To What Extent Should Security Adapt To Post 9/11 Realities - Coursework Example

To What Extent Should Security Adapt To Post 9/11 Realities? Affiliation: Introduction The global terrorism indexes indicate that approximately 64000 individuals died from terrorist attacks in the years 2002-2011. The startling statistics indicate how terrorism is a pressing political problem for all governments in the world. However, scholars and academics, policy maker and law enforcement officers have failed to develop a cohesive and comprehensive definition for terrorism. This essay will discuss the existing difficulties in defining terrorism and its analysis in relation to political violence. The paper will also discuss the concepts of old and new terrorism and the implication of new forms of terrorism. Further, the paper will discuss, the main challenges with conceptualising and countering radicalisation (Tilly, 2004) What difficulties are there with ‘terrorism’ as a concept for scholarly analysis of political violence? According to Richardson (2006), Legal bodies, scholars, countries, international bodies and policy makers have competing viewpoints and interests. They attempt to form a definition that fulfil their interest, yet remain cohesive and comprehensive enough to remain practical. Their efforts are unsuccessful and distracts the overall attempt to counter the threat of terrorism. One difficulty with terrorism as a concept for political analysis is that there are huge volumes and diverse materials that define terrorism and give different perspectives of the subject (Weber et al., 2006). Scholars attempt to solve the problem by analysing the huge volumes of existing definitions and identify similarities between them. Dershowitz (2002) for instance argues that definitions of terrorism and its relation to political violence consist of factors that fall within five categories including nature of the group, nature of target and victims, the means of achieving terrorist goals, and the mechanisms for achieving the terror objectives. Schmid & Jongman (2008), conducted a study that collated information from more than a hundred definition of terror and political violence and identified twenty two elements that are critical in conceptualizing terrorism and identify its linkage to political violence. The most common elements identified were violence, force, political and fear. The authors claimed that on average, authors used 8 categories to define terrorism. Other authors did similar studies and revealed a definition that includes up to 73 elements in order to analyse terrorism. Different authors identify different aspects that are critical in analysing terrorism and how it relates to political violence. Some authors distinguishes terror from political violence while others argue that the two concepts are similar and driven by similar motives (Martin, 2010). Therefore, these differences and the huge volume of literature makes it difficult to form a single definition of terrorism and establish its connection with political violence (Schmid & Jongman, 2008). According to Roy (2007), another difficulty with ‘terrorism’ as a concept for scholarly analysis of political violence is the complex nature of history of terrorism. The term was associated with the French revolution but modern forms of terrorism associated with violence and fear evolved over time. Terrorism is as old as war but its character has frequently changed over time. Its dynamism and transformative traits make it difficult to analyse. For example, a certain aspect of terrorism that applied in the 18th century may be entirely inappropriate for terror activities in the modern age. Therefore constant changes bring new concepts that make it even more difficult to analyse terrorism and connect it to political violence. For example, in the 18th century, terrorism was seen as from of political violence (Roy, 2007). However, the current practice is to separate it from political violence because terrorism motives vary from political, religious and fight for inclusion into government leadership among others. According to Acharya (2008), another difficulty exists in separating terrorist violence from revolutionary violence. Revolution violence results when individuals use radical means to have their voice heard. For example, individuals who are dissatisfied with their government’s leadership may use violence means to oust the bad leadership or demand for change in leadership structures. During this time, may cause terror, destroy resources, use weapons to kill and destroy. Terrorists also use the same methods to instil fear and threat safety of others (Buckley & Fawn, 2003). It becomes impossible to separate the motive of terrorism violence from revolution violence since both acts use the same means and mechanism to achieve selfish/self-centred interests. Is it justified to cite need for change as a reason to cause terror? Such issues make it difficult to analyse terrorism and draw a clear line between political violence and terrorism. Buros (2011) argues that separating terror motive from the motives of political violence is another difficulty experienced in conceptualizing terrorism and scholarly analysis of political violence. Often, terrorism is politically instigated and triggered by political heat among nations or between different political factions. Politicians are used to use terror to achieve their political agenda. For example, terrorists have targeted countries such as USA that fight international terrorism. The terrorists during the attacks cite that they don’t need foreign involvement in their country’s affairs (Buros, 2011). They justify causing terror on innocent civilians on the fact that their country affairs are unnecessarily interrupted. Therefore, they cite political motives for their terrorist activities. Therefore, political motives and terror motives are terms that are used interchangeably to cause violence. Because it is difficult to separate the two motives, it is difficult to tell if violence resulted from purely political or terrorism motives. This makes it very difficult to conceptualize terrorism and analyse it in relation to political violence. What’s new about ’New Terrorism’? What difference does it make? Isabella (2004) in her book How New Is the New Terrorism states that the new terrorism increased its use of information technology and modern