The Political Conundrum!

In light of the recent shootings at Fort Hood, Canada's National Post asked me to write a four-part series for them, running today until Friday, exploring different aspects of the "homegrown terrorist" threat. Today they ran the first installment, entitled "The Danger Signs of Terror," which argues that a better understanding of the radicalization process is needed. An excerpt:

The [Nidal] Hasan case does not represent the typical situation in which profiling might be used: at an airport security line or a subway bag check, for example. Rather, he came to authorities' attention in December 2008 due to a Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) investigation into another subject with whom he was communicating, possibly [Anwar] Awlaki. A recent FBI press release explained that after Hasan came across the JTTF's radar, they "assessed that the content of those communications was consistent with research being conducted by Major Hasan in his position as a psychiatrist," and thus "concluded that Major Hasan was not involved in terrorist activities or terrorist planning."

Did the JTTF reach the right conclusion given the information it had at the time? Or did it miss an opportunity to prevent the massacre? While these questions cannot be answered at this time, they point to the kind of profile that was relevant in this situation: not one that fixates on the fact that Hasan was Muslim, but one that seeks to comprehend what kind of ideas and other manifestations suggest a person represents a terrorist risk.

There have been published attempts at tackling this question. In 2007, the NYPD released Radicalization in the West, a report by Mitchell Silber and Arvin Bhatt, which identifies four phases through which the authors believe homegrown terrorists progress. After the first phase, "pre-radicalization," the study turns to "self-identification," wherein individuals begin exploring fundamentalist Islam "while slowly migrating away from their former identity."

The study's third phase is "indoctrination," where the individuals' newly adopted Salafi beliefs intensify. (The term Salafi is used to describe the fundamentalist religious practices imputed to the first three generations of Muslims who followed the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad.) A person going through this stage "wholly adopts jihadi-Salafi ideology and concludes, without question, that the conditions and circumstances exist where action is required to support and further the Salafist cause. That action is militant jihad." The final phase, "jihadization," is when individuals act on that belief, beginning to prepare for a terrorist act. Silber and Bhatt compare this process to a funnel: Though many people begin the radicalization process, few reach the point where they would carry out an attack.

You can read the full article here.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Public Safety Canada Minister Peter Van Loan today announced initiatives between the United States and Canada.