Terrorism in the age of polarization, CNN.com

Terrorism in the age of polarization
Peter Bergen
By Peter Bergen, CNN National Security Analyst
Updated 11:46 AM ET, Mon June 19, 2017

Story highlights
Bergen: Recent attacks demonstrate that our westernized perception of terrorism is far too narrow in scope
We must recognize that terrorism comes in many shapes and forms, he says
Peter Bergen is CNN’s national security analyst, a vice president at New America and a professor of practice at Arizona State University. He is the author of “United States of Jihad: Investigating America’s Homegrown Terrorists.”

(CNN)The attack early on Monday morning near a mosque in North London targeting Muslims who were celebrating the holy month of Ramadan reminds us that terrorism comes in many shapes and forms.

Because of the 9/11 attacks, the framing of terrorism by politicians, the media and the public too often in the past decade and a half has been that it is Islamist political violence that is the terrorism we need to be concerned about.

But a spate of recent attacks underline that this framing is too narrow in scope. The commonly accepted definition of terrorism is that it is politically motivated violence directed at civilians by entities other than a state. These kind of attacks can come from the far right, the far left, racists of every stripe, as well as jihadists.

Monday’s attack at the mosque in London, for instance, was clearly an act of anti-Muslim terrorism. A 48-year-old man was arrested after a van ploughed into worshippers near the mosque; one man was killed and 10 were hurt. British Prime Minister Theresa May called the attack “every bit as sickening” as the London Bridge and Manchester jihadist attacks. And London Mayor Sadiq Khan said anti-Muslim crimes have increased sharply since the London Bridge killings.

Last week 66-year-old James T. Hodgkinson III attacked congressional Republicans practicing baseball in Alexandria, Virginia, injuring five including House Majority Whip Steve Scalise. Hodgkinson was shot by police officers and died shortly after his attack.

Hodgkinson was a rabid critic of President Trump who posted on Facebook: “Trump is a Traitor. Trump Has Destroyed Our Democracy. It’s Time to Destroy Trump & Co.” Before he carried out his attack, Hodgkinson had asked two Republican congressmen who were at the baseball practice, Florida Rep. Ron DeSantis and South Carolina Rep. Jeff Duncan, if the players were Republicans or Democrats. Duncan said they were Republicans.
Hodgkinson’s attack was clearly an act of leftist terrorism.

Two months ago, on April 18, in Fresno, California, Kori Ali Muhammad stalked three white men with a revolver before shooting and killing them. On social media, Muhammad had called white people “devils” and posted about black separatism. Muhammad’s father told the Los Angeles Times that his son believed that he was part of conflict between blacks and whites and “a battle was about to take place.”

Muhammad’s attack clearly was a terrorist attack motivated by racism.
The reason that attacks by American terrorists who are not jihadist militants are sometimes not called “terrorism” is, in part, because in the United States terrorism is a crime which has to be in some way be associated with a “designated” terrorist group such as ISIS. These groups are designated by the U.S. State Department and are invariably foreign terrorist organizations.

Belonging to such a group is a crime in the United States, but because the First Amendment protects all kinds of hateful speech and ideas, neo-Nazi groups or other organizations based in the United States that espouse hateful views are not as a legal matter considered terrorist organizations, even if their adherents sometimes conduct acts that amount to terrorism.
It is perhaps not surprising that in an age of polarization where anti-immigrant sentiment is strong in some Western countries and where political emotions run high (be it over “Brexit “in the United Kingdom or over President Trump in the United States) we are seeing acts of political violence emanating both from the far left and the far right. They come in addition to the attacks by jihadist militants — which remain, of course, a very real concern.

Trump’s emerging plan on Afghanistan breaks with Obama, CNN.com

Peter Bergen says the Trump administration’s approach will stress an open-ended, long-term commitment of troops
This already is America’s longest war

“Peter Bergen is CNN’s national security analyst, a vice president at New America and a professor of practice at Arizona State University. He is the author of “United States of Jihad: Investigating America’s Homegrown Terrorists.” ”

(CNN)The elements of President Donald Trump’s approach to the Afghanistan war are emerging — and they’re markedly different from the stance President Barack Obama took. For one thing, Trump is committing US military forces to a long-term and open-ended deployment in Afghanistan, according to a senior US official.

Obama surged tens of thousands of additional US troops into Afghanistan, but when he gave a speech at West Point on December 1, 2009, announcing the new troops, he also simultaneously announced their withdrawal date.
For the Taliban, the Afghan government and Afghanistan’s neighbors such as Pakistan, the headline of Obama’s West Point speech was not the surge of new troops, but the withdrawal date. This had the counterproductive effect of encouraging the Taliban to wait out the Americans.

It also undermined confidence among Afghans and it affected the hedging strategy of Pakistan’s military intelligence service, ISI, which has long supported elements of the Taliban.
The Trump administration won’t replicate this mistake –there will be no announcements of withdrawal dates, according to the US official.

