I originally wrote this in May, 2013:
People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
Most decent people would likely agree that violence is an unacceptable means with which to achieve one’s goals. This is a virtuous principle. What is often understated, however, is where violence is reasonably applied in the interest of peace and security it could be viewed in a more positive light. Therefore, this paper will disembark from the idea of violence as being a tool of war and destruction. The assertion is instead that violence may be a tool of peace. An outline follows to illustrate the main point of the paper, which is that not all violence is inherently evil or counterproductive. First, we will briefly consider the realm of violence as a feature of interstate relations. Second, we will discuss the American experience with terrorism’s side effects. Third, we’ll view a couple of examples of violence in American society. Lastly, we will drill down to the micro-level, the individual interaction attended by violence in a limited space. A conclusion will terminate this exercise with a few words on “good” violence.
This paper starts with a concept of violence that must be delineated, in order to limit the scope conditions and context. Violence can be perceived to be as minimal as a nonphysical legislative measure excluding some from equal access to the law, public services or voting rights. One can argue that there is violence in a stare, gesture, or perhaps a word uttered with contempt, disdain, or implied threat. It can be an image (real or fake) of an act or portrayal of an act, which affects the peacefulness of the mind. At maximum, violence can be the unprovoked murder of an individual, group, nation or even humanity itself (in nuclear terms). These matters fall outside the definitional range of this paper, with the exception that murder is a form of violence for consideration here.
The working definition that this paper will adhere to lies somewhere within the above-established limits. Therefore, violence is the unwelcome exertion of, or threat to exert, physical force, by one person (or persons) upon that of another.[2] One more caveat deserves mention here. Not for consideration is whether violence is genetically innate, nor whether it is unique to the human experience or an aberration from it. Violence in this sense is treated as a condition that occurs with relative frequency, thus spawning a conversation about how to mitigate its effects.
Nuclear Deterrence in the Context of a Global Bipolar Divide
In thinking about violence on the global scale, one cannot avoid the imagery of war that enters one’s head in perusing the textbooks of history. From wars of antiquity, colonial wars of conquest, Great Power wars on the European continent, to modern terrorism, violent human interactions have shaped the course of history. The ultimate expression of violence is the deliberate destruction of the human race, which is the logic that sustained nuclear deterrence during the Cold War. The guarantee of absolute Mutually Assured Destruction was the force that held nuclear violence in check. The result was a cold peace, rather than an active hot (nuclear) war.
By credibly demonstrating that one’s adversary’s attempt at nuclear homicide was in fact a suicide, deterrence held. If one considers what the core of nuclear deterrence consisted of it appears that violence of a near-unimaginable scale was the promise that the West and East made to each other. That is the irony. Global peace was maintained by the threat of a terminal global war. One cannot say that violence was a good idea, but that the prospect of its use in balancing the potential of its employment by another had the net effect of cancelation, thus upholding a good outcome. This line of reasoning does not negate the good that a nuclear-free world would introduce, but it does speak to the reality as it has been (a positive argument) and not as one may want it to be (a normative argument). Another criticism of the above point is that using the prospect of a violent means to justify a peaceful end promotes the legitimization of violence. It may be true, but it is also true that although many small wars around the globe may have substituted for a total nuclear war it is the lesser of evils that must be chosen in lieu of a big war from which no recovery may be hoped for.
The 21st Century American Experience with Terrorism
Although the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction are of paramount concern to the Defense Community, of equal concern is the threat terrorism poses for the U.S. Law Enforcement Community. As a result, the mere potential for violence to be committed against an innocent, hapless citizenry by an individual or small group (of domestic or foreign origin) occupies a boundless place in domestic political discourse.
To argue that terrorism has changed the American way of life seems spurious at first glance, but perhaps there is some truth in suggesting it. A second claim being made here is that responding to terrorism (a form of violence) in a nonviolent fashion may not be a productive pursuit in restoring a semblance of the secure conditions, which terrorism seems to aim at destroying. For example, on 11 September 2001 an unprecedented attack was carried out on the American homeland. The story is not worth recounting in detail, but the primary characteristics consisted of nineteen males hijacking four planes and using them as guided missiles against targets symbolizing American economic, political and military prowess (or domination, as the perpetrators would probably say). Since civilians were especially regarded by the perpetrators as being acceptable death recipients and were successfully killed on a heretofore-unseen magnitude, it was a unique experience. Perhaps what strikes the observer about such an attack is a combination of the penetrability of violence into an otherwise every day scene, a sense of defenselessness against it and an unhealthy awareness that nearly three thousand lives can be snuffed out within a couple hours’ time.
Four months following the events of 9/11, an interesting series of transportation-related events of a terroristic nature had begun to occur. Each time, a reactionary measure resulted and over time, some aspect of normalcy was altered in a cumulative way. Richard Reid had attempted to light his shoes on fire with the intent to ignite an explosion onboard an American-bound aircraft.[3] From that point forward (until this very day), a common policy in American airports was implemented, which required all forms of footwear to be relinquished for inspection before boarding an aircraft. The “shoe bomber” had failed to kill, but the domestic security response shifted in such a way as to chip away at the dignity of passengers, who gladly saw fit to surrender their shoes. This may be a miniscule point, as to temporarily suspend one’s possession of foot gear in the interest of defending against a would-be bomber seems to be common sense. Still, when a person is dressed in a fine suit or dress, or even just a pair of shorts there is a quality of completeness in wearing a nice pair of high heels, shoes, or sneakers. To disrupt someone’s image of completeness is to have at least a minimal effect on one’s sense of decorum.
A few years later, an attempt to use liquid explosives in a similar manner was detected in advance of its intended application as a means of terror.[4] Subsequently, the policy regarding the possession of liquids on planes took effect. No one was further allowed to have a water bottle, travel shampoo, or any other such liquid bearing an excess of 3.4 liquid ounces in weight. One could no longer possess carry-on items that would sustain them in the somewhat likely event that their checked luggage was lost or delayed at their destination. The exception, however, was that one could purchase these items (at a premium) in the terminal, following check-in and prior to boarding. This seems like a moot point. Perhaps it is. Thinking about what transpired, however, reveals a truth to consider. Using a common device to plan a violent event caused a nonviolent reaction to defend against similar events, which restricted the simplest of freedoms for the entire plane-traveling public. Violence didn’t kill, but its prospect sure did have an impact.
Three years later, an individual had attempted to ignite an underwear bomb on an airplane.[5] The security response this time was to require that passengers either expose their bodies to an X-ray scanner or be subjected to a personal search their body. (A “search” should not be confused with a mere pat-frisk that law enforcement is entitled to, under conditions arising from a demonstrable concern for safety.) Now, not only one’s toes would be exposed to scrutiny, but one’s entire body would become a spectacle for the employees of the Transportation and Safety Administration (TSA). One would not hesitate to disrobe for their doctor, but TSA employees are not of such a caliber of professionalism as to believe that one’s dignity is safely guarded in such company.
In sum, actual violence in the air travel realm followed by a series of attempts at violence in the same domain yielded a policy decision, which irrevocably affected society. In such an atmosphere, no politician wanting to get re-elected could have opened themselves up to the criticism of being soft on security. So began the gradual process of transforming the American air travel experience into something similar to light incarceration for the possibility that one might commit a crime. Arguably, there is some sense behind meeting a threat with a means to prevent or deter it. Few viable and politically acceptable alternatives would guarantee safe travel, a sense of security and the notion of a liberating ability to fly around the country or the world. Still, American air travel has become an invasive experience that deviates from the pre-9/11 expectations of liberty enshrined in the Constitution.
It could be said that mass violence (or a threat thereof) served as a catalyst in that it facilitated reactions to it that had a ratcheting effect. That is, in the face of potential violence Americans have ceded liberty for security to such a degree as to alter reasonable expectations of privacy. Beyond privacy, however, a Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure has now been so watered down that the unreasonable became reasonable.[6] So the assertion, made earlier, that terrorism changed the American way of life should be somewhat modified to reflect that a reaction to the prospect of terror acts have changed some aspect of American life.
Episodes of Violence in American Society
On can hardly turn on the news and not hear about some form of violent crime taking place in America. The best-selling video games simulate the most violent conduct. Whether games of war, or of killing zombies, blood and violence are a staple feature of profit generation in the gaming sector of the economy. The movie industry does not get a pass either. It is so teeming with scenes of persistent violence that one wonders what could replace the genre and turn a profit. Look no further than a series of movies called “Saw.” There have been no less than seven separate movies in this sequence, all of which center on the theme of human torture and the most painful death imaginable.[7] Whether such concepts enter the mind and direct a person to commit horrendous acts of violence against their fellow humans is difficult to know. Still, it is worth recalling a few recent events that likely linger in the American collective conscience.
On 20 July 2012, a suspect walked into a movie theater during the premier of a new Batman movie and shot seventy innocent people at random.[8] The crime was not simply a mass shooting, but was planned to be as horrifying as possible for the intended victims. The suspect brought with him a small arsenal of firearms, along with tear gas canisters, and entered to begin his killing spree at the precise moment a violent shooting scene was to initiate in the movie. It was an act, which required precision timing.
What is significant here is the juxtaposition of reality with fiction and the way in which the two merged in a moment of horror.[9] A simple recollection of the conditions that accompanied the event highlights this phenomenon. People of varying ages came to be entertained by some degree of violence on the screen. When the suspect entered the theater, he was dressed in costume and allegedly began tossing tear gas into the audience. From eyewitness accounts, it was clear that they had believed the suspect was merely an enthusiast or perhaps a staff member attempting to make the experience more realistic.
The speed at which the range of emotions had to have changed stuns the imagination. In order to illustrate this better it is useful to picture the mundane quality of going to see a movie alongside the premeditation and actualization of a murderous plot. Likely, each moviegoer experienced a degree of elation in thinking about going to see this movie. Simultaneously, the suspect may have also felt some joy in imagining the movie-going experience. The audience members made plans to go with friends or loved ones to experience together the pleasure of being taken on an imaginary journey. The shooter, likely planned a journey while putting the finishing touches on his booby-trapped house (meant to kill or maim responding police who would have identified him afterward) and making sure that his hair was dyed to match the “Joker” character in the movie.
As the crowd entered the movie theater, it is quite possible that all the cares of the real world were being left behind as they filed into their seats, or as the shooter would view it, their intended final resting places. As the movie began, each viewer was lulled into a sense of fantasy and each emotion experienced was assigned to this fictitious world. As the suspect made ready his weapons and ammunition the world he was creating was nothing short of real. As the probable crescendo built to a point where the movie would begin its most violent scene, the suspect appeared before the crowd. At that moment, each innocent person did not know they were victims. Every available sign would lead them to believe for a moment that their experience with fiction on the screen was being enhanced by the presence of a person dressed to match the scene.
For the suspect, however, it seems that his pleasure in knowing he would unleash unwelcome violence upon the most unsuspecting victims was coursing through his veins until the moment when he pulled the trigger. To imagine he was repulsed by the idea would be contrary to the alleged facts. At that moment, a series of contrasts had to have occurred. The moviegoers became victims. The man with the potential power to take lives was no longer just a man with plans; he became an engine of death and injury. The sudden change from joy to fear and a mission to survive this most real of events is nearly unimaginable for anyone who has not experienced such an encounter. All the while, the shooter’s sense of joy is exploding exponentially. He is taking the utmost pleasure in the pain that he has created for others. He has done what few people are able to do; he has instantaneously pulled seated persons from a world of fiction into the world of reality. He had no competition in this endeavor. He was more powerful than the movie, as now he had their full attention. He was capable of stealing lives without opposition.
As laughing, thinking, breathing humans turned into lifeless heaps of flesh something else was happening.[10] For those who expired immediately, death was the furthest prospect from their mind. It was to occur on the screen, not in front of it; certainly not for them. That space where the reality of the death merchant met with the lives of those who would take their last breaths is a difficult one to fathom. One cannot quite imagine such a moment for one’s own self; indeed, it is repulsive even to attempt this exercise. Whether the suspect was psychotic is not significant. He planned and orchestrated an event that sought to deliver maximum pain and suffering in an intimate way. He scheduled a customized death and anguish for others by interrupting what was to be others’ pleasure, supplanting it with his own in seeing their happiness disappear before his eyes.
Another astounding act of naked violence upon the innocent occurred late in 2012, when a clearly disturbed young man first killed his own mother, arguably severing the remaining ties he had to human decency, stole her firearms and proceeded to act out his violent fantasy. By force of arms, he entered an elementary school in Sandy Hook Connecticut and slaughtered twenty children and six adults (who got in the way of his butchery of children), followed by his own suicide.[11] Such a brazen misanthropic deed is remarkable not simply for the level of carnage, but the target set: children of the youngest possible school age, in the safest place they knew outside of their home. The murderer’s victim selection could perhaps only have been worse had he assaulted a neonatal care ward in a hospital. Then again, the infants would not have had six years’ time to develop a sense of the human spirit and an appreciation of life’s joyfulness, as the elementary schoolchildren had.
In the same way that the alleged shooter in Colorado had sought to seek pleasure in the suffering of others, this case went a step further because of the defenseless nature of single-digit aged schoolchildren. There was no means with which a scared little child could muster the strength to overpower a twenty-year-old man with several guns aimed at him/her and his/her classmates (and teachers). This episode highlights the cruelty that humans are capable of, although it seems outdone by the slaughter of even more children in places such as Beslan, Russia.[12]
Nonetheless, the rationale behind presenting two cases of intimate violence involving an unfathomable logic serves a purpose. That is, when violence of this nature is considered, ex post facto, one cannot help but imagine the counterfactual scenario in which the criminal act was stopped in its initial stage. Perhaps one could envisage ways in which such disturbed individuals may have been prevented from becoming so detached from society that they sought to destroy its most precious constituents. Assuming that the discovery of demonstrable antecedent behaviors leading up to such violence, or warning signs of psychological deviance would have a less violent act is conjecture. One cannot be certain of it.
