San Antonio Express-News (Sunday)
As they did 9/12, Americans woke to different world 1/7
I was 13 when the twin towers fell.
Like so many of us, my memories of that day are still vivid 20 years later. A growing sense of tension and uncertainty in my suburban New York middle school. As classmates were slowly retrieved by their parents, anxious speculation among those who remained.
By early afternoon, horror replaced confusion as my father told me what had happened. I remember exactly where on that short drive home he grimly told me the estimates of how many people had died. Any American my age can offer similar memories. The experience of 9/11 shaped the way my generation understands the world.
Sept. 12, and the years that followed, are, of course, far less vivid.
The uncertainty we felt faded gradually as names and phrases such as al-Qaida, Osama bin Laden and the war on terror became a part of daily language. A paradigm, a model of understanding the world, developed in our foreign policy: The United States was threatened by an international terrorist network, but “future 9/11s” could be prevented through increased domestic security and overseas intervention.
Eight years after 9/11, I decided to pursue a career in the study of terrorism, confident I would find a job in academia or government. In 2009, the global war on terror seemed poised to continue for the rest of my life.
I was 32 when the Capitol was besieged Jan. 6. A routine afternoon of work was abandoned, as I watched livestreamed video of rioters and evacuating politicians. I felt the same sense of uncertainty and tension as nearly 20 years before, filtered through years of studying political violence. By nightfall, it was clear 9/11’s massive loss of life would not reoccur. But it was equally clear the world I would wake up to Jan. 7 would be fundamentally different from the world I had lived in for 20 years.
Like 9/11, the events of Jan. 6 mark a paradigm shift in how Americans relate to and understand political violence. Jan. 6 will form the defining cultural memory of political violence for Americans who were born after 9/11. The threat of a “future 1/6” will shape Americans’ political lives, as policymakers shift resources from international counterterrorism to combating domestic extremism. This “pivot” away from
the global war on terror carries with it significant challenges, as we cannot effortlessly adapt international strategies to new domestic threats.
The first challenge is the diffused nature of domestic extremist groups. International terrorist attacks like 9/11 are complex operations, requiring planning, funding and expertise to commit violence from thousands of miles away. One of the most important accomplishments of the global war on terror has been the disruption of international terrorist networks, preventing attacks on the magnitude of 9/11. Domestic terrorism requires far less resources and coordination, and the United States has a lengthy history of attacks by individual extremists. We should be prepared for domestic counterterrorism to be less successful than international efforts and the very real possibility of domestic violence similar to Jan. 6.
We will also face challenges in updating international counterterrorism strategies to effectively, and legally, combat domestic extremism. Many successful international strategies, such as security screenings and individual travel bans, rely on formal borders that do not exist within the United States.
Other strategies cannot be legally employed against domestic threats, due to constitutional protections. These include controversial tactics, such as the targeted killing of terrorist leaders, and less divisive policies, like imposing criminal and economic sanctions on noncitizen terrorists. If policymakers have become over-reliant on these strategies, it will be difficult to effectively combat major domestic threats.
The final difficulty for counterterrorism efforts will be navigating the reality that Jan. 6 was perpetrated by fringe groups that are, nevertheless, connected to one of America’s dominant political movements, conservatism.
Islamist political movements have never had a strong presence in America, but the global war on terror inflicted significant harm on Muslim American communities. Political scientists routinely find overreaching domestic security efforts can alienate citizens, stoke political or racial grievances, and spark violent backlash against perceived injustices.
In the aftermath of Jan. 6, with American trust in government at historic lows, significant efforts must be taken to distinguish between those guilty of violence and the broader, peaceful political movement. If this does not occur, efforts to reduce domestic extremism will inevitably spark more violence in the future.
Brandon Lingle’s column willl return Sept. 19.