Getting the Afghanistan strategy right not only could determine the fate of America’s longest war, but also could have a powerful impact on America’s role in South Asia. But there are serious risks and working through all of them is extremely difficult, as the George W. Bush and Obama administrations discovered.

Troop levels

As to the number of additional American troops going to Afghanistan, last week President Trump delegated that decision to Defense Secretary James Mattis.

The US official put the number of new troops that is expected to deploy to Afghanistan at 3,800, adding to the 8,400 that are already there.

The delegation of authority to Secretary Mattis is another break with the Obama White House, which capped the number of troops that could be deployed.

The addition of the 3,800 troops will allow the Americans to train and assist Afghan forces at the tactical level on the ground, just as the US military is currently doing in Iraq with the Iraqi forces fighting against ISIS.
The addition of new troops is part of a broader South Asia strategy that the Trump administration is formulating that will include how to deal with Afghanistan’s neighbors such as Pakistan. The new South Asia strategy will be finished in the “coming weeks,” according to the senior US official, and it will focus as much on aid and diplomacy as it does on military strategy.

The senior US official said that the rush to add troops before the overall South Asia strategy was set was the result of the worsening security and political situation in Afghanistan that was particularly underlined by a massive truck bomb that blew up in Kabul’s diplomatic quarter on May 31, killing more than 150.

The bombing and other recent terrorist incidents has amplified major divisions in the government, which is led by both President Ashraf Ghani and CEO Abdullah Abdullah, according to the US official.

An awkward shotgun marriage between Ghani and Abdullah was engineered by the Obama administration after both of them contested the 2014 presidential election and accused each other — correctly — of benefiting from widespread electoral fraud.

Situation is ‘critical’

The Trump administration worries that if the Afghan government were to fracture so, too, would the Afghan army. Describing the situation as “critical,” the US official said that is why the addition of new troops could not wait for the completion of the overall South Asia strategy.

To skeptics who say that America’s longest war — now in its 16th year in Afghanistan — seems unlikely to be turned around by the addition of a relatively few number of troops that are being added by the Trump administration, compared to the tens of thousands of additional soldiers that President Obama deployed in 2009, the US official pointed to four factors that may produce a better result:

First, the long-term American commitment to Afghanistan by Trump gives time to stabilize the country so that the Afghan army can have the time and space to handle internal security.

Second, the Trump team believes it can convince the Pakistanis to better cooperate with the United States in terms of clamping down on terrorist groups who are using their territory as sanctuary, in particular the Haqqani Network, which is a component of the Taliban and has carried out many of the most lethal terrorist attacks in the Afghan capital, Kabul. However, the Obama administration also tried to get the Pakistanis to rein in the Haqqani Network, to little avail.
Third, successes on the battlefield against the Taliban may get them to the negotiating table, as a negotiated settlement is the only way to end the war.

Fourth, the Afghan National Army is a more professional military force than it was several years ago.
Haqqani Network and Pakistan.

A key element in all this is Pakistan, which “does have influence over the Haqqani leadership,” according the US official.
This is particularly important because the leader of the Haqqanis, Siraj Haqqani, is now the deputy leader of the Taliban and also runs its military operations.

An important factor in the strategic planning is that five Americans are being held hostage by the Haqqanis, including Caitlan Coleman and her two children under the age of 4 who were both born in captivity, as well as Kevin King, a teacher at the American University of Afghanistan in Kabul and author Paul Overby.

In addition, Canadian Joshua Boyle, the husband of Coleman and another American University of Afghanistan teacher, Timothy Weeks, an Australian citizen, also are being held by the Haqqanis.

According to the US official, the plight of the American hostages is “constantly discussed” with the Pakistanis and is raised “at the most senior levels.”

If the Pakistanis don’t do more to clamp down on the Haqqanis, the Trump administration could authorize additional drone strikes and also make public information about the links between them and the Pakistani military intelligence agency ISI, according to the US official.

There are risks, however, in amping up pressure on the Pakistanis, who have been told to “do more” about terrorist groups on their territory by successive American administrations over the past decade and a half.
The Pakistanis feel that they have already done quite enough. The India-based South Asia Terrorism Portal estimates that more than 6,700 Pakistani soldiers have died fighting the Taliban and over 21,000 Pakistani civilians have been killed in terrorist attacks over the past 14 years. Other estimates run even higher.
The Pakistanis also have important cards of their own to play if the Trump administration does amp up pressure on them — which is the fact that Afghanistan is a landlocked country and the easiest air and land routes into Afghanistan to resupply US soldiers are thorough Pakistan. Pakistan could make the flow of American supplies into Afghanistan more difficult in a number of different ways.

It’s a dilemma that the George W. Bush and Obama administration faced, which is that the United States needs the help of the Pakistanis in a number of ways and can only cajole or coerce them so far.
The Pakistanis are also closely allied to the Chinese, who are providing them with tens of billions of dollars of investments. It wouldn’t be smart to push them further into the arms of the United States’ nearest peer competitor, China.

