Greyhawk discusses domestic Islamic terrorism, and cites a piece from Small Wars Journal.
The great concern from a strategic perspective is that governmental officials will start to drink their own 'spiked punch' and delude themselves into believing that the many terrorist incidents listed in this essay are in actuality the actions of mentally unstable and delusional individuals and nothing more. This would mean that our domestic intelligence and interdiction capabilities are performing flawlessly with the ensuing pats on the back, 'atta-boys', and political kudos being exchanged....I expect the consideration will focus more on the reasons not to do that, which include: 1) the government's belief that the American people are perpetually just that close to becoming an anti-Muslim lynch mob, and 2) the danger of increasing a perception in the Muslim world that America sees itself as at war with Islam. America's policy, since 9/11, has been to state loudly and frequently that we do not believe radicalized Islamic teachings are the true faith of Islam, and to declare respect for "mainstream" or "moderate" or "true" Islam as one of the great religions of mankind.
What is now needed is a governmental and federal law enforcement debate focusing on the broader spectrum of the domestic radical Islamic threat. This new debate on 'Ones and Twos' should revisit conventional views on terrorist groups and their organization. Specifically, while non-state warfare can be waged by larger radical Islamic cells, i.e. those which have been successfully interdicted such as the 2002 Lackawanna, New York (Muktar al-Bakri et al); 2005 Lodi, California (Hayat family et al); 2007 Fort Dix, New Jersey (Duka family et al); and 2009 New York (Najibullah Zazi et al) groups, it must also ask whether cells composed of ones and twos are not now also part of this threat spectrum....
In the process, some consideration should be given to openly informing and educating the American public about the broadening radical Islamic threat spectrum.
Not only are we fighting two counterinsurgency campaigns in Muslim countries, but there remains the global recruiting problem. And, indeed, to the degree that the government appeared to be coming out against Islam, the domestic terror problem is actually increased as a threat. Muslims who now don't feel alienated from the United States might come to feel alienated, when the government starts putting out documents explaining that their community's members might pose a threat even if they aren't affiliated with any known terrorist or radical group.
You could begin and end the report with paragraphs on how radicalized Islam is not true Islam, and reiterating America's respect for true Islam; you could put a watermark on every page that stated "Americans respect and honor true Islam!" Even so, a report that suggests that Muslims 'even in ones and twos' are potential terrorists is going to have a negative effect.
What would be wiser would be to harden the American population against a generalized threat. To a certain degree, the population has been hardening itself for some time. Liberalized conceal-carry laws are one way that the population has become much more capable of self-defense. Another is the massive surge in firearm and ammunition purchases since the election of President Obama.
Anyway, that's your cheery report for this morning: domestic terrorism, Iranian nuclear weapons, and an American population that is beginning to speak openly of the need for civil war. I don't suppose boredom is going to be a problem for anyone these next few years.
