The Strategies Of Terrorism - Research Paper Example

The Strategies Of Terrorism Max Abrahms’ “Why terrorism does not work” Terrorist groups that attack civilian populations are not successful in their political aims. Somehow they succeed if their target is a military installation or personnel. This is the gist of Abrahms’ article which draws some discussion and new studies on successes and failures of terrorist violence. Abrahms concludes that terrorist organizations are rarely successful in attaining political goals. There were 28 foreign terrorist organizations analysed in this article, and in Abrahms’ analysis he showed that these organizations failed in their objectives because they used civilian targets. In other words, there were instances in which terrorist organizations were successful and that is if their targets were military targets. According to Max Abrahms, terrorist attacks on civilians to intimidate government to change policies do not work. The 28 terrorist organizations only attained minimal success (7 percent) because they targeted civilians. Their attack on civilians undermined their aims; their purpose was just to destroy societies and they did not want to make concessions. Abrahms argues that there is the conventional wisdom that terrorism can be used to effectively coerce governments or the duly constituted authorities, but this contention is supported by limited empirical study. The victories of Hezbollah, the Tamil Tigers, and Palestinian liberation groups were limited victories. The Palestinian liberation group conducted terrorism and bombings but until now war is still going on with either Israel or Palestine declaring victory. In Abrahms’ study of the 28 terrorist organizations, he coded the outcomes of the objectives of each group as: “total success,” “partial success,” “limited success,” or “no success,” and found that the 28 terrorist organizations had 42 objectives in all, and yet successfully achieved only 3 which is equivalent to 7 percent. Abrahms concluded that terrorists only succeeded with the “type of objective and target selection”. Terrorists succeed when they have limited territorial objectives (for example, ending a military occupation), and not when they have maximal objectives, such as overthrowing a government. Target selection determines the success of a terrorist campaign. If they attack civilians, the latter would feel that terrorists want to destroy society and their values. Thus, civilian support declines. Kydd and Walter’s “The Strategies of Terrorism” Andrew Kydd and Barbara Walter have counter arguments. They opine that terrorism is effective in obtaining its objectives. Terrorist organizations like al-Qaida, Hamas, and the Tamil Tigers conduct terrorism and attain their necessary objectives. One example is the terrorist attack against the U.S. Marines in Beirut which forced the U.S. government to withdraw the American forces from Lebanon. The September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon forced the United States to withdraw its forces in Saudi Arabia even though the U.S. military had been in that country for more than a decade. The Philippines also withdrew its troops from Iraq after one of its citizens working there as overseas worker was kidnapped by Iraqi guerrillas. Hijacking planes, suicide bombings, and kidnapping citizens, have been effective for terrorist groups in achieving their political objectives. Terrorism becomes effective because victims and their families are stricken by fear, and governments and citizens tend to cooperate with terrorists. Fear and terror are what extremist groups or terrorists employ to attain their objectives. The Irish Republic Army conducted bombings of public places and installations to convince the British government to give independence to Ireland. Al-Qaida used the same tactics to convince the United States government to withdraw support for Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the rest of its allies in the Middle East. Governments respond in the way the terrorists intend them to do, so their strategies become effective. The core of this article’s argument is that terrorism is a form of the terrorists’ signalling to the government because they are too weak to openly apply what they want through open confrontation by means of arms. Terrorists are forced to show what they can do to attain their desired results. Terrorism is signalling to authorities of what terrorists are capable of through: (1) attrition, (2) intimidation, (3) provocation, (4) spoiling, and (5) outbidding. (Kydd and Walter) By attrition, terrorists would like to show that they are strong enough to inflict damage or loss of lives if the enemy (or the authorities) do not change their policies. They use intimidation to convince the population to obey their wishes because they are stronger than the government and the authorities cannot stop them. Provocation is applied when terrorists would try to induce the enemy or the government to respond to violence with violence, which in turn would radicalize the population and support them the terrorists. Spoilers attack by way of convincing the enemy that there are weak moderates within the terrorist organization who cannot be trusted, thus any peace