Professors discuss recent attack in Nice, ways to prevent future terrorist acts

<p>At least 80 people were killed during a Bastille Day celebration last&nbsp;Thursday night when a large truck drove through a group of people watching fireworks in the streets of Nice, France.</p>

At least 80 people were killed during a Bastille Day celebration last Thursday night when a large truck drove through a group of people watching fireworks in the streets of Nice, France.

Following last Thursday’s attack in Nice, France, Duke professors commented on why the attack happened and what countries' next steps should be. 

During a Bastille Day celebration Thursday night, a large truck drove through a crowd of people gathered in the streets of Nice, killing at least 80 people. Last November, France suffered another terrorist attack, the largest in the country's history. Tim Nichols, visiting associate professor in the Sanford School of Public Policy, said the attacks stemmed from groups of people in France that have an increased risk of radicalization.

“What you see is more of a symptom of broader social disfunction,” he said.

Unlike America, France has areas that are not truly assimilated and are predominantly made up of people from one background, Nichols explained, adding that this results in those groups not feeling part of the larger nation. Because these people are disenchanted with living in France, they are more vulnerable to radicalization, he said. 

In order to prevent future attacks, he noted that France must validate the concerns of the disenfranchised people—such as Muslim groups—and make an effort to include them in France’s system of government.

“[The] most effective way to de-radicalize people is to make an effort to listen,” Nichols said.

He added that the grievances leading to the attacks—such as Muslim disenfranchisement and isolation—are very apparent to the French people. 

Bruce Jentleson, professor of public policy and political science, said the Nice attack stemmed from a combination of [Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel's] mental imbalance and frustration with the government. He drew a distinction between the most recent terrorist act and attacks in November and January 2015.

“They’re different in terms of what we know about who’s causing them and who the perpetrators are,” he said.

Jentleson explained that although all were terrorist attacks, the prior ones were initiated by terrorists with much closer links to ISIS than Lahbouaiej-Bouhlel had. Although the he may have had ties to ISIS, the group was less directly involved, Jentleson said. 

“There’s lot of rhetoric that when in doubt link it to ISIS, but that’s not most helpful from a policy standpoint,” he said.

He noted the difficulty of preventing attacks by individuals without explicit links to ISIS. The previous instances could have been stopped with the right intelligence, but the Nice attack stemmed from an individual with very little in terms of a criminal history. 

After 9/11, a common idea arose that it was possible to predict what kind of person would commit a terrorist act, Jentleson noted. However, now people conducting attacks are “blending a little bit of politics with their own individual problems.”

“Political motivation is a much smaller percentage,” he said.

Both professors noted that in preventing future attacks, countries will face the dilemma of balancing national security with citizens’ personal liberties.

Nichols said that after 9/11, policies allowing the gathering of criminal intelligence resulted in an “aggressive challenge” to personal freedom and that France is now in a similar situation.

Jentleson cautioned against overreacting and placing undeserved blame on certain groups of people, referring to how the U.S. violated the civil liberties of Japanese Americans during World War II.

“When you hear about cracking down on Muslims, you should take a deep breath and think of things we have done in the past,” he said.

Jentleson added that the U.S. is vulnerable to similar terrorist attacks, comparing the Nice attack and the recent shooting at an Orlando nightclub because both perpetrators had mental imbalances. To prevent an attack from happening in the U.S., it is necessary to improve mental health services and address societal issues, he said.

“In our country, I think our issues are not only about terrorism but about our own internal issues of racial tensions, and we have to deal with our internal issues and not turn everything into a question of terrorism,” Jentleson said.

However, Nichols noted that the U.S. is not as vulnerable to attacks as France because of its more robust system of security and law enforcement and more assimilated society. Especially after 9/11, Americans are more likely to report suspicious activity so proper law enforcement officials can be dispatched.

The U.S. response to the Nice attacks should be one of support, Nichols explained. He emphasized the importance of sharing intelligence and assisting France in figuring out how the attacks could have happened.

In addition, he explained that because ISIS is encouraging citizens to act out against their respective governments, the U.S. must try to make itself as attractive as possible to Muslim citizens who desire to live in a society based on freedom.

“We must continue to offer our system of government in its brightest light,” Nichols said.

Discussion

Share and discuss “Professors discuss recent attack in Nice, ways to prevent future terrorist acts” on social media.