Strategic Targets: Analyzing Facility Selection in Global Terrorist Attacks
Terrorist organizations are rarely random or senseless in their acts of violence. Rather, their attacks are often strategically planned to reflect their ideological goals, operational capabilities, and political objectives. While some groups are selective in targeting military and law enforcement personnel, others adopt a more indiscriminate approach, directing violence toward infrastructure, commercial centers, or cultural landmarks. The Global Terrorism Trends and Analysis Center (GTTAC), operating under the US Department of State, has compiled extensive records on global terrorist incidents, documenting over 60,000 cases from January 2018 to June 2025. These records include detailed variables such as perpetrator group, attack type, victim category, logistical details, and—critically—the type of facility targeted. Facility types are classified into six categories: commercial, government, cultural, infrastructure, military, and miscellaneous.
This study examines GTTAC data from 2018 to 2024, analyzing patterns in facility targeting across global terrorist incidents. Understanding which types of facilities are most frequently attacked provides valuable insights into the strategic behavior, ideological perspectives, and resource capabilities of terrorist groups. This analysis also supports broader counterterrorism efforts by identifying vulnerable sectors and guiding targeted protective measures.
Facility Type Targeting Trends
Figure 1 below shows the distribution of facility types targeted by terrorist groups from 2018 to 2024. The data reveal that infrastructure was the most commonly targeted category, with a total of 22,108 incidents recorded. This category includes a wide range of sub-targets, including agriculture and food systems, civilian aviation, communications, cyber and digital infrastructure, construction and factory sites, educational institutions, healthcare facilities, land transportation systems, maritime and fishing sectors, private property, residential areas, and utilities and mining operations. The variety of these subcategories reflects the extensive scope of what counts as infrastructure and highlights terrorist organizations’ strategic focus on disrupting essential services and causing widespread societal instability.
Figure 1. Frequency of Facility Types Targeted in Terrorist Attacks (2018–2024)
The second-most-targeted type of facility was military, with 7,700 incidents. This shows that many attacks are aimed at armed forces or military sites, possibly as part of larger insurgent or anti-government campaigns. Government facilities followed, with 4,531 recorded incidents, highlighting an ongoing focus on institutions of political power. Other categories included miscellaneous targets (1,939 incidents), cultural sites (952 incidents), and commercial facilities (784 incidents). Although these were less frequently targeted, their selection may indicate symbolic motives, efforts to harm economic stability, or attempts to incite sectarian or cultural tensions.
The GTTAC methodology relies on a wide range of reliable media sources, including both English and non-English outlets, to compile comprehensive data on terrorist incidents. Due to variability in media reporting and the occasional lack of detailed information about specific facilities targeted, a substantial portion of incidents fall into the “Unknown” category. This reflects challenges in precise facility classification rather than gaps in data collection, as shown in the accompanying figure, where the “Unknown” category accounts for 15,969 incidents.
Casualty Analysis by Facility Type
The distribution of fatalities and injuries from terrorist attacks across different facility types is illustrated in Figure 2. This figure complements the frequency data in Figure 1 by emphasizing the human impact of attacks on each target category.
Figure 2. Fatalities and Wounded by Facility Type in Terrorist Attacks (2018–2024)
The data show that attacks on infrastructure resulted in the most casualties, with 55,183 deaths and 44,290 injuries. This confirms that infrastructure is the most targeted category and indicates that many sites—such as transportation systems, residential areas, schools, and healthcare facilities—are heavily populated and often lack sufficient protection, making them highly vulnerable.
Military facilities were the second deadliest targets, causing 33,527 deaths and 20,523 injuries. These numbers indicate that attacks on military sites tend to be more severe and may involve more lethal methods, such as armed assaults or powerful explosives. Government facilities also suffered significant losses, with 14,010 fatalities and 13,066 wounded. This indicates a continued strategic goal by terrorist groups to weaken political institutions and public authority. Cultural sites reported 3,883 fatalities and 6,859 wounded, while commercial facilities experienced 1,972 fatalities and 2,447 wounded. Although these categories had lower overall numbers, they often involve attacks on civilians and can have symbolic or psychological significance. Overall, the data highlights that while infrastructure is the most frequently targeted, it also causes the highest human toll. The concentration of casualties in infrastructure and military targets reveals the strategic reasoning behind terrorist actions, balancing symbolic impact, tactical disruption, and human cost.
Terrorist Tactics by Facility Type
A heatmap in Figure 3 illustrates the terrorist tactics employed against various facility categories from 2018 to 2024. The figure provides insight into the operational choices of terrorist groups by analyzing how specific tactics are linked to different target types. The most frequently used tactic overall was assault, especially against commercial (15,210 incidents), infrastructure (12,399 incidents), and military facilities (6,146 incidents). The high number of assaults on commercial and infrastructure targets likely reflects the tactical advantage of direct attacks on unprotected or densely populated civilian areas, often aiming to maximize disruption or cause civilian fear.
