Various Definitions of Terrorism - Essay Example

Nature of terrorism Terrorism has existed for centuries in one type of another. The nature of the acts of terrorists can occur either during the time of peace or during conflict. Although scholars as well as political organisations have posed various definitions of terrorism, there is no international, legal or comprehensive definition of terrorism that has been accepted. According to Pape (2003), the challenge in regard to many attempts of defining terrorism is connected directly to the source of definition. That is, an organisation or group definition of terrorism will normally determine its meaning. However, the many definitions of terrorism can be reduced to five major elements or characteristics: violence, perpetrator, motive, victims, and audience (Enders, & Sandler, 2006). Without violence or threat of violence, a political decision maker cannot be compelled to respond to the demand of terrorism. Thus, they use violence in order to achieve their goals. The perpetration of violence is by whatever means such as sponsoring from a state through provision of intelligence, safe havens, training or other means. The type of motivation determines the kind of terrorism and the presence of social or political motive makes a violent act to be a terrorist act. The victims of the target of a terrorist act are innocent civilians and the main objective is to cause fear, intimidate or coerce their enemy in order to achieve a political, religious, ideological or military goal (Enders, & Sandler, 2006). Traditionally, the idea of international security has been perceived as the use of force between states with more focus on the capability of the operations of military. However, this perception has changed in regard to the nature of international threats, the one that needs to be secured, and the kind of reactions authorised in management of threats. Currently, terrorism is no longer defined by borders. While terrorism is not a new phenomenon, the September 2001 attacks brought terrorism to prominent attention in many countries (St. Jean, 2007). How new global terrorism differs from past models of terrorism The idea of new terrorism in the world is completely different from the past in regard to goals, magnitude of destruction, re-grouping or organisational structure, and territoriality among others. First, the new terrorism ends are presumed to be non-negotiable and unlimited and they do not provide “red lines”. Based on this view, their goals are exclusively derived from the doctrines of religion which emphasise apocalyptic and transformational beliefs in all monotheistic religions (but usually associated with Islam). They are presumed to hate the culture, values, existence and civilization, especially of the Western. Their violence is expressive but not strategic where destruction is an end itself, but not a means to an end. They are characterised as religious fanatics and they usually suffer from persecution and delusion. For instance, the September 11 terror attacks were driven by religious fanaticism and non-negotiable political demands. On the contrary, the old terrorism was seen to be limited and negotiable with local rather than global ambitions. Their aims were tangible, understandable and typically related the issues of territorial autonomy and nationalism. They were presumably sensible and had pragmatic and realistic objectives. They could bargain, strike deals and solve conflicts. They hated their enemies but this hate had not yet reached a level of blinding them (Laqueur, 2001). Secondly, the means used in new terrorism are assumed to be different. This premise is based on the idea that because their ends are unlimited, so are their means. Their aim in regard to their enemies is to cause the highest possible number of casualties and they are also willing to sacrifice themselves in any number in order to achieve their goal. Thus, it is usually the advent of “suicide” terrorism. They are more inclined to use weapons of mass destruction that secular groups. They are potentially highly destructive or highly destructive. For example the September 11 hijackings that led to the highest number of single terrorist attack in history. On the other hand, old terrorism is more specific and restrained in targeting. They did not want people dead, but they wanted to watch them. They imposed restraints in regard to their actions since their aim was changing the popular audiences’ attitude that could be of great help to their achievement of goals. Although they had the capability of being more destructive, they never chose to do it. For instance, in 1880s, French radicals bombed restaurants that the bourgeoisie were frequenting with an aim of showing the working class, their true enemy that they were targeting. However, they would have in no doubt killed more people if they decided to use more powerful bombs (Hoge, & Rose, 2001). Third, new terrorism is different in regard to organisational structures. They are decentralised with flat networked apparatus rather than cellular or hierarchical structure. Sub-units have substantial autonomy and the organisation is transnational. For instance, Al Qaeda is now a quite rare ‘leaderless resistance’ as evidenced in their attacks such as in London and Madrid where it became difficult to trace the attacks due to confused and messed structures. On the other hand, old terrorism is not usually centralised as well as top to down. Individual leaders had very little significance in regard to their operations. However, organisation was not always centralised as there were serious fragmentations in most groups (Laqueur, 2001). Fourth, in regard to territoriality, old terrorism is home-grown and its consequences are related to the host nation, its population, institutions, policies and property. States in old terrorism were self-reliant in case they possessed sufficient resources. As a result, their strategy did not include other states because the reactions of the government and the acts of terrorists did not affect foreign interests. However, with the new terrorism, states are cooperating with the intelligence agencies and security forces of other countries with an aim of addressing the root cause of terrorism (Enders, & Sandler, 2006). Finally, new terrorism is clearly differentiated from old terrorism in six ways. First, new terrorism is more violent as terrorists want attention and mass casualties unless previously when they wanted attention only. Second, old terrorism affected local politics but new terrorism is transnational. Third, new terrorism is better financed than old one where even illegitimate income sources are used to finance operations. Fourth, the forces of new terrorism are better trained in black arts of war unlike old terrorism. Fifth, due to the level of fraternization involved, the threats of new terrorism are difficult to penetrate especially religious extremist as compared to previous terrorist networks. Finally, the potential availability of weapons of mass destruction creates more threat currently than previous arms. The ability of states to effectively utilise counterterrorism in the current environment It is worth understanding that modern terrorism has really evolved. And as a reaction to this, the states developed elite forces on counter-terrorism with skills such as hostage negotiation and rescue. In addition, the evolution went further to another tactic which involved adoption of bombings, suicide bombers and hijacked planes where planes were used as flying bombs such as the September 11 attack. With more electronics and communications advancements, there has been an opening of a wide range of new methods of delivering bombs such as use of remote controlled vehicles and remote bombs such as Madrid bombings. In regard to this, the tactics on counter-terrorism has been challenged. As a result, there has been a continued development of more effective tactics by counter-terrorism experts. One of the most important things to note about terrorists is that