Behind every terrorist organisation there’s some kind of political or religious aim to their actions. This story tries to explain the reasons why terrorist actions fail to achieve their goals when civilian deaths are involved
Wired:Because terrorism often results in the horrific deaths of innocents, we mistakenly infer that the horrific deaths of innocents is the primary motivation of the terrorist, and not the means to a different end.
In a paper by Max Abrams in International Security. “Why Terrorism Does Not Work” (.PDF) analyzes the political motivations of 28 terrorist groups. He lists 42 policy objectives of those groups, and found that they only achieved them 7 percent of the time.
According to the data, terrorism is more likely to work if:
1) The terrorists attack military targets more often than civilian ones.
2) If they have minimalist goals like evicting a foreign power from their country or winning control of a piece of territory, rather than maximalist objectives like establishing a new political system in the country or annihilating another nation. But even so, terrorism is a pretty ineffective means of influencing policy.
The most insightful part is when Abrams uses correspondent inference theory to explain why terrorist groups that primarily attack civilians do not achieve their policy goals, even if they are minimalist. Abrams writes:
Countries believe that their civilian populations are attacked not because the terrorist group is protesting unfavorable external conditions such as territorial occupation or poverty. Rather, target countries infer the short-term consequences of terrorism, they view the negative consequences of terrorist attacks on their societies and political systems as evidence that the terrorists want them destroyed. Target countries are understandably skeptical that making concessions will placate terrorist groups believed to be motivated by these maximalist objectives.
The Bush administration has patronizingly told us over and over again that terrorists hate us “for our freedom.”
Obviously, that’s bullshit and so beyond simplicity that even a child would accuse the administration of being credulous. However, if it were true, and Al Aqaeda wanted to damage our civil liberties… Well… Mission Accomplished.
Excellent article, with a great correlation of the ulitmate futility of terrorism as a tool for change. Also a good reminder of Al Qaida goals. They DO NOT want us all dead. They just want to be rich and have the U.S. and the western world out of their affairs.
We have to admit that the terrorists have had a tremendous impact on this country. They are causing us to lose our freedom a piece at at time. If they keep up with what they are doing, they will succeed in their goal of disrupting the US. The Bush administration is falling right into the trap.
As James Madison once said, “If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.”
… and also, “It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad.”
Add something like TV/Movie/Music Celebrity gossip and alienating the community is an easier thing to do.
This is the reason that the IRA was so successful at times – it attacked military targets.
It was when it was just attacking civilian targets that it lost any capital it had, and the political branches knew it was time to make a deal or face all out war… which they wouldn’t win.
However here the war is so vague, the goals so broad, the enemy so undefined (all these terrorists are under Osama? Part of AQ? No.) that it is impossible to win for either side.
Ah, so what you’re saying is that because terrorism will ultimately fail in the long run, we don’t need to worry about protecting our citizens from its effects in the short and medium term.
#8, not sure that an effective strategy to defend against terrorism should include inspiring more of them to join in the effort.
#8, Frankie,
Nice to see you’re again doing what you do best: Presenting ludicrous straw man arguments.
You could at least try to be subtle about them…
Some of what is going on in Iraq is terrorism, but most of it is guerilla warfare.
The best way to use terrorism,
Is to TELL EVERYONE WHY you are doing it.
Why you have decided to do it, and WHY it has come to this.
I said before,
You leave the farmer OUT of it. Leave the cit’s ALONE. Fight your cause.
The problems we have now, is that this is a true Open field Gorilla war. The ‘Taliban'(which is the name for every target we shoot at) is hiding IN/WITH the people we are trying to help. They are using the Cits/farmers/children as shields. And its giving us a BAD name. People are getting upset. And we are running out of Cit’s/farmer/children to protect.
PULL the war out of the city…GET just outside of range…CONTROl the city from the OUTSIDE, and let the Cits/farmers control the INSIDE…
If they want a civil war…CONTROL the OUTSIDE and let them fight…I would also Pull every religious Leader/nut outside also..
There are 3 wars being waged NOW.
1. civil, on who controls the city
2. taliban, but we cant point to anyone 100% and say which side that person is on.
3. religious, Each group is trying to MAKe there own HOME/country.
(Should be) 70-80% of these people DONT care who runs the city or country…they just want Peace, and to goto work.
So how do you account for 9/11?
I hope that was an intentional pun.
The IRA was successful in winning the South of Ireland partly because the British loss of will after WWI. The nation was sick of war and death, and the possession of Ireland only really helped the wealthy that owned the lands and industry. Al Qaeda basically wants global Muslim rule, and all infidels dead. Regardless of rhetoric, these militants don’t seek a truce. They want all Jews and Christians converted or dead.
