Hlss523wk5 | Law homework help
RAND > The RAND Blog >
When Is a Terrorist Really a Terrorist?
COMMENTARY (The Hill)
Privacy – Terms
OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS.
EFFECTIVE SOLUTIONS.
Travelers are evacuated out of the terminal and onto the tarmac after a shooting at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport in Florida, January 6,
2017
Photo by Andrew Innerarity/Reuters
by Brian Michael Jenkins
January 27, 2017
S
ecurity footage shows what looks like an all-too-typical episode of lone-wolf terrorism: A single young man
pulls a handgun from his waistband and begins firing at helpless victims in an airport baggage claim area.
The results were certainly terrifying — five dead, six wounded, countless others traumatized as witnesses to
the carnage.
But while this month’s attack at the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood Airport in Florida outwardly bore the hallmarks of a
terrorist event, it should not be automatically lumped in with the many deadly acts of ideologically inspired violence
that plague the globe — at least not based on what is now known about the attacker, 26-year-old Iraq War veteran
Esteban Santiago.
More than 15 years after fear of international terrorism seized the world’s consciousness on 9/11, Americans seem
almost eager to explain away senseless acts of mass violence as being driven by ideology, preferably jihadi ideology.
This is a mistake that only stokes the fear of terrorism and exaggerates the influence and reach of America’s Islamist
extremist foes.
As word of the Fort Lauderdale attack spread across the media landscape, journalists, online commentators and
many Americans immediately sought to identify the terror nexus that would conveniently attribute the killings to
jihadi motivations.
And there it was: Santiago had complained to the FBI that U.S. authorities were forcing him to watch Islamic State in
Iraq and Syria (ISIS) videos in his home state of Alaska and heard voices urging him to join the terrorist group. He
later told investigators that he had participated in jihadi online chat rooms, though this has not yet been
corroborated.
But does this make Santiago a terrorist? Not necessarily. It could point to a delusional mental state with only a thin
connection to terrorism. Such mental conditions are commonly at play in these kinds of attacks, even when the
connection to terrorism is less tenuous.
Who’s to say if mental
health interventions
could have helped
prevent some of the
attacks that are
commonly attributed to
terrorist motives?
To be sure, those who commit mass murder are seldom society’s happy campers, but that should not necessarily
expand America’s terrorist list to include individuals with histories of aggression, substance abuse or mental illness
who put on an ISIS or al Qaeda jersey on their way to the attack.
Who’s to say if mental health interventions could have helped prevent some of
the attacks that are commonly attributed to terrorist motives, but were
committed by individuals with deep personal or emotional problems, some with
twisted needs to self-explain their rage, even when their deadly missions are
planned to end in their own deaths?
Was Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez, the shooter who killed five people in
Chattanooga, Tennessee in 2015, a lone-wolf terrorist dedicated to jihad or a
disturbed individual with alcohol, drug and money problems whose family had
sought and failed to get him therapy?
Was the 2016 killing of 49 people at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida an act of
terror committed on behalf of ISIS as the killer, Omar Mateen, told police before he was killed, or was it an act of rage
by an angry homophobe on steroids?
It is probably not lost on America’s jihadist enemies that their ideology has become a conveyor for individual
discontents. Whether planned or not, the jihadists have attracted a self-selecting audience of troubled souls through
social media outreach, publicizing their atrocities and urging extreme violence.
All of this is reinforced by intense global media coverage of attacks with terrorist links.
Countering mass violence demands a distinction between those truly radicalized and inspired by jihadist ideology
and those with lesser links, including those whose mental states and violent tendencies preexist their exposure to
jihadist ideology.
But this is not a simple task in the face of a public that prefers easy answers.
To some audiences, ascribing murderous rampages to political motives may make more sense than a more nuanced
explanation that includes mental illness. Terrorism gives Americans a clear culprit and a distant enemy to fear and
loathe, whereas mental illness could arouse sympathy, inappropriately mitigating the violence.
And in a curious way, death at the hands of terrorists ennobles the dead and wounded. They are not merely random
victims of mindless murder, but casualties of war.
Terrorism is also something that can seem easier to address: Security can be increased, jihadist organizations can be
destroyed, violent extremism can be countered. A terrorist can be shot or shut up in prison.
Sorting out how to deal with mental disorders that sometimes don’t show themselves until they erupt in bloodshed
is a much more difficult task.
Brian Michael Jenkins is a senior adviser to the president of the nonprofit, nonpartisan RAND Corporation and an
author of numerous books, reports and articles on terrorism-related topics.
This commentary originally appeared on The Hill on January 26, 2017. Commentary gives RAND researchers a
platform to convey insights based on their professional expertise and often on their peer-reviewed research and
analysis.
Stay Informed
Get updates from RAND delivered straight to your inbox.
Email address SIGN UP
ABOUT
The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the
world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest.
1776 Main Street
Santa Monica, California 90401-3208
RAND® is a registered trademark. © 1994-2023 RAND Corporation.