Fighting Terror in the Future

Will we live in a militarized state?

It’s been nearly 15 years since Al Qaeda brought down New York City’s Twin Towers and killed thousands in a devastating and horrific attack that was broadcast around the world on live television.

Since then, the United States has invaded Afghanistan and Iraq at the cost of more than 5,000 soldier’s lives, passed hundreds of terror suspects through Guantanamo Bay, killed the leader of Al Qaeda, created no-fly lists and colorized terror alerts, and taken countless other tactics to fight terror.

Despite the effort, terrorism has become a more frightening and common subject today than it maybe ever has been. Since the attack on Charlie Hebdo in Paris on January 7, and through numerous other mass shootings, terror attacks and incidents- including the failed attempts- 2015 has shown that it only takes a few people with ill intent to carry out bloody massacres in public places, and has reawakened in many a fear that they might not be safe outside their homes.

As some experts have pointed out, the fact that ISIS, other terror groups, and lone-wolf attackers resort to terror means that they do not actually have the power to overthrow a military or a government, or to achieve any other significant victory. If ISIS had the power to invade a Western power, they would. Instead, their main tactic is to spread fear, to make everyone in every home across the West feel in danger.

The benefits of such a tactic for a weak state such as ISIS are numerous. If Americans and other terror victims respond by blaming all Muslims, Muslims who are currently on the fringe or who are not actively interested in jihadist ideals will be pushed toward extremism. Anti-Muslim sentiments will act as a self-fulfilling prophecy. By blaming Muslims or Islam in general, non-Muslims will confirm the fears of Muslims who were already suspicious of the West, and it will give them a final push into radical ideology.

Also, while terrorist organizations cannot overthrow governments themselves, through terrorism they can get a vengeful Western power to do it for them. In the early 2000s, extremist Islamist groups wishing to impose Sharia law in the Middle East had no chance of overthrowing Saddam Hussein’s oppressive but religiously moderate government. However, after the success of the 9/11 Terror Attacks, extremists were able to step aside and let the United States Military do it for them. Almost immediately after America’s invasion of Iraq began, an insurgency rose up there that would later help ISIS grow and spread, and that would contribute to the ongoing war in Syria.

So, while acts of terror are becoming increasingly common, frightening and devastating, we are reminded that the goal of terror is to spread fear, that the chances of dying or even witnessing a terror attack are remote, that we have a much higher chance of dying in a car accident or from a drug overdose, and that, as we’ve heard often over the last 15 years, if we give into the fear, “the terrorists win.” All this remains true, but the increase in regional terror and the wide availability of massive firepower and bomb-making material is an issue that will have to be addressed.

For New Yorkers like myself, it is already not uncommon to see police with semi-automatic rifles and in full tactical gear patrolling Grand Central and other crowded areas. As random terror attacks begin to feel like more of a threat, is it possible that the streets of New York and other major cities will be regularly patrolled by military-style armed forces? Will we become comfortable living in a society in which heavily-armed forces patrol civilian areas?

Where will we draw the line? How will we deal with the perceived fear that at any moment we might find ourselves in the middle of a terror attack?

As we saw in the Boston Marathon bombings of 2013 and in the Paris attacks this year, when terror suspects are on the loose, local and government agencies will be quick to respond with heavily armed units. Areas where a terror suspect is believed to be are shut down, civilians are asked to stay at home, and authorities go street-to-street and door-to-door looking for clues and information.

This sudden transition from normalcy to militarized state is accepted when a terror suspect is on the loose, so I wonder if instances of this will become more common in the near future, if the day will come when a terror threat will bring military units onto the streets in mere minutes, when it will be normal to see tactical units conducting driver checkpoints on highways, bag checks on the subway, or even stop-and-frisks on you as you walk your dog around the neighborhood.

I don’t have any answers or ideas as to how much of this could or should happen, or how we might handle security in the future, but I do think that issues like these are more practical to consider when the subject of modern terrorism arises. Upon hearing of a mass shooting or a terror attack, fear may be our first reaction, but we should remain cool and consider the actual implications that the threat of terror attacks will have in our lives. Very few of us will likely ever directly witness a terror incident, but we might all find ourselves in a world in which heavily armed officers and units patrol our cities, our streets and our neighborhoods.

Will the threat of terror lead us to soften the limits we place on our privacy and on our rights in public? Or is there another way to fight the fear that terror aims to spread?