Social Disruptions Generated by Terrorist Attacks - Essay Example

Social Disruptions generated by terrorist attacks are largely due to the disproportionate attention we devote to them Social Disruptions generated by terrorist attacks are largely due to the disproportionate attention we devote to them Terrorism aims at destroying the fabric of communities of people across the globe leaving them exposed, in a state of fear and vulnerability. There are different forms of terrorism but bottom line, they all cause destruction and thus influencing the socio-economic status of the affected people (Mueller 2005). While the social disruptions brought about by terror attacks are huge, many people have varying opinions regarding the same. Some believe it is because the disruptions occur due to the little attention given to them while others interventions can do little to avert the disruptions. This paper is in tandem with the former assertion and views social disruptions a result of disproportionate attention. Brief Summary of Terrorism As it has been alluded earlier, the major aims of terrorism is to cause fear amongst people and hence vulnerable. Beyond the physical attack that occurs on the lives of the people, buildings and planes, terrorists intend to destroy not only the social and emotional fabrics of the people but also their economies (Moghaddam 2005). It should be noted that the victims of terror attacks are not just those who die or are injured in the process, but also those who, in one or another, get affected directly or indirectly. This includes the people, who lose their loved ones in the course of the attack, or have a firsthand experience regarding the horror of the event (Kruglanski 2004). The physical impacts of terrorism include the causalities (deaths and injuries) and property damage. These impacts are usually the most obvious and are easily measured and given coverage by the media and other reporting platforms. The social impacts of terror attacks, on the other hand, are not obvious and include psychological, demographic, economic, and political impacts (Fromkin 1975). Unlike physical impacts, social impacts develop over a significant period and often it is difficult to assess their impacts upon their occurrence (Crenshaw 2011). Despite the challenges in measuring these social impacts, it is vital to keep watch on them following the fact that they often cause significant problems for the long-term functioning of the affected community. The Different Arguments advanced on the Aftermath of Terrorism People give different perspectives on the events that occur after terror attacks. Concerning social disruptions, some have the opinion that they occur because of either negligence or disproportionate attention on the part of the authorities to reach out on the affected victims. However, other people link the social disruptions that occur after terrorism to the human behavior that is in response to the terror attack. Reasons for believing disproportionate attention to social disruptions One of the results of terror attacks is that it leads to social activism, which also leads to the generation of political disruption. Usually, this occurs in the interminable period of recovery following the terrorism attack. This period is especially critical as it acts a source of many victim grievances and hence provides a fertile ground for community conflicts (Williams et al. 2013). Housing for the victims could be problematic especially for the neighbors. This may be the case if victims attempt to put mobile homes on their own as they await further progress (Williams et al. 2013). Conflicts occur in such scenarios largely due to the consideration of such housing as blight to the neighborhood and neighbors are afraid the “temporary” housing will become permanent. The proponents of this argument feel that if only the plight of the victims especially concerning housing could be addressed promptly. Then such issues could not occur (Williams et al. 2013). Following terror attacks, a lot of damage is caused to property including households and businesses just to mention a few. The cost implication of repairing and replacing the lost property is usually high especially for families. Terror attacks are unexpected occurrences. It is often the case that most of these properties are uninsured against terrorism and hence never qualify for compensation by insurance companies (Atran 2003). In such circumstances the governments, through their contingency plans are technically supposed to chip in and help its citizens to regain their livelihood (Crenshaw 2011). Unfortunately, such processes often turn political and hence take so long to materialize. The feeling of negligence by the affected victims and such long delays are often the reasons behind the continuing social disruptions that are usually experienced (Betts & Richard 2005). This provides a justification for the argument that social disruptions are a result of disproportionate attention given to them. Another perspective given attention by the proponents of this argument revolves around loss of jobs following destruction of property. It is often the case that once terrorism occurs, jobs are lost mainly due to the destruction of business premises. Consequently, this causes reduction in investment. Job