settlement cannot push through. Outbidding occurs when the terrorists outbid other groups by way of inflicting more violence, thus they deserve support than the others. Kydd and Walter said that these five strategies should be fully understood to be able to attain antiterror policies. Goals for terrorism range from the spiritual to material. For example, those who are on a suicide mission do it to attain rewards in heaven, to avenge the death of a relative, or to collect financial rewards for their family. But terrorist organizations have political motives, and it is these motives that determine the kind of terrorist operations to be launched. More important terrorist goals include changes in regime, territories, policies, social control, and maintenance of status quo. Regime change would instil overthrow of the present government to be replaced by a new one to be led by the terrorists themselves or any of their liking. Territorial change means taking a territory for the terrorists to establish a new state. Change of policies is also one of the goals. Terrorism as an effective method for political change? A. How Hobbes view terrorism as an effective method of causing political change In Hobbes Leviathan, man is regarded as matter and good and evil is not the way we perceive it to be, but as a result of man’s quests and desires – or appetite. Hope is portrayed as an appetite for something which when coupled with opinion, something can be achieved. Hobbes has many things to say about terrorism although there was no such word terrorism in his time. Violence was popular at that time. What is not acceptable about terrorism is its application of violence or killing as a method to acquire change. Hobbes states that the subject should submit to the sovereign and while everyone is a part of the sovereign, there must be a way to enforce this. We cannot kill the sovereign, but we can inflict damage on anyone who tries to depart from the sovereign. In this sense, Hobbes tolerates terrorism as a way to discipline the subjects or all of the parts of the sovereign. Hobbes, however, does not condone terrorism per se, but he recognizes the power of the sovereign as absolute. This is parallel to the concept of terrorism – violence to acquire change. In doing this, people must have fear of the sovereign; if not, there is no way to discipline the subjects and the commonwealth will collapse. The similarities of terrorism and Hobbes’ Leviathan are the ways of enforcing the sovereign will. Terrorism is a way of causing political change through violence; Hobbes wants to discipline the subjects of a sovereign, or the parts of a commonwealth through violence or killing. Terrorism and Hobbes want to cause fear so that people will follow or must submit to the purpose of terrorism and political change. Is there a question of collateral damage on both? I think there is always collateral damage in man’s quests and desires for a government or sovereign. In terrorism, anyone or anything can be a collateral damage, while in Hobbes’ sovereign, the subjects don’t need to be victims. The sovereign should impose discipline only to make it survive but not to make anyone victims, as in terrorism. In terrorism violence, anyone can be a victim and be a part of collateral damage. How may we define terrorism in the context of Hobbes’ Leviathan? In the various literature researched for this paper, there is no definite definition of terrorism. If we search the words violence and terrorism in the Web’s databases, we find various meanings. The correlation of terrorism and Hobbes’ Leviathan is the use of force to make people ‘obey’ or to enforce the laws, or survival of the sovereign, or in the present context, survival of a country. There is always force. Terrorists use violence because they cannot be confrontational with a government. They don’t have the means to be at war with a well-equipped government; they don’t have the resources and the manpower. Developed countries use force to enforce the laws, but not violence. The United States use force and violence as a counter-terrorism strategy. But the U.S. government does not use the same strategy it applies on terrorists against its citizens; otherwise, it faces strong condemnation from human rights groups and the American people. So, how does Hobbes regard the concept of terrorism in the context of the present times where terrorist groups seem quite effective in inflicting heavy damage and in killing thousands of innocent civilians? Hobbes’ Leviathan was written in the seventeenth century; terrorism was not as effective and brutal as it is today. Nobody, not a single individual, could declare war on a powerful country as the United States like what Bin laden did. But Hobbes is a visionary – he was writing for his time and the future – of terrorism. Terrorism was not a part of the dictionary but Hobbes recognized the use of force and violence as a way to preserve the status quo. Killing or stopping an individual is violence considered moral by governments for self-preservation. Killing and violence can be ‘moral’ in the philosophy espoused by Hobbes if it is to protect the state from dissolution, or the right of the state to protect itself. The state or the government must be