telecommunication devices to facilitate communication within its networks. Old terrorism used less sophisticated weapons to cause threat and terror. Communication was secret using the most secretive and less obvious forms of communication such as encrypted letters and messengers. However, with the emergence of technological advancement in telecommunications, terrorists have gone hi-tech in revolutionizing their communication channels. This makes it easier to spread information across its wide network using discrete communication channels that are difficult to detect (Weinberg, 2001). They also use modern technological weapons such as bombs, grenades and guns during terror attacks. This makes them hit so ay places or individuals within a short time. Using technological war weapons makes terror impact hard because it hits the innocent civilians so unexpected and hard that terror is spread everywhere and individuals live in fear. Terrorists now develop network forms of organizations. The revolution of telecommunication makes it easier to cut the cost of communication to a larger group. This facilitates terror groups to push functions outside a controlling hierarchical structure. Terror organizations can then decentralize their authorities and control to facilitate formation of a terror network, a group with less autonomous control and dispersed groups that are linked by telecommunication for the purpose of causing terror (Mohammad, 2010). A network structure is advantageous because it offers more flexibility, it is adaptive and resilient because all its units have less control from the central authority and act with less coordination from other units. This offers the network multiple chances to learn and make it more adaptive and flexible. The network becomes more resilient since if one or more units are destroyed, the others are still functional. Unlike the old hierarchical structure, the new network structure is difficult to destroy via decapitation (Forst, 2009). Increasing use of amateur terrorists and ad-hoc terrorist groups in a new terrorist practice. Amateurs combine with like-minded individuals to carry out terrorist attacks and later disband when the mission is completed. They don’t receive training or logistical support from the state-sponsors networks. However, they rely on network of supporters, learn what they need from the internet and other publications and demobilize soldiers. Since they only have an informal organization structure, their existence is temporary, and it is difficult to spot and take action to stop them (Tucker, 2001). Ad-hoc groups and amateurs are successful because modern telecommunication facilitate communication with the networks, reduces the costs of communication and ease of communication makes them have an appeal on ethnic and religious groups and political sympathizers globally. Their messages easily reach a world-wide audience that sympathizes with their struggle (Boubeker & Michael Emerson, 2007). Laqueur (2009) explains that the new terrorism aims for mass destruction as an end in itself while the old terrorism focused on destruction as a means to a political end. While the old terrorism was had political motive as the main reason to cause terror, the new terrorism aims for mass destruction of innocent civilians to push on its agenda. New terrorism also focuses on mass destruction and murder using a variety of technique including weapons and suicide terrorism unlike old terrorism that only caused little drama with less destruction and damage. In addition, new terrorism is justified on religious grounds unlike the old terrorism that was rooted in political ideologies (Laqueur, 2009).  According to Webber (2006), new terrorism makes a big difference because it increases radicalization and increases efficiency of terror activities, Use of new technology for terror activities increases the impact of terror activities. The new focus on mass destruction using a variety of weapons and methods increases the damage to property, death toll and spread of fear among innocent civilians. Use of technology enables the new network structures lower costs of communication and operate with discretion (Webber, 2006). New terrorism practise makes it harder for government and international police to track terrorists and predict their movements. For example, use of hi-tech telecommunication makes it difficult to decipher communication between terrorists. Use of ad-hoc groups and amateurs for terror attacks makes it difficult to control their movements and actions because they use informal organizational structures with no attachment to any terrorist networks. What are the main challenges with conceptualising and countering ‘radicalisation’? Tying terrorism with religion is a key challenge in conceptualizing and countering radicalization. The new terror practices are justified on religious grounds unlike the old terrorism that was rooted in political ideologies. This makes it easy for young individuals to sympathize with terror groups and even join in conducting terror attacks. Tying terrorism with religion makes it difficult to implement the provisions of the Terrorist Act 2000 that provides the basis for prosecuting terrorists and banning their operations (Tilly, 2004). International laws respect freedom of worship and therefore spying religious meetings to find out if they are radical is against the Protections of Freedom Act, used by United Nations. Therefore, basing terrorism on religion makes it difficult for international police to implement security policies and arrest leaders who are hiding in a religion to radicalize the youth. This makes it difficult for international police to draw a distinction between what religious practices are safe and which ones are radical with terror motives (Chaliand, 2007).  