‘War on terror’ comes to US
On Sunday, US President Donald Trump labeled “Antifa” a “terrorist organization.” At the same time, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, has accused rioters of being linked to “domestic terrorism.” On both sides of the political aisle in the US there is an increased use of the word “terrorism” to describe Americans. These could include the far-left linked to anarchist “anti-fascist” groups like Antifa, or it could be far-right “white supremacists” accused of being white nationalist “terrorists.”
US media have pointed out that tweeting about Antifa being labeled a terrorist group doesn’t make it legally so. There is skepticism about the implications of the terminology. One thing that is clear is the use of “terrorists” is now ingrained in the US and especially in popular and social media culture. Everyone’s enemy seems to be a “terrorist” and this is increasingly so during the polarization over the recent demonstrations.
The US has dealt with terrorism for decades, going back to the 1980s, but it was infrequently applied to Americans. That changed with the global war on terrorism and the discovery that there were Americans who had joined the Taliban or supported al-Qaeda. Soon the US was even hunting those Americans down. Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen, was killed in a 2011 US airstrike in Yemen. Americans who were radicalized in the US were also subject to arrest and prosecution.
However, the new narrative in the US has extended the “terrorist” label to political opponents that may or may not be engaged in “terrorism.” US definitions of terrorism tend to see terrorists as involved in “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.” How would that square with supremacists or Antifa? If either group was involved in attacks on civilians, then logically they could be seen as terrorists.
The FBI looks at two types of terrorism. One is international terrorism which it defines as “Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups who are inspired by, or associated with, designated foreign terrorist organizations or nations [state-sponsored].” Domestic terrorism is “violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature.”
Congressional definitions are more complex International terrorism involves “violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any state, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any state.” They may include acts “to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.” The only difference with domestic terrorism is that it may occur in the US.
These laws can be used against US terrorists. The larger question is what happens to the US when laws meant to go after organized groups, such as al-Qaeda, are applied inside the US. When a country begins fighting against its own internal “enemies” it can create a backlash and rising uncertainty and chaos. A “war on terror” at home, after decades of the war abroad, may end up feeding US political chaos as much as the global war on terror has.
For instance, the US war on terror abroad transitioned from spreading democracy and nation building to fighting insurgencies using a complex set of concepts embodied in a counterinsurgency acronym called COIN. Later, that transitioned to a more precise war against terror that was primarily composed of drone strikes, known as “advise, assist, train and equip,” giving your partners guns and training. That means the US works “by, with and through” partners and no longer sends special forces out on raids. But there are still almost 10,000 special operators deployed in 90 countries.
It is likely that the US narrative today is just a talking point aimed at the November election. But the more opponents are called “terrorists,” the more the US lurches and slouches toward a more Orwellian society. Other countries, such as Turkey’s authoritarian regime, have labeled every dissident group, including journalists, as “terrorists,” in order to arrest them. In Turkey, members of the opposition party have been rounded up as “terrorists” without any evidence they engaged in “terrorism.” Unsurprisingly, Turkey’s far-right state media is cheering the US efforts against Antifa, trying to draw parallels with its own suppression of Kurdish leftist groups.
Other places where state enemies have been called “terrorists” include many former Soviet states that put “terrorists” in lists alongside “saboteurs,” “reactionaries,” “war mongers” and “criminals.” This is a broad category, and under its umbrella might be included the very people who want democracy. However, as in Turkey where environmental protesters might be called “terrorists,” so in the former Soviet states the “terrorists” became thought criminals, not people who blow up buses.
The path to the war on domestic terrorism is easy to go down. But once a society embarks on a local “war,” it may find that it has turned its citizens into enemies. The US has already militarized its police, brought home all the body armor and Humvees and MRAPS it used in Iraq and given it to police so they look like they are going down the streets of Baghdad. Much as the US once embarked upon a largely failed “war on drugs,” it may be heightening tensions by declaring a new war on Antifa.