representative of the people so that it can have the power to enforce laws or to use ‘violence’ against any subject violating the laws of the state. If it is not representative of the people, then it cannot use such force and the subjects do have the right to dissolve the government – the result is anarchy. In this case, there will be war and war will be used to form a new government that will be representative of the people. B. Machiavelli’s The Prince, and how he views terrorism We define the word terrorism as the use of violence to cause change. This definition applies to our analysis of Machiavelli’s The Prince. Machiavelli lived in the fifteenth century as a diplomat and lived the most part of his life in Florence. The Prince was written to provide comments about the forms of government of his time; actual happenings in recent history of Italy and some parts of Europe were used and provided commentaries. It was written in Italian and was considered by some as a talk about modern philosophy. But what is remarkable in this work is that it was considered by critics as the first to make negative concepts of politics and politicians. Machiavelli’s ideas focused on the Prince, or any dictator, who has to use crime and immoral deeds to gain power, to preserve himself and his dominion, and to glorify himself. Machiavelli’s contemporaries did not like the contents of The Prince for it does glorify crime and immorality – just like terrorists of today. But if you read it and ponder for a long time about what Machiavelli really thought of when he wrote the piece, I think some critics were right to say that The Prince is a satire and is meant to ridicule dictators and monarchs. But there are many connotations in the book that it takes another book to provide a comprehensive analysis about it. Nevertheless, our concern is to connect terrorism with political change. Kingdoms or governments were volatile in Machiavelli’s time and their strength depended on how they started. Machiavelli was aware of the two types of government present in Europe at that time: there was the centralized form in the East and the loosely confederated states in the West. France was quite stable while Machiavelli’s own country, Italy, was inviting foreign domination. There is a striking semblance with Machiavelli’s example of the Medici rulers who conquered Florence and the Muslim extremists’ concept of rule by establishing a Muslim state. The Medici did not succeed because they did not live in Florence to rule it. The Muslim concept is to conquer and establish a Muslim state by means of force – then live there and rule it. The Medici did not spend their time to rule Florence but were away from there most of the time. That is different from using force, conquer a state, and then live and rule that state. That is what Machiavelli means by conquering a republic: first you have to destroy it before you rule it, if not those who have remained will gain strength and eventually will destroy you. In the context of what terrorism is today, the Machiavellian way may or may not be effective, because to be Machiavellian means to do it in whatever way for what you desired. Is this not what terrorism is? It could be or it could be not, and it also depends on the type terrorist group. There are terrorist groups who seem rationale in their actions. They weigh the pros and cons of their plans before they conduct terrorism or sabotage. It could only be very similar with the Machiavellian means if everything is destroyed. In the discussion of Abrahm’s article above (“Why terrorism does not work”), terrorists only attain minimal success if their objective is the military and not the civilians, and they haven’t succeeded in overthrowing the government. Machiavelli provided examples of how governments were overthrown and how it should have been done. It is almost similar with the terrorists’ method, but terrorists have very limited resources. Machiavelli says that violence and force – and criminal means – can be used to conquer a state. But in using violence, the state and its established agencies must be destroyed. If nobles remain, they will come and destroy you someday. C. Thomas Malthus’ “An Essay on the Principle of Population” Population must be in consonance with the level of subsistence. If this is not done, society will not improve. Population is related to poverty, emigration, unemployment and the tendency for the economy to encounter depression. Population is linked to development problems including violence. When it is uncontrolled, it results into negative repercussions, including child prostitution. Malthus’ theory on the Iron Law of Population is exactly taking place in China. If China is growing to be another economic world power, there is no clear picture painted yet on the part of its millions of labourers who accept only a small amount for their labor because there’s just too many of them and if they don’t work, they have nothing to eat. China can manufacture any product at a lightning speed because of cheap labor. Britain’s population was growing fast in the eighteenth to the nineteenth century which led to the creation of the Census Act 1800. The gist of Malthus’ essay is that there is a law of nature which states that