Figure 3. Tactic Types Used Against Facility Categories in Terrorist Attacks (2018–2024)
The trauma category, which includes tactics such as bodily mutilation, rape, suicide attacks, executions, kidnapping, and gender-based violence, was also highly prevalent—especially against commercial facilities (4,997 incidents) and infrastructure (4,529 incidents). These tactics are used not just to kill, but to intimidate, traumatize, and send messages of ideological or territorial control. The notable use of trauma-based tactics against civilian and infrastructure targets may signal an intent to instill long-term psychological damage within communities and populations.
Covert tactics, which include stealth and surprise—such as ambushes, booby traps, and sabotage—were also widely employed, with infrastructure facilities again being the most impacted (3,225 incidents). This pattern highlights the vulnerability of infrastructural systems to planned, concealed, and technically advanced operations.
The exploitative category, which includes tactics like looting, corruption, child soldiers, cyberattacks, and extortion, shows significant use in infrastructure-related incidents (1,493) and on commercial sites (365). This indicates that terrorists are not only trying to destroy or disrupt but also to extract resources and gain control through illegal or coercive means.
Infrastructure is both the most frequently targeted and the most varied type of facility attacked…
Finally, coordinated attacks, though less frequent in number, reveal the operational complexity and capacity of groups capable of synchronizing multiple actions. Infrastructure (50 incidents) and commercial (33 incidents) targets again stand out, highlighting the significance of these sites in large-scale or multi-phase assaults. This tactic is considered the most important because it demonstrates the operational ability of terrorist groups; it also includes Complex Coordinated Terrorist Attacks (CCTAs). Overall, Figure 3 highlights how terrorist groups tailor their tactics to specific targets, showing clear strategic decision-making based on symbolic, logistical, or psychological goals. Infrastructure is both the most frequently targeted and the most varied type of facility attacked, emphasizing its critical importance and vulnerability across different regions.
A comparative overview of the weapon types used by terrorist groups across facility categories is presented in Figure 4. The data reveals that firearms are the most commonly used weapon, with 15,561 attacks on commercial facilities and 11,954 on infrastructure facilities, highlighting the most active areas. Explosives and improvised explosive devices (IEDs) are also prominent, accounting for 3,475 and 2,623 attacks on commercial targets, and 4,210 and 4,529 attacks on infrastructure targets, respectively. In contrast, melee weapons and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) are seldom used, with incidents rarely surpassing 700 cases for melee weapons and fewer than 300 cases for UAVs across all facility types. Overall, the figure demonstrates a strong reliance on firearms and explosive devices in attacks on commercial and infrastructure facilities, emphasizing the continued vulnerability of these sectors to conventional terrorist tactics.
Figure 4: Weapon Types Used Against Facility Categories in Terrorist Attacks (2018–2024)
Group-Specific Targeting Patterns
The heatmap in Figure 5 shows the number of incidents carried out by major terrorist groups—Al-Shabaab, Hizballah, ISIS, and Jama’at Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin (JNIM)—against various facility types. The color intensity indicates how often attacks occur, with darker shades representing higher incident counts. The data reveal that ISIS is responsible for the most attacks overall, mainly targeting commercial (1,364 incidents) and infrastructure (1,581 incidents) sites. Al-Shabaab also displays significant activity, with 821 attacks on military and 768 on infrastructure sites. Hizballah’s operations are more limited, focusing mainly on infrastructure (951) and commercial (610) targets. JNIM shows a balanced pattern, with 860 attacks on commercial and 503 on military sites.
Figure 5: Targeting of Facilities by Al-Shabaab, ISIS, Hizballah, and JNIM
Target-Specific Casualty Profiles
Cultural and religious sites. As illustrated in Figure 6, terrorist attacks on cultural and religious sites result in disproportionately high casualties. Religious sites alone recorded 770 attacks, causing 3,038 deaths and 4,859 injuries. Entertainment and sports venues also suffer significant human losses, while tourist sites, despite fewer fatalities, still experience notable injuries. Several factors contribute to this pattern: first, cultural and religious sites are often densely populated during events or worship, increasing the risk of casualties. Second, these sites hold symbolic and ideological importance, making them prime targets for terror groups aiming to inflict psychological trauma and undermine community identity. Third, attacks on such locations attract extensive media coverage, amplifying the terror group’s message and propaganda. Finally, targeting tourist and cultural sites disrupts local economies that depend on tourism, adding economic damage to the human toll. Collectively, these factors explain why terror groups focus on cultural sites, seeking to maximize both physical destruction and broader societal impact.
Figure 6. Terrorist Attack Incidents and Casualties by Cultural Site Type (2018–2024)
Government institutions and law enforcement. As shown in Figure 7, terrorist attacks on government sites often result in significant casualties. Law enforcement agencies were the most frequent targets, with 3,554 attacks leading to 12,067 deaths and 10,204 injuries. The relatively high number of fatalities compared to the wounded in attacks against law enforcement suggests that perpetrators are often well-prepared and specifically trained to carry out highly deadly operations against security personnel. Government buildings and diplomatic sites are also subjected to severe assaults, highlighting their symbolic and strategic importance. Terrorist groups often target these locations to directly challenge state authority, disrupt governance, and weaken the operational capacity of security forces, thereby maximizing their impact on public order and political stability.