with the level of technology the issue is still going to higher levels. Currently, counterterrorism has amounted to substantial effort with more measures and policies in fighting against terrorism. For instance, the US alone allocated more than $1 trillion to measures and policies in relation to the fight against terrorism for a period of 10 year from 2001 (Mueller, & Stewart, 2011). In the current environment, the effectiveness of counter-terrorism would appear not just warranted but also necessary. States have shown their ability through recognition that intelligence provides one of the most valuable way to counter terror. In regard to domestic insurgency, rebellion usually comes from minority group or host community that is very common in defined areas. As a result, some states have come up with containment strategies aimed at limiting or shrinking the zone of conflict leading to denial to access or erection of restriction barriers. However, such strategies have made counter-terrorism more challenging as the problem is never solved. This in turn has led to greater hatred, segregation of communities and more terrorists (Ganor, 2005). In addition, the frustration and challenges that are related to countering terrorism or searching for terrorists have provided states with more skills as they opt for more diverse measures. For example, Israel employs three measures to fight terrorism which are defensive, operative and punitive measures where they opt for defensive measures as most effective. The United States, for instance have more effective policies based on unilateral sanctions, military force, and multilateral sanctions in order to dissuade state support for terrorism. In Libya, the US used military action in order to reduce the frequency of terrorist incidents (Collins, 2004). Most importantly, the best results are achieved through development of joint state security forces. Such cooperation include police forces with support of intelligence asset and military elements back-up which have appeared to offer better chances in regard to containment of activities of terrorists. This shows the extremes that the states are determined to go in order to fight terrorism. However, despite the myriad of measures on counter-terrorism, counter-terrorism is still experiencing challenges in regard to the rapidly changing environment. This does not mean that the states cannot effectively utilise counter-terrorism. States have this capability because there is more focus on effective global counter-terrorism based on policing and intelligence, as well as consideration of values. For instance, the United States continues to strengthen their counterterrorism strategies such as a new strategy based on “laser focus” approach. This approach has effectively decimated the power, reach, and appeal of Al Qaeda and it is based on zeroing in on the senior leaders of Al Qaeda organisation and enhancement of cooperation with partners and allies in order to defeat the extremist scourge (LaFranchi, 2011). The acceptance that there is a new terrorism provides a new approach to the states in regard to intellectual support for their counterterrorism strategies. Justifying the shift of policies to global terrorism is an improvement in fighting terrorism. This has been made effective through facilitating the decision making in regard to constructions of policy and strategies on counterterrorism. Being a complicated phenomenon, there is a growing understanding throughout the world that regardless of the complexity of terrorism based on various social and political contexts, the knowledge of detail is necessary (St. Jean, 2007). In regard to foreign hostages that terrorists usually display especially through media, they present an idea of what resulted on their actions. Thus, it is worth noting that states are capable of achieving more in regard to their effectiveness on counter-terrorism. This is based on their considerations on values, intelligence and policing. This will lead to removal of animosity that currently exists. Currently, we are living in an age where international challenges such as terrorism cannot be solved by state individually. This is very clear through the political, economical and military activities which continuously show unilateral action. Presence of global problems such as global warming calls for global solutions. And global solutions call for broad international consensus. This is also applying to the effective utilisation of counter-terrorism. Since the states have joined together, they have realised that solving the modern terrorism problem cannot be prompt. Their ability is displayed by creation of new systems of security as well as an attempt to address the root causes in regard to modern terrorism. Conclusion International terrorism is one of global challenges. A victory over terrorism would lead to replacement of culture of fear to the culture of engagement, respect and solidarity. It is possible to win a war by first identifying the goal. When we consider the possible outcome in regard to the war on terror, indeed this war can be won. Victory will be there when: the ideology that is promoted by terrorists will be discredited, and when there is more promising path to respect, dignity, and opportunities. But it will not be achieved when terrorists and potential terrorists are captured and killed. Victory will not mean to completely eliminate any possible terrorist because that action will create more terrorists, but it will mean reducing terrorists’ risks to levels that does not affect the public, or provoke overreaction in a significant way. When it will reach at that point, the terrorists will also realise that their violence will not bear fruits. War against global terrorism is experiencing challenges because the primary causes are not addressed. When the states as well as individuals will always keep the vision of having a victory in mind, it will avert considerable trouble, pain and expense and also guide leaders towards developing policies that will lead to victory. Thus, war against global terrorism will be won. What will be important is to note that more fighting and aims of eliminating terrorists will make the progress futile. What will be crucial is to focus on various issues such as the problem of political, repression and economic injustices. Others include abuses of human rights, and reactions that lead to mainstreaming of neglect. These will present good breeding grounds throughout the world for terrorism. It is worth noting that such problems exist in many nations. Recognising the situation soonest possible and deal with it will lead to victory. References Collins, SD 2004, “Dissuading State Support of Terrorism: Strikes or Sanctions? (An Analysis of Dissuasion Measures Employed Against Libya)”, Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 1–18. Enders, W, & Sandler, T 2006, The Political Economy of Terrorism. Cambridge University Press, pp. 1-2. Ganor, B 2005. The Counter-Terrorism Puzzle. A Guide for Decision Makers, New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers. Hoge, FJ Jr., & Rose, G 2001, How Did This Happen? Terrorism and the New War: Left, Right, and Beyond: The Changing Face of Terror, New York: Public Affairs Press. LaFranchi, H 2011, US unveils new counterterrorism strategy: three key parts, http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2011/0629/US-unveils-new-counterterrorism-strategy-three-key-parts Laqueur, W 2001, The New Terrorism: Fanaticism and the Arms of Mass Destruction, New York: Oxford University Press. Mueller, J, & Stewart MG 2011, Terror, Security and Money: Balancing the Risks, Benefits, and Costs of Homeland Security. Paper prepared for presentation at the panel, "Terror and the Economy Pape, RA 2003, “The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism,” The American Political Science Review, vol. 97, no. 3, pp. 345. St. Jean, EC 2007, “The Changing Nature of International Security: the Need for an Integrated Definition,” Paterson Review, vol. 8, pp. 22 Read More

