Terrorism Is the Waging of Politics in a Brutal Way - Essay Example

TERRORISM IS THE WAGING OF POLITICS IN A BRUTAL WAY Student’s Name Course Professor’s Name University City (State) Date Abstract This essay critiques and juxtaposes the rational about terrorism and politics. According to the conceptualization, terrorism is simply the waging of politics in a brutal way. This concept has drawn great attention from scholars and philosophers who argue both against and in support of the concept. Notably, the literature review incorporated in this study indicates that various philosophers and scholars deliberately blur the relationship between political imperatives and terrorism threats. The later solely associates terrorism with social ideologies while overlooking the role of politics on the same. The discussion is intended to serve two main objectives. First is to evaluate the relationship between politics and terrorism, and secondly is to examine the terrorism threats and the perceived political gains. A vast section of the paper examines the politics of terrorism, legitimacy, and power. The essay reflects on the Pakistan case in order to strengthen the thesis statement. In other words, the critical evaluation on the deliberate and purposeful violence that has political consequences in Pakistan will lead us into drawing an informed conclusion, that indeed terrorism is currently the waging of politics in a usual brutal way. Terrorism is Simply the Waging of Politics in a Usually Brutal Way Introduction Terrorism in its broadest sense can be defined as the use of intentional and purposeful violence with the core objectives of creating fear or terror. These objectives are designed to achieve political, religious, economic or political gains. However, it's worth noting that terrorism has evolved with time, changing its methods, aims, and ideologies in accordance to the context in which it's executed. Terrorism, once a minor topic of the security studies, has currently expanded issue, drawing great attention from all over the globe. Indeed, a lot of significant investment has been dictated in this field in terms of research centres, journals, and study programs. A neglect of terrorism issue has as well drawn perennial criticism to observers and experts who feel that the issues are consistently getting out of hand. This is basically one of the few reasons that justify our thesis, terrorism is simply the waging of politics in a brutal way. The word terrorism was invented in 1794, a period when the French revolution was at its climax (Crenshaw, M. 1993, 10). Apparently, the word “terrorist” was used to describe the supporters and adherents of Jacobins. In this era, the word terrorist was used to mean to describe the abusive aspec6t of someone’s allegiances and political ideologies. In the beginning of the 20th century, the term terrorism acquired a whole new dimension. Religious terrorism became the new form of terrorism as groups in Islamic grounds started conducting terrors and threats in the name of their religion. These Islamic groups included Al Qaeda and Al Shabab. To counter this move, other religions such as Christianity and Hinduism gave rise to their discretion forms of military extremism. This relation between terrorism and religion still exists to date. In addition, the present state of terrorism has been found to be characterized by political and ideological imperatives of the various existing organizational structures. The sole purpose of this paper is to critically discuss the claim that terrorism has become the waging war of politics in a brutal way. The aim of the critique is to understand and describe the relationship between violence, power, and politics. In understanding the relationship, we can comfortably theorize the concept of politics as a driver of terror in our societies. In an attempt to critically study a real-life situation, am going to focus on Pakistan, a country where terrorist activities occur more often compared to other countries. Myths of Contemporary Political Terrorism There exist various myths of political terrorism, which have resulted into a misunderstanding of political terrorism and how political leaders may use the terror acts for their own gain. These myths include the following: 1. Political terrorism is always the activity of non-government players. 2. One’s man's terrorist is the other man’s freedom fighter 3. Political terrorism can never be used for political gains. 4. Political terrorism is only a problem of domestic political conditions. 5. Political terrorism is exclusively a strategy of futility However, there is much criticism of these myths as most of them if not all prove to be founded on weak norms and beliefs. Furthermore, these myths point to the inexorable conclusion that there does not exist any relationship between terrorist acts and political initiatives. According to Bell (1977), the general misconception that there does not exist any relation between politics and terrorism is very wrong, to say the least. In order for one to understand the relationship that exists beet politics and terrorism, there is need to pay attention to the core drive of the terrorism. In terrorism, Bell notes that there are sets of issues that are worth looking at; desire for power, intimacy, and the belief of violence. The Politics of Terrorism According to Richard Jackson (2012), the public fear of terrorism has remained always been at a significant and an elevated level in politics. In his work, he observes that political violence always takes place in certain social context and structures. At the very least, these threats and the fear to manipulate individuals in making certain choices that they may not