The Problem of Lone Wolf Terrorism in the US

Impact of Lone Wolf Terrorists
Introduction
The recent terrorist episodes in the US have all been incidents of Lone Wolf terrorism. From the bombing of the Oklahoma City Building in 1995 by Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols to the Charlottesville attack in 2017 by neo-Nazi James Fields, Lone Wolf terrorists exist in this country and their presence is the most important current domestic security concern. This paper will explain why Lone Wolf terrorism is a most important security concern for the US and how Internet recruitment is playing a part in the spreading of violent actions by extremists.
Defining Lone Wolf Terrorism
Lone Wolf terrorism is hard to define because of the complicated nature of what makes one a lone wofle. The theory of lone wolf terrorism is that lone wolves are terrorists who act alone without any support group, network and assistance from a terror cell or organization. Lone Wolfs may be motivated by ideology that is shared by other people and groups, but they are not supported by these groups or given orders to act. They are not part of an overall infrastructure and do not take commands from anyone. They do not take orders from anyone and act on their own directive (Beydoun, 2017).
An example of a Lone Wolf terrorist would be Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, whose manifesto revealed the extreme Right ideology that prompted his actions. Another example would be the New Zealand mosque shooter, who left behind ample evidence of his inspiration for mass murdering Muslims at their place of prayer. McVeigh and Nichols can be considered Lone Wolves, and the Orlando night club shooter could be considered a Lone Wolf as well. What they all have in common is that they were operating on their own, outside of any organized terrorist cell. Their actions were directed solely by themselves.
Yet they are not created in a bubble—particularly today. Lone Wolf terrorism is as much a reaction to the Left-Right paradigm that has spread across the world as it is to social media influence, where extremist ideologies are communicated and fuel individuals focused on taking violent action. Yet, as Weimann (2016) notes, Lone Wolves actually hunt in packs and their hunting ground is cyberspace: “They are recruited, radicalized, taught, trained and directed by others” (p. 1). From Facebook to YouTube to Twitter, social media platforms are places where Lone Wolf terrorists can be formed in cyberspace and unleashed onto the real world.
Three Immediate Threats Posed by Lone Wolves to US National Security
Three immediate threats posed by Lone Wolves to US National Security are: a threat to infrastructure, a social threat in that they can inspire other Lone Wolf terrorists, and an economic threat in that they can destabilize the country’s ability to hold events and have mass gatherings out of fear a Lone Wolf might strike. To address these threats, clearly some kind of content control is required online in order to prevent recruitment and proliferation of radical ideas that could potentially lead to the development of more Lone Wolf terrorists in society. Yet this very idea creates conflicts within the realm of American notions of freedom, especially as people enjoy socializing with one another online. The irony is that Lone Wolfs can be recruited and radicalized online and their activities can lead to the loss of socialization activities for all. It is like allowing freedom to a group of adolescents and when one breaks the rules he ruins it for everyone as their freedom is taken away. The government is faced with making decisions about how much freedom to allow Americans since Lone Wolf terrorists use that freedom for bad ends and end up ruining it for everyone.
Americans are not quite comfortable with the idea of their online activity being monitored or their words being assessed by government agents. Some Americans feel that if their words and content online are judged incorrectly they could be harassed by the government, arrested or charged with trying to incite violence or hate crimes or terrorism. Monitoring the Internet and attempting to implement controls on social media has been a complex problem for companies like Facebook and Twitter. Social media becomes a dominant place where individuals can reinforce an increasingly radicalized view of the world even if they are only communicating with other people who may not share their intentions towards violence at all (Chatfield, Reddick & Brajawidagda, 2015). Does the fact that they are communicating or sharing ideas with the radicalized Lone Wolf make them complicit?
There are ethical questions that have to be asked as well as the government seeks to address this most crucial of points. The security threat to America is clear and present, but at what point can the government actually step in to declare that certain topics and ways of speech are off limits? From a utilitarian perspective, one could argue that for the common good, the government should have the authority to limit free speech on the Internet because of the risks it poses for the development of Lone Wolf terrorists. But from a deontological perspective, one could argue that the government has a duty to uphold the Constitution, which protects Americans’ right to free speech.
The problem is not an easy one to solve considering that the Internet is constantly providing new platforms for users to meet and share views. The big social networking platforms are just a drop in a very large bucket. Numerous platforms exist and just the fact that instant communication is now available as a wide spread technological tool of Web 2.0 indicates that it is not a process that the government can easily monitor. This makes the need to address the issue of Lone Wolf radicalization over the Internet all the more urgent. There is no apparent or ethical solution to the problem.
