What Terrorism Could Have

in Store for America

MARK MOYAR

Military History

A HOOVER INSTITUTION ESSAY ON TERRORIST THREATS IN AMERICA POST-9/11

Williamson Murray and Ralph Peters make many excellent points in their essays
onIslamic radical terrorism. They are undoubtedly correct that only a small
numberof the Westerners who have traveled to Syria, Iraq, and other terrorist
hot spots to join Sunni extremist organizations will be able to return home and
carry out major terrorist attacks. Those who do make it through will not pose an
existential threat to Americas government or society. Murray and Peters rightly
notethat we should be much more concerned about the possibility that radical
Islamists obtain weapons of mass destruction in Muslim countries and seek to use
them against theUnitedStates.
I do think, however, that they understate the dangers of attacks on the US homeland
that fall short of the weapons of mass destructions threshold. The scarcity of
significant terrorist attacks in recent years has led Americans to assume that the days
of mass casualty attacks are past, but history teaches us to beware of the assumption
that recent trends foretell the future. As the working group members discussed
at length during the roundtable discussion on this topic, Americans are paying
insufficient attention to black swan eventsmajor events anticipated by no
onein which terrorists inflict serious harm on the United States.
The counterterrorism trends that Americans hope will continue are not as positive
as is commonly believed. Only luck has spared the United States from several mass
casualty attacks in the last few years. Had the underwear bomber of 2009 or the
Times Square bomber of 2010 possessed better detonators, then Flight 253 and
theTimes Square bombing would have joined the short list of deadliest terrorist
attacks on the US homeland.
Terrorists have caused some real harm since 9/11, both to individual Americans
and the national well-being. The Beltway sniper and the Boston Marathon bombers
paralyzed cities and killed or maimed substantial numbers of Americans. The

Moyar_Terrorism.indd 1

12/16/14 10:05 AM

FortHood shooting killed or wounded forty-five people and sparked fears of

enemies within. Although such events cannot crush a nation as large and sturdy
as the United States, they are still to be dreaded and worthy of major efforts to
combat them. The United States dedicates considerable resources to highway safety
and apprehension of serial killers, despite the fact that highway accidents and
murderers have never posed an existential threat to the country.
The United States has reacted to terrorist successes and near misses with
expenditures that are admittedly large. We now have a Department of Homeland
Security with an annual budget of $38billion. Taxpayers provide many billions
more to the intelligence community and other federal agencies that have a role in
protecting the nations numerous soft spots. Because of the relatively few terrorist
attacks since 9/11, those expenditures are increasingly derided as overreactions,
driven by mass hysteria. That argument is off the mark for several reasons. For one,
preventive measures have accounted to a considerable degree for the infrequency
of terrorist attacks. For another, public demands for security measures that might
seem hysterical at future periods of relative security often seem eminently sensible
in times immediately following the breaching of security, when no one can say
whether additional breaches are imminent. Washington is replete with members of
Congress who voted for the sternest counterterrorism measures in September 2001
and only lately determined such measures to be unconscionable.
Humans prize their personal security and the security of their families above all
else, so it is unrealistic to expect individuals to view terrorism with cold detachment
and dismiss the need for costly countermeasures because of the low probability that
they will be the next victim. Americans, moreover, have a tendency to view the
death of a single American as a tragedy to be avoided even at great cost, which is not
efficient but certainly is commendable in its own right. Americans are justifiably
proud that their government shells out huge sums to rescue a boater who has been
lost at sea or coal miners who have been trapped in amineshaft.
The routine occurrence of unpredictable events offers good reason to invest broadly
in counterterrorism and homeland security. At the same time, several potential
disasters are already discernible. It is worthwhile, therefore, to identify the most

Mark Moyar What Terrorism Could Have in Store for America

Moyar_Terrorism.indd 2

12/16/14 10:05 AM

likely and dangerous threats so as to allocate extra doses of preemption, prevention,

and remediation.
In terrorism, as in other types of warfare, technological advances frequently create
new capabilities that give one side marked advantages over another. Such advantages
often dissipate over time as effective countermeasures are developed, but they
can last long enough to produce serious damage, as did German submarines in
WorldWar I. One technological innovation that may prove a boon for terrorists
inthe coming years is the nonmetallic bomb. Such bombs have already drawn large
amounts of American blood in Afghanistan, where insurgents have buried them
in roads and buildings patrolled by Americans. According to press accounts, some
of the recent US air strikes in Syria targeted terrorists who were close to developing
nonmetallic bombs that could be carried onto commercial aircraft. A few successful
detonations aboard passenger flights could force an extended suspension of global
air travel or slash the number of people willing to travel, withdevastating costs for
the global economy.
Another looming technological threat to aircraft is the portable surface-to-air
missile. It is not a new technology, but only recently have terrorists gained
possession of weapons that are in working condition. ISIS has stolen substantial
numbers of the portable missiles from the Syrian Army, and others reportedly
disappeared from Libyan arsenals at the end of the Libyan civil war. One individual
with a few of these weapons could wreak devastation on civil aviation.
Changes in the counterterrorism policies of the United States and its NATO allies
will also give the terrorists better odds of harming the US homeland. Thanks
to the revelations of Edward Snowden and the complacency engendered by the
infrequency of terrorist attacks, members of Congress from both parties are
curtailing the governments powers to intercept communications. Although reining
in the governments surveillance powers has some merit, it will diminish the ability
of governments to apprehend terrorists.
The rising influence of Muslims in Europe is likely to erode counterterrorism efforts
in numerous European countries, some of which have agreements with the United
States that allow their passport holders to enter the United States without a visa. The