The Trump administration has the benefit with the Pakistanis of being a newly installed administration, which gives them leverage, but the issue of how best to deal with Pakistan and the search for the optimal approach in Afghanistan has bedeviled three successive American administrations since 9/11.

The most promising approach in the Trump administration strategy is its long-term commitment to Afghanistan. As the Trump administration formulates its South Asia strategy and the public messaging around it, this is the key point that needs to be emphasized.

Domestic abuse can portend terror violence, CNN.com

Bergen: Domestic abuse can portend terror violence

By Peter Bergen and David Sterman, CNN

“Peter Bergen is CNN’s national security analyst, a vice president at New America and a professor of practice at Arizona State University. He is the author of “United States of Jihad: Investigating America’s Homegrown Terrorists.” David Sterman is a policy analyst at New America’s International Security Program.”

(CNN)James T. Hodgkinson, the man who carried out Wednesday’s shooting at a baseball practice by congressional Republicans, was a small-business owner from Illinois. He also was charged 11 years ago with domestic abuse.

In 2006 Hodgkinson was arrested on charges of domestic battery after, according to a police report, he went into a neighbor’s house to find his daughter, used bodily force to damage a door, grabbed his daughter by her hair, and when she escaped him and ran to a car, used a knife to cut her seat belt. He punched the neighbor, and brandished a shotgun, firing one round, the police report said.
The charges against Hodgkinson were later dismissed, but the allegations have a new resonance after Wednesday’s shooting attack. A history of association with domestic violence is relatively common among those who have committed political violence in the United States.

Of the 48 perpetrators of lethal political violence in the United States since 9/11 — whether they were motivated by jihadist, far right or black nationalist ideologies — 11, or almost a quarter, had allegations or convictions of domestic violence or sexual crimes in their past, according to an analysis of New America’s research.
While there are quite a number of domestic abusers and sexual predators in the United States — and there are, relatively speaking, few terrorists — it is striking how many domestic terrorists have had an earlier brush with domestic violence or sexual crimes before they have gone on to carry out significant terrorist acts.
Take Omar Mateen, who killed 49 people at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando on June 12, 2016 — the most deadly terrorist attack in the United States since 9/11. His first wife, Sitora Yusufiy, told reporters he had abused her.
Or Joshua Cummings, a former soldier and convert to Islam, accused of killing a transit guard in Denver in January, and who claimed to have done so for ISIS. Cummings reportedly was charged with domestic violence in 2010, though the case was eventually dropped.

Kori Allen Muhammad, charged with killing three people in an April attack reportedly motivated by black nationalist ideology, was also previously arrested for domestic violence.
Similar cases can be found among the far right. Robert Dear, for example, accused of killing three people in a 2015 attack on a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado, had a history of run-ins with police over domestic violence.
Terry Smith, an anti-government militant and so-called “Sovereign Citizen,” who was convicted for his role in the murder of two police officers in Louisiana during a shootout in 2012, was also convicted of the aggravated rape of a child relative.
Pelosi chokes up over congressional shooting

Domestic violence among perpetrators of deadly political violence should not be surprising: It is also common among perpetrators of mass violence more generally. According to the gun safety research group, Everytown, data analysis of FBI and media reports reveal that “the majority of mass shootings in the U.S. are related to domestic or family violence.”
More research remains to be done on the nature of the linkage between domestic violence and sexual crimes and acts of political violence. But the frequency of the association reveal this as quite a promising area of research — particularly as law enforcement officials try to understand how someone who is known to be radicalizing might eventually go on to commit a violent act in the name of whatever twisted radical ideology he or she has embraced.

The return of leftist terrorism? CNN.com

The return of leftist terrorism?

By Peter Bergen and David Sterman, CNN

Bergen and Sterman: Wednesday’s shootings are possible act of leftist terrorism
In the 1960s and 1970s, left-wing terrorism was a common occurrence in the United States

“Peter Bergen is CNN’s national security analyst, a vice president at New America and a professor of practice at Arizona State University. He is the author of “United States of Jihad: Investigating America’s Homegrown Terrorists.” David Sterman is a policy analyst at New America’s International Security Program.”

(CNN)On Wednesday morning, a gunman attacked congressional Republicans practicing baseball, injuring five people including House Majority Whip Steve Scalise. The man identified as the shooter, 66-year-old James T. Hodgkinson III, was taken into custody and later died.
Peter Bergen

While the incident remains under investigation, a review of Facebook pages belonging to Hodgkinson show he supported Sen. Bernie Sanders during the election and was fervently opposed to President Donald Trump. One Facebook post read: “Trump is a Traitor. Trump Has Destroyed Our Democracy. It’s Time to Destroy Trump & Co.” Sanders confirmed that Hodgkinson had volunteered for his presidential campaign and, in no uncertain terms, condemned his violent acts.
Two Republican congressmen who were at the baseball practice, Florida Rep. Ron DeSantis and South Carolina Rep. Jeff Duncan, also said that a man who looked like the shooter had asked them before the shooting if the players were Republicans or Democrats. Duncan replied they were Republicans.