have made if it were not for the fear. In other words, political fear such as fear of terror attacks has a long and a broader political impact (Richard J. 2012, 276). Notably, Jackson observes that various societies respond differently to these fears. Max Abrahms (2013) views violence as a double edge sword in the world of politics. In his credible paradox, he makes a rational on the political utility of violence in the study, Max finds that there is an escalating terrorist activity which encourages political and government concessions. Having said so, Max comes into a conclusion that perpetrating terrorist acts and threats lowers the likelihood of the government responsiveness, specifically when the causalities rise. The discussion has drawn various criticisms from various experts’ due to the oversight that the theory underestimates the political utility of violence, especially when used as a coercive instrument. The Evolution of Terrorism as a Tool of Political Change Terrorism has evolved in the last decade to become the new tool of political change. The “new” terrorism is now characterized by political activism. However, the most observed scenario in the likes of al-Qaeda groups in the penetration between politics and religion in terrorism activities. In taking into consideration the growing political ambitions such as to be in power for as many years as possible or having some global influence, the structure of the argument and criticism of the thesis statement should focus on the relationship between terrorism and political changes. Before doing too deep into the argument, it should be noted that the current forms of terrorism are more psychologically oriented contrary to the tradition terrorism which was entirely physically oriented. Having said this, the later chapters now focus on how terrorism has evolved into a tool for both political gains and change. Perhaps the best way to start looking at the rise of terrorism as a waging politic tool is by referencing the Al-Qaeda example. The terrorist group is said to have worked with the supra-political party in the country (Casara & Wolf 2017). Al-Qaeda is a perfect example of the modern terrorist group as most of its terror activities are more psychological oriented. The efficiency of this organization, particularly when it was under Sadam Hussein was due to its interconnectedness with political parties and leaders in the area where it exhibits. Such terrorist groups play a great role in the current political systems which are characterized by individualism, decentralization, and terrorization, all aimed for political gains. In the US, the perspective is however different. The government is always on “war on global terrorism” whose gains are believed to be politically oriented. For instance, the 2011 war in Afghanistan against terrorists was beyond the issue of fighting terrorism. There were two main political gains in fighting the terrorists in Afghanistan. First, the US government was able to gain widespread endorsement from other countries and global union such as the United Nations. This means that the country would have an upper hand when it came to the question of ideological diplomacy. Apart from the diplomatic gain, the country was able to acquire legitimization, an aspect which it did not possess before. The legitimization aspect meant that the country would be in a position to gain an entry into other nations through its military (Post, McGinnis, & Moody 2014). This military-political gain saw the country gain an entry into a large part of Asia country’s where and dominate them with its own political philosophy. Up to date, the country is now ensconced in Asia as it deems to have been chasing the remaining group of al-Qaeda. Drawing on the above observation, it's justifiable to conclude that terrorism has become the new political change tool. Just in the same way that these terror groups have helped various political parties gain an upper hand in politics, it's the way in which the respective political parties are found to facilitate the operations of the terrorist activities. This means that terrorist groups and attacks are likely to be on the rise as long as our political leaders are in the range to use them drive political changes. These intended political changes often entail a sway on the general election, change in political formation, and change in political power and positions. Reconceptualising Political Violence and Terrorism The traditional concept pertaining political violence has gradually changed. Various empirical studies indicate that the strategies that were earlier in conducting terrorism activate were less politically oriented or socially organized, to say the least. However, the political violence and terrorism concept has taken an entirely new phase which is characterized by strategies such as provocation, attrition, intimidation, and outbidding[Lan14]. To start with, the provocation strategy is aimed at provoking a heavy reaction from the target group on a feel that the government cannot be in a situation to save them from the terror attacks. The outbidding terrorism strategy aims at convincing both the target group and the public that the terrorist group has the power to resolve rival groups while the moderators are weak to resolve them. Effectiveness of Terrorism as a Political Tool Having said that terrorism has become the modern political war too, it’s time that we do now look at the effectiveness of this tool. In most cases when we talk about terrorism as a war tool, we are often drawn into reflecting on the Pakistan and Palestine scenarios. In this critic paper, as we will later come to a conclusion, I have found terrorism to have greater