Can Terrorism be defeated by Military Means Only - Essay Example

Can Terrorism be defeated by Military Means Only? 08 May Introduction Terrorism is on the front pages again with the supposed demise of Osama bin Laden. He represented the face of terrorism with multi-million dollar bounty on his head. It is a topic that is on everyone's minds these days. One of the most persistent debates is whether military means can defeat terrorism. The answer is NOT. This is because terrorism is born out of an idea and ideas cannot be killed with bullets and guns. The way to stop it is to counter the idea with alternatives – with a more compelling idea. A few examples of better ideas are the promises of peaceful change, social reforms and economic equity. Terrorism is a form of “asymmetrical warfare” in military parlance. This terminology defines it as a type of warfare in which one of the combatants (the weaker) chooses when and where to engage and fight the other side (the stronger enemy). The term asymmetry derives from the unequal status in terms of strength of the combatants in which a lightly-equipped force attacks the much-stronger enemy by using unorthodox means of hitting its enemy through weak points. By necessity, terrorists use ideas to gain access into people's minds and hearts to win them over to their cause. Terrorism is the dominant form of conflict in most of today’s hot spots. Anti-terrorism experts are agreed on its layman’s definition which is an act or a series of acts designed to sow terror or extreme fear. Police investigative techniques and military solutions are good only for the short term but not really effective for the long haul. Discussion The aim of terrorists is intimidate and threaten people so they will act in a certain manner that is favourable or desired by the terrorists. This is but a simple form of coercion backed by threats of violence. Just as the saying that history is written by victors of a war, terrorism can be viewed from different perspectives, depending on who is using terror to achieve its aims. Individuals, groups and even governments use terror to help them achieve their objectives. Terrorism does not make any distinctions on the persons using terror but focuses on the means of terror. It means marginal groups can be labelled as terrorists as well as existing governments which employ the same techniques and methods. Agents who killed British soldiers in Palestine before Israel was given its independence were terrorists by the above definition and so were the Spanish secret agents under a previous administration during 1982 to 1986. The Guardia Civil (Spanish police) had formed their own terrorist units called as the Grupo Antiterrorista de Liberacion or GAL (www.onwar.com, n.d., p. 1) to counter threats posed by the growing ETA movement (Euskadi Ta Askatasuna) of the Basque region which initially had targeted members of the police and military. As can be gleaned from this initial discussion, terrorism can be viewed from different perspectives and as such could also be justified depending on who is using terrorism as a tool. In other words, terrorism is not a sole domain of disaffected individuals and marginal groups but also of duly-elected governments which find it convenient to use terrorism as state policy. Most terrorists today belong to organisations which are basically stateless. This state of being stateless is one other characteristic of asymmetrical warfare and is what makes the terror groups quite difficult to hunt down and defeat. Their structure is not hierarchical but rather more of a network which has redundant functions performed by several terror cells. In aftermath of Osama bin Laden’s reported death, many ordinary people expected terrorism threats to vanish away but anti-terrorism experts believe otherwise because the motivation is still there within the organisation of al-Qaida. The goals and the willingness to use terror have not changed a bit and many affiliated terror cells can still strike any time (Clarke, 2011, p. 1). In the thinking of most military experts, the weak terrorist can have an upper hand because of his inherent advantages in the twin elements of surprise and selectivity (Quinion, 2011, p. 1). The networked organisational set-up has made al-Qaida, an example here, of being operated on an almost self-sustaining basis with only very minimal direction from Osama bin Laden. The al-Qaida network can be compared to a multi-headed snake (the Hydra in old Greek mythology) that is difficult to kill because it grows more heads when it is cut. Aims of Terrorism – the use of threat, intimidation, coercion and violence serves the aim of terrorists. The objectives can be very diverse, depending on the nature of terrorists and what they want to achieve. Among these objectives are for political autonomy, religious freedom, ethnic recognition, fighting against social injustice and rectify economic marginalisation. The single characteristic common to all terrorists is their high level of motivation and the willingness to die to for it. Terrorism is just a manifestation of something wrong that exists in society. It cannot find a fertile ground when there is justice and equity for it cannot justify its existence as a terrorist organisation and its recruitment sources will dry up. There must be a rallying cry for people to join their movement but in most cases, terror groups are small minorities that represent demands for their people. Various studies showed that open societies are less susceptible to having terrorism on their territory when compared to repressive societies. Psychologists cite this direct correlation as a reduction-of-grievances theory in which people with democratic space and access to press freedoms have an outlet for expression of grievances through peaceful rather than violent means. Psychologists, sociologist, academicians, politicians and behavioural scientists are in a quandary on what makes terrorists tick. There are many reasons given their motivation such as political, social, economic or ideological reasons but most experts on this subject are at a loss to fully explain terrorist behaviours (Smelser & Mitchell, 2002, p. 30) as there is no unifying or over-arching set of psychological features that can profile a terrorist. Causes of Terrorism – for any effort of fighting terrorism to have a chance of success, it is necessary to look into the root causes of terrorism. It is vital to examine why people join terror groups; it is similar to a doctor trying to diagnose a disease by looking at all symptoms before prescribing a program of treatment. Put simply, presence of terrorism in a country (or even in the global context today where terror groups exist from Ireland to Russia to the Middle East and even to the Far East) is indicative of the deep social, political and economic malaise in that place. Terrorism is a manifestation of what is wrong rather than