Hodgkinson’s political leanings, his potential targeting of GOP victims and the symbolic importance of those victims raises the very strong possibility the shooting was an act of leftist terrorism.
Hodgkinson’s attack appears to fit the commonly accepted definition of terrorism, which is politically motivated violence against civilians by an entity other than a state, and once again reminds us that terrorism is the province of no single ideology.
In this age of political polarization, the United States must be prepared for violence from the left, the right, jihadists, and also those who subscribe to hard-to-categorize conspiracy theories. One such recent example of conspiracy-inspired violence occurred not far from Alexandria, when a man armed with a rifle fired shots inside a Washington DC pizza joint, while he was there to “investigate” an Internet-fueled hoax that the restaurant was a front for a child sex ring organized by Democratic Party officials.
In this undated file photo, James Hodgkinson holds a sign during a protest outside a United States Post Office in Belleville, Illinois.
In this undated file photo, James Hodgkinson holds a sign during a protest outside a United States Post Office in Belleville, Illinois.
While less prevalent in the national consciousness today, in the 1960s and 1970s, left-wing terrorism was a common occurrence in the United States, with many attacks perpetrated by radical groups such as the Black Panthers, the Weather Underground and other smaller, less-well-known groups. The 1960s and 1970s were also a time of great political polarization given the protests around the Vietnam War and the intensification of the civil rights movement.
The Weather Underground was an anti-Vietnam War organization that targeted the Pentagon, the US Capitol and banks. The group claimed credit for 25 bombings in 1975 alone, according to the University of Maryland’s Global Terrorism Database.
Anti-war militants also carried out major bombings at City Hall in Portland, Oregon, and the University of Wisconsin-Madison, while the Black Panthers mounted 24 bombings, hijackings and other assaults.
The golden age of terrorism
The golden age of terrorism
Since the 1970s, left wing terrorism has largely declined, with the exception of some more extreme animal rights groups and eco-terrorists. But these groups have largely targeted property rather than aiming to conduct lethal attacks.
In addition, there have been occasional instances of politically motivated violence from the left, including a 2013 shooting at the conservative Family Research Council motivated in part by its opposition to same-sex marriage. Fortunately no one was killed.
The necessary comparison of incidents of far-left and far-right terrorism raises important questions about political polarization and radical violence. Since 9/11, according to data collected by New America, far-right terrorists have conducted a much higher number of lethal attacks in the United States than leftist terrorists, killing a total of 53 people.
But in the past two years, amid the polarization of the election campaign and of Trump’s election victory, political violence seems to again be emerging on the left.
On July 7, 2016, Micah Xavier Johnson shot and killed five police officers at the conclusion of a Black Lives Matter protest in Dallas. Johnson was not connected to the protest, but his Facebook page revealed an interest in radical black groups like the New Black Panther Party, and the Dallas police chief said, “The suspect stated he wanted to kill white people, especially white officers.”

Two months ago, on April 18, Kori Ali Muhammad, a 39-year-old African-American man, was arrested and charged with killing three people in a shooting in Fresno, California. Police said they believed race was a factor in the murders and Muhammad’s social media presence included Black Nationalist posts. Muhammad’s father said his son believed he was part of a war between whites and blacks and that “a battle was about to take place.”
Although these two attacks motivated by black nationalist ideology share little in common with the politics of Hodgkinson, the three of them together summon echoes of the past, when the United States experienced domestic terrorism at the hands of leftists and black nationalists.

Afghanistan in Crisis: Where to Go From Here, New America DC

Afghanistan in Crisis: Where to Go From Here
RSVP
When

June 9, 2017

12:15 pm – 1:45 pm
Where

New America

740 15th St NW #900

Washington, D.C. 20005

The security situation in Afghanistan is deteriorating. The massive truck bomb in Kabul that killed dozens highlights the crisis just as the Trump administration considers what direction it should take U.S. policy regarding America’s longest war. What steps will the Trump administration take, and what policy should it adopt? How should the United States weigh the costs and benefits of the various options on the table.

To discuss these issues, New America welcomes Peter Bergen, Vice President of New America, John Dempsey, a fellow with New America’s International Security Program, and Ioannis Koskinas, a senior fellow with New America’s International Security Program who has been based in Afghanistan for the past seven years. Dempsey is the former senior advisor to Ambassador Richard C. Holbrooke and his successors in the State Department’s Office of the Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, where he oversaw U.S. government rule of law and elections policy in the region from 2009-2016. Koskinas focuses on foreign policy issues with an emphasis on Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and the Levant. He is the CEO of the Hoplite Group, a company focused on sustainable and innovative solutions to complex problems, in the most challenging environments and harshest conditions.
Participants:

Peter Bergen, @peterbergencnn
Vice President, New America

John Dempsey
Fellow, New America International Security Program

Ioannis Koskinas, @Gianni_in_Kabul
Senior Fellow, New America International Security Program
CEO, Hoplite Group

Moderator:

Awista Ayub
Deputy Director, New America Fellows Program
Author, Kabul Girls Soccer Club

Trump’s travel ban is useless. Terrorists mostly come from our own back yard. Washington Post

Trump’s travel ban is useless. Terrorists mostly come from our own back yard.
Banning visitors from foreign countries wouldn’t have stopped the majority of jihadist terror attacks since 9/11.

