How should the American public understand today’s terrorism threat? It’s confusing when threat assessments from US government officials are offered in a piecemeal manner. And terrorism experts point repeatedly at the strengthening and proliferation of groups outside of those that have historically threatened the United States. Americans simply want to know whether they should feel safe. And yes, in general, Americans should feel safe. The United States has an amazing body of intelligence, law enforcement, defense, diplomatic and homeland security professionals, who work tirelessly to identify and eliminate threats as they are developing. The Department of Homeland Security has issued a clear assessment, the threat from individuals who radicalized within the United States remains high and transnational groups like Al Qaeda and the Islamic State are trying to rebuild overseas. The fact that 2024 will be an election year makes an attempted terrorist attack all the more likely. But in layman’s terms, Americans should expect the types of domestic attacks observed in recent years, with lone actors or small groups conducting deadly but unsophisticated attacks. This type of threat is the result of an interesting paradox, whereby even with improved commercially available technology, successful attacks are becoming less sophisticated. In part, that’s because intelligence and law enforcement officials have become much more adept at identifying the telltale signs of individuals plotting a complex attack. Additionally, Americans should understand that the threat from al Qaeda and the Islamic State, while greatly diminished, is not gone. Should counterterrorism pressure left and the groups be able to rebuild in places like Afghanistan or Iraq or Syria, the threat is expected to increase. Journalist and columnist alike seized on the director of the National Counterterrorism Center a statement on the 911 anniversary that said, and I quote, al Qaeda is at its historical Nadir in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and its revival is unlikely. It has lost target access, leadership, talent, group cohesion, rank and file commitment and an accommodating local environment. David Ignatius, a columnist at the Washington Post, called it an obituary for al Qaeda in Afghanistan, noting that there doesn’t seem to have been some grand ending to al Qaeda threat. In this case, he wrote, The villain seem to have slipped off into irrelevance. But this characterization of al Qaeda is directly at odds with that put forward by UN panel of experts. Their report described al Qaeda as being in a reorganization phase in Afghanistan, and cited new al Qaeda training camps in the country. The distance between the two assessments may be smaller than it appears to be. US officials briefing on the current assessment revealed that they believe the absence of American troops from Afghanistan has eliminated what they call a proving ground for al Qaeda operatives. Fair. But it’s clear from the UN report that the number of al Qaeda attacks within the local Afghan insurgent conflict was not driving their assessment of the group. A key difference, it is quite possible that how the US and the UN have defined al Qaeda in Afghanistan is not the same, leading to divergent assessments. So then what should Americans take away about al Qaeda is threat. First, that US statements distinguish between the global al Qaeda threat and capabilities and those of al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Such a differentiation is useful for analysis and for targeting resources, but does at times confound the ongoing challenge al Qaeda is network poses to the United States and its partners. Second, that the direct threat to the homeland from al Qaeda is greatly diminished. Al Qaeda does not have the capabilities to attack from its base in Afghanistan and counterterrorism operations targeting it in Somalia, Syria and Yemen have kept the threat in check. And finally, that this assessment is a snapshot in time. Al Qaeda is intent to regenerate transnational attack capabilities is not disputed, just whether it can or not. And so sustaining counterterrorism pressure on al Qaeda globally, will reduce the probability that al Qaeda can threaten the United States again,
Commentary
Our commentary partners will help you reach your own conclusions on complex topics.
‘Divided we fall’: Americans discuss concerns for democracy
Thursday Dr. Frank Luntz‘That was great’: Undecided voters react to Walz-Vance debate
Oct 4 Dr. Frank Luntz‘A bipartisan problem’: Americans debate immigration policy
Sep 30 Dr. Frank LuntzHurricane Helene hits US coast, Appalachia and beyond
Sep 27 Peter ZeihanUS must sustain pressure against al-Qaeda
By Straight Arrow News
The United States and its allies have severely reduced the capacity for al-Qaeda, the terrorist group behind the 9/11 attacks, to organize or carry out any large-scale terrorist attacks against the U.S. homeland. Recent U.S. intelligence assessments suggest al-Qaeda is weaker than ever in Afghanistan, while experts and international observers continue to warn that al-Qaeda is regenerating. The divergence in depictions of the threat from al-Qaeda leads some Americans to wonder how safe they really are.
Straight Arrow News contributor Katherine Zimmerman believes that while the threat from the formal al-Qaeda organization within Afghanistan is now dramatically reduced, al-Qaeda is not confined to Afghanistan or any other country. Lone-actor and small-scale attacks within the U.S. remain probable, Zimmerman maintains, and al-Qaeda’s threat will only remain in check with sustained counterterrorism pressure.
How should the American public understand today’s terrorism threat? It’s confusing when threat assessments from U.S. government officials are offered in a piecemeal manner, and terrorism experts point repeatedly at the strengthening and proliferation of groups outside of those that have historically threatened the United States. Americans simply want to know whether they should feel safe.
