MSNBC. Looks like an interesting program; McVeigh established a three year correspondence with the liberal author and activist Gore Vidal, which Vidal wrote about in a revealing essay in 2001.
Oklahoma: the day homegrown terror hit America, by Ed Vulliamy. The Observer (UK), Sunday 11 April 2010.
When war veteran Timothy McVeigh bombed a federal building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people, the US was stunned. Why did Americans like him hate their country? And, as the rightwing militias rise again, what lessons does that fateful day hold?
Two contemporaneous subject-matter related events do not necessarily a conspiracy make - they can be explained by parallelism.
For MSNBC (exemplified by the Keith and Rachel commentary shows if you watch them - I do; also regularly listened to Radio Moscow back in the day), this year is the year of the Domestic Terrorist (non-Muslim species), with SME commentary by Mark Potok (Director, Intelligence Project) of the Southern Poverty Law Center(Wiki and official site; first menu item is "Fifteen Years Later: A Grim Anniversary in Oklahoma" by Potok with a plug for MSNBC). So, MSNBC's production of a Timothy McVeigh documentary (to view Monday) is not surprising since McVeigh is the "go to guy" for proponents of an all pervasive, right-wing Domestic Terrorist threat.
Nor is the testimony of Robert Mueller that surprising since he is in the process of trying to enhance the FBI's budget. Still the tack he has chosen to take is rather surprising to this armchair observer: Fox, Mueller: Home-Grown Extremists as Threatening as Al Qaeda; UK Times, Domestic terrorists as big a threat as al-Qaeda, says FBI head Robert Mueller.
From the Times (same at Fox):
I'm used to exaggeration by elected and appointed politicians (especially when it comes to filling their favorite rice bowl). However, this piece by Mueller seems a bit too much if taken literally (yup, don't take him literally). If these DVNSAs (Domestic Violent Non-State Actors) are as much of a threat of AQ, can we then expect drone attacks (and other direct actions) on their leadership and on their "affiliated groups" ?Fifteen years after the Oklahoma City bombing, the spectre of domestic terrorism has returned to haunt the Obama Administration, with a warning from the FBI that “home-grown and lone-wolf extremists” now represent as serious a threat as al-Qaeda and its affiliates.
The warning, from the FBI Director, Robert Mueller, came as the former President Clinton drew parallels between the Oklahoma City tragedy and a recent upsurge in anti-government rhetoric, while American television audiences heard Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber, describe the “absolute rage” that drove him to plan an attack that killed 168 men, women and children.
An FBI spokesman told The Times yesterday that Mr Mueller was referring to right-wing extremist groups and anti-government militias, as well as American Islamists, in his testimony to the Senate committee that must approve the FBI’s $8.3 billion (£5.4 billion) budget.
Last month federal agents arrested nine members of a Christian militia based in Michigan, calling itself the Hutaree. They have been charged with plotting to murder local police with a stash of guns, knives and grenades.
From my armchair, all of this appears to be part of an effort (not necessarily orchestrated) to shift some dirt from very extreme right-wing groups to less right-wing groups (e.g., the Tea Party folks who to me seem more libertarian), and eventually to center-right groups and folks (NRA and JMM, for example). I don't like the tone of all this rhetoric, which has aspects of a PsyOp (of the grey kind).
Perhaps, the MSNBC documentary will shed some light on that aspect of the subject. However, the fates of pool scheduling have intervened; and tomorrow nite, we (Monte Carlo I) face off with them (Monte Carlo II) for the league championship. So, I'll have to pick up the MSNBC program on its rerun.
Regards
Mike
With the recent shooting in Colorado Springs targeting Planned Parenthood, I am interested in discussing small war(s) in the U.S., or even if that concept is applicable to low-intensity conflict in the country. This issue was broached in 2012 with a Small Wars article that led to some national attention (it is humorous to me that it was widely condemned though armed gunmen have since challenged the federal government).