By Peter Bergen June 5 at 6:00 AM
Peter Bergen is the author of “United States of Jihad: Investigating America’s Homegrown Terrorists”, a CNN National Security Analyst and Vice President at New America.

Terrorist events often involve perpetrators who are second-generation citizens of their countries. (Odd Andersen/Agence France-Presse)
Shortly after the news broke Saturday evening about a possible terrorist attack in London, President Trump tweeted: “We need to be smart, vigilant and tough. We need the courts to give us back our rights. We need the Travel Ban as an extra level of safety!”

A good deal of the judicial opposition to the Trump administration’s proposed temporary ban of citizens of six Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States has focused on the constitutionality of banning adherents of a particular religion. It makes sense, given Trump’s many public statements during the campaign about barring Muslims from coming to the States.

Less attention has focused on the question of whether the travel ban would do what it is intended to do, which is purportedly to make us safer. The reality is that it probably wouldn’t do much to protect Americans and Europeans from the kind of terrorism we mostly witness now.

In a large majority of recent terrorist attacks in the West, the attackers have been native-born citizens rather than recent immigrants or refugees.

The identities of the London attackers have not yet been released, but it’s not unreasonable to assume they probably are British citizens — after all, almost all the perpetrators of serious attacks in the United Kingdom over the past decade or so have been British citizens.

Three of the four suicide attackers recruited by al-Qaeda who carried out the most lethal terrorist attack in British history, killing 52 commuters on the London transportation system on July 7, 2005, were British citizens. So, too, was the suicide bomber who carried out an attack in Manchester two weeks ago that killed 22 people attending an Ariana Grande concert. Indeed, the terrorist was born in Manchester. And the terrorist who carried out an attack in March on London’s Westminster Bridge that killed four was also a British citizen born in the very English county of Kent.

The same pattern holds true in the United States. According to research by New America, a D.C.-based think tank, of the 13 perpetrators of lethal jihadist terrorist attacks in the States since 9/11 (which produced a combined total fatality count of 94 people), all of the terrorists were American citizens or legal permanent residents. Of the 406 cases of jihadist terrorism (nonlethal and otherwise) in the States since Sept. 11, 2001, tracked by New America, more than 80 percent of the cases involved U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents.

None of the lethal terrorists were refugees, nor were any of them from any of the six countries the Trump administration would like to suspend travel from, nor were their families from any of those countries, and only one was a relatively recent immigrant (from Pakistan, which is not on the travel ban list). Instead, many of these attackers were radicalized, at least in part, by materials they read on the Internet, or through communications with other jihadist militants on the Internet.

The travel ban would, of course, be of no use whatsoever in blocking the Internet.

Consider the emblematic case of Nidal Hasan, a U.S. army major born in Arlington, Va., who emailed the notorious U.S.-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki more than a dozen times seeking religious sanction for an attack on his fellow soldiers. Hasan went on to kill 13 at Fort Hood, Tex., in 2009.

Another native-born American, Omar Mateen, killed 49 at a gay nightclub in Orlando last year, the most lethal terrorist attack in the States since 9/11. The son of Afghan immigrants, Mateen was born in the Queens borough of New York and is not dissimilar in that regard to Trump himself — who was also born in Queens and is the son of a Scottish immigrant.

Before he died in a CIA drone strike in 2011, Awlaki declared, “Jihad is as American as apple pie.” That seemingly absurd statement has a grain of truth: It is overwhelmingly American citizens and legal residents often radicalized by the Internet who are the perpetrators of jihadist terrorism crimes in the States.

So if the travel ban won’t accomplish much of anything, what might?

On Sunday, British Prime Minister Theresa May took a swipe at social media companies declaring, “We cannot allow this ideology the safe space it needs to breed. Yet that is precisely what the Internet — and the big companies that provide internet-based services — provide. We need to work with allied, democratic governments to reach international agreements that regulate cyberspace to prevent the spread of extremism.”

That is easier said than done. All key social media companies are based in the United States, and the First Amendment allows for much hateful but protected free speech. And when it comes to terrorism, the line between what is admissible on a social media platform and what is not are much fuzzier than in cases such as child pornography, which is both illegal and easy to recognize.

