TT2 Expert Final: U.S. militia groups pose a greater threat to our national security than do FTOs

Thanks again to bsh1. I accept all of his clarifications, as they are along the same lines as what I had originally intended. I will use this round to build the case for why foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs) present a distinct threat that outpaces that of United States militia groups (USMGs). 1. A history of harm 1a. By the numbers From the years 2001 to 2009, 380 international terror attacks were executed against the U.S. That's compared to 91 domestic terror attacks. Both of these include independent actors, though a larger percentage of domestic attacks (especially the fatal ones) were committed by individuals with no obvious association with USMGs.[1] Recognize that while these are the instances in which threats were carried out against the U.S. in the past, they are merely historical references, not the sole basis for what will happen going forward and therefore only the base level of a threat. Now, why should we care about numbers? First of all, more attacks in the past means an increased likelihood of more to come. That enhanced likelihood means an enhanced chance of physical harm (deaths and injuries). But second, this represents a larger fear, which is the main purpose of terrorism. Look at the places that are most commonly hit " businesses and diplomatic offices top the chart by miles. The idea is to break down infrastructure, to sow fear and show weakness in the government. Even the methodology, which is dominated by bombings, produces a very powerful effect along these same lines, making for large spectacles that can be seen across large areas. People feel that viscerally, and it has a deep effect on society. That impact may be partially the result of media coverage of the dangers involved, but it stems from the unpredictability and loss of control involved. To get an appreciation for its effects, let's look at the results of 9/11. "A survey of residents of Manhattan in the months after the destruction of the World Trade Center published by the New England Journal of Medicine in 2002 found that 7.5% of the respondents reported symptoms consistent with PTSD and 9.7% reported symptoms consistent with depression. There was a direct link between how close one lived to the Twin Towers and the likelihood that you would develop PTSD. Twenty percent of those living in the vicinity of the World Trade Center showed signs of PTSD. The findings also emphasized the vicarious impact of the attacks: most of those displaying negative symptoms of PTSD and depression had not been physically at the Center when the attack occurred, they had not been in immediate danger and they were not related to direct victims."[2] I would also argue that media coverage, being a direct result of the methods used to attack the U.S. and to incite terror, is a part of the harm to U.S. national security caused by FTOs. While FTOs may not be making the media reports themselves, it's obvious as a result of their methods that those reports are outgrowths of their campaigns of terror. Hence, even in periods when there have been no terrorist attacks, "terrorism has never left the public consciousness and has remained a high profile political and public issue." The issue gets even more complicated by the tools used for terror alerts: "When the color alert changed from yellow to orange these people showed increased levels of depression, anxiety, phobic responses and other signs of PTSD. When the alert levels dropped back, the symptoms again spiked indicating that public reminders of the danger acted as a stressor regardless of the direction of the change."[2] But what makes FTOs special? Why don't USMGs generate this kind of fear? Well, for one thing, as Pro admits, they dominate media coverage, and therefore present a larger psychological problem. It generates a unique fear of the external, of an unknown and unassailable enemy abroad. Knowledge of who is leading a specific group doesn't make them and their networks any less nebulous to the majority of Americans, and that externality makes these groups viewed as more difficult to control. The fear that's generated is sometimes turned into boiling hatred, which has led to a series of killings. Whether it's an Indian immigrant being pushed onto the subway tracks, a string murders of Middle Eastern shopkeepers, beatings, or stabbings, anti-Muslim hate crimes have remained high ever since 9/11.[3] This is also a unique threat to national security, as vigilante justice disrupts society in numerous ways, not the least of which is that it often targets and ends the lives of innocent people. To quote Yoda, an expert in counter-terrorism: "Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering." There is also evidence that domestic terrorism incites international terrorism, and thus that domestic terrorism in any nation could affect our own. The same cannot be said of the reverse situation.[4] This is an important trend, showing that every domestic act of terror can stoke the flames of transnational terrorism, and therefore that incidences of international terrorism will continue to outpace those of the domestic variety. 1b. Gravity of attacks Not all instances of terror are equal. The amount of fatalities and injuries don't mirror the number of incidences - the difference is actually far more staggering. In that 9 year timespan, the numbers of fatalities for domestic terrorism were a total of 8, whereas the numbers for international terrorism were 879, and that's excluding the almost 3,000 dead from 9/11. Injuries are even more disparate, with 53 domestic and 2,770 (again, excluding the 9/11 injuries). Despite a substantially reduced number of attacks in the 1990's, the number of injuries and fatalities per attack has increased substantially, and that's without including 9/11 (which, nonetheless, plays out the trend).[1] So there's a substantially larger direct harm resulting from international terrorism that can't be matched by the home-grown variety. 2. Going forward But why would we logically expect these trends to continue? There are a number of logical reasons to support these conclusions. This could be the result of FTOs having a larger pool of people to draw from. Remember, these are international organizations. Large as it is, the population of the U.S. is 4 magnitudes smaller than the population of the world. No, we can't expect that entire population to be drawn upon for the purposes of supplying FTOs with manpower, but given that FTOs are now drawing members from across formerly impassable national, ideological and ethnic borders, much more of that population is accessible than ever before.[5] These organizations are built within societies that are often highly stratified with large, disaffected portions of the population. Many FTOs are composed heavily of religious extremists, who have built their hatred against external bodies with the help of propaganda and desperation, and continue to build upon it with local populations.[5] While USMGs are composed of a similarly extreme set of members, their access to those numbers is far less, as they cannot unduly influence education, nor do they have as significant representation in government. Moreover, our ability to monitor those groups within our borders ensures that they're less likely to inflict dramatic harms. The Southern Poverty Law Center, for example, is specifically using their prodigious efforts to expose the dangerous activities of these groups, not to mention that their lawsuits have crippled those that have committed violent acts.[6] FTOs present a much more difficult threat to address. In order to stop continued attacks, the U.S. would have to do one of the following: invade (as with Iraq and Afghanistan), use targeted strikes (broadly in use now), or get the permission of the country itself to permit military action. The first is highly costly, both in lives and on a monetary level; the second has led to numerous issues at home and abroad with regards to sovereignty and collateral damage; and the last is not always going to be available, as many nations have denied such access. The first two actually present threats to national security through our efforts to deal with FTOs. This is not to mention that, no matter how the government reacts, the local population would be incensed by the perceived injustice of many such acts, which in turn fuels FTOs by increasing their capacity for recruitment. Taking this one step further, a substantial reason for the increased harms that these FTOs can dole out is their access to resources. USMGs are dependent on private donations to finance their efforts, limiting their supply of weaponry. FTOs are more commonly in a position to be supplied with more dangerous weaponry. This could easily involve the use of biological and chemical warfare meant to incite terror, something that many FTOs have demonstrated not only interest in acquiring, but have actively pursued, especially with regards to Al Qaeda. These weapons are also likely to be available to them through limited border controls.[5] For those who are supported by sovereign nations, with access to conventional weapons like missiles and even a larger possibility of acquiring nuclear weapons from countries like Iran (as is probable with Hezbollah and Al Qaeda),[7] the capacity for damage done is usually far larger for FTOs. With that, I eagerly await Pro's opening arguments. 1. http://www.heritage.org... 2. http://www.aaets.org... 3. http://www.aljazeera.com... 4. http://jpr.sagepub.com... 5. http://fas.org... 6. http://www.splcenter.org... 7. http://www.jewishpolicycenter.org...