Hoover Institution Stanford University

Moyar_Terrorism.indd 3

12/16/14 10:05 AM

increase in the Muslim percentage of the European population, stemming from high
Muslim birthrates and low birthrates among the rest of the population, is increasing
the voting power of Muslims, many of whom evidence a disturbing sympathy for
ISIS. Pressure from Muslim interest groups and self-appointed tolerance czars will
make European politicians increasingly reluctant to take actions against Islamic
extremism either at home or abroad.
American policy changes in South Asia are causing a rise in the danger posed by
the multitude of anti-American extremist groups in Pakistan. As the US presence
inAfghanistan shrinks, so does Americas ability to identify and strike terrorists
across the border in Pakistan. The drawdown of the US military presence has
necessitated removal of intelligence facilities and drone bases and weakened
US influence over the Pakistani government. The rise of ISIS has hastened the
shiftin intelligence community assets from Pakistan to Iraq and Syria, degrading
Americanintelligence on violent extremists in Pakistan and also on Pakistans
nuclear weapons, which constitute a grave danger.
Another country that poses a greater terrorist threat than most Americans realize
is Iran. Since 9/11, most US efforts to thwart terrorism against the US homeland
have focused on Sunni extremist organizations because Sunnis comprise the
overwhelming majority of the terrorists who have attacked the United States
to date. Given the international tensions surrounding Irans nuclear weapons
program, however, it is conceivable that the Iranians would at some point abandon
their policy of refraining from terrorist strikes in the United States. The Obama
administration has said it will not tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran, and Iran remains
on course to develop nuclear weapons; chances are thus good that the United States
or Israel will one day take vigorous action to destroy the Iranian weapons, an event
that could cause the Iranians to unleash violence in the United States. With nearly
one million people of Iranian origin residing in the United States, Iran no doubt
hassleeper cells that could be used for that purpose.
The question of how to combat Islamic extremism also generated considerable
rumination during the working group session. One instrument that the West has
been particularly remiss in using is supporting the education of Muslims. Most
foreign support for education today is concentrated on primary education, to the
detriment of higher education, which is where the biggest problems lie. The large

Mark Moyar What Terrorism Could Have in Store for America

Moyar_Terrorism.indd 4

12/16/14 10:05 AM

majority of terrorist leaders possess college educations. Most of them concentrated

their studies in the sciences, which encouraged them to see everything in the
black-and-white terms of extremists. The West should become more involved in
supporting liberal arts at foreign universities, and should bring more Muslims
to Western universities for education that includes exposure to the liberal arts.
In addition to reducing the number of terrorists, such efforts would strengthen
the human capital of governments in Muslim states, which is critical for the
governanceand security necessary to hold extremist organizations at bay.

Hoover Institution Stanford University

Moyar_Terrorism.indd 5

12/16/14 10:05 AM

Mark Moyar What Terrorism Could Have in Store for America

Moyar_Terrorism.indd 6

12/16/14 10:05 AM

The publisher has made this work available under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs license 3.0. To view a copy
of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0.
Hoover Institution Press assumes no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or third-party
Internet websites referred to in this publication, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will
remain, accurate or appropriate.
Copyright 2014 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University

Hoover Institution Stanford University

Moyar_Terrorism.indd 7

12/16/14 10:05 AM

Working Group on the Role of Military History

inContemporary Conflict

About the Author

MARK MOYAR
Mark Moyar is a senior fellow
at theJoint Special Operations
University. He is the author of
numerous books and articles,
including Triumph Forsaken:
The Vietnam War, 19541965
and A Question of Command:
Counterinsurgency from the
Civil War to Iraq. He holds a BA
summacumlaude from Harvard
anda PhD from Cambridge.

Hoover Institution, Stanford University

434 Galvez Mall
Stanford, CA 94305-6010
650-723-1754

Moyar_Terrorism.indd 8

The Working Group on the Role of Military History in

Contemporary Conflict examines how knowledge of past
military operations can influence contemporary public
policy decisions concerning current conflicts. The careful
study of military history offers a way of analyzing modern
war and peace that is often underappreciated in this age of
technological determinism. Yet the result leads to a more
in-depth and dispassionate understanding of contemporary
wars, one that explains how particular military successes
and failures of the past can be often germane, sometimes
misunderstood, or occasionally irrelevant in the context
ofthe present.
The core membership of this working group includes David
Berkey, Peter Berkowitz, Max Boot,Josiah Bunting III, Angelo
M.Codevilla, Thomas Donnelly, Admiral James O. Ellis Jr.,
ColonelJoseph Felter, Victor Davis Hanson (chair), Josef Joffe,
Frederick W. Kagan, Kimberly Kagan, Edward N. Luttwak,
Peter Mansoor, General Jim Mattis, Walter Russell Mead, Mark
Moyar, Williamson Murray, Ralph Peters, Andrew Roberts,
Admiral Gary Roughead, Kori Schake, Kiron K. Skinner, Barry
Strauss, Bruce Thornton, Bing West, Miles Maochun Yu, and
Amy Zegart.
For more information about this Hoover Institution Working Group
visit us online at www.hoover.org/research-topic/military.

Hoover Institution in Washington

The Johnson Center

1399 New York Avenue NW, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20005
202-760-3200

12/16/14 10:05 AM