Imagine a different counterfactual in the case of the Colorado shooting, where a citizen bearing a concealed firearm had been seated close enough to the shooter to have had an opportunity to stop him. That citizen would have been hailed as a hero, but why? The reason is that the appropriate application of violence against one who intends lethal harm is acceptable. One could argue that any number of individuals could have tackled the shooter and rendered him unable to continue on his path of murder. This is true, but under such conditions, one can never be sure that others’ commitment to this purpose matches or exceeds their own. All one can truly rely on in such a situation is one’s own instincts, training (if applicable) and ability to strike with enough controlled violence to render the assailant incapacitated. There are times when reasoning with people is outside the range of possible alternatives, thus leaving only one option: good violence.[13]
The case in Connecticut is a bit harder to advance for different reasons, but it is not impossible. The requisite countervailing violence that could have been carried out by a first-grader would likely have been unable to generate enough force to meet the objective of disarming the aggressor. Teachers, principals, security personnel, sports coaches, and other adults, however, might have had a fighting chance. From the journalistic account, it seems that teachers acted courageously[14] in attempting to shield their students, but where they did so they were killed themselves. So, what sort of physical force could have been exerted to have shut down the homicidal operation? The answer is to be found in technology, but also in human will. The first is a case for arming some teachers and training their instincts for a level of preparedness that the average person doesn’t seem to possess. The second is a function of the first, in that where an individual must decide to use force for good their hesitation may be overcome by a reliance on muscle memory, fine motor skills and a well-rehearsed plan.[15]
Violence for the Individual
The justice system is imperfect. There are times when the application of force by one individual against another may serve several purposes, of which one is justice. In the case of American Civil Law, the idea of compensatory and punitive damages exist for the sake of making the victim “whole” in the former and replacing potential unlawful acts of vengeance in the latter. The Criminal Law also serves a similar purpose in that restitution may be sought and a sentence instituted following the conviction of a crime. In either case, it is hoped that the prevention of similar criminal acts will rest on the memory of the criminal, thus deterring him/her from repeating the offense. In the case of violent crime, however, this may be desired, but insufficient.
How can one seek to make another whole when a portion of their life was interrupted to such a degree as to cause them eternal pain? How could it be that the victim (and their family members) could adequately say that a vicious assault[16] on their person could be compensated for? Or, that a violent offender has received what they deserve, when the victim of their criminal pursuit may not have deserved the treatment they received? How does grief subside and satisfaction that the convicted is punished come to replace it? In either of the cases of mass murder highlighted above, can it be said that the death of the assailant would simply cancel the death of one victim? How about two? Twenty? The truth is that there is no way to adequately deliver perfect justice and the same principle applies in the nuclear deterrence case as it would in many criminal cases: the option for prosecution, conviction and sentencing is not good, but it is the least bad one practical.
These are big questions and they cannot be fully resolved; at least not here. Let us turn, however, to a smaller one. Take the case of bullying for instance. Of late, bullying is being dealt with more seriously in public schools as an issue leading up to many emotionally maladjusted children. There is even a new category called “cyber-bullying” that has emerged as an issue for concern.[17]
Certainly, no one can reasonably advocate for children to commit a violent act against another. However, irrespective of the regular intervention of adults over time on behalf of the bullied child there is no way to adequately stop a bully from initiating predatory behavior. Bullying behavior works on the logic that one can intimidate another with relative impunity. Further, the punishment awaiting a perpetrator is insufficient to deter the behavior. Therefore, a victim (or victims) may be subjected to coercion (as minimal as passive violence) and physical force (as maximal as active violence) on numerous occasions. The devastating effects this brings to child victims is likely be immeasurable. It may even give rise to their own violent behavior elsewhere.
Even as adults are on the lookout for bullying behavior, the bully is aware that his/her purposes are better served when carried out in the most secretive way. The best possible outcome in such a situation is for a victim to hope that an adult intervenes on their behalf, but at the cost of looking like a “wimp.” When deterrence is not likely to produce peaceful results the child victim may feel compelled to act in their own defense. Many would say that this simply advances a cycle of violence. Maybe it does. However, if one is able to fight back and change the aggressor’s calculus to account for this the next time, deterrence may actually obtain.
Therefore, it can be argued that a justifiable response to a bully is to strike him/her without warning. The most useful approach is probably to yell defensive words and draw attention to oneself whether defensive violence is intended or not. Nonetheless, anyone who has a child that has been bullied will likely agree that their offspring should not have to endure such repeated offenses against their physical self, much less their self-esteem and dignity. The claim being made here is not so wild. In fact, it seems to be the logic behind parents enrolling their children in martial arts classes; not to be an effective attacker, but an efficacious defender.
Conclusion
It is perhaps fanciful to suggest that violence can be undesirable and illegitimate. Still, it cannot be ruled out as something entirely evil. It’s probably more accurate to say that certain forms of violence are more acceptable than others. Additionally, the ends matter in how and why the means are applied. Insofar as the composition of one’s character to properly apply the necessary amount and type of violence (and no more than this) to counter a more sinister brand, one of the better illustrations of this concept is found in the analogy of “sheep, wolves and sheepdogs.”[18]
There are those, perhaps the majority of people, who go through life meaning no harm to anyone and expecting none will be done to them. That isn’t a good or bad thing, it just is. They are the sheep. There are some who are always looking for the opportunity to gain at the expense of others with or without violence, but sometimes the gain cannot be understood (perhaps the psychic utility that attends harming others- as in the cases outlined above). These folks are wolves. The sheepdogs, however, are the police officers and soldiers who train for the moment when harm presents itself.[19] They are prepared to form a protective barrier between what the sheep are unable to defend against and what the wolves, if left unfettered, could accomplish. They are not always liked and are seldom understood. Still, sheepdogs continue to prepare themselves for the worst as they hope for the best.
Rightfully, decent people eschew violence. The essence of this paper is to suggest that although wishful thinkers desire to see violence wither from the human experience it does not. Forms of violence can fall anywhere along a continuum from the least physically injurious to the most, but the type of violence that tends to go overlooked is that other sort: the good violence. That which serves as a bulwark against harm and annihilation is honorable. That which short-circuits the process is even more so.
[1] Apparently, this commonly cited phrase is attributed to both George Orwell and Winston Churchill. There is great debate about its origin, which one may read about at http://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/11/07/rough-men/.
[2] I say, “unwelcome” as it falls outside the welcome nature of a duel, such as a fistfight, in which each participant is assuming the risk of violence against themselves, even if they intend to win.
[3] The indictment is available online at: http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2002/01/reidindictment.pdf.
[4] See, “Plot to Bomb U.S.-Bound Jets is Foiled,” The Washington Post, 11 August, 2006, viewable online at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/10/AR2006081000152.html
[5] The indictment is available online, courtesy of CBS News at: http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/Abdulmutallab_Indictment.pdf
[6] In a personal anecdote, I recall an incident while traveling a few years ago from San Diego to New York. At the time, I was a police officer and so was my travel companion. Under the Lautenberg Amendment, it is lawful for police officers to travel by air domestically while in possession of a firearm. On this particular journey, neither of us had elected to carry our firearms. Before heading to the airport, my companion had purchased two small bottles of locally made hot sauce to bring home as a gift. As they had exceeded the 3.4 oz. weight, we were informed by the TSA agent that we’d have to leave them behind. As our bags were already checked-in, we asked if we could remain in possession of them, as we produced our law enforcement credentials (and I produced my active Army Reserve identification). The agent denied our request. We requested that a supervisor respond to the scene, as I informed the agent that it was not reasonable to demand that I, who can carry a loaded gun on the plane, leave hot sauce bottles in the garbage by the metal detectors. His tone then changed to one of suspicion and he inquired, “Sir, are you saying you have a gun?” That’s when I said of course not, but the reasonableness of the request is not in accordance with my (extended) rights as a member of the law enforcement community. The sauce was lost and so was the cause of convincing him of the possibility of a reasonable exception to a ridiculous rule.
[7] From 2004 to 2010 there were seven movies made, the last of which was entitled, Saw3D: http://www.imdb.com/find?q=saw&s=all.
[8] See “12 Shot dead, 58 wounded in Aurora movie theater during Batman premier,” denverpost.com, 21 July 2012. The story is accessible online at http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_21124893/12-shot-dead-58-wounded-aurora-movie-theater.
[9] I accept, in small part, the basis for defining horror as Talal Asad does in On Suicide Bombing, (New York: Columbia University Press, 2007); specifically, chapter 3 deals with this topic. My own sense of horror is that I think it has to do with an inability to assign one’s own sense of rationale for an act that immediately clashes with the ordinary. It has to be a temporary state, which declines over time and yields to some other state. So it isn’t only the “total loss of practical and mental control” (78), but more importantly the idea that a sudden shift in normalcy has occurred and immediate sense cannot be made, much less an answer offered for why it occurred. People seek to explain it afterward and that is probably why horror gets replaced with a descriptive narrative and an assignment of blame and rationale for the event having taken place. However, in explaining his thoughts further, he taps into what I tend to believe embodies the key aspect of horror, “a sudden disruption of the patterns of everyday life.” (90)
[10] This point is not missed by Simone Veil, in “The Iliad, or The Poem of Force,” Chicago Review, 18:2 (1965): 5- 30. What stands out is the implication that one is turned into a “thing” (6-8). This is easily relatable if one has ever been in the presence of a dead body. It could be an animal of any sort, but it is more meaningful to relate this to a dead human being. For instance, within law enforcement circles one encounters death regularly, whether by natural means, suicide, accidents (especially the more gruesome vehicular types), or murder. When referenced, the decedent is usually referred to as “the body.” They are not called a “dead person,” although they may be referred to as the “recently deceased” following the autopsy. The language is a reflection of the distance placed between the living and the dead. This sits strangely with one who may have known the person. For instance, arriving on the scene of a teenage suicide the mother is there speaking of her dead son, Joe. To her, Joe was a person with whom she had deep personal attachment. She brought him into this world with his first breath. She provided him with life-sustaining milk and comforted him when he cried. Joe had thoughts, desires, fears, aspirations. Joe smiled at, talked with and hugged his mother. Now he lay in the next room a cold corpse. When he is referred to as Joseph by his mommy, the first responder is reminded of the fact that he was just like the rest of us. When his mother hears Joe referred to as “the body,” she must feel that he is something more than that.
[11] “Children Were All Shot Multiple Times With a Semiautomatic, Officials Say,” The New York Times, 15 December 2012; http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/nyregion/gunman-kills-20-children-at-school-in-connecticut-28-dead-in-all.html?_r=0.
[12] For a detailed timeline of the event, see “Timeline: The Beslan School Seige,” The Guardian, 6 September 2004; http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/06/schoolsworldwide.chechnya.
[13] I was working the night of a shooting, in which my friend and co-worker had no alternative but to use deadly physical force stop a man from killing others. He was later cleared by a Grand Jury and deemed to be acting in accordance with the law. He subsequently received the “Deputy of the Year” award for all of New York State in 2010. The story appeared in The Times Herald Record on 28 February 2009 and can be accessed online at http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090228/NEWS/90228001.
[14] By courage, I mean the ability to channel fear in such a way as to serve the goal of overcoming one’s adversary.
[15] See an earlier piece I wrote, “Policy Proposal to Arm the Teachers,” on Word Press at http://davidfirester.wordpress.com/2012/12/24/policy-proposal-to-arm-the-teachers/.
[16] E.g., rape, molestation, dismemberment, disfigurement, or any assault with the intent to cause serious physical injury or death.
[17] See http://www.stopbullying.gov/ for more on this topic. They cite that 12 out of 15 school shootings were perpetrated by people who had felt bullied.
[18] See Lieutenant Colonel Dave Grossman (retired), “Preface: Hunting Wolves,” Global Crime, Vol. 7, No. 3-4 (August- November 2006): 291- 298.
[19] In one final personal anecdote, I nearly killed a 19 year old young man one day. I was less than a second from firing at him from point-blank range. Had I done so, I would likely have been justified. Only one who knows what is involved in such moments could probably relate. In short, I was assigned (as a police officer) to a school. My partner told me that a student was in the principal’s office for threatening to kill him and was about to be removed from the school grounds. We were to make sure that this took place smoothly and without incident. The only information we had at the time was that the young man had beaten up his father the night prior, had engaged in a fistfight with police a few weeks prior and was known to carry “torture devices” in his backpack. Upon escorting the student out of the building, with teachers, counselors, security personnel and a few police officers present the student began to become visibly agitated and refused to leave. He then proceeded very loudly to make wild statements about how much he loved 9/11 and how much he wanted to kill people. None of that mattered to us trained officers dealing with emotionally disturbed persons. However, he then yelled (in a way that could not be conveyed on paper) that he had “six pounds of explosives strapped to my chest and I’m going to kill everybody!” At that time he began to open his jacket and wires were immediately seen sticking out. I had been back from Iraq for a couple of months and the instinct and ability to kill was never far from my consciousness. What also accompanies such a skill set for taking life is the concomitant sense to assess and re-assess the situation. In part, I did not fire because the glass walls of the school were at his back. The other reason was because I recognized that even though he had a crazed look in his eyes and seemed to have the wherewithal to bring a bomb to school the wires that I saw were similar to what one may have on an I-Pod. It turned out to be such an innocuous musical playing system. I did not fire. From the moment he yelled his threat to the moment I decided not to fire less than a half second probably passed. Not everyone is capable of knowing what they would do under such circumstances and as a society, we do not want everyone to be in a position to make such decisions. Killing is not for everyone and the ability to place oneself in such shoes is unlikely until and unless one is trained in that regard and placed in such a situation. The truth of the lethal force concept that many police officers stand by remains: I’d rather be judged by twelve than carried by six (even if that time I didn’t have to follow the mantra to its logical conclusion).
To all who can read my words, I have a statement to make and a stand to take. First, I must note that I recognize I’m posting it to a platform for which neither I, nor anyone, has paid to be a member. Consequently, the platform may choose to suspend my “free” membership, or otherwise delete my post or account. As a reminder to all of you, we are on here for “free” not because we are customers, but because we are a product (individually and collectively). This is the case for all social media. Technically, they are not the government and are not necessarily bound by a guarantee of free speech for all. They are a service, a club if you will, for which we have all agreed to be members, subject to their terms and conditions (and their whims). They, along with many other social media platforms (and even Google itself) have been engaged in muting some speech with which they disagree, while amplifying voices they prefer to promote. That, in my opinion, runs contrary to the spirit enshrined in our nation’s founding principles. I expect to pay a price for having said that, as well as for what I am about to say.
