Abstract
Lone wolf terrorists are those who operate alone outside the command structure of a formal terrorist organization. Famous examples of ‘lone wolves’ include Theodore Kaczynski (the now-famous ‘Unabomber’) and Anders Behring Breivik (who killed 77 individuals), but there are a host of recent examples such as Omar Mateen (who attacked a night-club in Orlando) and Dylann Roof (who killed nine African-Americans in Charleston). In fact, lone wolf terrorism is considered the major national security threat in both North America and Europe. Given this, Mark Hamm and Ramon Spaaij’s book The Age of Lone Wolf Terrorism is a welcome, and important exploration of lone wolf terrorism in the United States. In the book, they use criminological and ethnographic approaches to explore the radicalization pathways and possible identification/intervention points of lone wolves who have conducted acts of terrorism in the United States. Yet at the same time it is also a highly contentious time to release a book with ‘lone wolf’ in the title. First, researchers disagree with the term ‘wolf’, which ‘implies a high level of cunning and lethality that is often not present among these individuals’ (Schuurman et al., 2018). Many authors instead purposefully adopt the term ‘lone actor’ to remove any mysticism or connotations of cunning (e.g. Gill, 2015). But in addition to this, many now question the ‘lone-ness’ of the actors. For example, many maintain their social connections, and some degree of interaction with an extremist group, or individuals. Hence from both an operational and social perspective, lone wolves are rarely ‘lone’ (Schuurman et al., 2018). This backdrop is essential when evaluating The Age of Lone Wolf Terrorism because the fundamental question is whether Hamm and Spaaij can contribute to the increasingly complex conceptualization of lone wolves, or if their analysis remains rooted in the more mystic notion of the ‘Lone Wolf’.
First and foremost, Hamm and Spaaij deliver a broad, yet rigorous investigation of lone wolf terrorism that is built upon a strong foundation of primary source data. It is well known that the study of terrorism (especially lone wolf terrorism) suffers from a dearth of primary source data. Here, Hamm and Spaaij frame their work around a database of 123 incidents of lone wolf terrorism conducted in the United States between 1940 and mid-2016. Overall, this data collection resulted in over 2500 original data points relating to the socio-demographics of lone wolf offenders, their grievances, mental health, enablers, triggering events and capture/arrest. However, rather than simply present the quantitative statistics on lone wolf offenders (which alone is very interesting), Hamm and Spaaij develop an engaging narrative around these findings by providing a series of ‘thick descriptions’ of lone wolf offenders. Here they are able to show the factors as they occurred in the development of several lone wolves. What this means is that as well as providing an outline of the trends in lone wolf terrorism, Hamm and Spaaij are able to ground these factors in the human experience of the lone wolf. This juxtaposition of quantitative analysis and qualitative thick descriptions provides further warrant for their assertions while also ensuring that the reader is continually engaged with the manuscript. For the student (or lay) reader, the use of real-life narratives assists with understanding and recall.
After five chapters of exploring the demographics, root causes, enablers and external broadcasting patterns of lone wolves, Hamm and Spaaij tackle the more challenging question of ‘why’ by proposing a radicalization model of lone wolf terrorists based on their analysis. The authors propose a six stage (non-linear) model that a lone wolf offender may go through in their progression towards a violent lone wolf attack. This model reflects the contemporary thinking in the field; that such behaviour is not mono-causal but the result of several push and pull factors that occur (dynamically) across time. Furthermore, because it is grounded in their empirical data, each stage of their model is empirically verified. In their own words, ‘while our model is simple, it is not simplistic’ (p. 159). This model, they argue, holds most utility for those charged with identifying and intervening with potential lone wolves, in that it is a ‘heuristic device that can be used to identify indicators of radicalization, rather than a lock-step sequential model’ (p. 160). In the ensuing chapters, the authors engage in a series of case studies in which they map the stages of their model onto a lone wolf offender demonstrating both the utility of the factors and how the expression of factors can vary between cases. Finally, and in addition to tackling the ‘who’ and the ‘why’ of lone wolf terrorism, Hamm and Spaaij discuss some of the more contested issues such as how to counter lone wolf terrorism, the role of sting operations, myths vs. realities and the future of this form of extremist violence.
There are however some issues with The Age of Lone Wolf Terrorism that warrant addressing. First, and in reference to the wider ongoing debate, the book does little to assist in our understanding of ‘lone-ness’, in fact it arguably further muddies the water. For example, the definition of lone wolf terrorist provided by the authors states that they are ‘not one who conspires with others’ and are ‘solitary by nature’ (p. 4), yet many times the authors refer to Nidal Hassan (on 25 separate pages) who is known to have had email contact with Anwar al-Awlaki. Similarly, their model of radicalization includes ‘affinity with online sympathizers or extremist group’ (p. 159). Furthermore, there is a chapter on sting operations (in which an FBI agent poses as an accomplice). Sting operations de facto involve conspiracy with others. Even if that other is not a true member of an extremist network, in the lone wolves’ mind, they are not alone.
In addition to this, the authors state that their ‘primary contribution to the literature is [their] radicalization model’ (p. 9). The issue is that in many cases the presentation of the variables within the model are so diverse that they may hold little practical utility. For example, when providing support for ‘broadcasting intent’, the authors highlight how Richard Poplawski (Pittsburgh Police Shooter) wrote ‘I want to kill my ex-girlfriend, her mother, her pets, my father, people I don’t like, and in a random measure a couple of members of the Pittsburgh Police’ (p. 201, emphasis in original) (23 months before the attack), while in the case of Carlos Bledsloe (Little Rock Military Shooting), the authors identified his broadcasting of intent as simply proclaiming it is the duty of all Muslims to retaliate against events in Iraq, Abu Ghraib, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Given the diversity of presentation in many of the examples, the low-base rate of lone wolf terrorists, and the known prevalence of such narratives and threats online, the model, as it stands, will struggle to differentiate the true lone wolf from the pack.
Notwithstanding these issues, The Age of Lone Wolf Terrorism provides an important data-driven extension to our current understanding of who lone wolves are and the factors that led them to undertake the acts that they did. It is a well-researched and dynamic read that seamlessly flows between quantitative analyses and qualitative deep-dives. While the wider question of what a lone wolf is, and, crucially, what a lone wolf is not, will be left for the reader to ponder alone, they will be far more informed on the subject from having read this work.