If there were a simple solution for countering violent extremism, a solution would have been found centuries ago. Countering violent extremism successfully requires a balanced approach between security-related strategies and initiatives and those that address the underlying motivations and causes for participation in, and support of, a violent extremist organization (VEO). These strategies and initiatives need to be based on nuanced understanding of the various aspects of violent extremism—not only the environments that are likely to spawn violent extremism and sympathetic supporters, but also

It would be comforting to be able to find some constants, some footholds in our understanding of terrorism. It is, in fact, the element of mystery as to what drives people to collective violence that makes us uncomfortable -- that fills us with terror. Researchers, policy makers, those who must combat terrorism, and the public hope for some simple formula for radicalization, a program or set of programs that will prevent groups of people from deliberately targeting other people in order to meet their needs (political, economic, social, etc). There is no magic formula within this paper collection, but there are a variety of perspectives that, either in isolation or when integrated, provide new ways to think about terrorism and potentially to inform decisions that will abate this global phenomenon, not exacerbate it.

Cooperative security, stability operations and irregular warfare missions require a better understanding of the complex operational environment, notably through rich contextual understanding of the factors affecting stability. Further assessment, policy, and planning need to consider factors associated with institutional performance (community organizations, government ministries, legal structures, etc.) based on how societies emerge, develop, and function, as well as attributes that provide resiliency and flexibility.

SMA hosted a speaker session presented by Dr. Oliver Kaplan (University of Denver) and Dr. Jonathan Moyer (University of Denver) as part of its SMA UK MoD Speaker Series. Dr. Kaplan and Dr. Moyer presented their research on how the COVID-19 pandemic and its second-, third-, and fourth-order effects may increase the probability of armed internal conflict. Dr. Kaplan predicted that there will be a 56% increase in conflicts through 2022 (approximately 13 additional conflicts), most of which will be concentrated in Africa, South America, and/or Central Asia. Additionally, Dr. Kaplan stated that different states will experience instability for different reasons and with different causal processes. He further explained that COVID-19 has provided a challenging environment of increased poverty, weakened states, and health issues that makes armed conflict more likely and exacerbates the effects of current ongoing conflicts. Dr. Kaplan then presented his and Dr. Moyer’s findings on overall post-pandemic global fragility from 2020-2022, highlighting that countries experiencing armed conflict in 2018 will continue to remain unstable due to the aftermath of COVID-19. Their findings also showed an increased probability of conflicts igniting in certain regions (Africa, in particular) as a result of the pandemic, all of which were calculated using a political instability task force dataset that categorizes revolutionary and ethnic wars. Next, Dr. Moyer discussed the model he and Dr. Kaplan used in their research­—the International Futures Model—in further detail. Through his research, Dr. Moyer identified macro-level indicators that anticipate internal conflicts, including GDP, mixed regimes, states discrimination, and trade. These indicators play into the International Futures Model, which simulates global development at a national level and displays how long-term development patterns work. The model that Dr. Moyer displayed during this brief shows the dynamic effects across health, government, and demographic systems, while contrasting pre-COVID and post-COVID growth rates, as well. He then emphasized this tool’s usefulness in broadening a state’s perspective and drawing it away from narrow probabilistic models in order to better understand and anticipate the drivers of state fragility. Next, Dr. Kaplan expanded on the quantitative part of his and Dr. Moyer’s research and the results of 50 cases studies they examined on fragility conflicts. Their results concluded that “economic stability and challenges” was the most frequently cited explanation for state fragility, along with “horizontal inequality” and “international intervention.” Dr. Kaplan also cited some real-world examples to show how his and Dr. Moyer’s model can be useful when analyzing various conflicts, including the ongoing crisis in Yemen and the recent explosion in Lebanon. To conclude, Dr. Kaplan provided specific policy recommendations for how to mitigate the pandemic now and prevent conflicts in the future, including funding the World Health Organization (WHO) to address first-order effects, tailoring COVID-19 response to higher-risk countries, and addressing “sparks” that could ignite COVID-related conflicts before they occur.

SMA hosted a speaker session presented by Dr. Yaneer Bar-Yam (New England Complex Systems Institute [NECSI]) as a part of its SMA General Speaker Series. Dr. Bar-Yam first stated that decisions matter. Rapid response planning and determining how to execute a plan quickly is best understood from a military perspective, according to Dr. Bar-Yam. He then focused on the comparison commonly made between the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) and the common flu. He stated that this comparison paints the wrong picture; the common flu has a fatality rate of about 0.1%, and the number of individuals hospitalized is very small. COVID-19, however, has a 20% hospitalization rate, a 2-4% fatality rate at minimum, and 10% of those infected require ventilators. Dr. Bar-Yam then explained that mild cases of COVID-19 aren’t particularly mild. Moreover, it often takes several days—sometimes weeks—for a case to become severe and require hospitalization. Dr. Bar-Yam claimed that the outbreak in the US is likely to be more similar to that of Italy than that of China and South Korea. He stated that our hospital system will become overloaded, just as Italy’s has. Hospitals will quickly reach capacity as new severe cases arrive daily, military equipment will be required to supplement hospital’s equipment, and hospital staff will become overloaded. Consequently, the US may begin to see a fatality rate more comparable to Italy’s 8% if no immediate action is taken.

Security and privacy aren’t dichotomous or conflicting concerns—the solution lies in developing and integrating advanced information technologies for counterterrorism along with privacy-protection technologies to safeguard civil liberties. Coordinated policies can help bind the two to their intended use.

This book explores both counter-terrorism and enabling policy dimensions of emerging information technologies in national security.

September 11, 2001 might have been just another day if the U.S. intelligence agencies had been better equipped with information technology, according to the report of Congress’s Joint Inquiry into the events leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks.