The Boston Marathon Bombings:

Domestic Terrorism at America’s Oldest Race

Ashley Smith

26 March 2015

Conflict and Crisis Management

The Boston Marathon Bombings are a significant case study concerning both critical

incident management as well as domestic terrorism. Addressing both areas of interests, there are

a number of beneficial aspects to the protocols employed, as well as areas that require

improvement. To begin, thoroughly recounting the events of April 15, 2013 will provide the

basis for analysis. Understanding the timeline of events and what actions were taken by the

perpetrators and authorities will establish a foundation for critical analysis. Throughout this

assessment, the event will be considered in terms of critical incident response and management

and will include important concepts concerning this discipline. Applying the Tier Classification

System as well as the Phases of Crisis Management to the Boston Marathon Bombings offers a

comprehensive evaluation in terms of crisis management while leading to recommendations in

protocol and response tactics. In addition to considering the importance of critical incident

response and management, evaluating this event in terms of domestic terrorism is essential.

Understanding the ideology that led the bombers to commit this act of terror is an indispensible

component of deconstructing an attack. Finally, after addressing the aforementioned aspects of

the Boston Marathon Bombings, a comprehensive debriefing and critical analysis will

consolidate research and assessment into concise recommendations.

Understanding the Events

The Boston Marathon is the oldest organized annual marathon in the United States and is

held on Patriots’ Day to “commemorate the American Revolutionary War Battles of Lexington

and Concord” (Ray, 2014). Holding the race on this holiday, commemorating these battles, is

especially significant to Boston’s history, as a small number of colonists in the Boston area were

able to defeat the extensively trained and armed British troops. Furthermore, these battles signify

the beginning of the Revolutionary War, an event that began the rise of the United States into a

leading world nation. Spanning over twenty six miles, this 117 year old tradition was attended by

“hundreds of thousands of spectators” and included over twenty six thousand runners (Ray,

2014).

Considering the lengthy history of the marathon, as well as the high level of public

interest and participation in the event, city officials and urban planning committees had

developed historically sound security protocols. Despite the measures in place, the Boston

Marathon of 2013 was attacked, leaving three dead and over two hundred and sixty people

wounded (History, 2015). The attacks transpired on April 15, 2013 nearly five hours into the race

two explosions occurred within seconds of one another at 2:49pm (Morrison & O’Leary, 2015).

The bombs were placed and detonated on Boylston Street, near the finish line of the marathon

(CNN Library, 2015). Following the explosion, emergency personnel responded incredibly

quickly, transforming medical tents into mobile triage centers, allowing for immediate aid to be

applied to those injured in the blast (Biddinger et.al, 2013). Emergency medical personnel were

already standing by in different stages of the race, due to the physical nature of the event and

opportunity for injury. Though a fraction of the overall medical service staff, these responders

were able to begin immediately treating patients. Breaking protocol, emergency medical workers

did not wait until the scene was cleared before attending to the injured, likely one of the reasons

for the high survival rate (Levine, 2014). While medical personnel prepared patients for

transport, federal authorities assisted Boston police officers in crown control and incident

response.

Two hours after the detonation, reports surfaced of a suspect being held in custody

claiming he was injured and under police supervision at the hospital. Throughout the evening

and overnight, multi-organizational teams worked to collect evidence and piece the improvised

explosive devices (IED) back together, a daunting task considering the reported crime scene

spanned fifteen square blocks (Ray,2014). On April 19, 2013, police located the suspects by

means of public assistance as well as an informant and engaged in a fire exchange with Tamerlan

Tsarnaev, ultimately resulting in his death. After door-to-door sweeps of the suspected hiding

area, Watertown, a citizen ultimately discovered Dzhokhar Tsarnaev hiding in his boat under the

protective cover. A nearly twenty hours following the death of his brother and accomplice,

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is taken into custody by officials. (Morrison & O’Leary, 2015).

