In America, the Demand for Extremism Exceeds the Supply
In response to the violent demonstration at the Capitol Building on January 6th, a bi-partisan group of lawmakers called for domestic terror laws aimed at a threat that may last “10 to 20 years.”
The politicos were echoed by former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director John Brennan who called for action against an “unholy alliance” that includes, for some reason known only to him, libertarians.
And former CIA counterterrorism officer Robert Grenier thinks the problem is people “who don’t trust NPR or The New York Times” and suggests the solution is “counterinsurgency tactics — similar in some ways to those used in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.” (For 74 million Americans disbelieving NPR shows common sense, though it’s interesting an intelligence officer is incurious as to why so many people may feel that way.)
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) helpfully noted that violent extremists are “motivated by a range of issues, including anger over COVID-19 restrictions, the 2020 election results, and police use of force.” Memo to DHS: most Americans are angry with at least two of those issues.
Last, retired general Stanley McChrystal, who knows what it’s like to lose to violent extremists, declared “President Trump has updated Lost Cause with his ‘Stop the Steal’ narrative that they lost because of a stolen election.” That claim isn’t aging well after the Time magazine report on how Big Business, Big Labor, and their confederates in Big Tech worked to “fortify” the 2020 presidential election. No doubt Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping are warming up Google Translate in advance of their next phone call from Joe Biden.
In America the demand for extremism exceeds the supply, so why, would these allegedly smart people appear to confuse angry Americans with a “homegrown insurgency?” Their motives may be mixed, but they have two problems.
First, a flawed offering. Has counterinsurgency ever worked? Based on recent — and expensive — experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, the answer is no. And that was in places with no limits on what U.S. forces could do, 19 years (and counting) to do it, and practically unlimited funding.
America defeated the country’s original terrorist group, the Ku Klux Klan, but it used old-fashioned police work to do so. So why not try a proven technique — domestic law enforcement — and leave military techniques and mindsets for foreign venues. Also, more Americans will cooperate with cops, investigating violations of existing law, operating under judicial supervision, and with knowledge of the local community, than a U.S. version of Ministry of Interior troops. A counterinsurgency response pushed by former spooks and generals will play into the arms of real terrorists and foreign propagandists, which sounds like collusion to me.
Next, flawed promoters. Many of the talking heads pushing domestic counterinsurgency inveighed, and campaigned, against Donald Trump ever since 2016. They will have a hard time reverting to “Just the facts, ma’am” after 4 years (and counting) of fighting Trump, who is still living rent-free in their heads.
They were silent during the Black Lives Matter/Antifa riots in the summer of 2020 that caused 25 deaths and $2 billion in property damage, and included the siege of the federal courthouse in Portland, Oregon. They may have been concerned about the effects of the riots, but a bigger concern was probably appearing to agree with Trump’s criticism of the rioters. #priorities
The security service officials and counterinsurgency experts may have tipped their hand and displayed their political motive. If their goal is to get to the root of what is stressing many Americans and making establishment institutions unsatisfactory to more and more of their countrymen, they should crack the counterinsurgency books they claim to have read. If they did, they would find that a key element of a counterinsurgency campaign is addressing the grievances of the local population
According to NATO, counterinsurgency is “comprehensive civilian and military efforts made to defeat an insurgency and to address any core grievances” and a successful campaign will “determine the sources of the unrest and dissatisfaction fueling the insurgency.” And key to addressing another’s grievances – founded or unfounded, friend or foe (especially foe) - is empathy, which we haven’t seen from these gentlemen. The fact that military leaders and intelligence officers appear to lack this quality may explain battlefield reversals America suffered of late.
And don’t forget to follow the money. The budget for the U.S. security services in 2020 was almost $86 billion, and almost 70% of that may have been spent on contracts. The domestic counterinsurgency these guys hope to midwife will cost real money and they’ll want some, despite the opposition of over 150 civil rights groups to domestic terror legislation.
Vladimir Lenin, speaking before the Russian Revolution, said “The worse, the better.” American spooks and military leaders, by hyping a threat and ignoring Americans’ concerns, may be following his line to more influence and money.
James Durso (@james_durso) is a regular commentator on foreign policy and national security matters. Mr. Durso served in the U.S. Navy for 20 years and has worked in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Central Asia.