Thus the threat to infrastructure is apparent, and the economic threat follows. The implicit threat in both is that social relations will deteriorate and American society will become highly tribal. Tribalism can lead to an increase in terrorism as it fosters fringe belief systems and activities that lead to tribes fighting one another and engaging in hostile and violent activities that can be perceived as terroristic. Even tribes posting on social media use memes to provoke and inspire terror (Costello & Hawdon, 2018).
Are Lone Wolves Really Lone Wolves?
Lone Wolf terrorists are never really alone, just as ISIS is not really alone. It has a number of affiliates around the world and they have been able to “flourish in regions plagued by weak governance, porous borders and inept security force” (Intel Brief, 2019). These organizations often appeal to individuals who are on the Internet looking for guidance and direction. They may be dissatisfied with their society or the way they see the government working and they may look for other like-minded individuals who can provide them with supportive words. They may not be nations plagued by weak governance, but they are individuals plagued by weak governance in the mind. They do not have the discipline or education needed to keep from falling into the trap of radicalization. They seek it out because they have no barrier in their minds that would deter them from this course of action. The Columbine shooters are a similar example. They acted on their own, yet they were radicalized to a degree by their exposure to content online that affected their sensibilities. Their actions were largely planned online, as Costello and Hawdon have pointed out (Costello & Hawdon, 2018).
Are lone wolves really lone soldiers or part of organizational networks of foreign terrorist organizations?  This is also a possibility to consider. Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter of 2009, is a good example of a Lone Wolf terrorist radicalized on cyberspace. He could be considered a Lone Soldier, since he was inspired and led by a radical Islamic terrorist living in the Middle East. Though it was never shown that he was ordered to open fire on Ft. Hood, Hasan was certainly radicalized by a Muslim terrorist online and led to believe that waging holy war was his only option for pleasing Allah. Hasan was a US Army major and psychologist. He had been in contact with a Yemen freedom fighter by the name of Imam Anwar al-Awlaki and they had exchanged emails for some time leading up to Hasan’s attack on the military base, where 13 people were killed and 30 wounded (Breed & Plushnick-Masti, 2013). Hasan openly admitted afterwards that he had been radicalized and had come to believe that he was working for the enemy and that he had to fight back against what he perceived to be an evil American foreign policy that was killing his people in the Middle East. He identified with Middle Eastern Muslim radicals and wanted to take vengeance against the American military as a means of retribution. He was not legitimately or officially acting on behalf of any organized terrorist group—but, as Weimann has shown, he was shaped by those people. He was initiated into their ideological worldview by way of cyberspace. As Meleagrou-Hitchens (2015) notes, Hasan was “a self-identified member of the global jihad movement who took it upon himself to contribute to the struggle in the most effective way at his disposal.” He saw himself as an actor in a larger movement—but he did not receive orders from anyone. He acted on his own. Another example would be the Orlando nightclub shoorter, who also believed he was waging war for Allah. He too had been radicalized online and though he had no marching orders, he could be said to be part of a larger network of terror that inspires young people to fight on their own against the evils that they perceive to exist in society.
Typology
The Lone Wolf typology is such that it consists of an individual, usually male, age 18-45, who is considered a loner in terms of not having a strong social network of friends or companions, who is considered to hold radical beliefs by those who know him, and who has gone through a fundamental change in personality, psychology, or outlook in recent months. The Lone Wolf will tend to be isolated or withdrawn and will usually have radical views about the mainstream or what is happening in society that differ from what the majority or norm tends to be.
Hasan would be an example of the Lone Soldier typology: this is a Lone Wolf who has a military background and some training in the use of weapons. He has a fundamental view of society that is radically different from the group to which he belongs and he sees his task as being one of war. He wages war through terrorism, which is what Hasan did: he declared himself engaged in a holy war and attacked the American military base in an act of war, acting as Lone Soldier—a Lone Wolf typology.
The Loner typology would be a kind of Lone Wolf who has no social connections at all. He is not part of any group, has no training in anything, has no social identity, does not have any social bonds or interests. An example of the Loner type would be Adam Lanza, who opened fire on his elementary school, killing dozens. He had shown mental problems in his youth. His parents were divorced and his mother home schooled him. He had no friends and no social activities that stimulated him or gave him a sense of having any connection to the world. His frustrations with his own life and his parents’ divorce eled him to destroy that which was precious to others—the lives of the young children at the school he had attended. Another example would be the DC snipers, John Allen Muhammed and Lee Boyd Malvo. They were loners, who drove around in their car, shooting at people on the DC beltway. They killed ten and injured three others. They were not alone but they acted alone and were considered social outcasts, thus they fit the Loner typology.
