The threat of home-grown terrorism is looming large. How dangerous are home-grown radicals? Will the United States, like Europe, become more susceptible to native radicals rather than terrorist plots hatched abroad by organised groups like al-Qaeda? Terrorism specialist Marc Sageman claims that we are facing a “leaderless jihad.’’ Al-Qaeda central is not an operational machine of terrorism, but its ideology serves as an inspiration for local groups to organise themselves to carry out their own attacks. But other experts, including Bruce Hoffman, maintain that it is the established organisation like al-Qaeda that remains the dominant threat and that we must focus more on the organisation and its capabilities rather than on random, radicalised individuals.
Bin Ladens death has been accepted with joy as well as with apprehension. It is too early to conclude that terrorism will end with the death of bin Laden. On the contrary, there is fear of the possibility of more terrorist attacks in retaliation to the slaying of bin Laden.
The pattern of terrorism-related arrests since 9/11 seems to support the argument that home-grown radicalism is the greatest threat the United States faces. Former CIA director Michael Hayden called home-grown terrorism the more serious threat faced by American citizens today. England, likewise, considers home-grown terrorism to be a considerable threat. On 6 June 2011, Prime Minister David Cameron announced a wide-ranging strategy to prevent British citizens from being radicalised into becoming terrorists while at university. The strategy looks to prevent extremist speakers or groups from coming to universities.
The recent planned series of attack once again in the financially sensitive areas of Mumbai makes one think that home-grown terrorism should not be underestimated; it is incorrect to believe that these home-grown plots have been all talk and little action. Even if the plots were executed, they would have been limited in scope. Mumbai is still to recover from the loss of lives and property. Indian Mujahedeen is seen to receive support from Pakistan outfits for their operations. But what about Pakistan, which itself is becoming frequently the target of the terrorists?
India has long faced attacks from Pakistan-based militant outfits, but the involvement of home-grown Islamist groups is now adding a “new dimension” to the problem, says Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. He said certain suggestions were being considered, including the setting up of dedicated antiterrorism agencies and tougher laws.6 The Oslo incident where a Christian maverick killed scores in a terrorist attack professed to be in revenge of Islamist terrorism may be indicative of the height of a directionless desperation against the mindless terrorist brutality the world over.
The pattern of terrorism-related arrests since 9/11 seems to support the argument that home-grown radicalism is the greatest threat the United States faces
Home-grown terrorism is the greatest threat. Home-grown terrorists have a unique advantage in that they face less logistical problems such as entering the target nation as well as familiarity with society and customs and greater ease in identifying targets. This makes them lucrative assets to international terrorist organisations. But Lydia Khalil7 thinks differently. To the debate as to how dangerous the home-grown terrorist is, the author thinks that many of the home-grown plots have been all talk and little action. Even if the plots were executed, they would have been limited in scope—small explosives and ambush attacks or targeted killings. They lack the capability to inflict any real damage.
Writing on the impact of globalisation on the future pattern of terrorism, Brynjar Lia8 states that there are ways of identifying certain long-term causes and driving forces and their links with society. Terrorists are usually integral players in local and, sometimes, global politics.
Bin Laden’s death has been accepted with joy as well as with apprehension. It is too early to conclude that terrorism will end with the death of bin Laden. On the contrary, there is fear of the possibility of more terrorist attacks in retaliation to the slaying of bin Laden. The Los Angeles Times concurred with the Globe that the fight against global terror must remain a top U.S. priority. “Bin Laden’s death will not end terrorism, do away with Al-Qaeda or conclude the global war that began after 9/11 because too many people in too many nations accept his delusion that the United States is implacably at odds with the values of Islam,” the paper’s editorial board wrote, adding that the aftermath of the al-Qaeda leader’s death presents U.S. leaders with thorny new challenges. The Detroit Free Press wrote that global terrorism’s most iconic figure is now gone but stressed that the al-Qaeda leader’s demise should not be viewed as a purely symbolic event. “Bin Laden’s death should mean a palpable disruption to the operation of Al-Qaeda, which was responsible for the attacks and remains one of the most pernicious global threats,” stated the Free Press. The international community needs to see how the democratisation movements and the slaying of bin Laden will affect the future of the war on terrorism.
Home-grown terrorism is the greatest threat. Home-grown terrorists have a unique advantage in that they face less logistical problems such as entering the target nation as well as familiarity with society and customs and greater ease in identifying targets.
Bin Laden’s death will definitely affect the policies of United States, and its relation with Afghanistan and Pakistan may also change. Afghanistan, which never stayed stress-free because of the presence of Taliban and al-Qaeda, could now ask the United States to withdraw its troops so that it can live in a free environment. But is the United States ready to accept the idea though President Obama might have given hope to his people that American army will not stay for an indefinite period in Afghanistan?
Maitra9 writes that after the death of Osama bin laden, Washington will now prepare an exit strategy. The Obama administration will proceed to work out a troop withdrawal timetable to end the war. Washington is reconciled to the situation that the Taliban cannot be wiped out of Afghanistan. For an exit strategy, the Obama administration does not want to spoil its relationship with old friend Pakistan and at the same time, does not want to risk any further lives of American soldiers. The advisors and senior politicians in the administration are seriously debating the issue. The two vital issues in discussion are the rate of troop withdrawal from Afghanistan and the optimal nature of the final settlement when the United States will officially declare the end of the war. These two issues will take considerable time to get resolved because there are a number of other issues which are linked and need to be discussed simultaneously.
Please wait...
