New U.S. counterterror strategy focuses on drug cartels but omits right-wing extremism

Key Concepts

• Counterterrorism Strategy: The U.S. government’s 16-page policy document outlining identified threats and tactical approaches.
• Narcoterrorism: The intersection of drug trafficking organizations and terrorist tactics.
• Reciprocal Radicalization: The phenomenon where the rise of one extremist ideology (e.g., far-right) triggers a reactionary rise in an opposing ideology (e.g., far-left).
• Kinetic Approach: A military-focused strategy emphasizing lethal force and direct combat over diplomatic or social interventions.
• Soft Power: The use of economic, diplomatic, and cultural influence to address the root causes of radicalization.
• Force Multipliers: Technologies (AI, 3D printing, drones) that enhance the capabilities and reach of terrorist organizations.

---

1. Overview of the U.S. Counterterrorism Strategy

The U.S. government released a 16-page memorandum outlining its updated counterterrorism strategy. The document identifies three primary threat categories:

• Narcoterrorists and Transnational Gangs: Groups like the Sinaloa Cartel and MS-13.
• Legacy Islamist Terrorists: Traditional jihadist groups.
• Violent Left-Wing Extremists: Defined in the memo as groups with anti-American, anarchist, and "radically pro-transgender" ideologies.

Key Critique: Colin Clarke of The Soufan Center characterizes the document as a "worldview" rather than a functional strategy. He notes that while it correctly addresses hostage recovery, weapons of mass destruction (WMD) acquisition, and jihadist threats, it is heavily criticized for being partisan, apolitical in name but political in practice, and lacking in substantive, data-driven methodology.

2. Analysis of Identified Threats

• Narcoterrorism: The strategy frames drug cartels as terrorist threats. Clarke argues this is a misclassification; these groups are primarily motivated by profit, not political ideology. He warns that labeling criminal gangs as terrorists "muddles the picture," potentially diverting finite law enforcement resources away from actual political terrorism.
• Left-Wing Extremism: The memo highlights left-wing violence but notably omits right-wing extremist groups. Clarke points out that this is a significant oversight, as U.S. government research indicates that right-wing extremists have been responsible for the majority of domestic violent attacks in recent years (e.g., Pittsburgh, El Paso, Buffalo).
• Reciprocal Radicalization: Clarke explains that the rise in far-left violence is often a reaction to the growth of the far-right. By focusing exclusively on one side of the ideological spectrum, the strategy is viewed as "cherry-picking" rather than a comprehensive security assessment.

3. Methodologies and Tactical Approaches

• Kinetic vs. Soft Power: The strategy relies heavily on a "kinetic" approach—a military-centric philosophy of "finding and killing" threats.
• Omission of Soft Power: The document ignores traditional American "soft power" (e.g., USAID, governance support, border security assistance). Clarke argues that cutting funding for these programs—which address the structural drivers of radicalization—is a strategic error.
• Technological Engagement: The memo acknowledges that terrorists are using emerging technologies as force multipliers, specifically:
  • 3D Printing: For weapon manufacturing.
  • Artificial Intelligence (AI): For operational efficiency.
  • Unmanned Aerial Systems (Drones): For tactical strikes.
  • Cryptocurrency and Encrypted Platforms: For recruitment and radicalization.

4. Expert Perspective and Conclusion

Colin Clarke emphasizes that the strategy risks repeating the failures of the post-9/11 "Global War on Terror." He warns that a purely kinetic approach creates a "Whack-a-Mole" scenario where the U.S. may inadvertently create more terrorists than it eliminates.

Significant Statement:

"If you think of the Global War on Terrorism, we deal with the old adage of: are we creating more terrorists than we are killing? And it becomes a game of Whack-a-Mole. We tried it for two decades and it did not work. It backfired spectacularly." — Colin Clarke, Executive Director of The Soufan Center.

Synthesis: The new U.S. counterterrorism strategy is criticized for being overly militaristic, politically biased, and conceptually flawed. By misclassifying criminal organizations as terrorists and ignoring the documented threat of right-wing extremism, the strategy fails to provide a balanced, intelligence-driven framework. The abandonment of soft-power initiatives in favor of purely kinetic operations is viewed by experts as a regression to failed policies that ignore the root causes of global and domestic radicalization.