I have been many things to many people in my 4 ½ decades, but the most important title I have ever held is Dad. It is for this reason that I wish to explicate my values, so that I might state them succinctly for him and maintain a circle of friends who share them. I am fully aware that many of my “friends” on this forum may disagree with me and I welcome their departure from my page (and my life if they see fit). Indeed, I have recently found that expressing my values will result in others “unfriending” me, or asking me to “unfriend” them. At first, my response was to tell them that they had to do it. Now, I’ve been actively doing it myself. My list of “friends” is dwindling (thankfully) and I’m asking that you all help me continue the trend if my opinions offend you. Recent events have compelled me to take this action. I will now state my values. Should anyone feel compelled to make emotionally derived statements that castigate me for what I’m saying, I must issue the following warning: I speak and write from a position of cautious, calculated, reasoned, and well-researched thought. It is therefore the case that I’m quite capable of responding with facts as well as emotions, but I will emphasize the former punctiliously.
Where I stand on matters:
On race. I do not support the organization known as “Black Lives Matter,” nor do I support the utterance of the phrase. I say this because the organization is rooted in Marxist, anti-Semitic, and anti-Israel principles, which clash with my own values. As for the phrase, it is used in a way that excludes, which would be equivalent to saying “white lives matter” (something I also don’t say). None matter more than any others. What is worse, however, is that the phrase made its way to popular opinion not because of any actual injustice against blacks, but because the fallacious claims of systemic injustice, specifically said to be routinely carried out by the police writ large. Nothing can be further from the truth (well, a few things, but I’ll get into those shortly).
The BLM phraseology is being used by every sector of the economy (e.g., Netflix, Amazon, Chase Bank, etc.), almost overnight, in ways that facilitate their own public relations virtue-signaling needs. That does not negate the fact that it is an irresponsible phrase, which stimulates the need to further distinguish among people on the basis of race. Much like the racism (notice I don’t call it “reverse racism”) of Affirmative Action programs, music that persistently promotes use of the forbidden-to-others “N” word, television shows and channels that are made for one exclusive group’s identity, and other forms of entertainment that highlight victimhood and promote distinctions among us all, I do not condone it. The aim is to promote a false narrative that one group’s suffering is caused by another group. This has not been true for a very long time.
Racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, and anti-gay sentiment all exist. They probably always will. Whenever people come to see themselves in light of the “other,” on the basis of any distinguishing feature (e.g., color, religion, economic class, regional derivation, nationality, etc.) it is quite human, even if very incorrect, to feel that one’s own perceived wrongs have been caused by some external actor(s). It matters little if it is actually true. What matters is that people peddle the myth that it is. When this behavior gains traction, which it has, the alleged aggressor is targeted for vilification. Ask any committed Leftist what is wrong with America, as in “who are the villains?” and they will usually name straight, white, old, men (in combination, or in part). What is missing in all of the discussion about “black lives matter” is that rather than trying to solve the issues of fatherless homes, extreme violence, and an unhealthy disrespect for authority figures that plagues the black community, the “other” is blamed. Nothing beneficial for blacks comes from this. Many, whom I admire deeply have said this with far better brilliance and with superior prose. Indeed, matters only get worse as anarchists and hardcore (often white) Marxists run a campaign to destroy the fabric of society.
Yet before anyone claims I’m being a racist for saying this, I’ll offer a short list (in reality it’s much longer) of black Americans who agree with me. To be clear, I don’t owe anyone a list. I am doing this because some people seem to enjoy labeling others on emotional grounds, so as to advance their own sense of virtue, which understandably (even if fictitiously) makes them feel righteous. I hold the following black Americans in very high regard. I suggest that before picking a fight with me, their many works be considered objectively (links provided). Academics such as Thomas Sowell, Walter E. Williams, Larry Elder, Carol Swain, Jason D. Hill, and Shelby Steele, to name a few. Commentators such as David Webb, Candace Owens, Jason Riley, CJ Pearson, Herman Cain, Charles V. Payne, Dumisani Washington, Deneen Borelli, and Sonnie Johnson, for starters. Public service professionals such as Allen West, Ben Carson, Clarence Thomas, Mia Love, David Clarke, etc. For the record, I do not admire them because they are black, but because I enjoy reading their work and the effect they have had on the expansion of my own horizons. I don’t judge people on race; that’s the province of Leftists.
On Israel. I’m a Zionist Jew. This means that I support the right of the Jewish people to a Jewish State, but I also support Israeli citizens who are not Jewish (e.g., Druze, Circassians, Arab Muslims, Bahai, etc.). I do not support the so-called Palestinians. The people who, after Israel was established, became known as “Palestinians” and derived their identity from the fact that the failure of the invading and annihilative Arab armies could not deliver them a state devoid of Jews as they promised.
People are entitled to their feelings and opinions about the Palestinians, but facts and history matter. At minimum, before engaging me in an argument about why I am supposedly wrong, the critic may wish to start by reading several books by Efraim Karsh. My favorites include Islamic Imperialism, Empires of the Sand, Arafat’s War, and Fabricating Israeli History (this one really helped me as an undergraduate to clear away the extraordinary bias that was common in textbooks about the Arab-Israeli conflict). For a moral-legal perspective, Alan Dershowitz has written many factual books on the matter. Among my favorites are The Case for Israel, The Case for Peace, and The Case Against Israel’s Enemies. You might just start with the Jewish Virtual Library, or download Mitchell Bard’s Myths and Facts for free.
A robust knowledge of the history of the conflict in the Middle East and a strong cultural attachment to my heritage, guide my sentiment. More importantly, I’m a stickler for facts, especially those that are patently available and tend to overturn narrative fallacies. Lest anyone now endeavor to call me anti-Arab, I’ll offer again a list (which I still don’t owe anyone) of Arab writers whom I have come to admire. For instance, Fouad Ajami, Khaled Abu Toameh (a Palestinian I might add), Raymond Ibrahim, Walid Phares, Walid Shoebat, Brigitte Gabriel, Mohammad Zoabi (an Arab Israeli), Tawfik Hamid, Mohamed Zuhdi Jasser, Nonie Darwish, and so on. For the record, I do not admire them because they are Arabs, but because of their contributions to the greater good of humanity by exposing the lies promoted by Islamists, pan-Arabists, and their (natural) Leftist allies.
On the LGBTQI+ Agenda. I believe that humans should be with whomever it is they choose. Although the normal configuration, according the natural proliferation of our species, would be represented by the combination of a male and a female, I am not opposed to gay marriage. Indeed, I have expressed my opinion about this in the past. I don’t enjoy seeing same-sex couples kiss, but the simple solution is that I turn my head. It happens and my queasiness with it is simply that: my own queasiness.
Having said that, I will not stand for transsexual or transgender lifestyles being normalized. They are an anomaly akin to a mental illness, for which I sympathize with those who are afflicted by wanting to be something they biologically can’t be. I will not go quietly along if my child is being taught that it’s within the realm of normalcy to accept this lifestyle. It is not. There are two sexes (male and female) and genders are categories that have been made to seem elastic when they are, in essence, simply made up. I will also not engage in calling people by made-up pronouns, as some academic institutions and private companies are starting to require. For more on this, it might behoove one to consult Jordan Peterson.
I will likely be accused of being anti-gay, but the tactic doesn’t work on me. I have always known gay friends, family members, coworkers, fellow servicemembers, acquaintances, and neighbors. I have never, nor would I ever, treat them any differently for their sexual preferences. If a short list is required for my support of gay folks, here is a quick one for my detractors to peruse: Guy Benson, Dave Rubin, Rob Smith (black, if it matters), and Richard Grenell. For the record, I do not admire them because they are gay, but because I agree with their perspectives on many issues.
On the police, military, and the flag. I served in both blue and green uniforms, wore an American flag on my shoulder, and swore a duty to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” For now, I will set aside the fact that bad cops are exceedingly rare, and are less inclined to shoot blacks, which I have addressed elsewhere. However, I will focus on my sense that kneeling for the flag is an affront to the military and the country for which it stands as a last redoubt against tyranny. Many have succumbed to the notion that it is somehow patriotic to kneel for the national anthem, or pledge of allegiance, and to do so at major sporting events. There are men and women, of all races, creeds and sexual orientations, who have fought for what that flag represents (blemishes and all). A good number have died doing so, and we have draped that same flag over their coffins to remind us of that fact.
When a person wears the flag and takes the oath, they do so with the knowledge that they may face debilitating physical injury and death. When someone kneels before the flag, due to some flaws in society they claim exist, they commit an act so misdirected in its intent and so ignorant in its effect. Equally as appalling is that the opportunity to hijack the flag’s significance is made on grounds that seek to highlight our nation’s purported imperfections, which consequently belittles the actual ills of society that had plagued us in generations past. It is as if one is saying we are broken, when in fact we are more fixed than we ever had been. An equivalent analogy would be the popular tact in calling someone Hitler, which cheapens the evil currency of his programmatic extermination of people on the basis of his own ideals. No one was Hitler, but Hitler himself.
On politics, ideology, and discord. For all of the above that I have expressed, one can probably gauge my disdain for the current political and ideological state of affairs. Our country has become more polarized over time and there is a point at which this polarization will give way to something far worse than domestic unrest. By polarization, I mean the variance between political parties and their attendant ideological underpinnings. In my estimation, the Left has moved so far from the center that the opening line (“A spectre is haunting Europe – the spectre of Communism”) from The Communist Manifesto not only describes Europe in 1848, but the U.S. today as well. Politics has become such a game of teamsmanship that there is a side to take with any given issue. Sides even switch if it appears the “other side” advocates for a certain cause, policy, or preference. The altar of alterity is an encumbrance to democracy and not a means to achieve a more perfect union.
I am a conservative. If that makes your stomach sick, it is likely because you believe what is said about conservatism. Allow me to disabuse you of the falsehoods, by first stating what we’re not. Conservatives are not “afraid of change” as many Leftists claim. We don’t like the specific types of change that so-called Liberals or Progressives advocate. Conservatives are not racists, sexists, or anti-gay. It’s a catchy slogan, but it doesn’t even come close to describing how we think or what we believe in. For the record, White Supremacists like David Duke and Black Supremacists like Louis Farrakhan are equally deserving of moral opprobrium for their racism and anti-Semitism.
So, how do we Conservatives think and what do we believe in? Small government, freedom of the individual, freedom from the tyranny of the Left that has seen their 19th century dreams fall apart in the 20th and 21st centuries, an adherence to the Constitution as the Framers meant it to be used, the free market (capitalism is the best form of this the world has ever known), and some sense of order. What we usually mean by “order” is not blind compliance by all with the rules that are established by the few elites. That’s actually a better description of Leftist ideals. No, what we mean is that in order for a society to function, people have to be able to count on the law coming to their aid when a wrong has been, or is about to be, committed against them. The system of freedom, the essence of conservatism (and libertarianism I might add), does not work under conditions of anarchy.
On liberty. I am a huge supporter of the Bill of Rights, with special affinity for the First and Second Amendments, which have been under attack for some time. On the First Amendment, the Leftists control people’s voices to the best of their ability, both shadow-banning and actually banning Conservatives on social media, in the academy, on news platforms, and in private industry. They shame people until they quit their professions, drop sponsorship for products or policies with which the Leftist mob disagrees, shout people down for their ideas, and cancel their appearances wherever they smell something that doesn’t resemble their Leftist scent.
As for the Second Amendment, it is absolutely untrue to peddle the idea that the citizenry were not meant to be armed. In furtherance of their Leftist mentality, whenever a mass shooting occurs, the blame is nearly always placed on the firearms themselves and not the bad actors (see my analysis of Leftist thoughts below for a better understanding of why that is so). I believe a well-armed citizenry acts as both a bulwark against tyranny and interpersonal criminal activity. The answer to stopping mass shootings in schools is not less guns, but more in the hands of the good folks. I also wrote about that and also the fact that violence in the interest of good is “good violence.” Indeed, I support “Black Guns Matter.”
On the current situation. The present discord one can readily observe is unwarranted, unjustified, and unjustifiable. Pretending the police are at fault for society’s ills, destroying our historic symbols (much like when the Taliban obliterated the statues at Bamiyan), re-writing school books to exclude facts and generate new ones, altering history to suit one’s own preferences, are all happening for a reason. The Left, along with their anarchist Left-ward oriented allies, have been engaging in brushfire battles for decades. They have increasingly been using circumstances that spark immediate outrage to fan their intersectionality (look it up if you’re not familiar) agenda, so that they can quickly push through their list of policy aims. They seem to think that now they are at the gates of what they hope to be a major (winnable) war. I’m here to oppose them during this battle and for the duration of the war.
This isn’t new. Saul Alinksy designed the agitation framework for it long ago. It’s just that the current conditions are most propitious for a revolt, or so they think. One should read John Kingdon’s widely cited book, so as to better understand how policy streams exist in various forms, but they need to take advantage of policy windows, so that they can force them through before the window closes. In the present case, a focusing event transpired (as it falsely did in the past with when criminal Michael Brown was justifiably shot in Ferguson, MO), for which the full range of facts had not yet been shown in a court of law. Multiple agenda setters mobilized, among which were anarchists, Left-wing activists, the media, academics, organized professional protesters, and yes, their Islamist anti-Semitic allies. The favorable circumstances were generated by pandemic lockdown fatigue, but the actors were readily at hand to push the agenda to fruition once the timing seemed appropriate. Protesting for a cause enabled a pathway for some to exit a seemingly endless depressing solitude for a number of purpose-seeking individuals to feel as though they’re part of something important. They picked the wrong battle, but it will rage on nonetheless.