And yes, in general, Americans should feel safe. The United States has an amazing body of intelligence, law enforcement, defense, diplomatic and homeland security professionals, who work tirelessly to identify and eliminate threats as they are developing. The Department of Homeland Security has issued a clear assessment: The threat from individuals who radicalized within the United States remains high, and transnational groups like al-Qaeda and the Islamic State are trying to rebuild overseas. The fact that 2024 will be an election year makes an attempted terrorist attack all the more likely. But in layman’s terms, Americans should expect the types of domestic attacks observed in recent years, with lone actors or small groups conducting deadly but unsophisticated attacks.
How should the American public understand today’s terrorism threat? It’s confusing when threat assessments from US government officials are offered in a piecemeal manner. And terrorism experts point repeatedly at the strengthening and proliferation of groups outside of those that have historically threatened the United States. Americans simply want to know whether they should feel safe. And yes, in general, Americans should feel safe. The United States has an amazing body of intelligence, law enforcement, defense, diplomatic and homeland security professionals, who work tirelessly to identify and eliminate threats as they are developing. The Department of Homeland Security has issued a clear assessment, the threat from individuals who radicalized within the United States remains high and transnational groups like Al Qaeda and the Islamic State are trying to rebuild overseas. The fact that 2024 will be an election year makes an attempted terrorist attack all the more likely. But in layman’s terms, Americans should expect the types of domestic attacks observed in recent years, with lone actors or small groups conducting deadly but unsophisticated attacks. This type of threat is the result of an interesting paradox, whereby even with improved commercially available technology, successful attacks are becoming less sophisticated. In part, that’s because intelligence and law enforcement officials have become much more adept at identifying the telltale signs of individuals plotting a complex attack. Additionally, Americans should understand that the threat from al Qaeda and the Islamic State, while greatly diminished, is not gone. Should counterterrorism pressure left and the groups be able to rebuild in places like Afghanistan or Iraq or Syria, the threat is expected to increase. Journalist and columnist alike seized on the director of the National Counterterrorism Center a statement on the 911 anniversary that said, and I quote, al Qaeda is at its historical Nadir in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and its revival is unlikely. It has lost target access, leadership, talent, group cohesion, rank and file commitment and an accommodating local environment. David Ignatius, a columnist at the Washington Post, called it an obituary for al Qaeda in Afghanistan, noting that there doesn’t seem to have been some grand ending to al Qaeda threat. In this case, he wrote, The villain seem to have slipped off into irrelevance. But this characterization of al Qaeda is directly at odds with that put forward by UN panel of experts. Their report described al Qaeda as being in a reorganization phase in Afghanistan, and cited new al Qaeda training camps in the country. The distance between the two assessments may be smaller than it appears to be. US officials briefing on the current assessment revealed that they believe the absence of American troops from Afghanistan has eliminated what they call a proving ground for al Qaeda operatives. Fair. But it’s clear from the UN report that the number of al Qaeda attacks within the local Afghan insurgent conflict was not driving their assessment of the group. A key difference, it is quite possible that how the US and the UN have defined al Qaeda in Afghanistan is not the same, leading to divergent assessments. So then what should Americans take away about al Qaeda is threat. First, that US statements distinguish between the global al Qaeda threat and capabilities and those of al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Such a differentiation is useful for analysis and for targeting resources, but does at times confound the ongoing challenge al Qaeda is network poses to the United States and its partners. Second, that the direct threat to the homeland from al Qaeda is greatly diminished. Al Qaeda does not have the capabilities to attack from its base in Afghanistan and counterterrorism operations targeting it in Somalia, Syria and Yemen have kept the threat in check. And finally, that this assessment is a snapshot in time. Al Qaeda is intent to regenerate transnational attack capabilities is not disputed, just whether it can or not. And so sustaining counterterrorism pressure on al Qaeda globally, will reduce the probability that al Qaeda can threaten the United States again,
US should help Yemen fight Houthis
US must respond to threat from Iran-backed Houthis
US, Israeli counterterrorism policy must adjust after Hamas attack
African coups demand US policy changes
Underreported stories from each side
India, US sign massive $4B pact for 31 Predator drones
34 sources | 20% from the leftMore than 230 doctors and health care providers call on Trump to release medical records
10 sources | 0% from the right Getty ImagesLatest Stories
Majority of Americans worried over social media censorship ahead of election
Caban pardoned NYPD officers, top doctor leaving Adams admin: Report
US fines Lufthansa airlines $4 million over accusations of antisemitism
Ukraine turns to creative ads to boost military recruiting
Google invests in SMRs as more tech companies go nuclear for energy needs
Popular Opinions
In addition to the facts, we believe it’s vital to hear perspectives from all sides of the political spectrum.
A year after Oct. 7, US still not doing enough to support Israel
10 hrs ago Ben WeingartenLike Mexico, America should elect a female president
10 hrs ago Ruben NavarretteWhy Republicans won’t admit who won 2020 election
Yesterday David PakmanAmericans must stand with Israel
Friday Star Parker