Figure 7: Terrorist Attack Incidents and Casualties by Government Facilities (2018–2024)
Critical Infrastructure. According to Figure 8, attacks on critical infrastructure cause significant human casualties, underscoring their potential to disrupt essential services and endanger civilians. Agricultural facilities experience the most attacks (1,420), causing 3,570 deaths and 1,149 injuries, highlighting the vulnerability of essential food production and supply chains. Utilities, including power and water services, also face substantial human losses, with 890 incidents leading to 1,481 deaths and 739 injuries, emphasizing the disruptive potential of assaults on vital public services. Civilian aviation is another major target, with 207 attacks resulting in 474 deaths and 644 injuries, demonstrating the devastating impact of attacking transportation infrastructure. Communications facilities, though attacked less often (136), still see 207 deaths and 43 injuries, underscoring their strategic importance in information and coordination networks. Overall, terrorist attacks on critical infrastructure aim not only to cause human casualties but also to disrupt essential systems, thereby threatening societal stability and economic resilience.
Figure 8: Terrorist Attack Incidents and Casualties by Infrastructure Facilities (2018–2024)
Military installations and personnel. Figure 9 highlights the significant human toll caused by terrorist attacks on military facilities, emphasizing their strategic importance as prime targets. National military sites experience the highest number of casualties, with 6,708 killed and over 31,000 wounded, demonstrating the persistent and large-scale efforts to weaken national defense. Multinational forces also face serious threats, with 463 incidents resulting in 1,640 deaths and nearly 1,200 wounded, indicating that terror groups target not only domestic military assets but also international coalitions involved in regional security. Foreign military installations are also frequently targeted, with 255 incidents leading to 605 deaths and 497 wounded, underscoring the global reach of terrorist operations. While US military targets report fewer fatalities—327 killed—the injuries, totaling 440 wounded, highlight ongoing risks to American personnel stationed abroad. These numbers collectively demonstrate that terror groups focus on military facilities to cause maximum disruption, aiming to weaken military operations, demoralize personnel, and challenge the effectiveness of both national defense and international security efforts. The scale and intensity of these attacks also point to a high level of planning, coordination, and tactical skill by the perpetrators, making military installations both highly vulnerable and crucial in the broader conflict landscape.
Figure 9: Terrorist Attack Incidents and Casualties by Military Facilities (2018–2024)
Policy Implications and Conclusion
The policy implications of this analysis emphasize the importance of strategic data use in counterterrorism to effectively prioritize and allocate limited resources. When data uncovers attack trends, these insights can help strengthen the foundation of an effective counterterrorism strategy. From a US perspective, we remain cautiously optimistic about the direction of the Trump administration’s 2.0 approach to tackling transnational terrorism so far. However, it is still too early to provide a full assessment of the emerging strategy.
Despite high expectations from policy watchers outside the Trump White House at the time, the first Trump administration did not release its National Strategy for Counterterrorism until its second year. Even the most outspoken critics of Trump acknowledged that the administration’s 2018 counterterrorism strategy reflected well-grounded views of counterterrorism professionals, emphasizing the importance of leveraging foreign partnerships while avoiding overly political ideas. The counterterrorism policy continuum between administrations since 9/11 has meant that homeland defense remains the top priority. However, the fight against terrorism was also vigorously pursued overseas. Therefore, if a national counterterrorism policy is published soon, it will help shape policy during the 25th anniversary year of the 9/11 attacks, underscoring the need to strengthen infrastructure defenses to prevent terrorists from achieving a strategic victory through an attack on the scale of 9/11 or October 7.
Strategic thinking should prioritize protecting infrastructure…
It’s important to recognize that the threat landscape is much more complex today than it was in 2018. Yet, to use a common phrase, terrorism and spectacularism universally “go hand in glove” as the oxygen of jihadists.
As noted earlier, data is essential for developing any successful counterstrategy. This study’s exploration and analysis of the data have opened the door to more extensive research and data analysis. Suffice it to say, this data also indicates that strategic thinking should prioritize protecting infrastructure, and most importantly, recognize that terrorism incidents occurring in active combat zones or insurgencies represent a significant vulnerability to deployed US troops.
At the risk of oversimplification, the data we presented serves as the foundation for a framework that supports parts of an emerging Trump counterterrorism strategy: defending the homeland and reducing troop exposure by limiting troop deployments and overseas military adventures. At this stage, the Trump Administration’s counterterrorism strategy is aspirational, but when considered alongside global terrorism patterns, it becomes clearer. After all, data is a starting point for shaping the right policy responses.
The way we analyze the data clearly influences the policy implications we can draw from these attack variables and target classifications. There are, in short, different methods of analyzing the data. However, focusing on the 2018 strategy’s emphasis on protecting infrastructure and soft targets aligns with the two main perspectives on the casualty data: infrastructure, which has the highest overall numbers, and cultural/religious soft targets, which are considered when looking at average casualties per incident. This also reinforces a homeland-focused approach, regardless of whether the global data is viewed as a whole, since both are domestic targets. Despite other factors involved in developing a solid National Strategy for Counterterrorism, the bottom line is that this provides a foundation for prioritizing US counterterrorism efforts moving forward.