effectiveness as a political tool. In the Palestine struggles after the Second World War, the political leaders went a step forward to seek support from terrorist groups. It’s evident that the terrorism strategy succeeded a lot in drawing public attention in the support of the struggle. However, the long-term effectiveness of this technique is limited as its still update unable to justify the civilian casualties that were carried out by the engaged terrorist groups. This ultimately undermined the long term political goal of Palestine as well as the perceived political goals. Before coming to a conclusion on the effectiveness of terrorism as a political tool, let’s consider one more scenario on how a target group responded to political associated attacks. It was just a few months ago when Iraq, said that the sole purpose of beheading an American Journalist, James Foley was a way of persuading the US government to call off its military operations in the Islamic state (Post J. 2015, 242-278). But did it happen? No. This act had an inverse political effect. President Obama commanded an air strike and campaign in the aftermath of the beheading. This is a clear indication that terrorism activities can as well attract other political effects different from the intended one. In summation, the Palestine struggle indicates that the use of terrorist acts for political gain exemplifies both the ability and limitation of the terrorism as a political tool. Just to summarize, the use of terrorism draws primary gains in a political scenario while drawing some negative repercussions in the long-term run. However, when terror attacks and threats are taken as a means to an end, their effectiveness takes on a very different meaning. Having said so, we can conclude that the use of terrorism is always deemed as the only promising alternative by selfish political leaders and therefore the perception of their effectiveness is out of the question according to them. Terrorism and Political Violence as Tools of Diplomacy Some countries have been found to be using terrorism in its various forms as a way of facing rivals to come into a political agreement. Before coming into an assumption, we should with recalling that moment when there were claims that Qatar was supporting certain terrorist groups. This lead to a number of Gulf nations in coming into a diplomatic agreement with the fear that Qatar would use these terror groups in fighting them if they didn’t come into an agreement with Qatar. The Pakistan Case Pakistan is an Islamic republic in South Asia. At its present grave, the country is facing an immense terrorist threat. The issue has gone beyond being a nightmare to its own federation and public to the extent of becoming a global concern. The country has long been accused by other countries, particularly its neighbours such as Afghanistan and India for its involvement in terrorist activities in the region and beyond (Gaibulloev & Sandler. 2014, 25-44). The political leadership in the country has been found to be creating “safe havens” to terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda. According to the United Nations, terrorists continue to train, operate and organize inside the country. Although the likes of Al Qaeda groups have literary been banned in the country, various reports indicate that the groups still engage in fundraising activities, including the state's capital. It is worth noting that the political aspects in the country have been believed to be the main cause of terrorism in the country. These aspects include non-democratic set-up, improper government set-up, and the failure of law enforcement agencies. Today the country is faced with democracy turmoil. This describes the path taken by political parties in the country where they constitute of military regimes. These regimes do whatever they can in their power in order to seize power or have their representatives in the government. In addition, the regimes in various regimes try to outdo each other through terrorism activities that are a channel to drive fear and terror for political gains. The Changing Face of Terrorism in Pakistan Pakistan authorities and political leaders have long had close ties to the domestic terrorist groups. This has always seen the country being accused of playing “double game” by analysts who were focused on finding the cause of violence in the country. In 2011, the concerns about the political leader’s commitment in countering terrorism heightened when U.S. commandos were killed in an area new to the country’s capital. Violence in Pakistan is now on the rise as terrorist groups, particularly target political leaders in the country. In contrast to this scenario, it was shocking to see the prime minister, Nawaz Sharif railing against U.S. drones that were oriented to fight the terrorist groups in 2013. This was a clear indication that the unprecedented prime minister was trying to protect the militant’s groups. In addition, the Pakistan’s own counterterrorism efforts are currently under scrutiny. This is due to the fact that the initiatives seem to be protective of the alleged facilitators and members of these terrorist groups. The current bill on countering terrorism in the country arbitrary detention of the terrorist groups. This law will definitely codify the warrantless detention of the terrorist groups (Gaibulloev & Sandler. 