What do Leftists believe in? The psycho-social underpinnings of Leftist thought are quite simple to distill. In short, the further Left one is on the ideological/political spectrum, the more they seek to champion the cause of underdogs; despite whether said underdogs are themselves behaving badly. They adhere to what I term an “underdogmatic” (see Michael Prell’s book for a primer) interpretation of the world, and actively seek victims and villains, often using the accoutrements of power as a proxy for their preferred victim/villain dichotomy. This explains why you see BLM protesters wearing Palestinian Keffiyehs and making anti-Semitic remarks. It also explains why they automatically overlay a binary good/bad set of values on a variety of issues. If you don’t believe me, try these out: rich/poor, white/people of color, men/women, straight/LGBTQI+, strong/weak, well-armed states/rock-throwing terrorists, Israel/the Palestinians, law enforcement/unarmed or lesser-armed civilians, and so forth. In each instance, the Leftist uses the entity on the left-side of the slash mark as the villain, which is defined by the relationship to the entity on the right-side of the slash mark as a victim. There are variations to this, but generally it is a pretty handy rule to remember when dealing with Leftists.
The other important element is the part about serving as a champion of underdogs, which satisfies the ego and makes people feel like they are on the side of David versus Goliath, the powerless against the powerful, the downtrodden versus the elites. It turns out for them, however, that they often support the wrong people for the wrong reasons. Yet, since it feels good to utter slogans that align with the notion that one is on a mission to even the outcomes, facts do not matter whatsoever. When confronted with discomfiting facts, the Leftist will usually resort to the powered/powerless trope for comfort. They will then regroup around catchy phrases about “the system” being at fault, or arguing that there is a “structural” issue at play. Hogwash. It’s all psychobabble invented by academics and their student sycophants to skirt the hard facts.
Academia and the Media. There have been ample studies that show members of academia and the media overwhelmingly self-identify as Left-of-Center, and this has been accelerating at a rapid rate (somewhere near 90 – 95% claim to be Liberal/Progressive/Left). If you don’t believe me, read a book by a Liberal professor, such as Jonathan Haidt. They act as gatekeepers and they keep those gates guarded at all times. In academia, I’ve seen it in person many times and once I even wrote about it in 2013. I’ve seen a lot more since then and it’s truly sickening. Academia aside, what is typically termed the MSM (Mainstream Media) is tethered quite tightly to both academia and Left-leaning politicians. They truly never let a crisis go to waste and make every effort to frame, set the agenda, and prime their audiences not only with sensationalism, but a warped Leftist take on society. They have aided and abetted their fellow Leftists (and many terrorists) for far too long. (Push me on this issue, I dare you).
For my son, I will teach him to be a decent person who judges people on their merit, not on their skin color, religion, sexual orientation, nor national origin. That being said, I will not subject him to the idea that he must pay a price for his own skin color, religion, sexual orientation, nor national origin. There is no such thing as white privilege, just as there is not such thing as a debt owed by someone who never owned a slave to someone who never was one. Slavery is not a valid causal variable for any modern-day outcomes, no matter how much Leftists would like to claim it is.
For my “friends” on this forum, I’m advising you from this point forward that I am taking my stand on the above points. It was my policy until recently to let others “unfriend” me, but I have taken more recently to a rather proactive approach. Where I have found grave disagreements with others, I have simply unfriended them. I don’t mind disagreement; it is the core of a vibrant democracy. It is time now, however, that I put my foot down and make it known that if I have little in common with another person, there is no “friend” component to be had on a social media platform. I have already unfriended a number of people, some with whom I have served in the military, schoolmates I have not seen in years, distant family members, a Rabbi, and others. I have done so on the grounds that I do not share their values and they have made it known they do not share mine.
I will not stand idly by while the disease of Leftism ruins my beloved country. The alamo has been breached, and, like Davy Crockett, I’m aware that the odds are stacked against me (notice how I harnessed the power of the underdog heuristic). Nonetheless, I know that I am speaking on behalf of those who are too timid to say what’s on their mind for fear of moral outrage masquerading as tolerance, or boycott campaigns parading under the guise of Social Justice Warrior (SJW) lingo. Hence, my chosen weapon is the keyboard. I hope it does not come to pass that I must defend my principles in some other fashion, which I have done in the past, and for which I’m fully capable of doing in the future.
To my readers, most of my written content is being published by Lima Charlie News, where they have given me two titles: Associate Editor | Intelligence and National Security Correspondent. This page will be left as it is for archival purposes. For more recent work I have written, please visit the following link: David Firester at Lima Charlie News.
Originally published on Lima Charlie News, David Firester discusses the implications of Iran’s enhanced defense profile.
Reconsidering our Iranian Nuclear Policy in light of a changing threat landscape
The following is a list of Jihadist-inspired terrorism attacks inside the U.S. since 9/11/01. The list excludes foiled attempts, but includes failed attempts. I will separately endeavor to prepare a list of foiled attacks at a later period.[1] I define failed attacks as those for which an individual initiated the sequence of attacking, but was unsuccessful in achieving their full range of objectives. I define foiled attacks as those for which an individual hadn’t had an opportunity to initiate the sequence of attacking, but for which they had demonstrated an intention (and possibly coupled with the capability) to do so. All attack information comes from open sources and is verifiable by simple internet searches. Any disputation of facts is welcome.
As some may notice, the list also excludes other forms of domestic terrorism (actual, failed and foiled). Another word of caution for using this short dataset is that affiliation with a specific transnational Jihadist organization can sometimes be difficult to discern. Anyone wishing to research organizational affiliation, should either consult at least two corroborating open sources, or read the official indictments attending any subsequent prosecution.
Bottom Line Up Front (BLUF):
A summary glance at the data reveals that from December 2001 through June 2017 (the period covered herein):
Domestic Attack Data
Concluding Analytical Remarks
One conclusion that could readily be drawn is that Jihadist-inspired attacks may be affiliated with an organization per se, however, the attackers don’t always seem to express a clear affiliation. Despite individual allegiances to organized external terrorist groups, each attacker appears to have adhered to a Jihadist ideology. As the Islamic State’s power profile dwindles, as did al-Qa’ida’s in the past, there is reason to believe that although it may reduce some of the entity’s cyber presence, it is likely not going to eliminate Jihadist attacks.
I’d like to invite any serious analyst who seeks to collaborate in constructing an open-source, publicly available, database of foiled attacks to join me in that endeavor. Additionally, anyone who is presently working on a terrorism project that desires review, assistance, editing, or a contributing author is welcome to reach out to me or my associates at TRAC Intelligence, LLC.
[1] As certain names will appear in a separate database, they are deliberately being excluded here. For instance, two separate attacks connected to the June 2015 arrests of Munther Saleh, Imran Rabbani and Fareed Mumuni, also resulted in the arrests of Nader Saadeh, Aala Saadeh and Samuel Rahamin Topaz. The latter three did not initiate the sequence of attacking and hence would appear in a “foiled attack” database.
[2] Edged weapons are included in the “knives” category for the sake of convenience.
The Iranian Parliament in Tehran; June 7, 2017. Image, courtesy of Radio Free Europe
An analysis of the Islamic State’s Attack on Iran, by David Firester, founder and CEO of TRAC Intelligence, a premier threat analysis firm.
It seems the chickens have come home to roost. The world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism has just been terrorized by the world’s leading terrorist organization in twin assaults on Iran’s parliament and the shrine of its revolution’s beloved leader. The irony is profound. This is not, however, an occasion for celebration, as terrorism must always be condemned and never condoned. Nonetheless, it is a time for some reflection. Continue reading
Is the Islamic State Worth Destroying? From a moral standpoint, one can’t help but answer the question in the affirmative. How can one sit idly by, as the world did when Fascism spread throughout Europe and Southeast Asia? Then again, none of the major powers really became heavily involved until either a surprise attack befell them, and/or their treaty obligations with another major power required them to act. Even then, the British merely sent an Expeditionary Force and the U.S. steered clear of major combat operations in Europe, until the enemy’s weaknesses could be favorably exploited. Nonetheless, acting against modern-day fascists is a worthy cause. And fascism is precisely the term to describe the so-called Islamic State and their ilk.
In the age of cloud computing for everything from picture storage to banking, cyber security is one of the most important security issues on the international stage. The recent hacking allegations against Russia, not to mention the internet being used as a recruitment tool for ISIS terrorist cells, points to a new kind of war.
Continue reading
Donald Trump continues to be barraged by ghosts and skeletons from his past. Happy Halloween, Mr. Trump. The truth of the allegations appears to be in the eye of the beholder. Dems love it. Reps think it’s nonsense … and so the wheel continues to spin along a fairly normal axis, even in this unusual year. Continue reading
The scourge of terrorism has been with the world for centuries, but the 21st century has seen an almost unprecedented resurgence in hateful, murderous behavior. Unfortunately, in many ways the technological revolution brought about by the advent of the internet and personal computers has facilitated this rise, in four particular ways. Continue reading
Police in Santa Clara are the ones who provide security for the home games of the 49ers with usually about 70 of their officers. But their union has said they are not certain they want to continue to protect a team that is willing to put up with one of the team members (Colin Kaepernick) criticizing police for what they feel amounts in many cases to doing the job they have been tasked to do. Kaepernick has made his very public stand, or rather sit, at a couple of the team’s games now and has vowed to continue sitting through the National Anthem in the regular season games as well.
Greta Van Susteren is out at Fox News, leaving the company last week and offering a mea culpa to former colleague Gretchen Carlson on her way out.
After Carlson filed a sexual harassment suit against Ailes, Van Susteren initially offered doubts as to the legitimacy of the claims, supporting Ailes and downplaying any reports from Carlson … or the 20 other women who came forward with similar complaints.
One of the unspoken whispers fluttering back and forth in the back halls and byways of the GOP machine this election cycle is what will happen to the down-ticket vote. Republicans have been gaining with Hispanics in national polls in recent years, but Trump remains a polarizing figure in that voting bloc. Case in point: a top seller in South Texas? Donald Trump piñatas.
The Path to Policy Hell is Paved with Well-Intentioned Academic Work
Summary, Analysis, Observations and Questions: McCauley C. & S. Moskalenko. 2001. Friction: How radicalization happens to them and us. New York: Oxford University Press.
By David Firester
I wrote the following long critique on the above book last year. However, I never published it here, until now. Since it has received such great acclaim in academia, I felt it was important to critically assess its place in the academic world of terrorism studies. To this end, I have authored what I would say is merely the tip of the iceberg in terms of exposing academically misguided research. I offer it to you, the public, to consider what I have said and juxtapose it to the book’s content itself.
David Firester’s Book Review of Crumpton, Henry A. The Art of Intelligence: Lessons from a Life in the CIA’s Clandestine Service. Penguin, 2012.
The allure of Hank Crumpton’s book, for the layperson, is probably that it’s an eye-opening journey through the seemingly secretive intelligence world. To the student of intelligence, however, it is both a cautionary tale and a road map that indicates what sorts of obstacles may lay ahead. The book’s title tells us much of what we need to know about its contents. First, the notion of an “art” of intelligence is, as Crumpton mentions, a conjoining of concepts laid out by two of history’s great thinkers: Allen Welsh Dulles and Sun Tzu (13). The former was a more contemporary American intelligence leader and the latter was an ancient Chinese military theoretician. Both of their works continue to be used today, as a tool for thinking about strategy and tactics.
Book Review of Flynn, M. T., & Ledeen, M. A. (2016). The field of fight: How we can win the global war against radical Islam and its allies. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
By David Firester
France has a terror problem. No one can seriously debate that fact, or the international impression left on people in and out of the country who have watched multiple mass terrorist attacks across the country.
One of the key aspects of successful management is knowing when to get involved in the process. Jump in too early and your team will lose its ability to make decisions on their own. Jump in too late and they will have some ideas too far along in the process to make the best changes.
One of the consistencies with regard to terrorism is that it is nearly impossible to predict, with any precision, where future attacks may occur. This is not news. What is, however, is that terrorist practitioners have sunk to a new level; even as we can’t imagine there are lower levels to which they could descend. By riding the wave of instability in the Middle East, the leading transnational terrorist organization, the so-called Islamic State, has found a way to project power into the heart of Western civilization.
For millions across the globe, knowing what to make of the Zika virus has become a frustrating mental calculation. Headlines are dire, but stories seem to ramble and offer a lot of statistics and corollary worries. But at least one U.S. Olympic athlete is taking no chances.
Property crimes, such as burglary, remain a concern for many in the U.S., but there are ways that you can improve the security of your home and protect your family and possessions.
Continue reading
Given how the PR gaffes have been stacking up, coupled with the GOP team’s work to have their candidate strike a more presidential pose, it had to happen sooner or later. Last week it did. Donald Trump admitted a mistake. Then, with standard Trump deftness, he pivoted and turned that mistake into a jab at his opponent. Folks who want to talk about Trump being “new” to this political thing may want to pay attention. This guy is not any kind of wet behind the ears.
With less than a week to go before the Rio Olympics kicked off, protesters were nearly constant in Brazil’s two largest cities, Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo. Things got so bad at one point that protesters last week blocked the Olympic procession, grabbed the torch and extinguished the flame. You know, the Olympic Flame, the one representing brotherhood and competition and unity that’s never supposed to go out? Yeah, they snuffed that one. If they were looking for international headlines, they got them.
It’s a nugget tucked away in just about every story about specific Middle Eastern terror attacks. How “successful” terror groups are using social media to recruit and “radicalize” youth. Tucked away, but salt in a wound of countries and people who have fought desperately not only for the right to exist but the right to live free. A right infringed every day by murderers.
There are a number of reasons why choosing to study political science is a good idea. For starters, political science examines the core principles behind how Western government is structured, and, as such, is useful in many fields. Learning about political science helps in understanding how the United States government works, and this, in turn, leads to having a better grasp on how the United States exists within the context of the entire world.
Not that long ago, a betting man may have sworn jilted wives would be the group to bring website Ashley Madison down. Turns out, a massive data breach sealed the deal. But the data breach revealed more about the “cheating” website than a list of men looking to mess around. It pulled the curtain back revealing countless fake profiles and a host of other issues that embarrassed the company right along with the users.
The Olympic Games are nearly here, and that means it’s time for the Big Brands to do their best to connect with the world’s biggest sporting extravaganza. It’s already popping off across NYC as top brands from Coke to Samsung try to be the first in and make the biggest splash.