One reason terrorism doesn’t usually achieve its goals is that when it does it is no longer called terrorism.
#1…OFTLO….actually Bush is right…but he’s making his point in simple terms(remember, it IS Bush here)…..Islamic terrorist’s do hate us for our freedoms, because all the things they wish to accomplish can’t be accomplished if the people are able to have free speech, free press, freedom of religion or freedom from religion, and the ability to change their leadership if it suits them.
For all of those who think leaving Iraq or chatting with Syria or Iran is going to make all our booboo’s go away, your going to be in for a rude awakening. Islamic terrorists don’t have short term goals of winning in individual countries or regions, they truely believe their **mission** is to bring about the world wide Caliphate. Treaties and nicities mean nothing, only as far as they can advance their cause towards it’s goal. This isn’t the Sandinista’s, or the Shining Path, or the IRA or the Tamil Tigars we are dealing with. Those groups fight or fought for fairly defined reasons and goals…..that isn’t true of the Islamic terror groups.
I want us out of Iraq, and Afganistan as quickly as possible. But if this country is to survive morally and politically, globally, we can’t leave these places unable to at least defend themselves after we have gone. It will take many years for the U.S. to restore even part of the respect and trust many nations held us in prior to Bush, leaving a nation or in this case 2 nations set up for a bloodbath, the likes of which we haven’t seen since the Khmar Rouge, will set that process back decades.
At the present time we have a group of Presidential candidates(both parties) that are quite willing to throw away the lives of millions more Iraqi’s and Afganistani’s just to score some points with American voters who can’t concentrate on anything other than sports or reality shows for more than 5 mins without getting a headache. I find it strange that observers from countries that have been trashing Bush and the U.S. for 6 years are the ones who are recognising that the so called *surge* is actually showing some important progress, but all the media and the leading demogogue’s running for President are running for the exits screaming the sky is falling.
This war is wrong on many fronts, but it’s our war now and we need to finish what we started, we really seem to be making some progress on the fighting front, but not on the political front. The Iraqi goverment seems to be so inept that you would think Bush was President there to.
Maybe I’m not as cycnical as a lot of you…..but I just think it’s so wrong for us to walk away from something that we created, and in doing so, consigning millions to death.
‘Course, I don’t think the above article figured on a liberal House of Representatives.
Burqa U Cheerleading Team: “Wahabbi state in zero eight!”
RBG
#1 and #17==disagree on why the terrorist hate GOUSA, yet I think they are both right.
#17–I want to leave Iraq==I think there will be millions (sic) killed whether we leave or stay, so for me, the issue is do we want a slow finanacial bleeding in a foreign land? I say no.
So, good article but no proffered solutions? There have been atleast two occupying forces that maintained the peace in Iraq and they could be role models if we want to “win.” I give you Sadam Hussein, and the Roman Empire. Can we step-up to this level of leadership?
#17 – #1…OFTLO….actually Bush is right…but he’s making his point in simple terms(remember, it IS Bush here)…..Islamic terrorist’s do hate us for our freedoms, because all the things they wish to accomplish can’t be accomplished if the people are able to have free speech, free press, freedom of religion or freedom from religion, and the ability to change their leadership if it suits them.
No he isn’t and no they don’t. They don’t even think about “us”. They don’t have to worry about those freedoms because they don’t exist in the Middle East.
They hate our boots on the ground in the Holy Land and our 50+ years of interference in their land… and because we stand between them and power. They hate us for propping up Hussien (he was our puppet) and for guiding the destiny of Arabs.
No doubt, we have to be involved. But these aren’t Bond villians. Their motivations aren’t so simple minded. They aren’t even Islamic. I believe they don’t give a rat’s ass about Islam. That’s just the tool they use to recruit peasants and farmboys to die with bombs in their backpacks. Their motivations are political and economic, though not altruistic toward their people. They are just another group of petty thugs dreaming of taking power and we are a thorn in that side.
We are also, I fear, just a really big group of not quite as petty thugs… But thugs all the same.
I don’t believe we can leave.
But I know we never should have entered Iraq and while the next president will have to deal with it, the current one needs to answer for it.
Ohfor, #21, I try to forget the way I thought long ago. It was not something to be proud of. That’s the predator mindset, to hate those who are able to keep me from getting my loot. They have the nerve to think it’s theirs just because they bought it, with money that rightfully belongs to me, not them.