losses are among the most important causes of social unrest that is experienced on terror-hit areas (Crenshaw 2005). The proponents of the arguments posit that if the concerns of such people were given due attention, then probably the social disruption would not be a problem. This again supports the claim that little attention given to the aftermaths of terror events remains largely responsible for the many cases of social disruptions. There is also the issue of community interdependence. Relationships among the social units occurring within a community are often seen as being in a state of equilibrium when there is a smooth flow of resources, in particular, money and any other resources capable of being shared. The resources such as money are often obtained from the work the people who makeup the community engage and are used to pay for the products and services they consume. The terrorist attacks breakdown this flow of resources and unless addressed urgently; it leads to breakdown of normalcy and consequently, social disruption. The people who feel that disproportionate attention is given to social justify their claim by asserting that if the victims are given economic power immediately, then social disruptions will not occur (Crenshaw 2011). Social Disruptions are a characteristic human behavior response The people who view social disruptions as a characteristic human behavior response favor their position by the following arguments. Terrorist attacks are known to cause a myriad of negative psychological responses from people. Such responses would primarily include emotional signs, for instance, anxiety, a lot of depression and grief (Kruglanski 2004). In addition to these will be behavioral changes such as increased risk of alcoholism and drug abuse, suicide, risky behaviors such as unprotected sex and increased health care utilization among others. In most of these instances, the effects are often mild and transitory and are because of normal people acting in response to a very abnormal situation. It has been observed that only a portion of the affected people will require psychiatric diagnosis and that a majority of them actually is assisted from crisis counseling orientation as opposed to from normal health treatment orientation (Schmid 2006). Therefore, this means that little can be done to avert the situation, rather it normalizes with time. Evidence suggests that while the human behaviors in response to terrorism attacks cause social disruptions, only a small population portion of the population is affected. Most of the victims will, in many cases engage in problem focused coping activities in their effort to save and bring to normalcy (Schmid 2006). This may take place to save not only their lives but also those of close association (Schmid 2006). Following terrorist attacks, it has been seen that there occurs an increased incidence in pro-social behaviors. For example, there is usually an increased tendency to donate material aid and a decreased incidence of antisocial behaviors including crime. In other instances, some people go further even to an extent of risking their lives in order to ensure that other people’s lives are safe. The development of such behaviors is normal, and no efforts can prevent them. Accordingly, therefore, no amount of intervention can effectively prevent social disruptions that emerge following terror attacks. Anticipation of future attacks serves to perpetuate and exacerbate the psychological impact of previous attacks, creating a persistent element of terror in communities. Position on Social Disruptions and Terror Attacks Following the different arguments advanced on whether the social disruptions brought about by terrorist attack are largely due to the disproportionate attention devoted to them or not; it is the view of this paper that indeed, the social disruptions occur due to disproportionate attention devoted to them. The following are ways through which fight against terror, the cause of social disruptions may be worn. Ways of Preventing Terror Attacks and the resultant Social Disruptions While it is true that terror attacks occur unexpectedly, it is important always to be prepared as the consequences are known. For example, since it is clear that they lead to social disruptions, preparedness for the same will be highly helpful. In addressing the problem, the route cause must first be addressed, and that can only occur if the responsible bodies are up to the task. Prevention of terrorism is no mean task, as it requires efficient strategies. It requires a multifaceted approach which includes being aware of the actions, events and trends that occur not only on land, but also on the larger sphere of the cyberspace. An understanding of the processes going in these places provide an easy way of identifying anomalies and deviations that could, in one way, or another, indicate terrorist activity (Cronin 2009). An efficient partnership between the public and the private sector is quite necessary. Any suspicious activity should be reported to the concerned authorities. The law enforcing agents should in particular, remain vigilant and proactive and through their intelligence gatherings be able to process information as and when it arrives (Sageman 2004). Disruption of the terrorists’ activities and