Take the ambiguous case of the American cleric Awlaki, who gave countless rather anodyne lectures about Islam that are available on YouTube, but also gave a far smaller number of lectures calling for jihadist violence that clearly violate the ‘Terms of Use’ of most social media companies. Should all of Awlaki’s lectures be taken down, or just some of them? And if you did so, how long would it take before many of those lectures were quickly restored?

This is not to imply that inaction by social media companies that host jihadist material is somehow fair enough. In fact, social media companies such as Twitter have taken down hundreds of thousands of pro-ISIS accounts, and Facebook has hired thousands of employees to help the company with “takedowns.” But purging jihadist material entirely from the Internet is a pipe dream. There is just too much of it.

This problem is compounded because ISIS has moved a great deal of it social media to Telegram, an encrypted platform that is based in Germany, and is therefore beyond the reach of British or American laws.

Trump is unlikely to be granted his travel ban, given the number of courts that have ruled against it, but in the event that it is enacted, he will find that it is far from the magic bullet he believes it to be.

Instead, the best approach to deal with the scourge of jihadist terrorism is to enlist rather than alienate Muslim communities, because it is often peers and family members who are best positioned to notice radicalization or attack planning. Indeed, Muslims already are leading anti-radicalization efforts in their own communities, and we should support these ongoing efforts.

But not even that is a panacea. Members of the Muslim community warned authorities about the radicalization of the Manchester terrorist Salman Abedi years ago, and his father was so concerned about his son’s state of mind that he had confiscated his passport before the Manchester bombing.

None of this, of course, was sufficient to deter Abedi from his deadly attack.

Peter Bergen is the author of “United States of Jihad: Investigating America’s Homegrown Terrorists”, a CNN National Security Analyst and Vice President at New America. Follow @peterbergencnn

7 questions about the London terror attacks, CNN.com

7 questions about the London terror attacks
Peter Bergen

Peter Bergen says it’s urgent to find out who was responsible and to think intelligently about how to prevent further attacks

“Peter Bergen is CNN’s national security analyst, a vice president at New America and a professor of practice at Arizona State University. He is the author of “United States of Jihad: Investigating America’s Homegrown Terrorists.””

(CNN)The first question after the deadly London terror attacks Saturday is, of course: Who is responsible? British police have killed three suspects, but as yet there is no credible claim of responsibility for the attacks.
The vast majority of attacks and plots in the West in the past three years have been directed or inspired by ISIS.
That doesn’t entirely preclude an al Qaeda-inspired plot. Three weeks ago Hamza bin Laden, one of Osama bin Laden’s sons who has been playing a more prominent role in al Qaeda of late, issued a call for attacks on Westerners saying, “If you are able to pick up a firearm, well and good; if not, the options are many.”
But, al Qaeda has not shown much ability to inspire or direct attacks in the West in recent years.

Second, if indeed it was an ISIS-related attack, was this ISIS-inspired, like the attack last year at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida, by US citizen Omar Mateen in which he killed 49 people?
Or was it an ISIS-enabled operation, as was the unsuccessful attempt in 2015 to attack a Prophet Mohammad cartoon contest in Garland, Texas? The two American terrorists in that attack were in encrypted communication with an ISIS militant in the Middle East who directed their efforts.
Or was it an operation in which ISIS had trained the terrorists, like the case of the 2015 Paris attacks that killed 130?
London terror attacks: What we know and don't know
London terror attacks: What we know and don’t know
The low-tech nature of the London attacks on Saturday, in which the terrorists used a vehicle as a weapon and also wielded large knives, suggests it was ISIS-inspired rather than an attack in which ISIS had trained the perpetrators.
Third, how large is the conspiracy? From what we know so far there were three suspects involved. Were they part of a larger network or were they a self-contained cell?
Fourth, did the Muslim holy month of Ramadan play some role in sparking the London attacks? As I noted on Wednesday, the Ramadan period that began just over a week ago, could see a surge in terrorist attacks, including in the West, because ISIS has specifically called for such attacks during this Ramadan and the group has, unfortunately, had a track record of inspiring such attacks.
Last year, for instance, ISIS called for attacks during Ramadan and one of those who answered that call was Omar Mateen who pledged allegiance to ISIS as he carried out the most lethal terrorist attack in the United States since 9/11 at the Orlando nightclub almost exactly a year ago.
Fifth, once the suspects are identified in the London attacks will they be known in some way to law enforcement? That is quite often the case. For instance, the suicide bomber who struck two weeks ago at the Ariana Grande concert in Manchester in northern England killing 22 was known to the British security services.
Witness describes taking shelter during attack

So too was the terrorist who rammed his car into pedestrians walking across London’s Westminster bridge in March, killing 4.
Which raises the sixth question: After the third significant terrorist attack in three months in the United Kingdom, what will the political fallout be on the British general election to be held on Thursday, in particular if British voters feel that the government has failed in its primary duty to keep them safe?
Typically terrorist attacks produce a rally-around-the flag effect as was the case after 9/11 and the huge outpouring of public support that then-President George W. Bush garnered.
But in this case the British public may be concerned that there is an ongoing campaign of terror which their government has not adequately prevented. Will there be a political backlash against British Prime Minister Theresa May, whose ruling Conservative Party is traditionally seen as “stronger” on terrorism than its main rival, the Labour Party?
London Bridge terror attacks