Those over there who actually hate us on a personal level, do so for predator mindset reasons. Where our boots are has nothing to do with it, it’s that we claim to own the boots on our feet. The average street loon who claims to hate us because we are over there, is just riding the band wagon.
As for “puppets”, the US State Department is full of weirdos. They seem to have a contest going about who can get the most autographs from the most dictators, and the worse a killer he is, the more points for having his autograph. You’d have a hard time finding any notable murderer anywhere on the planet who was not receiving money from the US State Department.
Presidents don’t control the State Department. They are, for practical purposes, a fourth branch of government, and not responsible to anyone.
#15 – …these militants don’t seek a truce. They want all Jews and Christians converted or dead.
So, what’s the casualties score again…
Muslims might have larger families, but 11:1 is not a good ratio.
I believe this is significant to the discussion.
October 15, 2001, excerpts from:
The Politics of Rage: Why Do They Hate Us?
By Fareed Zakaria
“To dismiss the terrorists as insane is to delude ourselves. Bin Laden and his fellow fanatics are products of failed societies that breed their anger. ”
“… I expressed my frustration that governments in the Middle East had been unable to liberalize their economies and societies in the way that the East Asians had done. “Look at Singapore, Hong Kong and Seoul,” I said, pointing to their extraordinary economic achievements. The man, a gentle, charming scholar, straightened up and replied sharply, “Look at them. They have simply aped the West. Their cities are cheap copies of Houston and Dallas. That may be all right for fishing villages. But we are heirs to one of the great civilizations of the world. We cannot become slums of the West.”
This disillusionment with the West is at the heart of the Arab problem. It makes economic advance impossible and political progress fraught with difficulty. Modernization is now taken to mean, inevitably, uncontrollably, Westernization and, even worse, Americanization. This fear has paralyzed Arab civilization. “
They hate us for propping up Hussien (he was our puppet) and for guiding the destiny of Arabs.
Don’t forget the U.S. restoring the Peacock Throne with the Shah (na,na) of Iran. Led to their taking U.S. hostages.
J/P=?
21—I agree, our boots on their ground is the biggest provocation we have given the muslim nut cases to go off. After this 30-40 year period of festering, their complaints are more numerous now. We may have to kill the host to remove the parasite.
22–Recall the little girl asking “Daddy, why is our oil under their sand?” I wonder what the world would look like without our boots in the Arab world and it was just the world buying their oil? I guess there would still be Israel, but would the arab man in the street look more to his own leadership if our boots on the ground weren’t such a good diversion?
23–What was the count in Vietnam? Counts don’t matter if one side doesn’t care about the mortality rate.
24—I didn’t see this thread go to “They are insane.” That was more common “last year.” As to Fareed, yes you can talk to the “scholars” or to the man in the street the scholar wants to keep under foot. Who knows or cares what general arab sentiment might be when the leaders in control have every reason to keep the populace whipped up against the West in order to maintain their own power?
25—We didn’t prop up Hussein. We gave some aid during his wars with Iran. We did prop up the House of Shaw. Should have done a better job in both cases.
Now for a beer.
#24:
Nice argument, if you simply assume capitalism is the solution to all the world’s problems…
13,
also on “America at a cross roads” on PBS…It was reported that Bin laden WARNED us. do you think the Gov let us know about it, or just HELD back?
I have to agree with Alix in #11.
When an atrocity is committed by civilians it is called terrorism, yet when it is done by a military force it is usually acceptable. I think the term is “collateral damage”.
I also don’t buy the concept that warfare must only be conducted against military forces. There are very few wars in recent memory where only the armies fought it out. During WWII European underground guerrilla groups fought behind the lines and both sides dropped bombs on civilian targets. This was much less apparent during Korea, but showed itself time and time again during all the liberating wars fought by colonies throwing off their overlords.
It is a well understood tactic NOT to fight your opponents strongest point. For most guerrilla groups that includes not going toe to toe with tanks, airplanes, and heavy machine guns when you are only armed with rifles.
#22,
You weren’t bad in the first paragraph. The second started going astray. Your third paragraph was totally off the deep end. Something I would expect from our good friend the Confederate Traitor (aka Stars and Bars). When you make such outlandish claims, you need more then Limbaugh / Savage / Hannitty / O’Reilly talking points to back yourself up. Outside of the political appointees, the State Department is made up of true professionals and employ the brightest and most capable civil servants in the US.
Instead of libeling the entire State Department, why not castigate the political policy makers OR admit you’re just another asshole with an unsubstantiated opinion.
#31, doug
Wank fantasies about global caliphate notwithstanding …
VERY interesting point I haven’t thought much about. Makes a lot of sense.