New Orleans attack intensifies watch against US terrorism, political violence
New Year’s Day attacks on busy entertainment districts in New Orleans and Las Vegas not only struck symbolic American targets but also confirmed the gravity of official warnings that risks from political violence are rising.
Even if they turn out to be separate attacks by individuals, experts say the dramatic acts at the dawn of a new year, and within weeks of a new U.S. presidency, signal an increasingly complex set of dangers for Americans.
The growing use of vehicles as weapons, a seemingly expanding set of domestic and international grievances, and the embrace by some Americans of violence as acceptable political currency are part of a changing threat matrix for American cities.
Why We Wrote This
New Year’s Day attacks show a changing threat matrix for U.S. cities, amid the rising use of vehicles as weapons, a seemingly expanding set of domestic and international grievances, and the embrace by some Americans of political violence.
“We’re seeing incrementally and materially a diversification of the terror threat relating to not just ideology but also tactics, instrumentality, and how these attacks are organized,” says Brian Levin, director of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University, San Bernardino. “In these attacks it appears we have ideology, psychological or situational distress, and then revenge or personal vengeance – it’s a diverse threat matrix.
“We’re in such a fertile environment because aggression is now considered currency with regard to politics, and it’s mirrored in violent conflicts that we see around the world,” he adds.
Two events, both with deadly intent
In New Orleans, in the early hours of Wednesday morning, a man drove a truck into large crowds gathered on the city’s famous Bourbon Street. The city was crowded for New Year’s celebrations and a college football playoff, and the attack killed 14 people and injured another 30, according to authorities.
The driver of the truck was identified as Shamsud-Din Jabbar, a U.S. citizen in his 40s who lived in the Houston area. He was killed after engaging in a shootout with police.
Hours later, in Las Vegas, a Tesla Cybertruck laden with fuel canisters and firework mortars exploded in front of the Trump International Hotel. The driver died and seven people were injured, according to authorities. The driver has been identified as Matthew Livelsberger, a Colorado resident in his 30s. The Cybertruck is an iconic product of the automaker founded by tech billionaire Elon Musk, a high-profile supporter of President-elect Donald Trump, whose real estate empire includes the Las Vegas hotel and who will assume office later this month.
The New Orleans attacker claimed in social media videos to have been inspired by the Islamic State – a transnational radical Islamist terror group – President Joe Biden said. Authorities say they found a flag representing the group tied to the truck’s tow hitch. They also found explosives in the vehicle and the surrounding area.
In a press conference Thursday, the FBI and New Orleans police said that all their evidence suggests the attacker acted alone. The New Orleans attack is being investigated as an act of terrorism, and the FBI said it is working through a Joint Terrorism Task Force to determine if the Las Vegas explosion was an act of terrorism, The Washington Post reported.
A search for motives
Authorities have been investigating whether there could be any relation between the two events, but so far no connection has emerged.
Still, there are some similarities between the two men involved. The New Orleans attack also shares commonalities with recent domestic terror attacks in the United States and overseas.
Both men rented their trucks through Turo, a peer-to-peer car rental marketplace, and both men have experience in the U.S. military. Mr. Jabbar spent over a decade in the U.S. Army and U.S. Army Reserve, serving as a human resources and information technology specialist and deploying to Afghanistan in 2009 and 2010, the Houston Chronicle reported. Master Sergeant Livelsberger, meanwhile, was an active-duty soldier who served in the U.S. Army since 2006, including in Special Forces. He was on approved leave when he rented the truck, according to Pentagon officials quoted by The Associated Press. He appeared to have died by self-inflicted gunshot before the explosion.
Whether the attacks were related or not, both targets may speak volumes about the attackers’ political intent and thought processes.
Authorities are still investigating the motives, but for example, ”In Las Vegas, it could be a critique or grievance about the merger of ... tech billionairism with governmental power,” says David Schanzer, director of the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina. In his view, “This was a very intentional kind of attack – to rent this particular car and blow it up” in front of a Trump Organization-owned hotel. And potentially in New Orleans, “In terms of Islamist ideology, it’s about sin, debauchery, drinking – a very symbolic target to lash out at American excess and immorality.”
Defending cities against vehicle attacks
A recent study found that vehicle-ramming attacks have increased since 2010, with over 60 attacks in cities including London, New York, Berlin, and now New Orleans, acts that killed over 240 people and injured more than 1,000. On Dec. 20, an attacker smashed a car into a crowd in Magdeburg, Germany.
Cities, including New Orleans, have responded by using concrete barriers, sometimes temporary, to prepare for entertainment events. New Orleans was in the process of installing such bollards to prepare for next month’s Super Bowl when the attack occurred. Such preparations require balancing safety requirements with the accessibility that is integral to city parks and squares.
Attacks by lone individuals are also more difficult to prevent than larger conspiracies involving multiple actors, experts say.
“We don’t have an X-ray for a man’s soul,” says Brian Michael Jenkins, an analyst at the Rand Corp. “It’s much more difficult to see what an individual is planning.”
Is extremism on the rise in military?
The twin incidents put a new spotlight on radicalization in the nation’s military ranks.
One study found that, each year since 2011, an average of just over 40 people with U.S. military backgrounds have committed crimes related to extremist beliefs, up from about seven per year between 1990 and 2010. About 16% of those criminally charged in the Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol riot were military or ex-military.
Other studies have concluded that the share of extremists and support for extremism are no larger in the U.S. military than in the public at large. Indeed, the Pentagon has been winding down a post-Jan. 6 effort to root out extremists in the military, given the many gray areas such an effort revealed.
“I don’t subscribe to the idea that there are problems of extremism in the military,” says 20-year U.S. Army veteran Danny Davis, director of the graduate certificate in homeland security at Texas A&M University. “Not that there aren’t issues,” he adds. “But I could show you examples from any sector of society who have used terror tactics.”
Over the past year, FBI Director Christopher Wray, who is set to resign at the end of the Biden administration, has warned of elevated threats of international terrorism, largely tied to the war in Gaza. He told The Associated Press in August that he was “hard pressed to think of a time in my career where so many different kinds of threats are all elevated at once.”
The general challenge is not a new one, however. Laura Dugan, a sociologist and terrorism expert at the Ohio State University, says the key is what choices the public makes.
“Do we want to live in a police state and be safe? Or do we want to not live in a police state and then take the risks of things like this?” Professor Dugan asks. “We’re not going to be 100% secure from attacks, we’re just not. ... But I personally don’t think it’s worth living in fear, either.”
