Terrorism and other forms of violence could increase in the West through 2021. Several high-profile terrorist attacks occurred in Germany, France, and Austria in 2020, and the threat of additional attacks will likely come from radicalized individuals inspired by various political motivations, rather than from major organized groups. Individual aggressors limit the scale of the threat, but also increase the challenges faced by the security forces attempting to combat them. The profile of the typical terrorist is evolving. In recent decades, the global community has grown accustomed to elaborate, multi-phased violence targeting civilians and planned by organized terrorist structures, discreet networks, or cells. Extremist violence could now be perpetrated by any individual, with or without direct connections to extremist groups, who could choose targets at random, moments before the attack. With a growing variety of tactics being used to commit terrorism, and through the help of online media platforms, radicalization is now taking many forms: by groups or lone actors, from both ends of the political spectrum, violent or nonviolent, and motivated by a wide range of political, religious, social, economic, and ethnic drivers.
The Jan. 6 storming of the US Capitol, which resulted in the deaths of five people, as well acts of violence by loosely labelled anti-fascist “Antifa” groups, such as attacks on police and political offices in Portland, Ore., Jan. 20, can be seen as a manifestation of deep societal polarization in recent years. However, an increase in political parties and movements perceived as holding extremist views does not necessarily correlate with an increase in violence. We must therefore examine those groups and individuals who are willing to engage in violence to further their political views, as extremist political parties and other actors generally use nonviolent methods to achieve their goals. Violent acts pose more immediate and physical threats to the public and therefore typically generate the most public attention, though the spectrum of extremist activities can also include nonviolent actions. White powder attacks, for example, cause significant localized disruptions but do not necessarily cause harm; anarchist-driven vandalism targeting businesses could also be considered nonviolent extremist activity. While fatal mass shootings and stabbings are among the more severe manifestations, various, less impactful activities can also be considered violent and extremist in nature.
Social Media Can Enable Extremism
Across all ideologies, modern technology enables extremists to stay easily connected through social media, frequently via encrypted communication. People engaging in these communities often do not require a hierarchical structure to function and are therefore likely to act on their own initiative, which makes it more challenging for security forces to detect them. Additionally, they often have a solid understanding of how to produce improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and greater knowledge-sharing for effective planning and execution of attacks. The IED capability was demonstrated in devices found at both the Democratic and Republican National Committee headquarters in Washington, DC, on January 6. The willingness to act alone was demonstrated by the November 2, 2020 attack in Vienna, when a single attacker killed four people and injured 23 others in the city center. Authorities believe the Vienna gunman acted without any direction from organized groups.
Importantly, it is not only actual attacks that can be disruptive to business and cause apprehension, but the mere threat of attacks can have similar repercussions. Such threats, including bomb scares and hoax incidents involving white powder, are deniable and do not have equally serious consequences as actually carrying out an attack; as such, potential actors are less likely to be deterred from these methods. As security forces are compelled to treat all possible threats as genuine until they can be proven otherwise, disruption is highly likely even in the absence of a serious threat. In addition, such threats can deplete a company’s or organization’s security resources and further expose vulnerabilities. Online radicalization also allows for structures of extremist groups made up of many individual actors; therefore, there is no centralized governance that can be eliminated. This makes extremist groups and activities more difficult to eradicate.
Economic Consequences from COVID-19 Will Likely Further Divide Society
As political polarization, the economic fallback from the COVID-19 pandemic, and the consequential lockdowns further divide society, an uptick in extremist violence, including terrorist attacks, is possible. This is particularly the case among groups and individuals who experience real or perceived marginalization, though this is now increasingly possible from individuals with a range of disparate political, religious, cultural, or activist backgrounds. The political polarization culminating in the storming of the U.S. Capitol may spark further contesting of elections and attempts to overthrow democratically elected governments. The steep economic downturn caused by the COVID-19 pandemic could mobilize people against government-imposed lockdowns, as they become more and more frustrated. This will likely be further worsened by the proliferation of misinformation, and increasing mistrust in media, government institutions, and what certain groups view as an increasingly rigged economic system in favor of large multinational corporations.
