The deliberate plowing of a truck into a group of revelers in New Orleans in the United States (US) on New Year’s Eve indicates how motivated and brutal the followers of Islamic State (IS) are. At least 14 people were killed in the attack by Shamsud Din Jabbar, the 42-year-old US army veteran who had hired the vehicle to commit the act of terror in the city’s crowded Bourbon Street.
The incident comes at a time when most of the world’s terror investigators had assumed they had broken the back of the lethal group that IS was. It confirms that enchantment with terror has come to stay despite all the efforts of counter-terror agencies. The claimed actual numbers of IS followers and sympathizers in the world may be low. But statistics are neither accurate nor germane. What is relevant is the depth and intensity of indoctrination that is directed against the young mind.
New Orleans once again demonstrates that law enforcement can never afford to relax its vigil. One determined individual is enough to cause panic and devastation. The latter’s only qualification for enlisting with the IS was his willingness to die for the cause of his religion. What kind of safety measures can we, therefore, build against such limitless focus on the outcome rather than effort? Ethics do not figure at all here.
Experience since the attack on New York’s World Trade Center twin towers, known commonly as 9/11, tells us that we cannot underestimate the prowess or venom of the modern terrorist who fights for their religion. The smartest and most well-trained law enforcement officer knows that even a tightly structured and well-conceived public safety system cannot foil attacks of the New Orleans kind. Terrorists always have the upper hand because they pack an invincible and invisible element of surprise before the act of terror. This is particularly so when the militant is a so-called lone wolf and not part of a team, as the New Orleans offender is said to be.
Criticism of security agencies for failure to prevent such an attack is often ill-founded because most recent acts of terror are the work of a sole deranged mind. A group operating in tandem is easier to infiltrate by any counterterrorist agency looking for information, but not so a madcap carrying out his design unaided by anyone else. Infiltration of a group no doubt earns enough advanced intelligence on the plans of terrorist conspiracies. That is not available to outwit a determined terrorist who acts solo and is more than willing to give up his life to achieve his end. Terrorist awareness and sophistication, combined with available technology, also pose the utmost challenge to the modern policeman.
Driving a motor vehicle recklessly into a crowded area is no new modus operandi of terror groups. Recent history is replete with several incidents of this kind. This has now become a favorite form of attack for the terrorist who is looking for a gap in security arrangements but is unable to find one. He, therefore, resorts to the desperate act of driving into a hapless crowd. The added advantage for the offender is that he is able to cause maximum damage with minimum effort. This also satisfies the craving of a sick and indoctrinated mind constantly looking for opportunities to harm society.
A study of the attacker’s profile every time an incident takes place is absorbing and is often useful to protect the community. There are commonalities between the aggressors, but they are not identical.
Generally speaking, the offender has a disturbed home that contributes to early mental aberrations leading to a fascination for terror. The New Orleans attacker was born and raised in the US. He had two college degrees, one of which gained him a fair knowledge of computers. The family was highly religious and regularly attended prayers at the local mosque. Interviewed after the incident, Jabbar’s brother was categorical that Jabbar was a quiet and gentle person and had shown no propensity to violence.
How do we then protect our fellow citizens from brutality of this kind? Are intelligence apparatuses and law enforcement forces equal to the task of ferreting out a lone adventurer determined to strike terror? These are poorly reasoned questions raised ad nauseam in public debate and newspaper columns. A credible response is that such incidents will continue to happen as long as animosity and rancour dictate international relations, and there are far too many fragile minds across the globe that believe violence is the only way to establish religious hegemony or eliminate economic inequality.
RK Raghavan is former director, CBI.The views expressed are personal
