Six reasons why stopping terrorism is so challenging

#3. Prevention is improving
A growing number of terrorist attacks — especially in the United States and Western Europe — are being foiled as plots. This is obviously good news in terms of protecting citizens and saving lives. Another consequence is that policymakers have diminishing information on the actual seriousness of threats because the attackers are being stopped before their plans are actualized.

#4. Terrorist groups are not all alike
Terrorist organizations are extremely diverse which makes generalizations even more difficult.

When most people think of terrorist groups an image comes to mind of some well-organized and highly-publicized entity like the Islamic State or al Shabaab. In reality, it’s hard to generalize about terrorist groups. On one extreme are individuals who have no recognized links to a terrorist organization — so-called lone wolves. On the other end of the spectrum are highly organized groups that persist over time, have a well-defined chain of command and a stable leadership. In between are loosely connected small groups as well as shadowy networks — for example, Neo Nazis or radical Islamists. All of these disparate entities are typically in a state of flux. Change is constant; stability rare.

Of the more than 2,300 unique terrorist organizations identified in the GTD since 1970, nearly 70 percent had a life span of less than a year. Terrorist organizations are a bit like business startups: Most are gone within the first year of operation. It is one thing to respond to a well-organized group, with clear leadership, a chain of command and an identifiable membership. But responses are much more complicated when there is no central organization, no identifiable leader or only an ill-defined group of individuals with varying connections and commitments undergoing constant change.

#5. Assigning responsibility is tough
Attributing responsibility for a terrorist attack is often ambiguous or impossible.

Data from the GTD shows that no terrorist group can be assigned responsibility in nearly 60 percent of the thousands of attacks that occurred worldwide since 1970. Attacks may be launched by loners who are working more or less independently of any specific group. In other cases, more than one group may claim the attack. Or a group may claim responsibility when in reality it had no connection to the attack, or a group may claim incorrectly that another group was accountable.

Analysts may simply never have enough information to reach a conclusion or to distinguish between competing accounts. Following a terrorist attack, governments are under enormous pressure to identify the guilty party and offer a swift response. But how can officials punish wrongdoers and deter others from engaging in terrorist attacks when they never know for sure who the culprit is?

#6: We’re still developing strategy
Finally, while researchers are making great progress in developing a framework for the scientific study of terrorism, the study of counter terrorism is still in its infancy. While it is difficult to get an accurate grasp of terrorist threats, it is even harder to evaluate the strategies used by governments to counter terrorism. Governments are extremely secretive about their counter terrorism policies and strategies. And certainly there is nothing close to a worldwide database on counter terrorism strategies and their effectiveness.

Making better policy
The terrorist threat in the United States is episodic, sporadic and inconsistent. Too often policies react to fear rather than real threat estimates. For example, there is no empirical evidence to support President Trump’s recent decision to ban citizens of six majority-Muslim countries from travel to the U.S. in the name of preventing terrorist infiltration.Trump’s executive order of March 2017 would halt travel from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen. But no one from these countries has been involved in a fatal terrorist attack in the United States since 9/11.

What’s more, these policies are hard to undo. For example, the USA Patriot Act, passed in the chaotic aftermath of 9/11, was designed to “deter and punish terrorist acts,” but was quickly expanded by law enforcement officials to prosecute drug offenses and other non-terrorist crimes. Such an expansion raises concerns about privacy and the power of the federal government.

Successful policy requires collecting the best information possible, honestly accessing it and avoiding over reaction.

Gary LaFree is Professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Maryland. This article is published courtesy of The Conversation (under Creative Commons-Attribution / No derivative).