Because individuals have the freedom of religion, it is difficult to stop them from visiting religious places and groups, even where there is reasonable doubt that the group is meeting for purely religious purposes. Therefore, tying religion with terrorism makes it difficult to fight terrorism because it may interfere with the freedom of worship. Charles (2004) identifies another challenge that is the use modern technology to conduct terror attacks. This hampers the implementation of security strategies that include: pursuing (to stop terrorist attacks), Preventing (stop individuals from becoming terrorists), protecting (strengthen a country’s protection against terror attacks) and prepare (to mitigate impact of terrorist attacks). Security policies are focused on developing clear communication channels to track terrorists and prevent them from attacking. They are using science and technology to counter terrorism threats. However this is challenging because the new terrorism use modern technology for its terror activities (Masters & Hoen, 2012). Techniques such as using bombs and machine guns are very effective in hitting wider areas and causing mass destructions. The terrorists can hit away from the site and thus they are difficult to detect. Telecommunication advancement has revolutionized terror activities. Terrorists can now form networks since it is convenient to coordinate a network using telecommunication devices and it lowers the overall administration costs. It also makes it easier for terrorists to pass their message to a large audience that sympathizes with their struggles. Furthermore, telecommunication makes all official communications discrete and difficult to decipher (Buckley & Faw, 2003). The government is thus unable to stop terrorists from attacking and can only react after the attacks. Zeidan (2005) explains that the role of the state and non-state actors is a major challenge in conceptualizing and countering radicalization. In some cases, states act as perpetrators of terrorism. This confuses because a state is a human community that claims monopoly to legitimately use physical force. For example, the army has legitimacy to use force to contain violence and maintain order. However, states at times, misuse their power to attack other states, regions and territories that are opposed to their rule and therefore threaten their interests. When states misuse their powers, they may cause the victimized groups to use terrorist attacks to protect themselves. This move makes terrorism seem a fair practice and a means to an end. Viewing terrorism as a necessary counteractive force justifies its use and therefore, makes it necessary to radicalise the youth so that they are ready to defend their country and individuals against external aggression (Zeidan, 2005). Conclusion Legal bodies, scholars, countries, international bodies and policy makers have competing viewpoints and interests. They attempt to form a definition that fulfil their interest, yet remain cohesive and comprehensive enough to remain practical. Their efforts are unsuccessful and distracts the overall attempt to counter the threat of terrorism. The difficulties experienced with ‘terrorism’ as a concept for scholarly analysis of political violence include: huge volumes and diverse materials that define terrorism and give different perspectives of the subject, complex nature of history of terrorism and separating terrorist violence from revolutionary violence among others (Cronin &Ludes, 2004).  The new terrorism practices include formation of network structures, use of amateurs and ad-hoc groups, mass destruction, using religion to justify terror attacks and use of modern technology. This has major impact in creating convenience and cutting costs for the terror networks. It also makes it difficult for governments to trace and counteract terror attacks (Mahdi, 2010). The main challenges in countering radicalisation is tying religion to terrorism, situation where states misuse their legitimate power to use physical force and use of technology to revolutionize terrorism (Levitt, 2006). References Acharya, U. D. (2008). “War on Terror Or Terror Wars: the Problem in Defining Terrorism.” Denver Journal of International Law and Policy 37: 653. Buckley, M. E. and R. Fawn (2003). Global Responses to Terrorism: 9/11, Afghanistan, and Beyond. London, Routledge. Buros, R. L. (2011). “Realism vs. Liberalism in the Development of Counterterrorism Strategy.” Small Wars Journal Oct 16 http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/realism-vs-liberalism-in-the-development-of-counterterrorism-strategy Chaliand, G. and A. Blin (2007). The History of Terrorism: From Antiquity to al Qaeda. California, University of California Press. Charles, T. (2004). Terror, Terrorism, Terrorists’, Sociological Theory, Vol. 22, No. 1. pp. 5-13. Cronin, A. K. and J. M. Ludes (2004). Attacking Terrorism: Elements of a Grand Strategy. Georgetown, Georgetown University Press. Dershowitz, A. M. (2002). Why Terrorism Works: Understanding the Threat, Responding to the Challenge. London, Yale University Press. Forst, B. (2009). Terrorism, Crime, and Public Policy. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Isabella, D. (2004). How New Is the New Terrorism?, Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, Vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 439–454. Laqueur, W. (2009). The New Terrorism: Fanaticism and the Arms of Mass Destruction. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Levitt, G. (2006). “Is “Terrorism” Worth Defining’.” Ohio Northern University Law Review 13: 97. Mahdi, M. N. (2010). From Old to New Terrorism: The Changing Nature of International Security, Globality Studies Journal : Global History, Society, Civilization, Vol. 1. No. 18. (2010), 1-20. Martin, G. (2010). Essentials of Terrorism: Concepts and Controversies. London, SAGE Masters, D. and P. Hoen (2012). “State Legitimacy and Terrorism.” Democracy and Security 8(4): 337-357. Boubeker, and Michael, E. (eds.)( 2007). European Islam: Challenges for Society and Public Policy (Brussels: Centre for European Policy Studies, pp. 52-60. Richardson, L. (2006). What Terrorists Want: Understanding the Terrorist Threat. London, John Murray (Publishers). Schmid, A. P. and A. Jongman (2008). Political Terrorism: A New Guide to Actors, Authors, Concepts, Data Bases, Theories, and Literature. London, Transaction Publishers. Tucker, D. (2001). “What is New about the New Terrorism and How Dangerous is it?” Terrorism and Political Violence 13(3): 1-14. Weber, M., et al. (2006). From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. New York, Oxford University Press Weinberg, L., et al. (2004). “The Challenges of Conceptualizing Terrorism.” Terrorism and Policical Violence 16(4): 777-794. Zeidan, S. (2005). “Agreeing to Disagree: Cultural Relativism and the Difficulty of Defining Terrorism in a Post-9/11 World.” Hastings International & Comparative Law Review 29(2): 215 Read More