Statistics are difficult to include since it would have to be drawn from multiple databases. Starting with the Global Terrorism Database would be good, and it lists 256 attacks in the U.S. between 2001 and 2014, of which 250 were by domestic groups. We probably could include a number of attacks against police officers and law enforcement. Other incidents, such as the Bundy Ranch standoff, can be read as a part of this topic.
In looking over the distance of American history, there seems to be an on-going ebb and flow of a number of small war(s) that mix and match with each other, sometimes spilling over into violence, and sometimes fought overtly.
- What makes the U.S. particularly successful at home in suppressing violent organizations (i.e. the Ku Klux Klan)? Or, similarly, what makes violent groups in the U.S. particularly ineffective?
When I last looked at the statistics, the number of attacks has declined significantly since the 1970s, although the number of groups (particularly right-wing groups) appears to have proliferated. Notably absent are domestic Islamist groups.
- What are some of the ideological dimensions of small war(s) in the U.S.?
- What are some of the economic, social, and political causes?
I am always drawn to the example of the Russian Revolution - particularly, the years leading up to it from about 1895 when the failure(s) of local Russian governance became explicit and profound. A combination of social and economic forces led to ideological revolution, industrialization, famine, and repression, producing whirlwind campaigns of terrorism against the state and state retaliation.
There had been some discourse regarding the application of counterinsurgency tactics to street gangs. But I think that conversation is misplaced for the following reason: street gangs by and large do not have a political program nor desire to construct a counter-state, notwithstanding the revolutionary heritage of some gangs.
When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles. - Louis Veuillot
The Black Panthers and The Weather Underground /The Weathermen were the only true modern examples that I can think of that actually wanted to overthrow the legitimate government of the United States.
Perhaps, but other groups have more limited objectives. The objectives of war do not have to be unlimited. Some war objectives may be focused on establishing a separate state. Some may be focused on a specific ethic group. Others may conduct attacks in hope of shaping U.S. foreign policy. The concept of war is not limited to state actors or massive military employment. There is a wide spectrum of war that we often fail to appreciate.
I have some of their material in a foot locker somewhere. If I can't find it online I'll dig it up. I think I still have a copy of the anarchist cookbook also, along with assorted manifestos. A lot of it is still relevant of course.
Previous threads which have touched upon this issue are:
1. Starting in 2009 DHS Report: Rightwing Extremism, with 36 posts and 13k views:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ead.php?t=7094
2. From 2007 Terrorism in the USA:threat & response, with 442 posts and 118k views:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ead.php?t=8828
3. From 2010-2013 is this possibly relevant, closed thread In The USA: the Next Revolution, with 515 post and 70k views:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ad.php?t=11147
davidbfpo
Slap,
What do you mean by "true modern examples"? I would classify right-wing separatists (Christian Identity, sovereign citizens, et al) as groups that would like to overthrow the United States government. Most of the left-wing groups, except radical environmentalists, are now defunct.
Given the size and diversity of the U.S., America has weathered crisis fairly well. Although there have been a number of violent attacks every year against soft targets, I think the most concerning recent episode was the Bundy Ranch standoff which was a direct challenge to federal authority. The combination of discontent and widespread availability of arms would seem to suggest more incidents like this would take place. Why not? What makes the U.S. successful in suppressing these kinds of movements?
When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles. - Louis Veuillot
1-Modern means in my lifetime... that I have either experienced directly or indirectly.
2- I don't agree with your examples because nobody remembers the difference between a Rebellion and a Revolution! One wants to change a policy or law, the other wants to change an entire form of Government. Thats why GWOT is such nonsense.
3-I do agree that there are many who would LIKE to overthrow the government but few who actually TRY to overthrow the Government which the Panthers and Weatherman did. Google armed takeover of the California Legislature by Black Panthers....that is a Revolutionary act!!! Goggle Weathermen blowing up Police Stations, also went after National Guard Armories to obtain Military weapons....another Revolutionary act.