Tier Classification System Applied

The Tier Classification System is a mechanism used to define and classify critical

incidents. The parameters for each tier indicate the severity of the incident, the frequency of such

an incident occurring, as well as the number and types of agencies that become involved in an

incident. This system is sold in definition, however may be considered fluid in its application, as

the severity of an incident and the necessary response may vary based on an agency’s resources.

Consider the diagram of a triangle, separated into three segments horizontally. The tier at the

point of the pyramid would be considered Tier One. These incidents are the most critical and

require the upmost resources and multi-agency participation. The tier directly under the first is

labeled Tier Two. This tier comprises incidents that are critical in nature, however are

manageable for a single agency to effectively conduct without outside assistance. Finally, Tier

three incidents, the lowest tier, are those incidents that occur within an agency and are the most

common of the critical incidents. (Vecchi, 2010).

Without question, the Boston Marathon Bombing would be considered a Tier One

Critical incident. To begin, the event itself required a great deal of city planning and preparation,

facilitating the reduction of Tier One conflict; occurring when conflict develops between

agencies during a Tier One incident, this often can become polarized and detrimental to incident

response (Vecchi, 2010). In response to the event, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI),

Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and Federal Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA), were deployed to assist in the recovery and subsequent manhunt. This collaborative

effort resulted in a four day manhunt for the brother responsible, ending in the shooting death of

older brother Tamerlan Tsarnaev and arrest of younger brother Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.

Within the Tier Classification System, there are a number of other factors that should be

considered. To begin, a Tier One incident is multi-faceted and complex. Conflict between

agencies, though unapparent from reports, often surface during such events. Local enforcement

may develop animosity towards federal agencies, federal agencies may have conflicting strategy

on how to handle the situation at hand and there may be conflict as a result. In order abridge this

opportunity for tension to build, clearly defined roles and protocol that is applicable to a variety

of situations should be developed, considering the needs and abilities of all agencies involved.

Besides Tier One conflict, aspects of Tier Two conflict may also come into play in a catastrophic

event such as the Boston Marathon Bombings. Groups within an agency, whether at the local or

federal level often have various specialized groups with differing paradigms. In the case of an

incident such as the Boston Marathon Bombings, the sheer chaos and instability may cause

groups with opposing paradigms to disagree on strategy and therefore breed conflict between the

two entities. Similar to Tier One conflict, Tier Two conflict should be handled by implementing

protocol, creating clear leadership, and incorporating the goals and missions of each group into

the strategy. Finally, there are instances of possible Tier Three conflict in this crisis; most

noteworthy the death of Officer Sean Collier and near death of Officer Richard Donohue. Officer

Collier was allegedly killed by suspects Tamerlan Tsarnaev and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (History,

2015). Officer Donohue nearly bled out after being shot in a fire exchange with the suspects;

Tamerlan Tsarnaev died in the exchange (Murphy, 2015). Losing a fellow officer is an acute

cause of Tier Three conflict. Chronic examples that may plague the agency would include the

stress associated with the event, either the bombing or shoot out with suspects, and the

ramifications of that stress, such as post-traumatic stress disorder, emotional instability, or

substance abuse. (Vecchi, 2010).

Phases of Crisis Management in Boston

The phases of crisis management are perhaps one of the most significant contributors to

the effective handling of this critical incident. The four phases of crisis management include

mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery (FEMA, 2007). Creating a solid and practiced

set of protocols that may be applied to a critical incident is paramount in urban and city planning.

Though the bombings did occur, breeching security, the ability of the city to mobilize and treat

victims was an incredible testament to the importance of developing a comprehensive crisis

management plan.

Mitigation is the first, fundamental step in crisis management and can be considered the

forethought and preventative measures to reduce the possibility of an attack and the effects if a

critical incident were to occur. In Boston, there were a number of mitigating steps taken to

reduce the possible damage. Prior to the event, millions of dollars in security funding were put

into the event. Additionally, there was the development of a numerous training programs to

handle a variety of situations. Furthermore, creating positive relationships with federal

enforcement and incorporating them the day of the event was another significant mitigating

factor.