You only have to recall the terrorist attacks in Madrid, Spain, in 2004 — in which 191 were killed only three days before the Spanish election — to understand that an attack very late in an electoral cycle can have unexpected consequences. The sitting prime minister, Jose Aznar, who had strongly backed the US-led Iraq War, was unseated by a challenger who then pulled Spanish troops out of Iraq. The Madrid terrorist attacks are generally regarded as being the key to why Aznar, who had been leading in the polls, was defeated.
Seventh: What to do? President Donald Trump tweeted shortly after the London attacks that his administration’s proposed temporary travel ban aimed at six Muslim-majority countries should be instituted.
Right now, of course, that proposed ban is being held up in the courts. But the travel ban is a solution in search of a problem that doesn’t exist. The perpetrators of these terrorist attacks in the West are largely second-generation homegrown terrorists, not recent immigrants or refugees.
The hard reality is that attacks by vehicles in public places are very hard to defend against in a free and open society.
The best defense against such attacks is good intelligence, and that often comes from inside the Muslim community. To gather that intelligence requires not alienating Muslims but encouraging them to flag to authorities those they see who are radicalizing or seem to be preparing some kind of an attack.
Correction: This piece originally said “After the third significant attack in four months…” It has been corrected to three months.

It could be a long, deadly Ramadan, CNN.com

It could be a long, deadly Ramadan
Peter Bergen
By Peter Bergen, CNN National Security Analyst
Updated 2:21 PM ET, Wed May 31, 2017
Truck bomb hits Kabul

Story highlights
Ramadan is supposed to be a peaceful and tranquil month for Muslims
Peter Bergen: Call from ISIS for attacks across the globe bodes badly for the weeks to come

Peter Bergen is CNN’s national security analyst, a vice president at New America and a professor of practice at Arizona State University. He is the author of “United States of Jihad: Investigating America’s Homegrown Terrorists.”

(CNN)Wednesday’s truck bomb in Kabul that killed at least 90 and injured 400 others augurs for what could be a deadly Ramadan, the holy Islamic month that began on Friday.

In the past, Ramadan was treated as a month for peace and tranquility. UN envoys, world leaders and even rebel groups would call for cease-fires in their respective parts of the world.

But ISIS has other ideas. Though Ramadan is a month when the vast majority of Muslims are fasting and praying, ISIS asks its followers to commit heinous acts of terror.

This year was no different. ISIS called for attacks during Ramadan on a YouTube channel and in one of its popular webzines, Rumiyah.
And it seems like terrorists may be heeding ISIS’ calls. In Egypt, on Friday, gunmen fired on a bus carrying Coptic Christians, killing at least 28. ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack.

And, on Tuesday, twin bombings in Baghdad killed at least 22. In an attack of special malevolence, one of the bombs detonated outside an ice cream parlor. CNN reported that most of the victims were women and children. ISIS also claimed responsibility for these bombings.

Now comes Wednesday’s bombing in Kabul, a massive truck bomb that detonated in the city’s downtown embassy district. Most of the victims, as is so often the case in these attacks, were ordinary Afghans, and the death toll, which now stands at 90, is expected to rise.

The Taliban have denied responsibility for the Kabul bombing, which may mean that ISIS was also behind this attack.

But if history is any lesson, these Ramadan attacks are unlikely to be confined to the Middle East and Asia.

In late May 2016, an ISIS spokesman called for attacks in the West during the month of Ramadan.

And less than a month later, on June 12, 2016, Omar Mateen killed 49 at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida. Mateen pledged allegiance to ISIS during his attack, the worst terror attack on American soil since 9/11.

Michael S. Smith II, an American analyst who carefully tracks ISIS propaganda, told me that ISIS’ Nashir news service last week called for attacks in the West that were similar to ISIS’ calls for such attacks last year.

These exhortations must be taken seriously.

This is especially the case around the 27th day of Ramadan, the “Night of Power,” which is a particularly sacred for the world’s Muslims as it was the time that the Prophet Mohammed started receiving the first verses of the Koran.

In 2016, the 27th day of Ramadan fell on July 2. This is the same day that ISIS attackers in Bangladesh massacred 20 at a restaurant popular with foreigners in the capital, Dhaka.

The 27th day of Ramadan in 2016 was also the same day that ISIS launched a car bomb that killed more than 200 in Baghdad.
Security services from Afghanistan to the United States should be alert throughout the Ramadan period, but especially on the 27th day of the holy month.