2014, 160). This is a clear indication that there currently exists a link between the terrorist activities and political leaders, who form the country’s legislature. Political Groups and Terrorism Legitimacy in Pakistan The current administration in the Pakistan has consistently used terrorism for selfish political gains. As the elections in the country were approaching back in May, there were consistent terrorist attacks on both the candidates and civilians. The attacks were aimed at creating terror and fear in the country while threatening on the existing political frameworks and democracy. Back in 2013, some the two-time prime minister in the country facilitated the bombing of some states, leading to the postponement of the election. Such political organized terrorist activities in the could have always been found to propel the politicians to genuine positions, either as “sympathizers” or the selfish leaders (Aksoy, D. 2014, 76). The assumption that violence has always galvanized voters to choose a particular candidate or party is next to the truth as indicated by the election polls in the country. The “conservative” leaders in the country have occasionally been associated with facilitating terrorism in the country with the aim of swaying the elections. Similar attacks or terror threats has occasionally been used in Pakistan in politics “war.” Apart from swaying elections, terrorist acts in the country terrorism in the country make the domestic politics more complicated. This aspect has been used by various opposition leaders in the country in order to indicate the incapability of those in power. By doing so, the government survival always depends on the level of political-terrorism as the voters hold them accountable for their failure to provide adequate security. The best example of such scenario is the AL Qaeda attack in 2011. Its attack on the domestic soil left the public agitating for another government which would be capable of keeping them secure from similar attacks. This led to the appointed of new leaders who were at the lime light of “sympathizing” with the civilians. In addition, apart from influencing the priority of voters in the country, terrorist activities have as well influenced the political formation. In reference to Taliban terrorist attacks back in 2013, the attack provided an incentive to overcome internal disagreements pertaining the political leadership, ultimately facilitating the formation of coalitions (Rubin, 2015). The coalition was found to have a very low degree of ideological polarization after the occurrence of the attacks. It is more devastating to see that the current government, being led by the sitting prime minister Nawaz Sharif is still using both terror attacks and fear in order to beat Imran Khan who seems to have an upper hand in the oncoming elections. The current prime minister is exaggerating the terrorist threat for political gains. This makes the voters perceived him and his party as the best candidate to protect them from the potential attacks. Justification To summarize what we have just discussed in the Pakistan case study, terrorism has indeed become the waging of politics. To justify these conclusions, there are various facts associating politicians in the country with the terror groups, no wonder the attackers are able to obtain sophisticated weapons and equipment. It’s also worth noting that terrorism in the country is far and away on the list of the current government politics, justifying our thesis statement. Conclusion After the extensive study and critic of the existing extensive literature works on the use of terrorism as a waging of politics, we can come to an informed conclusion that indeed terrorism has become the new tool for both political changes and gain. It’s also worth noting that the extent and nature of the political gain depend on the motives of the facilitators of the terror activities. This easy as also revealed several things; first, there is a great relationship between terrorism activities and politics. Second, the effectiveness of the use of terrorism for political gains is a selfish move since the second repercussions have proven to be ineffective. The Pakistan case study has surpassed any doubts on the use of terrorism for political gains as we have seen that political leaders always facilitate terrorist activities for selfish political gains. We can, therefore, come into a summation that indeed terrorism is simply the waging of politics in a usually brutal way. References Aksoy, D., 2014. Elections and the timing of terrorist attacks. The Journal of Politics, 76(4), pp. 899-913. Casaca, P. and Wolf, S.O. eds., 2017. Terrorism Revisited: Islamism, Political Violence and State-Sponsorship. Springer. Crenshaw, M. ed., 1993. Terrorism, legitimacy, and power: The consequences of political violence (p. 10). Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press. Gaibulloev, K. and Sandler, T., 2014. An empirical analysis of alternative ways that terrorist groups end. Public Choice, 160(1-2), pp.25-44. Getmansky, A. and Zeitzoff, T., 2014. Terrorism and voting: The effect of rocket threat on voting in Israeli elections. American Political Science Review, 108(3), pp.588-604. Jackson, R., 2013. The politics of terrorism fears. The Political Psychology of Terrorism Fears, pp.267-282. Lankford, A., 2014. Précis of the myth of martyrdom: what really drives suicide bombers, rampage shooters, and other self-destructive killers. Behavioral and brain sciences, 37(4), pp.351-362. Post, J.M., McGinnis, C. and Moody, K., 2014. The changing face of terrorism in the 21st century: The communications revolution and the virtual community of hatred. Behavioral sciences & the law, 32(3), pp.306-334. Post, J.M., 2015. Terrorism and right-wing extremism: the changing face of terrorism and political violence in the 21st century: the virtual community of hatred. International journal of group psychotherapy, 65(2), pp.242-271. Rubin, B. and Rubin, J.C., 2015. Chronologies of modern terrorism. Routledge. Read More