Following mitigation is preparedness. This stage could be considered the planning,

training, and preparation phase. Preparedness includes the identification of possible threats,

developing strategy and protocol to handle those threats if they were to occur, practicing said

procedure, and being able to execute this method of neutralization. In the case of Boston, the

city’s level of preparedness was exemplary. Training for the parade itself included training that

prepared for the presence of IEDs and ran through drills with the collaboration of FEMA (Pera,

2014). In addition to the training of security personnel, Boston’s medical community had

developed a close relationship with emergency management personnel. In fact, “for more than a

decade, emergency managers in Boston’s medical community have been refining plans for mass-

casualty events,” including consulting literature reviews and symposiums, as well as training and

preparation for events with the potential for multiple incidents (Biddinger et. Al 2013). Having

been prepared for the injuries associated with the race itself, medical personnel were on

heightened alert, facilitating impressive medical response and contributing to the reduction of

casualties.

The response to the bombs detonated at the Boston Marathon was incredibly destructive

for those in the immediate vicinity. Nonetheless, the response to this crisis was impressive.

Response is the literal handling of the critical incident, including the deployment of emergency

personnel, possible federal aid, creating a perimeter to secure the scene, and subsequent pursuit

of the suspects. The response in Boston was unprecedented for the nation. While the actual

response of emergency personnel was admirable, the manhunt for the suspects that ensued

following was unlike anything in recent history. Officials began reaching out to the public for

assistance in locating persons of interest, which eventually turned into a viable source and, thus,

suspects. This identification prompted officials to make an unparalleled move by putting the

town of Watertown on lock down, disabling public transportation, and conducting door-to-door

searches for the suspects (Siddiqui, 2013). Once located, a fire exchange ensued between

Tamerlan Tsarnaev, while Dzhokhar Tsarnaev fled in a vehicle before transitioning to a getaway

on foot, however was eventually cornered after hiding out in a resident’s boat. Though

controversial, the response to this critical incident was unquestionably effective.

Following the response to the crisis, recovery is the final step in the emergency

management cycle. Beginning after the incident, this is the effort in the community to “return to

normalcy” following a critical incident (Vecchi, 2010). In Boston, the recovery process was

lengthy, but the city was able to rally around the mantra, “Boston Strong.” Besides raising

morale, this incident highlighted the changes required for future marathons, as well as other large

public gatherings in an undefined public space. Perhaps the most symbolic moment in the

recovery phase was the overwhelming show of support for the marathon and its runners the

following year.

The Boston Marathon Bombings as Domestic Terrorism

The events of April 15, 2013 were an indisputable act of domestic terrorism. Tamerlan

Tsarnaev, while Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the individuals responsible for the attack, developed an

ideology to justify mass destruction. Ideology is a critical component of a terrorist’s agenda, as

this is the entity that drives their mission and is cause for the incitement of critical incidents. This

concept is a collection of goals held by an individual or group that are developed in the context

of intellect and emotion (Vecchi, 2010). The actual mission of the group can vary and have

different motivations; however those involved in the practice are acting by force to achieve that

goal, as they believe it cannot be accomplished otherwise. Domestic terrorism encompasses the

aforementioned delineation of terrorism, however specifies that the terrorist attack is perpetrated

by a citizen of that nation. Originally from Kyrgyzstan and of Chechen decent, Tamerlan

Tsarnaev was awaiting his official citizenship while Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was a naturalized citizen

of the United States, qualifying the attack as an act of domestic terrorism (Committee on

Homeland Security, 2014).

In the case of the Boston Marathon bombings, the Tsarnaev brothers shared an ideology

stemming from extremist Islamic beliefs. Following an investigation, authorities confirmed that

the suspects’ knowledge of bomb construction derived from an al-Qaeda in the Arabian

Peninsula sponsored internet publication (Cooper et. al, 2013). Though the Tsarnaev brothers did

not have confirmed ties with al-Qaeda, their ideology is strikingly similar. Tamerlan Tsarnaev,

especially, developed an extremist ideology; so much so that Russia and the United States were

both monitoring his behavior as a potential threat (Committee on Homeland Security, 2014).