population must be kept equal with production, if not there are many negative phenomena that results in the process. Child prostitution, inequality and injustice, poverty, terrorism, revolutions and rebellions, all these are all linked to population growth. Malthus’ Essay spoke of the truth in Britain at that time, and is in fact prophetic. World population at present is reaching six billion, perhaps it has surpassed the six billion mark. And this is uncontrollable in the areas called the Third World where poverty is at its worst, where there are revolutions and secessionist groups. Terrorism thrives in a society with excess population. People are desperate for political change because of poverty and they resort to violence or revolution. In Chapter 3 of the Essay, Malthus talks of the takeover of the Roman empire by barbarians, and it happened because the population was bloating – there was an unequal distribution of wealth; there was not enough food and the people were becoming restless and uncontrollable. Violence is a result of population excess. In third world countries where poverty is a common occurrence, terrorist groups recruit young men who have to take up arms because they have nothing to eat. In the hinterlands where there is no development and government agencies cannot reach, the young men are the most vulnerable to terrorist recruitment. Population check in the form of volunteer suicide bombing is common in areas where Muslim extremists abound. Very young suicide bombers volunteer for the ‘job’ because of the monetary rewards that will be given to their families in case they are successful in blowing themselves up. D. Karl Marx’s “Das Kapital” Karl Marx’s “Das Kapital” is about labor and capital. Parts I and II of Volume is about commodities. The object is the product or the commodity which the worker has laboured to produce for the capitalist. Objectification is the “loss of and bondage to the object and appropriation as estrangement, as alienation”. The worker is reduced into an object, or he becomes a slave to the object he has created. He is alienated to his product or object; he is estranged to his own commodity. The working man is alienated to labor because of the inhuman conditions imposed by labor and capital. Instead of being dedicated to his work, he becomes detached and hates what he is doing. Commodities are created for human consumption, and they are tools for capitalism. Capitalism is based on the concept of more production. Man puts all his time, effort, and energy for the realization and creation of the commodity or object so that it will increase in value. But as the worker makes more effort and pours on all of his physical resources, he becomes a commodity, as a matter of fact, lesser than the commodity. He is alienated, he becomes ‘smaller’ and the commodity becomes bigger, more than important the worker. In Parts II-V, Marks talks about capital, surplus value, and exploitation, and provides distinction for these important subjects of the economy. There is a difference between money and capital. Commodity can be transformed or translated into money; for instance, a worker is able to create a commodity and sell it for a certain amount. This is the simplest form of market arrangement – a worker produces and sells the produce to become money. According to Marx, capitalism does not work that way. Capitalism is not merely about money given in exchange for products. Capitalism looks at money as an aim in itself – it is something that is sought after as a goal. The capitalist begins with money as a capital, then makes moves and activities to transform it into commodity, and makes more efforts to transform the commodity into money. Money is the objective. Capitalists own factories and other means of production, and own more money. He multiplies his capital, more production, more profits. The worker is reduced to lowest serf. When the capitalist has acquired more money, with multiplies this with power, in the form of political power. The state becomes subservient to the capitalist by protecting factories and the properties of the capitalist. The police are there to protect the capitalist and his wealth. Money is used to gain power, even to dictate the authorities. Marx says that the only way to change this is to suppress the authorities, use labor, the overwhelming number of labourers, in overpowering the authorities by means of strikes, lockouts, and the use of force and arms. When the workers have seized power, the capital should be turned over to the state, to be a part of the proletariat, and private property should be abolished. E. Karl Marx’s “The Communist Manifesto” The industrial revolution was at its peak in Marx’s time. There was inequality, injustice and workers were used like beasts of burden – for production. Workers were dying, there were no health programs, safety in the workplace was a no-no, workers received very low wages, and the capitalists or owners of production were concerned of profits. Class struggle exists in society, particularly when production is falling. During Marx’s time, production was low. In a class society, there is distinction between labour and capital – one class has to work while another produces capital. This is the predominant