,’ for without a consensus of what constituted terrorism, nations could not unite against it.”¹ The Malaysian Delegate Mohd Puad Zarkashi added that, “until all countries agreed on the enemy they sought to defeat, there would always be loopholes and safe havens for those criminals to escape justice and the rule of law.”²

Even within the United States, there is a lack of agreement between government organizations on how to define terrorism.

• The FBI deems terrorism as “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”³
• The U.S. Department of Defense defines it as “the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.”⁴
• The Central Intelligence Agency considers terrorism to be “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.”⁵
• And different still, the Department of Homeland Security calls terrorism “any activity that involves an act that is dangerous to human life or potentially destructive to critical infrastructure or key resources, and is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any state or other subdivision of the United States and appears to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.”⁶

There is equally no agreement on definition between noted academic experts. Inasmuch as there is a political dimension to terrorist behavior, there are also religious, sociological, and even psychological elements that play into how activity is employed and devised. Scholars from the myriad disciplines that have examined the phenomenon have yielded as many attempts at a definition.

To further muddy the definitional waters, media references to catastrophic events are often framed as terrorism before all the facts are known. A bombing of a building is not inherently terroristic; a narcotics cartel’s violent tactics are not necessarily narco-terrorism; and the disruption of power to energy infrastructure is not prima facie cyber-terrorism. Yet, current events are sometimes presented broadly as terrorist in nature, often to enhance the scope of the incident and consequently, the interest of concerned media consumers.

Taking into account these long-running deliberations over how to define terrorism, any comprehensive definition should be based on three important elements:

1. The essence of the activity is the use or threatened use of violence. Violence—actual or potential—supports one critical result of terrorism: fear. Citizens generally believe that their government has the capacity and capability to protect them, and violence that eludes the government protector shakes societal support for that government, and consequently, its policies and activities. The fear of violence is as effective in impacting government activity as violence itself.
2. The targets of activity are civilians. Under International Humanitarian Law (IHL), a civilian is a person who is not a member of his or her country’s armed forces. An important element is that the act is purposely directed at civilians; actions that accidentally cause civilian casualties because individuals stumbled into an area of violent political activity are not necessarily terrorism.
3. The objective of activity is political. Terrorist action strives for specific ideological goals or political expectations, which can be centered on race, religion, national origin, or other systems of issue-oriented priorities. Implicitly, every ideology entails a political tendency, and thus, by its very nature, terrorism is also political.

1.2 What is Violent Extremism?

Extremism is a primary feature of terrorist behavior. It is an ideology or a viewpoint that is, as scholar Gus Martin writes, “radical in opinion, especially in political matters… characterized by intolerance toward opposing interests and divergent opinions.”⁷ Violent extremism occurs when individuals or groups openly express their ideological beliefs through violence or a call for violence.

An important point is that while extremism may be a precursor to terrorism, ideological beliefs do not independently reach the threshold for an act of terrorism. There is a distinct difference between “terrorist” and “extremist” organizations. So long as extremist groups do not explicitly endorse violence, their beliefs and ideology are protected under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Yet, the freedom and protections of speech, including overt “hate speech,” present significant challenges for providing constitutional protections, for both people espousing biased opinions as well as for those who may become victimized in furtherance of those subjective ideologies. The latter are in some cases called “hate crimes,” which are deemed to have occurred when someone is targeted because of their perceived membership in a certain social group (race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.).

Understanding that advocating or using violence is central to the idea of violent extremism, it is important to clarify characteristics manifested by extremists writ large. Some of the most frequently occurring include:

• Intolerance and superiority: Extremists assume the moral high ground associated with their basic ideology. Most common are racial, religious and ethnic claims of superiority, which are espoused to illuminate their noble place in society. The overriding belief is that “the world is theirs,” and the rest of the human race is fortunate to live in it and may continue to do so as long as they understand their place.
• Otherism: This is a presumption that a given social segment or group does not belong to the mainstream. It manifests in personal attacks that question one’s motives, qualifications, experience or expertise. Social scientists call this “microaggression.” Derogatory epithets such as hajji, kike, Mud people, referring to people of Middle Eastern, Jewish and non-European descent, respectively, are commonly used to label opponents while diverting attention from viewpoints opposed to the extremist ideology.
• Absolutism: Extremists embrace a Manichaean worldview—that is, one of moral, religious or philosophical dualism. Their position is one of moral absolutes, and their messages are designed to reinforce the notion that their opponents are “bad.” This negates a need for discussion or debate on ideological validity because adversaries inherently have nothing in common. As a result, extremists view their own cause as noble while any opponents are necessarily always antagonistic.
• Generalizations lacking foundation: Extremists paint people, things and events with a broad brush, though lacking any evidence to support their claims. Rather than discuss facts and ideas that contradict these generalizations, extremists will simply ignore them, avoiding debate. This characteristic leads to false conclusions, which further the biased, ideological agenda.
• Doomsday scenarios and conspiracy theories: Extremists tend to describe an apocalyptic outcome from a failure to pursue their mission. This can include an invasion of the United States, an overthrow of the U.S. government by a foreign force, or the villainizing of the U.S. government itself. Conspiracy theories, such as the idea that the government was directly responsible for the 9/11 t...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• CONTENTS
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• Chapter 1 Defining Homegrown Violent Extremism
• Chapter 2 Ideological Motivation
• Chapter 3 The Radicalization Pathway
• Chapter 4 Leveraging Disciplines Toward a Counterterrorism Profession
• Chapter 5 A Mosaic of Engagement
• Conclusion