The horrendous ramming of pedestrians on a densely packed New Orleans street hours into New Year’s Day celebrations was a revolting display of senseless violence. The attack using a truck, which killed 14 people and injured dozens of others, was quickly categorized as an act of terrorism inspired by the Islamic State terrorist group, whose propaganda has proved quite effective in capturing the minds of individuals who are alienated, aggrieved or going through some sort of trauma.
Federal authorities are investigating to determine why the attacker, Shamsud-Din Jabbar, did what he did, whether he had any accomplices and whether police may have missed any clues. We already know quite a lot. Jabbar served in the U.S. military, was deployed to Afghanistan and served there from 2009 to 2010. We know he had trouble adjusting to civilian life after he was discharged. His personal life was a mess:He was twice divorced and separated from his third wife, and he was tens of thousands of dollars in debt. The FBI also said Jabbar traveled to New Orleans twice before, apparently to surveil the Bourbon Street area.
Some observers, however, are jumping to too many conclusions. Because Jabbar declared his allegiance to Islamic State, terrorism analysts and pundits have used the New Orleans attack to put forth a number of frivolous claims about terrorism and questioned America’s capacity to prevent it. We’re being led to believe that Islamic State is resurgent again, that terrorism and the gross ideology the group represents are ever-present, and that Jabbar’s strike in the heart of New Orleans shows that Washington needs a more aggressive counterterrorism strategy.
Author
Events on Counterterrorism