the cause. Military force alone will not be sufficient to beat it because terrorism is fed by the feelings of resentment, alienation, animosity and inadequacy. Even the military experts agree that use of “hard power” will not address the underlying causes. The fight against the new worldwide scourge of terrorism today cannot be won by the use of military means only. The modern form of terrorism which is stateless and asymmetric is a fairly new phenomenon that is also fuelled by religious fundamentalism. Terrorism exists because of an ideology and a military strategy must be backed up with other means such as a foundation for legitimacy, real prospects for peace and hope for all that the rule of law will be applied. The possible solution can be considered as a two-pronged approach: understand why terrorism continues to attract new adherents and second, give the reasons why terrorism cannot be defeated militarily in the long term (maybe yes in the short term). Terrorism cannot be seen or considered in isolation, but is to be viewed together with other factors (discussed below) that will be keys to defeating it. Perceived Discrimination – this is an often-heard complaint of those who engage in terrorism to dramatize their plight and bring attention to their cause. Whether discrimination is real or imagined, it gives terrorist recruiters the needed justification for using terror to try to rectify these perceived social, political, religious or economic injustices. The rallying cry of these terrorists is their feelings of being excluded from society for belonging to an ethnic or religious minority (ICHRP, 2008, p. 58). Terrorism here is being discussed in a general sense and does not refer only to Islamic extremism although the causes of both are similar. It is also ironic that after a terror attack, discrimination tends to rise instead against that particular ethnic group. The example given earlier was people in the Basque region of Spain but there are many other similar situations in other parts of the world. Among these are the Irish in the United Kingdom who felt discriminated whenever the Irish Republican Army (IRA) explodes a bomb on the British mainland or Muslim secessionists in the southern parts of Philippines. Human rights violations must be thoroughly investigated and perpetrators brought to justice to prevent any terrorist groups from exploiting such perceived abuses (Conte, 2010, p. 658). Socio-economic Forces – this reason for terrorism is most obvious in the Middle East where the oil wealth is not distributed evenly among the Muslim population. In many Arab countries with oil resources, the revenues from its oil exports did not filter down to the ordinary citizens but were accumulated by the ruling class. When oil prices were high, governments there provided guaranteed jobs, social safety nets, public health care, food subsidies and free education but they failed to empower their people. In the Middle East, there is only a rich ruling class and the masses are still relatively poor with no viable alternatives such as an established economic sector to absorb jobless youth when oil prices will again decline; there is no sizeable middle class in the region (Young, 2008, p. 4). Religious Beliefs – religious fundamentalism does not necessarily mean or translate into extremism or terrorism. But the threats to a person’s religion can provide justification for joining terror groups to earn a desired label of being a religious defender; it is just a short jump in the similarities of being called a terrorist and a freedom fighter, depending on whose view (Ahmad, 2001, p. 9). Anti-terrorism experts are also hard put to explain the relationship between religion and terrorism because religion teaches morality while terrorism tries to destroy it (Tarlow, 2009, p. 207). Religious-based terrorism is labelled as political in nature but is not and this wrong view helps to perpetuate the myths and wrong solutions to fighting terrorism (Al-khattar, 2003, p. 35). Conclusion A cursory reading of the aforementioned causes of terrorism will show it cannot be solved using a military solution. The right solution is a multi-faceted approach that deals with the underlying causes of terrorism. Use of military might merely deals with the symptoms but not the true causes. Discrimination such as in racial, social, political, economic or in religious terms will provide the fuel to encourage terrorists to keep up their motivation high and continue their struggles. Economic inequalities and religious intolerance likewise cannot be solved by military means. What is needed to combat terrorism is to address those various causes and concerns squarely since these are the ones feeding terror groups these new recruits in an endless war. The military option may be attractive to neutralize specific terror cells but the causes of grievances should be resolved. Spain’s use of state-sponsored terrorism is a good case of how democracy is damaged instead and terrorism making gains (Woodworth, 2004, p. 169). Terrorism has no central command and conventional military warfare will not defeat it but ideas can. A use of violence begets more violence and military means is not the right solution. Reference List Ahmad, E. (2001). Terrorism: Theirs and Ours. New York, USA: Seven Stories Press. Al-khattar, A. M. (2003). Religion and Terrorism: An Interfaith Perspective. Westport, CT, USA: Greenwood Publishing Group. Clarke, R. A. (2011, May 2). Bin Laden’s Dead. Al Qaida’s Not. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/03/opinion/03clarke.html?scp=1&sq=al-Qaida,%20bin%20laden&st=cse Conte, A. (2010). Human Rights in the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism: Commonwealth Approaches. London, UK: Springer. International Council on Human Rights Policy (2008). Talking about Terrorism – Risks and Choices for Human Rights Organizations. Geneva, Switzerland: ICHRP Publications. Onwar.com (n.d.) GAL Terrorism in Spain: 1983-Present. Retrieved from http://www.onwar.com/aced/nation/sat/spain/fspain1983.htm Quinion, M. (2011). World Wide Words/Asymmetrical Warfare. Retrieved from http://www.worldwidewords.org/turnsofphrase/tp-asy2.htm Smelser, N. J., Mitchell, F. and the National Research Council (U.S.). (2002). Terrorism: Perspectives from the Behavioral and Social Sciences. Washington, DC, USA: The National Academies Press. Tarlow, P. (2009). Western Religions and Terrorism, Do They Interact? In T. A. Gilly & Y. Gilinskiy (Eds.), The Ethics of Terrorism: Innovative Approaches from an International Perspective (pp. 207-217). Springfield, IL, USA: Charles C. Thomas Publisher, Limited. Woodworth, P. (2004). The War against Terrorism: The Spanish Experience from ETA to al-Qaeda. International Journal of Iberian Studies, 17 (3), 169-182. Young, S. A. (2008). A Basis for Middle East Islamic Extremism. Professional Issues in Criminal Justice, 2 (1), 1-12. Read More