The Rio de Janeiro 2016 Olympics and Paralympics have faced difficult issues, and the PR in most cases could not be much worse. First, Brazil is right in the heart of the worst of the Zika virus scare area. And that scare has been bad enough that even some of the athletes are willing to walk away from a once every four years opportunity – and because the athletic life of a competitor could easily come to an end before another four years passes, that might mean the end of any Olympic dreams for those walking away. Still, to some, the risk is great enough that they are doing just that.
Hillary Clinton email controversy
There’s a ton of controversy circling around Hillary Clinton and those emails this week as the FBI recommended no criminal action be taken against her for not keeping top secret information secure – they did recommend administrative action.
According to Paul Ryan, administrative action in this situation would translate to cutting her off from any access to classified or top secret documents in the future. And now that the possibility of criminal charges has been set aside, the State Department has reopened their investigation into the matter. And if “administrative” action is recommended by them, “we have a problem, Houston!”
By: David Firester
The Global Terrorism Database (GTD), which is managed by the University of Maryland’s federally funded National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) recently released its 2015 user-friendly database to the public. The significance of such a robust catalogue of terrorism is that it is used to generate scholarly articles and to supply the Department of State, among other agencies, with a factual basis on which to author official reports. In turn, such reports may be used to buttress open-source foreign policy assessments and perhaps inform decision makers. It is therefore very important to understand the degree of accuracy associated with the GTD’s statistics, as well as the attendant policy implications that might be drawn from them. Although there are many areas in which to focus one’s review of the database, this article is primarily concerned with the inferences that might be mistakenly arrived at with regard to the situation in Israel. I have found a few trends, and some factual errors, which I will highlight and analyze below. My aim here is to alert future researchers and decision makers to the distortion of material facts, and the attendant conclusions, that may be discerned from this particular macro-level database.
The “Israel” Dataset
The GTD indicates that there were 58 incidents of terrorism in Israel (excluding the West Bank and Gaza) in 2015. Of that number, 8 were said to be committed by “Israeli Extremists” (7), or “Jewish Extremists” (1). In reviewing these instances, I found that one such event may not have occurred at all (201510030023). The single source cited could not be found in any online search (e.g., Lexis Nexis, Google Scholar and general Google searches yielded no results). Additionally, no attack type, no weapon type, and no named perpetrator were listed in the database. Nonetheless, the GTD summarized the incident in the following way, “Assailants attacked an Arab driver in Jerusalem, Israel. A pedestrian was wounded in the attack. No group claimed responsibility for the incident; however, sources attributed the attack to Israeli extremists” [emphasis added]. A single illusive source is hardly evidence of an event having transpired.
In researching another incident (201510130038), committed by “Israeli Extremists,” it initially appeared to me that the GTD missed an Arab terrorism event (in East Talpiot/Armon HaNatziv). That attack resulted in 2 Israeli deaths, one of whom was an American citizen, despite the fact that the GTD reported zero American deaths, coded as “nkillus,” for 2015 inside Israel. This came to light as I was reading the two source documents the GTD attributed to the “Israeli Extremists” attack. Both articles cited 4 other Palestinian attacks, of which the GTD only accounted for 3. I did discover, however, that the GTD coded the East Talpiot/Armon HaNatziv event as occurring in the “West Bank and Gaza Strip” dataset. The database specifically names the intersection of Olei HaGardom St. and Moshe Barazam Street [sic; Barzani is the correct spelling] as the location in which the attack occurred. Although the attack did take place on the first of the two named streets, there is no indication that it did so at the intersection of the second.
A reasonable question to ask is why such a minute detail matters for the integrity of the database. The answer is that if the attack were to truly have taken place where the GTD says it did, then it would support a narrative that the lethal attack on Israelis (and in this case an American) occurred in the so-called “occupied territories,” thus lending credence to the oft-cited attack rationale associated with “resistance to the occupation.” Indeed, the GTD gives the coordinates 31.749712/ 35.236954, which is a Jewish neighborhood in East Jerusalem. This seemingly minor detail also informs the analyst as to where the GTD has decided to draw its own lines.
The “West Bank and Gaza” Dataset
Beyond the “recognized” borders of the State of Israel, which the GTD has apparently defined for researchers (see my above analysis), they consider the “West Bank and Gaza” in a separate dataset. With regard to Jewish or Israeli perpetrators, they code them as either “Israeli Extremists,” (always listed as plural) or “Israeli Settler” (always listed as singular). Such a distinction appears to be arbitrary, but one matter worth consideration is that to call someone a “settler” undermines the legitimacy of their legal status as a citizen. In this respect, the GTD staff is discriminating in a way that appears to be other than neutral.
To summarize the statistics, the combined total number of attacks for 2015 in the “West Bank and Gaza” dataset numbered 247, with 120 non-perpetrator deaths (including 3 U.S. citizens), and 242 injuries (including 3 U.S. citizens). The number of attacks attributed to “Israeli Extremists” was 5 and “Israeli Settler” was 14, for a total of 19 out of the 247 attacks, or just under 8%, being committed by Jews/Israelis. It should be noted that all attacks in Gaza, which numbered 32, exclusively featured Arab attackers and/or Arab victims and resulted in no fatalities.
With regard to the “West Bank” portion of the dataset, looking closely at the alleged attacks by Israeli settlers/extremists, reveals some strange coding preferences that require further analysis. For instance, on October 9 in Kiryat Arba, an event (201510130063) occurred, for which the perpetrating party was coded as “Israeli Settler.” According to the GTD, the incident resulted in no injuries and no weapons were used. The single source upon which the GTD relied was from a Palestinian news agency, Ma’an, which produced pictures that didn’t necessarily indicate an act of violence per se. Rather, while carefully reviewing the photographic “evidence,” it appears that the Palestinian journalists entered a Jewish neighborhood to report on an incident occurring nearby, in which a Palestinian dressed as a journalist, stabbed an Israeli soldier, and were subsequently being forced to lower their cameras. This event took place during the most violent month of October and given the above-described specific circumstances was likely a defensive measure, rather than an act of “terrorism” that the GTD ascribes to “Israeli Settler[s].” In the database, there is room to indicate if there is doubt that an act is terroristic in nature. None was conveyed for the instant case.
Another incident is even more troubling, because it actually didn’t happen. While attempting to corroborate the single source cited for an alleged attack on a mosque in Mughayir, it became apparent that the GTD actually recycled an article from al Jazeera that dated from 2011. Indeed, all of the alleged “facts” in the GTD database were identical to the story that was promulgated by al Jazeera four years earlier.
For two “terrorism” incidents (201502250058/201502250059), which involved the alleged firing of automatic weapons at Palestinian homes, the GTD used a single, uncorroborated, source: The Muslim News. Judging from the language used in the article, there is reason to believe that it may not have occurred. Even still, there could at least have been an indicator as to the veracity of its alleged occurrence. The GTD’s staff doesn’t issue such assessments. That is the job of the analyst.
While investigating a vandalism attack (201503040051), which likely did occur and was categorized by Israeli authorities as “Jewish terror,” according to one of the two sources the GTD used, an event (201411120036) from the previous year was mentioned. In that event, it was alleged by local Palestinians that a mosque in Mughayir was set ablaze by Jews. As the article points out, however, the police determined that the cause of the fire was faulty wiring. To their credit, the GTD did state that it may not have been terrorism, although the incident remains in the database from 2014. The unfortunate result is that deficient Palestinian engineering is given the equivalent status of an act of Jewish terrorism in the database.
In another likely case of an electrical fire having been mistaken as a Jewish terror attack (201508240041), the GTD, again to its credit, did indicate doubt that terrorism was afoot. However, as in the previous unlikely incident, this too is counted in the aggregate as resulting from Jewish terror.
Severity of Jewish/Israeli Attacks
For all of the purported Israeli attacks inside Israel (not including the West Bank and Gaza), only 1 (5%) resulted in the death of a (non-Arab) civilian, whereas the total number of recorded deaths (not including those of the perpetrators) in Israel for 2015 was 20. In the instant case, the only one in which the GTD labeled the single assailant as “Jewish Extremists” [sic], the perpetrator attacked a Gay Pride parade for the second time and was consequently sentenced to life in prison. This event was very much an anomaly in that attacks against fellow Israelis for their sexual orientation is a rare occurrence. What is notable is that not only does the State of Israel apprehend, prosecute and punish Israelis who perpetrate violence against Arabs, but also against those who attack gays. Although I may be stating the obvious, for context’s sake it is well-known that Israeli tolerance of others’ identities is evidenced by the fact that it is by far the only gay-friendly country in the region (to include Arab-controlled territory in the West Bank and Gaza).
With regard to attacks by Jews/Israelis in the West Bank (recalling that Gaza had none), only 1 of the 19 was lethal, but it resulted in 3 deaths, accounting for about 2.5% of all deaths caused by terrorism in this particularly named area. It was the July 31 arson attack against a Palestinian home, for which a man and a minor were originally indicted, although it remains unclear if the man had acted alone. Nonetheless, Israeli authorities have been actively pursuing the suspect’s potential ring of similar offenders. Again, we have prima facie evidence that the Israeli government takes Jewish violence seriously. Of the 19 attacks carried out by Jews/Israelis, 12 (63%) were with an incendiary device, 4 by firearms (21%), 1 chemical [tear gas] (5%), 1 melee (5%) and 1 unknown (5%).
Context
What a database can’t provide is context. This effort requires an analyst. For example, in the “Israel” dataset, 2 attacks, or 25% of all Israeli/Jewish attacks, were arsons against churches. In another example, an attack was alleged to have occurred in Netanya (201510090056), in which the GTD cites “sources attributed the attack to Israeli extremists.” Again, there was an uncorroborated single source, which, when checked, referenced a different article in which the account (in Hebrew) described a back and forth exchange between Jews and Arabs, the latter of whom were allegedly shouting, “Allahu Akbar.” At the time in which this incident took place, 6 Palestinian terrorist attacks had already occurred inside Israel that month and 9 in the “West Bank and Gaza.” Indeed, October was the most violent month in 2015, featuring 26 out of 58 attacks, or 45% for the “Israel” dataset that year. Of this figure, 5 of the 26 attacks were coded as Israeli/Jewish, 19% of the monthly total, representing 63% of the 8 that occurred that year in the “Israel” dataset.
In the “West Bank and Gaza” dataset, October was, similar to attacks in the “Israel” dataset, the most violent month of the year. It featured 72 attacks, or 29% of the total number of attacks in the West Bank and Gaza. For a comparative assessment, the previous 7 months featured a total of 74 attacks. The proportion of attacks by “Israeli Extremists,” or “Israeli Settlers,” when compared to attacks by others in that month was 6 out of 72, or 8% (in line with the previously addressed annual percentage).
Combining the two datasets (see Appendix A), the data shows that of the total 305 terrorist attacks the GTD recorded for 2015, 27 (9%) were committed by Jews/Israelis, which if adjusted for the aforementioned fact that at least one attack didn’t occur and several others could not be substantiated would reduce the percentage to something around 8%. Privileging the raw figures provided by the GTD, during the month of October, the total ratio of Jewish attacks to that of the Palestinians was 11:98, or 11%.
Analysts may be inclined to explore two distinct causal factors to explain the October violence. First, any actions of the Israeli military should be considered. Such actions do not meet the GTD’s definition of terrorism and would therefore not appear in the database. Secondly, any widespread Palestinian media campaigns that aimed to incite violence, which the GTD also doesn’t include, should be investigated. A single Israeli military action, or Palestinian broadcast, would likely not account for the level of violence that persisted at a high tempo beyond the month of October. Therefore, one should gauge their search results with an eye toward intensity, duration and chronological sequencing.
Conclusion and Implications
The complete picture of the data is represented in Table 1 (Appendix A), which can be summarized as follows. Jewish terrorism during 2015 represented approximately 10% of the total monthly attacks for the year, with 4 months having no attacks. The monthly percentage never exceeded 11%, even in the most violent month of October. The overall statement about non-Jewish terror is that it was quite the opposite. The average monthly attacks were 90% and there were no months in which non-Jewish (read: Arab) attacks numbered less than 5. There were some months, however, when Jewish attacks were 0 and the non-Jewish attacks were as follows: January (15), April (14), May (10) and September (13). During months when Jewish attacks were 1, non-Jewish attacks were as follows: March (5), June (8), and in two extraordinary months, November (49) and December (42).
In light of these statistics, one of the trends that appear to be obvious is that the Palestinian attack intensity increased in October, with no apparent connection to any Israeli attacks having occurred the previous month. Another trend appears to be that once Israeli terrorism was at its peak in October, it quickly diminished to 1/month for the next two months. This was despite the third apparent trend, which was that non-Israeli terrorism slowly diminished during the same period. One could therefore say that Arab terrorism ratcheted up quickly, but down slowly (and painfully). One additional insight is that Arab terrorism appears causally unconnected with Jewish terrorism.
Although the GTD does capture a fair number of incidents, its database is largely populated by students, who respond to directions provided to them by algorithms. The result is that one who is unaware of the context of particular conflicts, as well as some of the nuances that attend it, may not generate an accurate threat picture with regard to terrorism. For instance, the Israeli Security Agency (Shabak) composes its own, publicly available, annual reports on terrorism. Its 2015 report reflects statistics that differ markedly from those of the GTD database, but more scholars and policy analysts may be inclined to use the latter, rather than the former.
The reasons that the GTD’s aggregate data differs from that of the Shabak’s are threefold. First, there is a difference in the way attacks are calculated. The GTD doesn’t include many of the failed or foiled attacks, nor does it consider most rocket/missile/mortar attacks originating in Gaza. This is a bit odd, considering that the GTD’s “Data Collection Methodology” includes “an intentional act of violence, or threat of violence by a non-state actor” [emphasis in the original]. One might be inclined to assume that the GTD considers Hamas to be a state actor. However, this would be out of step with the fact that they did record a Hamas assassination attempt within Gaza (201502160091) in 2015. Additionally, the GTD recorded (in the Israel dataset) only one rocket fired from Gaza (201510100023), but indicated that the assailants were “unknown,” therefore not coding them as “Palestinian Extremists.” To wit, there are only Palestinians living in Gaza and the act of firing on a civilian population is patently extreme.