Though there are many similarities in ideology to international Islamic radical groups, ultimately

investigators determined that the brothers “self radicalized” by means of the internet and social

media (Ray, 2014). The internet played a critical role in the radicalization of Tamerlan Tsarnaev.

Following an investigation, a number of extremist videos posted on YouTube were found to be

frequently accessed by the brother. The core of his ideology dealt with his perception of the

vilification of Muslims world-wide and the unfair treatment of this group.

The Boston Bombing was an ideal target for the Tsarnaev brothers in executing their

attack. To begin, this event is of considerable size, providing an increased number of victims.

Additionally, the media presence throughout the race is noteworthy. This is an important factor

considering goals of an attack. Despite the ideological mission, the ability to incite fear and

uncertainty throughout a population is incredibly appealing to those who commit such acts.

Furthermore, the spectacle created by the media’s tendency to over sensationalize acts of terror

ensures the scope of the attack to be incredibly magnified. Perhaps a latent appeal of the Boston

Marathon includes the historical value of the race. The Tsarnaev brothers, having lived in the

Boston area for some time, understood the significance of the race in the city’s culture. The

Boston Marathon is the oldest organized race in the world having been held for one hundred and

seventeen years in 2013 when the bombings occurred. Additionally, the significance of the race

falling on Patriot’s Day cannot be ignored, as the occasion celebrates America’s first steps to

independence. This independence would, of course, lead to the rise of the United States as a

major world power, subsequently increasing global reach and influence in the Middle East.

Attacking an event that celebrates the American spirit overtly challenges the ideals of the United

States in an aim to destroy the values Islamic extremists deem as perverted.

Debriefing and Recommendations

The Boston Marathon Bombings certainly demonstrates sound critical incident

management. This event presents a unique security issue, as it is an organized event with clear

boundaries, however is in the midst of the general public. The marathon spans 26.2 miles, a

significant distance, especially when taking into consideration the metropolitan environment

surrounding this route. The urban nature of the track exposes it to the public, therefore increasing

its vulnerability; unlike an event in a structure where the perimeter may be secured. Heightening

security measures as seen in the 2014 Boston Marathon would discourage and likely thwart a

significant percentage of attacks. Additionally, including federal agents in large scale events such

as the Boston Marathon would also be incredibly beneficial. Besides fostering an improved

relationship between federal, state and local officials, reducing Tier One conflict; if a critical

incident were to occur representatives from all parties would be present instantaneously. Multi-

agency presence allows for the most immediate and accurate assessment of the necessary

resources.

In addition to security strategy, there was a troublesome issue in monitoring Tamerlan

Tsarnaev. Though indicated as a security threat to Russia as well as the United States, Tsarnaev’s

ability to move discretely was a casualty of human failure, as his name was inputted incorrectly

into the system. The Department of Homeland Security released in a review that as a result of the

Boston Marathon Bombings, it has improved its “name matching capabilities,” a tool that is

paramount in the mitigation of terrorism (Levine, 2014). While this is a notable improvement,

creating a method to fix this problem would prevent attacks such as this in the future. Further

examining the use of databases, creating a database to cross check known terror threats with

major public events could create a list of individuals to monitor, perhaps with the development of

an algorithm to identify those most likely to pose a threat. Though being alerted of such presence

in a public event not requiring tickets is unlikely, employing checks or GPS capability may be a

way to further effectiveness in the prevention of attack.

Overall, the response to the Boston Marathon Bombings was effective and adhered to the

mandates of the National Incident Management System, proving the effectiveness of the

protocols (Leonard et. al 2014). Understanding the elements of the emergency planning that were

effective during this crisis and the ability to identify and improve those elements that were

subpar will assist in the protection of similar events in the future. Boston may demonstrate this

notion most effectively, as emergency personnel were able to respond swiftly and efficiently;

ultimately reducing the number of casualties. Additionally, creating a strategy following

concepts of critical incident management, such as the Tier Classification System or the Phases of

Crisis Management, ensure cohesiveness and effectiveness. Finally, and perhaps most pressing,

is the ability to fully understand the ideology of Domestic Terrorists, be able to identify and track

them, and create a system to better identify potential targets. There is no way to completely

remove the threat of attack, however with intelligence gathering, careful planning, and the

execution of strategy; it is possible to reduce both the risk and severity of attack.

