Domestic Consequences of US Counter-Terrorism Efforts: Making it Harder to Prevent Homegrown Terrorism

Abstract

This paper begins by recounting concerns, raised by various American psychologists regarding psychological consequences of US counterterrorism policies following the attacks of September 11, 2001 (9/11.) Predictions made by a task force created by the American Psychological Association to consider the likely social effects of US counterterrorism policies have proved accurate. These include not only fear, but widespread crippling panic resulting from vague warnings and lack of suggested actions; discrimination, resulting from increased emphasis on in-group vs. out-group identities; hate crimes against those perceived as members of out-groups, and lack of tolerance for antiwar perspectives. Recent, increasingly radical, changes in policy, such as widespread surveillance of US citizens' actions and communications by various US agencies, have led to more dire consequences, with many now concerned that the US is at risk of becoming a police state. The combined and interactive effects of earlier and more recent changes in US counterterrorism policies have caused serious, sometimes terrible, consequences. This paper explains how these consequences have become part of a vicious circle: frightened, passive, and unable to collaborate in rational attempts to manage the threat of terrorism, citizens have not begun to consider how to prevent future instances of homegrown terrorism.Keywords: Terrorism, Counter-terrorism, United States, Social Psychology, Unintended Consequences.A well-regarded body of social psychology research can be used to predict how communities will react to shared experiences of war, trauma, disaster, fear, conflict, and the perception of others as insiders or as outsiders [1]. This body of research was initially inspired by the wish to understand how such horrendous events as the Holocaust and World War II could have occurred. The work, which is of great value to society, continued to develop when later wars and conflicts were studied [2]. Following the 9/11 attacks, the American Psychological Association (APA) formed a task force to use this body of research and engage in new research to study and comment on the government's responses to the terrorist attacks. Members of the task force on the "Psychological Effects of Efforts to Prevent Terrorism" observed early effects and predicted likely longer term, unintended, adverse outcomes of counterterrorism policies. The goal was for APA to be able to advise the government on ways to prevent or at least reduce potential adverse outcomes of counterterrorism policies, while continuing to try to prevent further terrorist attacks. In an unanticipated turn of events that foreshadowed APA's uncritical support for US counterterrorism actions, the report of the Task Force was detoured, delayed, and then voted down by the APA Board of Directors and by the APA Council of Representatives, and subsequently shelved [3].