The other requirements that the data must meet also render the exclusion of Hamas/Gaza as suspicious. According to the GTD’s methodology, two of the following three criteria must be met:
In looking at projectile attacks emanating from Gaza, one can’t logically conclude that it fails to meet the benchmarks set forth by the GTD. In fact, Hamas’s attacks qualify on each of the 3 grounds. It cannot reasonably be argued otherwise, unless the data coders are in agreement that such actions are somehow legitimate. This would place the GTD firmly in the camp of those who assert the rights of Hamas/Gaza to attack Israel. Such an inference, if it were correct, would undermine the credibility of START as a nonpartisan think tank. After all, the center is a “Department of Homeland Security Center of Excellence.”
The second reason that the GTD’s data differs from that of the Shabak’s has to do with the way in which it distinguishes territorial lines. As was already mentioned, the GTD has two distinct datasets for “Israel” and the “West Bank and Gaza.” Scholars who miss this fact will arrive at some very skewed conclusions. Even when accounting for this fact, however, the statistics are still vastly different.
Thirdly, the GTD doesn’t appear to retrospectively analyze the data it collects, although its leading scholars use the data to produce peer-reviewed journal articles and books. Again, I have listed a few occasions in which a matter was either reported to be a terrorist incident when it turns out not to have been, or an incident was said to have taken place when it seems likely that it did not. I have also pointed out the many events that the database has missed. The unfortunate consequence is that the GTD’s aggregate data enables those who conduct macro-level studies to manipulate it in such a way as to draw imprecise conclusions. This is the precise reason why I have offered a micro-level assessment of the GTD’s database with regard to a specific independent variable, Israeli/Jewish terrorism.
Bio
David Firester is the founder and CEO of TRAC Intelligence (Threat, Reporting, and Analysis Consultants), which is a premier threat analysis firm. TRAC Intelligence provides threat assessment in the private sector.
Appendix A: Visual Data
Despite the various faults with the data, identified above, the following is a visual summary of the GTD’s combined datasets, “Israel” and the “West Bank and Gaza.”
Table 1: Average Monthly Attacks in “Israel” and the “West Bank and Gaza” 2015
Graph 1: Numerical Expression of Average Monthly Attacks in “Israel” and the “West Bank and Gaza”
Graph 2: Percentage Expression of Average Monthly Attacks in “Israel” and the “West Bank and Gaza”
Potentially Misleading Statistics on Global Terrorism
Recently, the 2015 statistics were released by the Global Terrorism Database (GTD), hosted at the University of Maryland’s National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START). Prior to making the data publicly available, of course, scholars associated with START took the liberty of publishing their own articles while access was monopolized. The State Department also got a head-start on putting out its 2015 report on terrorism, based largely on START’s work. This is somewhat fitting, as START’s funding comes exclusively from federal dollars. Aside from a little monopolization of publicly funded databases, there are some important misleading conclusions that the layperson might be inclined to draw. I will explain how and why this is the case.
In considering the recent GTD data release, Andrew Flowers (of FiveThirtyEight) did interpret something correctly when he observed that “Terrorism Declined Last Year- but Not in the West.” In his brief article, he correctly cited START’s GTD statistics that support the claim that terrorism was reduced abroad from the previous year (2014). However, in his search to understand why, he interviewed the GTD’s program manager, Erin Miller, who stated that “it’s possible that ‘2014 was just a really bad year and 2015 was still violent but somewhat less so by comparison.'” This is somewhat incomplete, because it doesn’t take into account the shifting sands, so to speak, in the battle against the Islamic State (IS) transnational terrorist army. For instance, the introduction of Russian Airstrikes would have had some impact on the Islamic State’s ability to act effectively in carrying out terrorist attacks in the region. Additionally, the combined efforts of the Iraqi/Iranian governments and U.S. (and allied) air support had to have hindered some of the key logistical elements that IS would have needed to attack locally.
Another area in which START’s GTD is less than helpful is in their methodology. The GTD claims, and Ms. Miller is cited by Flowers as stating that, the classification for terrorism includes “threatened or actual use of illegal force and violence by a nonstate actor…”[Emphasis added.] The problem is that the database doesn’t include failed or foiled attacks; many of which were Islamist-inspired. In 2015 alone there were at least 56 arrests on ISIL-related charges in the U.S. (note that the figure might be higher, as the report only covered the period ending November 12, 2015). This statistic is not captured in GTD’s database, while many of the alleged “terrorism” events didn’t meet their own criteria to be so labled (6 out of 38, or 16%). Yet, Flowers cites Miller’s example of church arsons in what appears to be an effort to claim racially motivated (read: right-wing) violence. The implication one might incorrectly discern is that there are fewer instances of Islamist violence, or planned violence, than other sorts of terrorism, or suspected terrorism.
A more appropriate set of conclusions to be drawn are two-fold. First, terrorism abroad has been hindered in the Middle East as a result of a broad offensive against its primary perpetrators. Much of the IS-related attacks in the region have been carried out as operational-level strikes that support the ongoing insurgency. The second conclusion is that domestically, terrorism has been on the rise, but Islamist-inspired terrorist plots have been disrupted far more frequently as a result of law enforcement’s due diligence.
Although Mr. Flowers mentions “the killing of three Muslims in Chapel Hill, North Carolina” as the “fourth-deadliest attack in the U.S. last year,” he doesn’t mention that even the GTD doubts it was motivated by anti-Muslim hate. Absent in many discussions of global terrorism trends (including the piece under review here) is that of the 10 most deadly terrorist organizations in 2015 a full 90% were Islamists (mostly allied with IS and a couple with al-Qaeda). This is, of course, obscured by focusing on the extremely rare instances in which Muslims are killed by non-Muslims and ignoring the patent fact that most Muslims (and many non-Muslims; especially in the Middle East and Europe) are victims of Islamist terror.
David Firester is the founder and CEO of TRAC Intelligence (Threat, Reporting, and Analysis Consultants), which is a premier threat analysis firm. TRAC Intelligence provides threat assessment in the private sector.
The minimum wage debate has landed in New Jersey prompting a showdown not just between the state legislature and the governor’s office but between two warring political factions in an election year. Continue reading
Hopefully, your marketing work in 2016 is off to a roaring start. You don’t want to experience burnout in the next few months, though! It’s important to keep your professional life from overwhelming your personal one, and everyone on your team has a similar need for a good work-life balance. Here are some good general principles to help you strike a balance between work and life that maximizes productivity and minimizes stress. Continue reading
Framing Orlando: An Act of Terrorism or a Hate Crime?
The murder of 49 Americans in a Gay Nightclub is both an act of terrorism and a hate crime. The elite Left will play down the shooter’s Muslim identity and then proceed to shift the focus to push a narrative that “guns kill people” and not the people themselves or the ideology that fuels their murder sprees. Contrary to that position, however, it is more reasonable to assert that Islamic Jihadist Terrorism is itself based on a hate-filled ideology. It is both hate and terror. It is not all about guns, but in the coming days Americans will be bombarded with a heavy dose of propaganda that makes it seem to be so.
Yesterday, a radical Islamist carried out his hate-filled act of violence against a Western target. He, who shall not be named here, deliberately sought to inflict pain, death and ultimately terror upon people who were pursuing their happiness as they saw fit. The inclination of some is to try to understand why this has happened and look for a means to avoid it in the future. The bad news is, many politicians are afraid to combine the words “Radical” and “Islam.” What is worse, however, is that many will now try to retrospectively reconstruct what caused this violence to take place and then take the sort of misguided action that logically flows from their pronouncements. So, what can we expect from the American Left?
One can expect that a discussion of “gun control” will ensue, as it already has. The reason is that the shiny object represents a low-hanging fruit, which makes the politician’s job easier. This is because politicians need to be seen as acting on the heels of a national tragedy. Treating a symptom as though it were a cause is the fastest way to do this and the American political Left is very adept in this regard.
The aforementioned tactic is very attractive and powerful, even in the face of contradictory evidence. Some examples to consider are the fact that the mass casualty attacks in London, Madrid, Brussels, Paris (twice), and yes, Boston, largely featured explosives. To be sure, firearms were present in the Paris attacks, but they were wielded by the terrorists. Citizens, after all, are not allowed to defend themselves by owning firearms in France.
Some additional evidence undermining the “guns kill people” diatribe could be seen in the fact that terrorist attacks needn’t be carried out by any firearms. The Palestinians, ever the terrorism innovators, have shown that vehicles and kitchen knives (and the potential use of terror tunnels) can cause mass casualties.
With regard to global terrorism trends, between 1970 and 2014, as reported by the University of Maryland’s National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) Global Terrorism Database (GTD), bombings/explosions have accounted for approximately 68,779 attacks in that period (see Table 1). Astonishingly, the trend over the past several years has been an exponential annual increase, more than tripling between from 2011 to 2014 (see Table 2).[1]
The GTD data from 2015 has yet to be released and therefore doesn’t include the two Paris attacks, nor the Brussels attack.[2] The sum total of bombings, however, is reported to be approximately twice the number of assaults by firearms. Nonetheless, one can see that a murderous rampage doesn’t require a firearm; commitment will suffice.
People carry out mass casualty attacks against a variety of targets for diverse reasons, to include the efforts of a suicidal man who hurled a homemade bomb at an airport check-in counter in China today. Only four people were injured, but the non-firearm attack could have easily produced deaths and more injuries. However, it seems that the more recent attacks against the West have been fueled by a hateful ideological set of priorities. Two operational principles, taken from the lexicon of political science, should be kept in mind as the aftermath of the Orlando event unfolds. First, politicians will attempt to “cue” people who seek to understand where it is they stand on this particular issue. The second is the “framing” of the issue, which is the effort to assert that something is a case of one thing and not another.
The cueing by politicians on the Left will likely be coordinated by what some call an Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF). This network doesn’t merely consist of political people, but includes news outlets, think tanks and academics who share a similar ideology. People who generally tend to agree with the general view of a particular party, politician, news outlet, or blogger, will tend to tune into the source that is most pleasing to them. Hence, if you are a Leftist, you will not be reading The Wall Street Journal or listening to Fox News; you’ll be tuned into satirical “info-tainment” such as The Daily Show, or reading The New York Times.
The ACF will work to frame the event as part of a series of mass casualty violent shooting incidents, with most of the emphasis placed on the weapons chosen. The least emphasis, and what really makes for bad policy, will be placed on calling out the root cause of this specific type of mass casualty event: radical Islam.[3] This pathway is disastrous, but it is predictable. In fact, feel free to return to this prediction in the weeks and months ahead.
Table 1: Global Terrorist Bombings 1970 – 2014
Source: GTD, as of June 13, 2016
Table 2: Global Terrorist Bombings 2011 – 2014
| Year | No. of Attacks |
| 2011 | 2605 |
| 2012 | 5087 |
| 2013 | 6684 |
| 2014 | 8802 |
Source: GTD, as of June 13, 2016
[1] Although bombings outnumber shootings, this should not be eclipsed by the fact that they often go hand-in-hand and may form part of a larger combined arms campaign. Additionally, the GTD fails to account for many types of incidents where a death or injury did not occur. In this regard, the thousands of missiles launched into Israel from Gaza are almost completely missed in the data.
[2] A preliminary report, however is available online and has been generated in a more robust format by the U.S. State Department.
[3] When using the terms “radical Islam” in combination, one shouldn’t think that the notion that the ideas are radical to Westerners necessarily indicates that they are so for Muslims in general.
For more academic work, visit David Firester on ORCID.org
AtHoc, a division of Blackberry recently released an updated version of their crisis communications platform. This new version brings additional capabilities with it allowing customers, including the Pentagon, more pre-planning resources and automated processing of activities related to crisis communication. Continue reading
He’s been teasing it for months now, through the tough primary contest, and now Donald Trump has begun to unleash on Hillary Clinton. The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee is hitting back. Continue reading
Over the past couple of years, I have been quietly building on a theory that what really causes the American Left, and perhaps their foreign ideological brethren, to favor the Palestinians over Israel is actually rather simple to understand. The Left thrives on, and is obsessed with creating new categories of underdogs[1] (the poor, minorities, or anyone whose reduced power position is assumed to render them ‘oppressed’). This usually requires a narrative fallacy, such as unarmed black males are unjustifiably killed by armed white police officers (“Black Lives Matter”), or that the Palestinians are the perpetual victims of the State of Israel (the BDS crowd). The thing about narrative fallacies is that they can be rather attractive, particularly for people with a penchant for intellectual laziness. Populist rhetoric seems to pay dividends for politicians, but there seems to be some limit to its policy effects. Continue reading
It’s one thing when you’re best is losing a head-to-head battle against your competition’s top products, but what do you do – and what do you think – when your best is still being outsold by a company’s earlier model? That seems to be the spot LG finds itself in these days.
Apple’s last four-inch screen iPhone was released way back in September 2013. Since then, the 5, 5S, 6 and 6Plus all had larger screens, essentially “catching up” with the competition from Samsung, LG, and others. At least on paper.
But the real tale of the tape – the sales – offers a much different story. In 2015, Apple sold more than 30 million older iPhones with four-inch screens. These were older models, with less new tech than their competition. But, apparently, when it comes to smartphones, maybe size doesn’t matter.
Cho Ju-no, CEO of LG, disagrees. Not long ago, Cho went on a bit of a rant about Apple bringing substandard, boring handsets back into its lineup. This commentary was in reference to the upcoming iPhone SE, which is Apple’s version of an upgraded 5S.
Cho talked about “adding value” and delivering “fun and exotic” products to customers, specifically touting the LG G5 handset. He scoffed at the SE rollout, calling it “same old technology and features.”
Cho piled on, saying cost-effectiveness is not the top priority. Instead, manufacturers should offer special customer value. He finished by saying he didn’t care much for Apple’s product.
Now, all of this is primo content. It’s the sort of fire-breathing customer-centered vows and vision you want from your CEO. But that doesn’t change one simple fact: LG is losing. Apple is selling iPhones – even the old, obsolete ones – like proverbial hotcakes. Consumers want the brand and the identity more than they do the model or even all the bells and whistles.