4-The reason most fail is the same reason Martin Luther King believed. Most white people are not racist and are not inherently unfair, in the end we are pretty sane and reasonably so these temporary flair ups die out, just as MLK believed and wrote about. However certain groups such as the KKK were the only ones to truly worry about. Same for the Panthers....the Weathermen now that is a differant story.
This passage struck me as applying here, although the theme is not small war(s) in the USA:Link:https://www.lawfareblog.com/routiniz...rorism-americaFirst, the American mass media, and as a result, the American public, simply does not have the attention span to grant a fringe ideology the time it needs to have a significant, long-term effect on the national conversation after only a single event. This is not ideal for a lone-wolf shooter whose goal is to draw attention to his political or social cause. As solo-actors, they lack a support structure for follow on attacks or media releases, which are essential to a coherent political terrorism strategy.
davidbfpo
After two surveys in 2010 the author writes today:Link:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ent-heres-why/Although most people opposed violence, a significant minority (ranging from 5-14 percent) agreed with each violent option, and 10-18 percent expressed indifference about violence in politics. This implies that millions of ordinary Americans endorse the general idea of violence in politics.
(Later) Although politics will always be contentious, my research suggests that combative and even violent political rhetoric can make some Americans see violence as an appropriate means to an end.
davidbfpo
This is likely true of all societies (and the rates are likely higher in societies without a liberal democratic tradition, maybe a little lower in those with less of the American "cowboy" ethos, but certainly not zero).
The crucial point is this: all our noble lies notwithstanding, the maintenance of liberal democratic values is an elite conspiracy (and a good one). If the elite cannot police its members effectively (for example, if the elite is not very coherent/lacks asabiya, or loses coherence amidst the temptations of populism) then demagogues can mobilize a lot of violence even in previously healthy societies.
It may be that this elite coherence is falling apart in Western societies.Maybe?
Why? most likely due to deeper structural reasons (everything decays, eventually). Maybe partly because a significant section of the intellectual elite has lost faith in classical liberalism (and is unable to articulate a workable superior alternative); this would be the section of the intelligentsia that has fully absorbed postmodernism, postmarxism and other fashionable ideologies that reject classical liberalism as an imperialist plot or a farce, etc etc. Partly because the leading right-of-center party has meanwhile endorsed or encouraged a lot of populist nonsense and then lost control of the narrative (the current Republican party?). Who knows.
People with better academic grounding in these matters can surely come up with better theories and descriptions, but something dangerous may well be going on.
On the other hand, I may just be running around saying "the sky is falling" well before the blessed firmament actually begins to crack.
I don't really think it IS falling, yet. But I do have my doubts at times.
https://storify.com/omarali50/trump-...-window-part-2
I'm currently reading Days of Rage, which is about the Weather Underground. Two points stick out to me:
1) First, the racial component. According to interviews of WU leaders, their main object was violent revolution against white supremacy. The author traces their ideological history through black militants, finally ending in an uneasy alliance with the Black Panthers. In looking back across American history, virtually all (excepting, probably, the anarchist wave of violence) militant organizations (right and left) had race at or very near the center of their program. The KKK was arguably the most successful, having wrested back political control in the South after a campaign of violence and terrorism.
2) The WU were amateurs who had an intellectual affinity for violence and terrorism, but had a bourgeois rejection against it in practice and were incredibly unsophisticated about their operations. It seemed almost as a privileged interest in terrorism rather than revolutionary commitment. In a society as large and materially wealthy as the U.S. it's probably difficult to make any serious pitches to commit oneself to revolutionary violence.
When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles. - Louis Veuillot
Slap,
Which part about number one do you think is inaccurate?
When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles. - Louis Veuillot
The part about white supremacy. The Panthers were actively recruiting and forming alliances with white people. Panther Bobby Lee in pafticular was having great success in thd Chicago area.
IMO the Weatherman were and still are closer to a Charles Manson style murder cult than a revolutionary movement, largely financed with rich kid's daddy's money!
Bookmarks