The Lone-Followers would be those individuals who are radicalized by following other terrorist leaders, usually online, but they act and engage in terrorism on their own, inspired by what their leaders do. The Boston Bombers would be an example of Lone-Follower Lone Wolf terrorists. They were brothers who had been radicalized and who followed from a distance the terrorist leadership of Al-Qaeda. However, they were not leaders themselves of any group, nor were they engaged in taking any orders from any one terrorist leader. They bombed the Boston Marathon and are believed to have acted their own as young fanatics who had no one.
Lone Wolves and Radicalization
The fact that Lone Wolf terrorists do become radicalized raises the question of how they can be considered Lone Wolf terrorists when there are others involved in their radicalization process. They are groomed to some degree by others who spread propaganda, using online, to people they meet over social media platforms (DeCook, 2018). As Hamm and Spaaj (2015) point out, the relaxation of gun laws in the 1990s and the increase in mass shootings since that decade ended indicate a breakdown in social order and an inflammation of extremist mentalities, extremist groupthink, and extremist tendencies. Radicalization does not even have to occur on extremist websites: the news of today in the mainstream media peddles extremism, promotes tribalism, and relishes in polarization of American society. For instance, the media is constantly pushing people to either condemn President Trump or to support him no matter what (depending on what channel one is watching or what social media tweets one is reading). Radicalization occurs as a result of the overall sociological and psychological effect of these two different impulses—on the one hand to accept what one is told and on the other hand to reject it. This produces a social strain that is only resolved through extremist action in the minds of those who have no support from a social network of their own. The Columbine Shooters were loners who had no one to help them deal with their own internal radicalization. Hasan’s descent into radicalization was identified by co-workers and they alerted the FBI but the FBI never did anything to address the issue. Radicalization is as much a social phenomenon as it is a process that occurs in private. As Bandura (2018) shows, people’s cognitive functioning is impacted by media, peers and groups, and it is through a combination of the three that radicalization occurs.
Two Lone Wolf Attacks
The Orlando Nightclub shooting took place in June, 2016, and was committed by Omar Mateen at the Pulse nightclub, which was known for being a gay nightclub in Florida. Mateen did not target the club because it was a gay club but rather was simply looking for a target to attack. His motivation was the death of Abu Waheeb in Iraq, which he considered an unlawful killing, and in his radicalization he swore allegiance to the Islamic State (IS) during the attack on Pulse. Before being shot and killed by Orlando Police after a brief standoff, he announced his allegiance to IS (Doornbos, 2016). In total, Mateen killed 49 and wounded 53 more.
The 2017 Las Vegas shooting was committed by 64 year old Stephen Paddock from his hotel room in the Mandalay Bay Hotel, which overlooked the Las Vegas Strip and gave Paddock clear site of a music festival going on down on the strip. Paddock opened fire from his hotel room and killed 58 people and wounded another 413 people before killing himself in his room. His motivations were never fully revealed or understood and some suspected him of being an arms dealer and money launderer. However, based on the information provided the public, Paddock acted alone and his terrorist act was not affiliated with any known terror group. He is what one could consider a Loner.
Lone Wolves as a Terrorist Connection
Lone wolves can act as a terrorist connection, as has been shown in the numerous examples above: from the Boston Bombers to the Orlando nightclub shooting, lone wolves act alone but they can also be linked back to terror groups like Al-Qaeda or IS. They may not be receiving orders from those terror cells, but they might be in connection with terror members or leaders. Or they may simply be receiving inspiration from these groups and want to act to show their fidelity to a nation or group with which they want to identify, as the Orlando shooter did (Elmasry & el-Nawawy, 2019).
However, how these shootings and attacks are portrayed in the media will alter the way people perceive them to be linked to terrorism. The Ft. Hood shooting was downplayed as a terror attack because it occurred on an American military base by military personnel and the government wanted to keep the case in the military courts. Public attention was not wanted for this attack. However, for the Orlando shooting and the Boston Bombing, the link between these attacks and terrorism were made in the media. The terror connection could not be avoided in them. With the Las Vegas shooting, no link to terrorism was found, so the connection was never made. Thus, it stands to reason that lone wolf attacks may be linked to larger terrorism circles—but not necessarily.
Can Lone Wolf Attacks be Prevented?