Sure, some people will go after the larger screens, better cameras, and other features, but those customers would do that anyway. They’re not buying Apple because they’re not buying Apple. However, consumers loyal to Apple put up with “inferior” products for years to earn the other benefits of having an iPhone – connectivity, collaboration, and equipment crossover between other Apple products.
Cho is right to say his company should not copy what Apple is doing. He needs to keep coming up with new and better … but LG also needs to find a way to instill the sort of customer loyalty that would cause a consumer to buy LG without even considering the competition. Because that’s what he’s up against.
David Firester specializes in intelligence analysis and is based in New York.
When presidential candidate Donald Trump tweeted his experience at a Holiday Inn Express, the missive set off a self-sustaining feedback loop that both lauded and lampooned the brand in question – both Trump and Holiday Inn.
On the surface, an “attaboy” from a hotel mogul is a strong endorsement for a hotel chain. They offered good service, Trump, and his entourage appreciated it … end of story, right? Chalk it up as a win.
Not so fast…
In the context, it’s tough to forget the constant commercials from Holiday Inn Express in which unqualified people unfamiliar with a certain job are suddenly able to do things like perform surgery or stop a nuclear cataclysm because they slept at Holiday Inn Express.
And, of course, political newcomer Trump wants to occupy the top political position on the planet…with exactly zero experience. You can see where this is going. And it got ugly fast.
Soon there was a cacophony of voices slamming Trump in various creative and some not so creative ways. Par for the course these days on social media, really … it’s what came of all that arguing that gave both sides some meat on the bone they keep chewing.
By the end of the night, not only was Holiday Inn Express trending on Twitter, but someone had unearthed another story about Trump many people have never heard before.
Trump has a connection with Holiday Inn that, according to his book “Art of the Deal” goes back decades. Back then, he was trying to get the Holiday Inn folks to invest in one of his casino projects, but construction fell behind. So Trump told his construction manager to bring in some heavy equipment and “look busy” … didn’t matter what they were doing as long as they were moving dirt. The ruse worked, and Holiday Inn invested in the deal. Trump supporters said, “well done, Donald, you got the deal and built something good.” But others took a more negative direction with their commentary.
Regardless of which side viewers took, the exchange gave them concrete history on which to base their position. On one side you have the folks who celebrate Trump’s ability to get the job done and get the deal made. On the other you have those who say it’s another example of how his campaign is all about smoke and mirrors.
David Firester is an intelligence analysis expert in New York.
Syrian Penetration of the Southern European Front: Observations and Implications
Recently, I had occasion to travel to southern Europe. Specifically, I was on the border of Greece and its northern neighbor, Macedonia. I was rather interested in gauging the Syrian refugee issue from the standpoint of a passerby. What I noticed was that all along the road leading from the border toward Thessaloniki one could see gas stations filled with tents, kids playing soccer, women cooking on open fires and men walking along the road; a few of whom were hitchhiking (shown below).
What stood out to me was the sheer number of military age males, many of whom were equipped with cell phones. The experience generated two questions. First, where do desperate refugees acquire the funds to purchase cell phones and data/voice plans that would work in Europe? Secondly, is it possible that the men were merely innocent victims in Syria’s half decade of civil war?
One can only surmise that the first question could be answered with the discovery of additional evidence. Nonetheless, it is curious. The second question, however, seems to be more thought-provoking and the answer is partially known. As anyone keeping up with the news can plainly see, the latest source of attacks in Europe have come from the Arabic-speaking conflict zones. The Islamists who carried out assaults on Western Europe apparently mixed in with the majority of innocent refugees. What the men have in common with each other is that they are all fighting age. What they also have in common is an allegiance to the latest (and most powerful) iteration of political Islam: The so-called Islamic State (IS/ISIS/ISIL/Da’esh).
One may be inclined to believe that the presence of military age males with cellphones among women and children is insufficient evidence of the potential for terrorism to materialize as they move into central and Western Europe. That is a fair guess. Yet guessing incorrectly has deadly consequences. To wit, if one casually peruses YouTube for Syrian war videos, one will notice that not only are there no moderate forces, but nearly all interviewed fighters espouse some degree of Islamist sentiment. In fact, most videos are posted by various Islamist elements; be they IS, Jabhat al Nusra (the al-Qa’ida branch in Syria), or any of the dozens of other smaller fighting units.
Hence, military age males coming from Syria (and other regional conflict zones of a similar sort) could not entirely be dismissed as mere victims of violence. With the exception of a number of non-Arab Kurdish factions, it would be counter to the Arab men’s survival instincts to imagine that they fought alongside moderate Arab militias. This is plausible for one important reason: there are none. The Free Syrian Army has patently been shown to be a farce and, oddly enough, the Syrian government forces are the only Arab moderates, if the term could be applied at all.
Although the Macedonian government gets it right in not allowing the undocumented to transit through their country without papers that carry them to the other side, this country of limited size and wealth will likely suffer the fate that awaits them when a few bad actors unlawfully slip through the cracks. As I left Macedonia, it was relayed to me by some civilians that they encountered two Arab men approximately 8.5 miles inside of Macedonia, in a mountainous area that is inaccessible by vehicular means. The Arab men asked in English where the road to Serbia could be found. Startled, the civilians pointed in the opposite direction, toward Greece. Hopefully the Macedonian border guards have since scooped them up.
Beyond Macedonia
While I was at a major train station, Praterstern, in Vienna a few days after my Macedonia/Greece border observation, I noticed something else. When the sun went down, young Arab males were hanging out at the main exit/entry point to the station. What they were doing was staring folks down, playing loud Arabic music and generally being rowdy and rude. For someone to imagine that they are merely displaced and alienated by Austrian society one could easily, yet incorrectly, conclude that their behavior is a result of their isolation; shifting the blame to Austrian society. This is precisely the sort of tactic that (Leftist) refugee sympathizers typically employ: blame the nation to which an external and unyielding population has sought to establish itself.
Promoting narrative fallacies is bad enough, but the policy implications are far worse. As I saw pro and anti-immigration protesters gathering in Thessaloniki (Greece) I wondered why it was that anyone would intentionally invite potential terrorists, along with the poor and destitute, that an economically failing country could not afford to absorb. The myth that poverty causes terrorism has been debunked time and again, as is clearly evident by the billions of poor folks around the world that never choose the strategy as a viable option. Indeed, even if it were true, it would run counter to one’s own argument to willfully welcome large numbers of poor immigrants who have nothing in common (language, religion, culture, and national experience) with the host country’s inhabitants. Rather, terrorism is caused by those who see fit to employ it as a tool.
At present, terrorism isn’t being used by Swedish Christians, Chinese Buddhists, or Israeli Jews. Everyone knows who is doing it, but too many are afraid to utter the words describing the faction: Islamist Supremacists/Jihadist Ideologues.
Photographic Evidence:
The Gas Stations in Which Refugees Were Readily Observed:
The Scene from the Northern Location:
The Scene from the Southern Location:
Military Age Males Walking Roadside:
Recently, I was cited by Metro News as a terrorism expert. They had asked me to comment on the new terrorism laws that recently passed in the New York State Senate and were headed to the assembly for a vote. The paper did an excellent job of quoting me in context. I thought, however, that I would offer my full sentiments on the matter for which I was contacted. What follows is a more robust and complete statement of my expert opinion on the topic. I hope you enjoy!
I was asked two fundamental questions and my answers were as follows:
These proposed laws seem to serve two important goals. First, some would enable citizens to alert the authorities when it appears that another is engaged in advancing terrorist aims either by inciting violence, or condoning it for terrorism’s sake. Secondly, the bills appear to horizontally extend the impact of laws, which are already on the books, while adapting them to meet the changing threat landscape. Some examples follow.
Extant laws covering larceny and money laundering may cover traditional crimes that center on personal greed, but terrorists seem to be motivated by a different set of incentives. Certainly, traditional crime may involve a cyber component, but crafting legislation to go beyond mere criminality is a responsible means by which to deal with someone who is serving broader terrorist aims. A specific example would be one who steals a credit card and goes online to fraudulently purchase, say, a laptop or pressure cooker, but if it turns out that one has purchased the components of a homemade bomb it is worth having a law that addresses this unique circumstance.
Another example would be grand larceny in the second degree, which is a class C felony. All that is required in this instance is that the value of the sum stolen equals $50,000 or more. Money laundering in support of terrorism in the second degree is already a class C felony and the monetary threshold is merely $25,000; the same charge in the first degree is a class B felony and the threshold in that instance is $125,000. Most of the bills under consideration by the New York State Assembly either propose new, or enhance current, legislation that might result in a C felony conviction. Only one, cyber terrorism, proposes that an A felony be charged and in that instance it deals with mass injury as a result of terrorist activity.
With regard to making a terroristic threat against a police officer, one must bear in mind that offenses, such as assault, are already treated as more serious when they are committed against a law enforcement officer. This specific bill codifies, and increases the penalties for, combining threats that one directs at both civilians and police officers.
Of late, there has been an increase in cases in which Americans with no prior connection to jihadist terror have somehow demonstrated an ability to radicalize rather quickly. Although it is difficult to know if the new laws would deter would-be terrorists, it is important to convey to jihadist aspirants that their nefarious intentions can result in more serious punitive measures.
In order to successfully fight terrorism, both at home and abroad, the law is an important tool for police and prosecutors, but also for civilians determined prevent attacks such as the Boston bombing or San Bernardino combined assault. This proposed legislation enables our frontline law enforcement officers the ability to defend the citizenry, which is their primary function. However, there are some significant gaps in our defenses. Specifically, there is no national database of jihadist identifiers, which enable law enforcement to quickly and accurately connect the dots that would raise suspicion levels to a degree worth pursuing in the criminal realm.
Detecting a genuine jihadist threat is important for law enforcement. So is establishing whether a new threat has emerged and whether it has been detected elsewhere. As a nongovernmental entity, Jihad Intel seeks to provide law enforcement with the ability to ameliorate the natural shortcomings of the law as it is written. It lends assistance to those whose job it is to do the dot-connecting, by serving as an open source clearinghouse for jihadist Symbology. The tool itself may also be used by civilians, who notice something that appears to be associated with terrorism.
Your question specifically asks what approaches and strategy are appropriate. The answer is that laws by themselves are insufficient. A “whole of society” approach is needed. Many crimes are solved when citizens feel comfortable speaking with the police, who then determine whether a criminal or terrorist act is afoot. The private sector can enhance the speed and efficiency of the public sector where budgetary constraints inhibit progress. The bills under consideration do seem to serve a more holistic strategy to combating terrorism.
The Islamic State and al-Qa’ida have specifically called for the targeting of both civilians and the police. In some instances they have been successful. It is wise to adopt legislation that meets the threats emanating from our enemies abroad. A major component of their strategy is to penetrate our society and generate terror from within our borders. The best strategy seeks to neutralize one’s adversary’s strengths. This legislation is a means by which to do so.
Liberal Academia and My Struggle for Survival
See the attached article on FrontPage Magazine for my experience in the liberal tyranny, as a conservative insurgent.
Topic:
The provision of concealed firearms to teachers in rural/suburban elementary schools.
Issue Overview:
In light of the recent massacre at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown Connecticut, as well as other contemporary tragedies of a similar sort, policy makers are tasking analysts with evaluating varying forms of legislation that seek to diminish the scale of carnage associated with such forms of mass violence. Specifically, the area of concern regards elementary and middle schools in rural/suburban areas where police response time may be slow and/or ineffective.
Policy Overview:
Scope: In many urban high schools across the country it has become commonplace to find either a uniformed police officer or guard bearing an unconcealed firearm. Insofar as metal detectors, entry screening procedures and armed personnel are effective in deterring violence in high schools, it falls beyond the scope of this memorandum. The reason is that such an armed presence seeks to deter violence largely, although not exclusively, from the student population.
The population within a high school tends, naturally, to be of a different sort than that of an elementary school. Specifically, students are more capable of committing criminal acts and being charged as adults. Whereas in an elementary school, the likelihood of a small child unleashing violence on a scale of criminality, whose prevention is sought by this policy, is practically nil.
In a high school environment, students would be more capable of disarming protection personnel. For example, unconcealed weapons remain in visible holsters, which are designed for varying degrees of retention. To disarm a police officer or security guard would take an emboldened, albeit rare, effort toward a potentially lethal end. In an elementary school environment, such an occurrence would be less likely.
Additionally, in the case of a police officer in a school it is assumed that the communications advantage of a police radio provides a force multiplying effect, as other officers may be contacted and respond quickly, particularly in a relatively urban environment.
Intent: For the above-enumerated reasons, the policy focus turns to the elementary (and potentially middle) school environment with specific regard to suburban/rural areas. With special regard to the protection of children within the elementary education age range, a policy that seeks to provide immediate defense to the most defenseless individuals is addressed here.
Design: Although there may be a number of ways to implement the policy prescription surrounding the arming of some teachers a general set of parameters follows:
– Conceal/carry permits within the geographical limits of school grounds may be issued by the local pistol permit office. That is, as a stipulation on the permit itself (e.g. hunting, target practice, and other stipulations are often listed as a means of restricting pistol possession beyond certain boundaries) could indicate the limit of possession.
– A school psychologist and/or other mental health professional should assess the prospective armed teacher’s mental fitness to possess a weapon on school grounds.
– An administrator at the level of principal and/or superintendent assesses the teacher’s record of nonviolence, mood stability and appropriate dealing with children.
– The local law enforcement agency should complete the appropriate background check with specific regard for any criminal accusations of violence.
– The local law enforcement agency should administer the appropriate “use of force” indoctrination, weapons familiarity, and weapons training necessary to obtain and retain the permit.
– The local law enforcement agency should incorporate school staff members in “active shooter” training scenarios, with both weapons-bearing teachers and non-weapons-bearing teachers (and administrative personnel).
– Weapons selection procedures should be in accordance with local law enforcement preferences, along with school administrative final approval. Limitations to be imposed would likely outlaw any long guns (rifles, shotguns).
– Annual range fire, mental health assessments, and physical fitness assessments would be a standard practice.
– Weapons should be owned by the school, stored in a secure location (meeting federal guidelines on proper firearms storage), and be signed in and out before and after school hours, respectively.