networks is also one way that can help in preventing terrorist attacks. In order to achieve this, highly intelligent operations aiming to arrest, and prosecute the acclaimed terrorist leaders, and their trainers should be done. Targeting and freezing their funds, arresting their financiers and interdicting their money transfer mechanisms can go a long way in depleting their powers to conduct the attacks (Kruglanski 2002). Strict guidelines should be put at the boarders to ensure that people suspected of conducting terrorist activities are not allowed into any country. Extreme care should be taken to ensure that all routes are sealed including air; road and sea as these serve as the terrorists’ entry points. In order to achieve this, deployment of technology and other sophisticated and tactical infrastructure should ideally be in place (Drake 1998). Creating networks with other security agencies across the world is also important in tracking the actions of terrorists. There is need to engage key communities in the war against terror. In addition, identifying and countering the sources of radicalization can be a huge boost towards stemming out the vise of terrorism. It is often the case that extremists target communities to inculcate and spread their ideology. As such efforts towards identifying and cropping the element of radicalization and its purveyors can assist in averting terrorism (Kydd & Walter 2006). Prisons especially act as dens for radicalization; therefore, monitoring the activities of the prisoners and cyberspace will help in sealing the vents for radicalization. Radicalization can also be dealt with by supporting community initiatives that preach the message of anti-radicalization and condemning the use of violence in general and specific terror attacks whenever they occur (Cronin 2009). Conclusion In conclusion, terror attacks aim at inducing fear, threats and destabilizing communities by causing social disruptions. While the social disruptions may escalate to unimaginable scales, proportionate attention to the same may reduce them significantly. Since terrorist attacks are not only about generating social disruptions, interventions must be taken to prevent the attacks. Networking with international security agencies and conducting serious checks at border points may prove vital in the fight against terror. With these measures in place, it is possible to avert terror attacks. However, with technology, the terrorists continue getting more complex ways of executing their missions. It, therefore, requires global co-ordination efforts to eradicate terrorism. References Abrahms, Max 2006, Why Terrorism Does Not Work, International security. 31:2, 42-78. Atran, S 2003, Genesis of suicide terrorism, Review Social Science, 1299, 1534–1539. Betts, Richard K 2005, Maybe Ill Stop Driving, Terrorism and Political Violence, 17:4, 507-510. Byman, Daniel 2005, A Corrective That Goes Too Far? , Terrorism and Political Violence, 17:4, 511-516. Crenshaw, M 2011, Explaining Terrorism: Causes, Process, and Consequences. London and NewYork: Routledge. Crenshaw, Martha 2005, A Welcome Antidote, Terrorism and Political Violence, 17:4, 517-521. Cronin, Audrey 2009, How terrorism ends: understanding the decline and demise of terrorist campaigns, Princeton, Princeton University Press. Drake, C. J. M 1998, The Role of Ideology in Terrorists Target Selection, Terrorism and Political Violence, 10:2, 53-85. Fromkin, David 1975, The Strategy of Terrorism, Foreign affairs. 53: 4, July, 683-698. Harmon, Christopher 2001, Five Strategies of Terrorism, Small wars and insurgencies., 12:3, 39-66. Kruglanski, A. W 2002, Inside the terrorist mind. Paper presented to the National Academy of Science.April, 29.Washington. D.C. Kruglanski, A. W 2004, The Psychology of Closed Mindedness, NewYork, Psychology Press. Kydd, A., and Walter, B 2006, The Strategies of Terrorism, International security., 31:1, 49-80. Moghaddam, F. M 2005, The staircase to terrorism: A psychological exploration, American Psychologist, 60, 161–169. Mueller, J 2006, Overblown: how politicians and the terrorism industry inflate national security threats, and why we believe them, New York: Free Press. Mueller, John 2005, Six Rather Unusual Propositions about Terrorism, Terrorism and political violence., 17:4, 487-505. Neumann, Peter R.; Smith, M. (2005), Strategic Terrorism: The Framework and Its Fallacies, The journal of strategic studies., 28:4, 571-595. Price, H. Edward Jr. 1977, The Strategy and Tactics of Revolutionary Terrorism, Comparative studies in society and history., 19(1). Rose, William, and Rysia Murphy 2007, Correspondence: Does Terrorism Ever Work: The 2004 Madrid Train Bombings, International Security, 32:1, 185-192. Sageman, M 2004, Understanding Terror Networks. Philadelphia, University of Penn- Sylvania Press. Schmid, Alex 2006, Terrorism as Psychological Warfare, Democracy and Security, 1:2, 137-146. Available as an Online Course Reading in the VLE (available under Online Course Readings). Stern, Jessica 1999, The ultimate terrorists, Cambridge: Harvard Univer- sity Press. Williams, Laron K./Koch, Michael/Smith, Jason M 2013, The Political Consequences of Terrorism: Terror Events, Casualties, and Government Duration, International studies perspectives., 14:3, 343-361. Read More