Preventing Lone Wolf attacks may be possible but it depends on how willing
Americans are to work with regulators and how willing regulators are to follow up on warnings. The co-workers of Hasan alerted the FBI about his radicalization but the FBI did nothing. That was one attack that could have been prevented but was not. The agency knew this man was dangerous, yet did nothing to intervene. With the case of Paddock in Las Vegas, he flew under the radar of everyone. Very few people knew him as he was a true loner. He left behind no records of social media comments or Internet clues that would show any red flags. It would have been difficult to prevent his attack, barring some kind of scanning device in the hotel room that would have prevented him from moving so many weapons up to his hotel room. However, that would be a technological preventive measure—different from an agency intervention measure like what was needed in the case of Nidal Hasan.
In the case of the Orlando shooter, a mental health preventive measure might have helped to keep the shooter from acting out on his violent impulses. However, this would have required assistance from his own support network and it is unclear whether or not that could have happened. The fact is that preventive policing is still in its infancy and using algorithms to detect who might commit a crime in the future is a system that is still being worked out (Utset, 2016). The use of technology, the censorship of the Internet, and the screening of all social media posts may be necessary to truly try to prevent Lone Wolf terrorism from taking place—but it must be remembered that Lone Wolf terrorism existed before the rise of the Internet. The Oklahoma City bombers were Lone Wolf terrorists and their actions were not based on Internet or social media activity. They acted on their own. Still, in today’s digital media saturated age, curbing the power of the Internet to operate without regulation may be the best preventive measure that can be implemented at this point in time. Till preventive policing can be shown to work on a grand scale, it is the best option available.
Conclusion
Lone Wolf terrorism is a type of terrorism that is relatively new to the American landscape. It is also a controversial subject as some researchers believe there is no such thing as a genuine lone wolf terrorist. While it is true that some Lone Wolf terrorists do operate independently of any group or leader—like Stephen Paddock did in Las Vegas 2017—many others are inspired by or acting out of allegiance to terror cells or groups, even if they are not formal members. The Boston Bombers and the Orlando nightclub shooter are examples, as is the Ft. Hood shooter. They all were motivated by a sense of belonging to a terror group, which they identified as the good group. Lone Wolf terrorists tend to be radicalized by the Internet, but media, peers and groups are all influential in this process, which is why preventing Lone Wolf terrorism is so difficult.
References
Bandura, A. (2018). Toward a psychology of human agency: Pathways and reflections. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(2), 130-136.
Beydoun, K. A. (2017). Lone wolf terrorism: types, stripes, and double standards. Nw. UL Rev., 112, 1213.
Breed, A. & Plushnick-Masti, R. (2013). Terror act or workplace violence? Hasan trial raises sensitive issue. Retrieved from https://tucson.com/news/national/terror-act-or-workplace-violence-hasan-trial-raises-sensitive-issue/article_be513c51-a35d-5b4f-b3a0-13654f019ea6.html
Chatfield, A. T., Reddick, C. G., & Brajawidagda, U. (2015, May). Tweeting propaganda, radicalization and recruitment: Islamic state supporters multi-sided twitter networks. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research (pp. 239-249).
Costello, M., & Hawdon, J. (2018). Who are the online extremists among us? Sociodemographic characteristics, social networking, and online experiences of those who produce online hate materials. Violence and gender, 5(1), 55-60.
DeCook, J. R. (2018). Memes and symbolic violence:# proudboys and the use of memes for propaganda and the construction of collective identity. Learning, Media and Technology, 43(4), 485-504.
Doornbos, C. (2016). Transcripts of 911 calls reveal Pulse shooter's terrorist motives. Retrieved from https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/pulse-orlando-nightclub-shooting/os-911-calls-released-orlando-shooting-20170922-story.html
Elmasry, M. H., & el-Nawawy, M. (2019). Can a non-Muslim Mass Shooter be a “Terrorist”?: A Comparative Content Analysis of the Las Vegas and Orlando Shootings. Journalism Practice, 1-17.
Intel Brief. (2019). The Islamic State Will Live on Through Its Affiliates. Retrieved from https://www.thecipherbrief.com/column_article/the-islamic-state-will-live-on-through-its-affiliates
Meleagrou-Hitchens, A. (2015). Jihad In The Workplace: Looking Back On The Fort Hood Shooting. Retrieved from https://warontherocks.com/2015/09/jihad-in-the-workplace-looking-back-on-the-fort-hood-shooting/
Utset, M. A. (2016). Digital Surveillance and Preventive Policing. Conn. L. Rev., 49, 1453.
Weimann, G. (2016). Lone wolves in cyberspace. Journal of Terrorism Research, 3(2), 1-16.