References

Biddiger, P. D., Baggish, A, Harrington, L, d’Hemecourt, P, Hooley, J., Jones, J., Kue, R.,

Troyanos, C., Dyer, K.S. “Be Prepared — The Boston Marathon and Mass-Casualty Events.”

New England Journal of Medicine. 368:1958-1960. 23 May 2013.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmp1305480

Brown, J. “Boston Marathon Bombings Stir up Questions, Lessons for Public Safety

Protocol.” PBS News Hour. 23 April 2013. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/north_america-jan-

june13-security_04-23/

CNN Library. “Boston Marathon Terror Attack Fast Facts.” CNN Library. 10 March

2015. http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/03/us/boston-marathon-terror-attack-fast-facts/

Committee on Homeland Security, U.S. House of Representatives, & McCaul, M. “The

Road to Boston: Counterterrorism Challenges and Lessons from the Marathon Bombings.”

House Homeland Security Committee Report. March 2014.

http://homeland.house.gov/sites/homeland.house.gov/files/documents/Boston-Bombings-

Report.pdf

Cooper, M., Schmidt, M., Schmidt, E. “Boston Suspects Are Seen as Self-Taught and

Fueled by Web.” New York Times. 23 April 2013.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/24/us/boston-marathon-bombing-developments.html?

pagewanted=all&_r=0

History Channel. “Boston Marathon Bombings.” A&E Networks 2015.

http://www.history.com/topics/boston-marathon-bombings

Leonard, H. B., Cole, C. M., Howitt, A. M., Heymann, P. B., “Why Was Boston Strong?

Lessons from the Boston Marathon Bombing.” Harvard Kennedy School, Program in Criminal

Justice Policy and Management, April 2014.

http://www.hks.harvard.edu/programs/criminaljustice/research-publications/measuring-the-

performance-of-criminal-justice-systems/boston-marathon-bombing-and-aftermath/whywas-

boston-strong-initiative

Levine, M. “Boston Marathon Bombing: Homeland Security’s ‘Lessons Learned.’” ABC

News. 10 April 2014. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2014/04/boston-marathon-

bombing-homeland-securitys-lessons-learned/

Morrison, S., O’Leary, E. “Timeline of Boston Marathon Bombing Events.” 5 January

2015.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2015/01/05/timeline-boston-marathon-

bombing-events/qiYJmANm6DYxqsusVq66yK/story.html

Murphy, S. “Report close on officer’s shooting in Tsarnaev clash.” Boston Globe. 19

March 2015. http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/03/18/says-report-shooting-officer-

marathon-bombing-case-released-soon/7r1qbNzgbrkCzH2gv71AJJ/story.html

Pera, R. “Intelligence Solutions Involved in the Response to the Boston Marathon

Bombing.” School of Security and Global Studies at American Military University. 25 April

2014. http://inpublicsafety.com/2014/04/intelligence-solutions-involved-in-the-response-to-the-

boston-marathon-bombing/

Ray, M. “Boston Marathon bombing of 2013.” United States History. 22 July

2014.http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1924021/Boston-Marathon-bombing-of-2013

Siddiqui, S. “Ron Paul: Shutdown After Boston Bombings More Frightening Than Attack

Itself.” The Huffington Post. 29 April 2013. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/29/ron-

paul-boston-bombings_n_3179489.html

Vecchi, G. “Conflict ad Crisis Management: Theory and Practice.” Lecture Series 2010.

Winter, T., Schuppe, J. “DA Will Prosecute Tsarnaev For Cop's Murder After Bombing

Trial.” 19 March 2015. http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/boston-bombing-trial/dzhokhar-

tsarnaev-boston-bombing-suspect-indicted-murder-mit-officer-sean-n326401

Yan, H. “Boston Marathon Security: How can you keep 26.2 miles safe?” 21 April 2014.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/20/us/boston-marathon-security/