How new global terrorism differs from past models of terrorism The idea of new terrorism in the world is completely different from the past in regard to goals, magnitude of destruction, re-grouping or organisational structure, and territoriality among others. First, the new terrorism ends are presumed to be non-negotiable and unlimited and they do not provide “red lines”. Based on this view, their goals are exclusively derived from the doctrines of religion which emphasise apocalyptic and transformational beliefs in all monotheistic religions (but usually associated with Islam).

They are presumed to hate the culture, values, existence and civilization, especially of the Western. Their violence is expressive but not strategic where destruction is an end itself, but not a means to an end. They are characterised as religious fanatics and they usually suffer from persecution and delusion. For instance, the September 11 terror attacks were driven by religious fanaticism and non-negotiable political demands. On the contrary, the old terrorism was seen to be limited and negotiable with local rather than global ambitions.

Their aims were tangible, understandable and typically related the issues of territorial autonomy and nationalism. They were presumably sensible and had pragmatic and realistic objectives. They could bargain, strike deals and solve conflicts. They hated their enemies but this hate had not yet reached a level of blinding them (Laqueur, 2001). Secondly, the means used in new terrorism are assumed to be different. This premise is based on the idea that because their ends are unlimited, so are their means.

Their aim in regard to their enemies is to cause the highest possible number of casualties and they are also willing to sacrifice themselves in any number in order to achieve their goal. Thus, it is usually the advent of “suicide” terrorism. They are more inclined to use weapons of mass destruction that secular groups. They are potentially highly destructive or highly destructive. For example the September 11 hijackings that led to the highest number of single terrorist attack in history.

On the other hand, old terrorism is more specific and restrained in targeting. They did not want people dead, but they wanted to watch them. They imposed restraints in regard to their actions since their aim was changing the popular audiences’ attitude that could be of great help to their achievement of goals. Although they had the capability of being more destructive, they never chose to do it. For instance, in 1880s, French radicals bombed restaurants that the bourgeoisie were frequenting with an aim of showing the working class, their true enemy that they were targeting.

However, they would have in no doubt killed more people if they decided to use more powerful bombs (Hoge, & Rose, 2001). Third, new terrorism is different in regard to organisational structures. They are decentralised with flat networked apparatus rather than cellular or hierarchical structure. Sub-units have substantial autonomy and the organisation is transnational. For instance, Al Qaeda is now a quite rare ‘leaderless resistance’ as evidenced in their attacks such as in London and Madrid where it became difficult to trace the attacks due to confused and messed structures.

On the other hand, old terrorism is not usually centralised as well as top to down. Individual leaders had very little significance in regard to their operations. However, organisation was not always centralised as there were serious fragmentations in most groups (Laqueur, 2001). Fourth, in regard to territoriality, old terrorism is home-grown and its consequences are related to the host nation, its population, institutions, policies and property. States in old terrorism were self-reliant in case they possessed sufficient resources.

As a result, their strategy did not include other states because the reactions of the government and the acts of terrorists did not affect foreign interests.

Read More