– The size and/or population of the school could limit a certain number of faculty members possessing a firearm. Perhaps a ratio of one armed teacher per five hundred students may be a suggested guideline. Alternatively, a ratio of one armed teacher per desired square footage or floor level may be more appropriate.
– Information coordination between the school and local law enforcement should convey who is assigned a duty weapon for the day. This minimizes the possibility that an armed teacher, performing their task of defending students from would-be aggressors, is mistakenly identified as the latter.
– Additional means of reducing confusion might be to have a certain colored weapon of a non-standard variety. In addition, along with the proper identification that is typically displayed on a visible location of the body, the teacher bearing arms would also have an indicator known to law enforcement to represent the same.
Outcome: Enhancing the defense of students, while offsetting the possible delayed response of law enforcement officers responding to the scene of a mass shooting.
Cost-Benefit Analysis:
Costs: The range of costs depends upon a variety of factors:
– Whether a teacher’s weapons possession and associated training are funded by a stipend or on a voluntary basis.
– Whether the cost of weapons procurement is borne by the school, the district, or other local government office.
– Whether annual mental health assessments, range fire, and certification are costs borne by the school or some other entity.
– Whether practice ammunition is supplied by the school or the local law enforcement agency.
– What number of weapons, magazines, ammunition are considered to be necessary.
– What the insurance implication might be. This may represent a reduction or an increase depending on the insurance company’s perspective.
– The length of debate on such matters may be considered as a cost. It will require time, a possible study of the efficacy of the program, parental consultation, additional board of education meetings, and possible joint operational exercises (with first responders and governmental oversight).
Benefits: The primary and most visible benefit is to provide an adequate and immediate defense in the event of an unlikely, yet mass casualty- inducing traumatic event. If done properly other benefits may include:
– Parental satisfaction that school safety is foremost in the minds of their local governmental representatives, law enforcement, and public school administrators.
– Teachers’ ability to perform a most vital role in saving the lives of their students.
– Local law enforcement’s ability to close the response time gap in the most urgent of circumstances.
– Reducing a sense of helplessness for all would-be victims of violent crime.
– Reducing death rates.
Cost-benefit Summary: While it is difficult to affix a dollar value to each cost, it is nearly impossible to square this with a set of presumed benefits. For instance, one pistol may cost $450.00. Annual ammunition for practice, upkeep and persistent availability may be approximately $100.00. Assuming an annual stipend paid to one teacher for their acceptance of this responsibility could reasonably be $700.00. Other costs certainly accumulate, but so far the assessment is about $1250.00. Even if it were to be assessed that additional expenditures per armed teacher were $1000.00, is the benefit of saving one life worth more than $2250.00? What about two lives, or twenty-six (in the case of Newtown, CT)?
The cost-benefit calculus thus nears the impossible, as expressing costs (if the task can be done in advance) in a mathematically sound manner may not yield a precise result in benefits. It is with this quandary in mind that other value considerations may likely be more suitable to consider. Namely, the lives of defenseless children that may be saved by the proactive efforts of a community working toward that end, rather than reacting too late. Therefore, on a raw cost-benefit basis a net positive cannot be shown to obtain. This does not, however, render the policy option to be suboptimal and hence ineffectual.
Political Concerns:
The policy outlined above hinges on whether or not it is likely to be politically palatable. That is, parents would be the crucial audience to consider as bearing the most political weight within the context of a school board’s purview. Although voters on the state level at large are most likely to have an influence, at the local level it is the parents’ concerns that should be most carefully dealt with for obvious reasons (their children’s safety forms the focal point of this policy).
One manner in which to gauge parental concern may be to poll parents within a school district, offering this policy as a prescription and requesting their feedback. At least it is possible to gather parental input and understand whether or not the political will exists, is nearly in existence, or needs some tinkering with. Another means of evaluation would be to offer alternative policy choices, such as providing all schools with armed, uniformed guards and/or police officers. This may not be a viable option and may create a contravening lobby from within the law enforcement and parental communities.
While it is seemingly nice to have a School Resource Officer (SRO) from a local police department it can be an expensive enterprise. Police officers require additional training and are generally on the downswing of their career when they become SROs; thus, many are reluctant to be assigned such a detail. (It also places officers in the position of “baby-sitter” and takes them out of the realm of law enforcement activity, consequently creating a potential for staleness vis-à-vis law matters). Additionally, some departments are unable to spare an officer each day for each school. Because this policy option is being presented in the context of small towns and villages, it is likely that a local police department may be inclined toward lobbying against having their officers assigned in such a way.
Another point of contention may be the visible presence of a gun in schools. The above-outlined policy offers the opportunity for guns to be invisible to children (hence their concealment), while still being available for use by teachers. Placing armed, uniformed personnel in an elementary school may not sit well with a lot of students and parents. The prospect of introducing lethal weapons in plain view of children may be too much for parents to imagine as a solution to the problem at hand.
Conclusion:
As a result of the most recent spate of shootings in public places, particularly schools, many citizens will likely demand governmental action. Calls for stricter gun control will undoubtedly result. Whether or not gun control legislation can have any positive effect is unknown. There are enough guns available (both legal and illegal) to pose a threat to innocent school children should a person suffering a psychotic episode desire to cause them harm.
Many citizens will also insist upon changes in the mental health field. Clearly, this is a noble call, as acts of extreme violence against six-year-old victims could not be sensibly made with a sound mind. Nonetheless, all psychotic episodes involving murder are unlikely to cease.
As has been discussed, a cost-benefit analysis is somewhat implausible. However, there is some hope that such an assessment can be made. There are school districts in which such a policy has been instituted; for instance, the Harrold School District in Wilbarger County, Texas. In terms of political willpower to commit to such a program, we may look to St. Louis County, Missouri, where County Police Chief Tim Fitch is calling for a similar program. When faced with circumstances similar to that which has provided an impetus for this policy proposal, it is possible to look at how other countries, such as Israel, have managed a similar program.
Overall, the prospect of arming teachers to protect students will probably hinge on the manner in which the program is proposed to parents on the local level. On the state and federal levels, legislative battles are bound to take a fair amount of time. As such tragic incidents involving violence against innocent children are seemingly on the uptick, it is assessed as a worthy objective to offer citizens a proactive policy alternative. Short-circuiting the rising death toll in schools is the guiding logic that may serve the public interest in the short, medium, and perhaps long term.
“Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”
– Charter of the Muslim Brotherhood
As the so-called Arab Spring brings Islamists to power, the Obama administration is going to have to deal with its foreign policy implications. How president Obama does so is going to test his global leadership credentials (assuming that he desires such a place in the world). As Hamas is emboldened by their Egyptian political parent, The Muslim Brotherhood (MB), and as Islamists battle in Syria for domination of the post-Assad environment the regional landscape in the Middle East appears to be shifting. The direction of this shift signals the emergence of a new era: Radical Islam’s central place in Arab politics.
Some have argued that the Egyptian MB is a force for moderate Islam in the region. This is a mischaracterization of the facts. To be less openly violent than al Qa’ida does not automatically place one in the category of moderation. Egyptian MB President Mohammed Morsi is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. To believe that he is committed to peace with Israel is to ignore his disdain for the Jewish State and the Jewish people. Any attempt to try to separate Morsi from his party’s previous (and current) pronouncements reflects a despicable insincerity at best and outright deception at worst.
With regard to Syria, one indisputable fact is observable throughout the entirety of the Syrian Civil War (and much of the other so-called Arab Spring uprisings): that Islam is at the center of all that will follow the toppling of the Assad regime. In support of this claim, I ask that the reader watch a random sample of videos emanating from that conflict. Count the number of times that the Battle Cry “Allahu Akbar” (God is Great[er than the enemy]) is shouted. Beyond that, witness the variety of circumstances that characterize the invocation of such an exclamation. For example, in any of the following cases you will regularly hear the above mentioned refrain: enemy inbound fire, friendly outbound fire, dead Syrian soldiers, dead Syrian civilians (children included), mass atrocity sites (on either side), while riding to battle, while returning from battle, while protesting peacefully on the streets, or randomly firing automatic weapons skyward from the streets.
It is clear that secular governments are not going to result from the Middle East’s recent uprising (read: intifada). This does not mean that democracy is impossible, but it does mean that political Islam is what is sought after. I’m not going to make the case that Islam and democracy are incongruent. Indonesia, Turkey, and India already show that to be a false claim. I am, however, going to stand by the research and personal experience of others (e.g. Daniel Pipes, Walid Phares, Nonie Darwish, Walid Shoebat, Frank Gaffney, Debbie Schlussel, M. Zuhdi Jasser, Ray Ibrahim, Wafa Sultan, Raymond Stock, Boaz Ganor, Eric Allen Bell, Dinesh D’Souza, Jamie Glazov, Steve Emerson, and David Horowitz, to name a few) who show that political Islam in the Arab world has not been a success for democracy. Consequently, this is not helpful to American interests. Nor is it helpful to pretend that Islamists are not penetrating the halls of American political power.
What does president Obama think about all of this? I don’t know, but to feign ignorance to the threat of political Islam’s presence at home and abroad is to gesture to America’s enemies (and the enemies of democracy writ large) that folks like Huma Abedin and Mohammed Morsi are not inimical to American foreign policy. Wake up and smell the Jihad Mr. President!
One of America’s most favorite general officers is in hot water. Ho hum, right? Not so fast. Like many before him, his career has ended because of his sexual misdeeds. David Petraeus is finished. The most striking feature of his demise is not so much his alleged extramarital affair. Rather, it is the timeline in which this event’s revelation has come to light that seems to generate more questions than it does answers. Closure is not an accurate verb to describe this event. Rather, it is looking more like sabotage.
It is most troubling that Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) Petraeus’s resignation comes just after the 6 November election, yet just prior to his forthcoming congressional testimony in the Benghazi debacle. The Washington Post has reported that the FBI “investigators first interviewed Petraeus about two weeks ago.” That’s funny. Two weeks ago was precisely when Director Petraeus had claimed his agency’s immunity regarding the 11 September 2012 Benghazi terrorist assault and assassination. So, why did Petraeus wait until the end of the election to resign, consequently revealing what had likely already been known about his affair? Simply stated: damage control. For whom, you ask? For everyone.
Although much evidence may never become known as to the actual events that brought the CIA Chief down, I’m going to offer what in its skeletal form appears to be a conspiracy theory. Here it goes:
On or about 24 October 2012 it was revealed by Reuters, and eventually USA Today, that the e-mails sent to the White House Situation Room did reveal the nature and character of the terrorist attacks on 11 September 2012. That very same article documented White House spokesperson Jay Carney’s attempt to deflect blame toward the Intelligence Community. As this is a common tactic during the post mortem phase of national crises, Director Petraeus had taken the appropriate step of ensuring that his agency was insulated from blame that did not fall squarely on their shoulders; effectively, the blame was tossed back to the Executive branch. At almost this exact time, the FBI had “discovered” Petraeus’s affair. So far, all of this is known to be true.
When attempting to fill in the blanks left by imperfect information it is useful to have an intelligence analyst available to perform the task. Well, here I am. So, here comes the fictional element that strives to lessen the gap in knowledge. The FBI informs Petraeus that they’re aware of his affair. They inform him that since it is less than two weeks from the election and the President is already taking hits on the Benghazi incident he should remain silent. He is told that if he resigns after the election the details of the affair (audio, video, pictures?) will be limited. This would account for the period of two weeks until the Election Day, when Petraeus had reportedly informed Director of National Intelligence James Clapper that he had cheated on his wife.
Conspiratorial per se? Perhaps. Something just seems woefully deficient in this story. Maybe that something is the truth. As the well-known epitaph is written at the entryway to CIA headquarters, “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”
One of America’s most favorite general officers is in hot water. Ho hum, right? Not so fast. Like many before him, his career has ended because of his sexual misdeeds. David Petraeus is finished. The most striking feature of his demise is not so much his alleged extramarital affair. Rather, it is the timeline in which this event’s revelation has come to light that seems to generate more questions than it does answers. Closure is not an accurate verb to describe this event. Rather, it is looking more like sabotage.
It is most troubling that Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) Petraeus’s resignation comes just after the 6 November election, yet just prior to his forthcoming congressional testimony in the Benghazi debacle. The Washington Post has reported that the FBI “investigators first interviewed Petraeus about two weeks ago.” That’s funny. Two weeks ago was precisely when Director Petraeus had claimed his agency’s immunity regarding the 11 September 2012 Benghazi terrorist assault and assassination. So, why did Petraeus wait until the end of the election to resign, consequently revealing what had likely already been known about his affair? Simply stated: damage control. For whom, you ask? For everyone.
Although much evidence may never become known as to the actual events that brought the CIA Chief down, I’m going to offer what in its skeletal form appears to be a conspiracy theory. Here it goes:
On or about 24 October 2012 it was revealed by Reuters, and eventually USA Today, that the e-mails sent to the White House Situation Room did reveal the nature and character of the terrorist attacks on 11 September 2012. That very same article documented White House spokesperson Jay Carney’s attempt to deflect blame toward the Intelligence Community. As this is a common tactic during the post mortem phase of national crises, Director Petraeus had taken the appropriate step of ensuring that his agency was insulated from blame that did not fall squarely on their shoulders; effectively, the blame was tossed back to the Executive branch. At almost this exact time, the FBI had “discovered” Petraeus’s affair. So far, all of this is known to be true.
When attempting to fill in the blanks left by imperfect information it is useful to have an intelligence analyst available to perform the task. Well, here I am. So, here comes the fictional element that strives to lessen the gap in knowledge. The FBI informs Petraeus that they’re aware of his affair. They inform him that since it is less than two weeks from the election and the President is already taking hits on the Benghazi incident he should remain silent. He is told that if he resigns after the election the details of the affair (audio, video, pictures?) will be limited. This would account for the period of two weeks until the Election Day, when Petraeus had reportedly informed Director of National Intelligence James Clapper that he had cheated on his wife.
Conspiratorial per se? Perhaps. Something just seems woefully deficient in this story. Maybe that something is the truth. As the well-known epitaph is written at the entryway to CIA headquarters, “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”
David Firester, Ph.D.
You must be logged in to post a comment.