A pattern in terror — second generation, homegrown, CNN.com

Bergen: A pattern in terror — second generation, homegrown
Peter Bergen

By Peter Bergen, CNN National Security Analyst

Updated 1:21 PM ET, Wed May 24, 2017

Source: CNN
Police name Manchester bomber as Salman Abedi 02:39
Story highlights

Peter Bergen: Most terrorist attacks in the West are carried out by homegrown terrorists
Salman Abedi is no exception and may have struggled with divided identity

“Peter Bergen is CNN’s national security analyst, a vice president at New America and a professor of practice at Arizona State University. He is the author of “United States of Jihad: Investigating America’s Homegrown Terrorists.””

(CNN)Because 9/11 was carried out by 19 foreign-born Arab hijackers, many assume that all terrorists who attack the West are foreigners.
This explains, in part, why Donald Trump is now President. He advocated a seemingly commonsensical approach to the terrorism problem during his presidential campaign, which was to ban Muslim immigration, including refugees.
But, in reality, every lethal terrorist attack in the United States since 9/11 has been carried out by an American citizen or a legal permanent resident.
That’s what makes the news that the terrorist who carried out the Manchester attack, Salman Abedi — the son of Libyan migrants who was born and grew up in the United Kingdom — unsurprising.
Could stadium security turn into airport security?
Could stadium security turn into airport security?
Again and again since 9/11 terror attacks in the West have been carried out by second-generation Muslims who are citizens of the very country they are attacking.
This is also a key reason that they are sometimes so hard to detect or to stop. These terrorists are not interlopers from other lands — but rather our neighbors.
Raid of Manchester suicide bomber's house

Raid of Manchester suicide bomber’s house 01:47
We saw this phenomenon in the most lethal terrorist attack in British history since 9/11, which were the July 7, 2005 suicide attacks on the London transportation system, in which 52 commuters were killed. Three of the four suicide attackers in the London attacks were British citizens.
But why would a British citizen or an American citizen attack his or her own country? Why anyone would choose to murder complete strangers is something of a mystery, but typically these terrorists feel a kind of split identity: Not quite Western, but at the same time not quite at home with the culture of where their parents came from.
In other words, they don’t feel like they fit in.
In some cases, this produces a kind of identity crisis, which is relieved by a non-practicing Muslim first embracing a more observant form of Islam, then adopting a more militant form of Islam and a tiny minority then moving on to violent jihad.
Bergen: Key question for investigators: What kind of bomb was used in Manchester attack?
Bergen: Key question for investigators: What kind of bomb was used in Manchester attack?
Many who follow this trajectory buy into Osama bin Laden’s narrative that Islam is under assault from the West, and they must do something about it.
We saw this in the case of Major Nidal Hasan, who was born in Arlington, Virginia, and 39 years later killed 13 at Fort Hood, Texas in 2009. Hasan was a non-observant Muslim who came to embrace a militant form of Islam and eventually ended up as a jihadist militant. He even had business cards printed up that identified himself as “SOA” (Soldier of Allah).
A similar process happened to Omar Mateen, who killed 49 people at a nightclub in Orlando, Florida, last June. He was born in Queens, New York, and didn’t grow up especially religious.
Over time Mateen’s dreams of becoming a police officer faded and, at the time of the attack, he was working as a security guard at golf resort.
How to fight terror: Champion teen girls, don't cloister them
How to fight terror: Champion teen girls, don’t cloister them
This didn’t sit well with Mateen’s heroic conception of himself, and he delved into the world of militant Islam — pledging himself as an ISIS foot soldier when he carried out his gruesome attack.
According to a friend, Salman Abedi had grown a beard and begun to dress “Islamically,” in a robe. These are often signs of growing piety, but mere piety doesn’t mean a turn to militant Islam. The mechanisms of how Abedi came to embrace violent jihad are still unclear.
Abedi appears to be one of the many thousands of Western Muslims who have embraced militant Islam, often as a way of trying to resolve the tension between their split identities.

“Legion of Brothers” discussion, BUILD, NYC

01
Peter Bergen, Jason Amerine and Greg Barker
by BUILD Series
Free
Actions and Detail Panel

Peter Bergen, Jason Amerine and Greg Barker

Thu, June 1, 2017, 12:00 PM – 12:30 PM EDT
Free
Event Information
Description

“Legion of Brothers” is a riveting documentary that reveals the widely unknown true story behind the first American soldiers killed in the War in Afghanistan. Join CNN National Security Analyst Peter Bergen, Emmy award-winning director Greg Barker and retired Lieutenant Colonel “Real Life G.I. Joe” Jason Amerine for a compelling conversation about the ongoing national security challenges of the War on Terror.

Doors open 30 minutes before showtime and CLOSE 5 minutes prior to each show. There will be a standby line for every show. VALID ID REQUIRED FOR ENTRY for security purposes (No age minimum). Please note we clear the studio after every event and we DO NOT permit autographs on our premises. This event will be streamed LIVE on AOL.com/BUILD! Make sure to check out the BUILD Series Newsletter for updates and information about our events: http://build.aol.com/newsletter.