class struggle. In Marx and Engels’ time, there were the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, or the workers and the capitalists respectively. This is how Marx divided the classes in society. It was in the nineteenth century when Marx publicly announced that they had no country. At a time when Europe was being ruled by kings and nobles, and in the United States slavery was predominant, Marx was thinking that the bourgeoisie was taking over the reins of power. The word bourgeoisie derived its meaning from inhabitants of cities, but during the Romantic age, bourgeoisie referred to the middle class. The bourgeoisie composed the white collar workers, businessmen, capitalists, small shopkeepers, professionals like doctors, lawyers, teachers and other educated people. They are the owners of the means of production. The Communist Manifesto was a description of Europe – in Marx’s mind – undergoing a social and political upheaval between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. There were strikes and lockouts, sabotage and bankruptcies, problems in businesses, trade unionism, ‘class consciousness’ of the proletariat, etc. War between the workers and middle class was starting. The Romantics wrote that progress was brought about by conflicts of opposing opinions. In Marx’s opinion, world history is characterized by class struggle, an outcome of economic development. Tools, technologies and industries are the driving forces in history’s class struggles. (Lowi and Harpham, 1997, p. 255) European events at that time of the industrial revolution were a chapter of the universal history. Marx followed Hegel’s Romantic teaching that the struggle was ‘a continuous evolutionary sequence’ of events between opposing classes and that the struggle would produce something higher. The process of struggle and evolution was termed by Hegel as ‘dialectic’ and it included absolutely everything about God and man (Randall, 1964, p. 27). Marx’s division of social classes pointed only to the workingmen and the middle class. Although this division is influenced by economic factors, there are other reasons such as education or profession. Marx did not believe in God, thus he focused on the material things and the material world, the earthly things. Communism proposes that private property should not be practiced in society. The bourgeoisie, or the capitalists, were worried about losing their property or capital. Marx said that they stole those properties from the hands of the proletariat, the farmers and labourers. It is this class who oppressed the proletariat and reduced them to the level of a commodity. In Marx’s opinion, revolution was inevitable and the proletariat should rise up in arms to regain their property and to rule society. They should struggle to become powerful. The bourgeoisie cry out that the communists want to abolish the people’s freedom when in fact they are the ones who have enslaved the majority in factories and industries. They cry out that communism wants to abolish the state, culture, religion and belief in God, and even the family, but it is they who have deprived the workers of a state, culture, a true religion and a decent family because of their oppressive character. Marx said that the bourgeoisie has objectified the worker or made them into an object or commodity. The worker is not concerned of money and profits, and what he is after is survival, food for him and his family. The capitalist member of the bourgeoisie is concerned of profits and more profits. More goods and products have to be produced to create more profits; the labourer must work double time. The products and commodities are more important than the workingman. The Marxian revolution was the result of class struggle, when the oppressed overthrew the oppressor, the capitalists of the time. Marx conceived of political emancipation for the working man whom he said was not yet called human being. He said a major step ahead is political emancipation wherein the class struggle will move forward. Real human emancipation will be conceived when the alienating and oppressive nature of capitalism are gone and class oppression is no longer possible, and private property has been eliminated. (Parla and Davison, 2004, p. 95) CONCLUSION We have discussed in this paper the different concepts and theories of terrorism, on why people resort to terrorism. During the middle ages, the word ‘barbarism’ was used to connote terrorism. Later the term evolved into violence and anarchy. During the days of the civil rights movement, anarchy was used to refer to terrorism. In its simplest definition, terrorism is the use of force or violence to cause change. We can retrieve vast literature on violence and terrorism because this is heavily discussed by scholars and writers from the past to the present. Despite the brutality and immorality of terrorism or violence, it has continuously been applied by people who want drastic change, people who do not have enough arms and resources to overpower the authorities. Writers and researchers on the subject of terrorism have different opinions about it. But whatever, it is a tool or a method to effect change, no matter how big and small the change has been effected. References Lowi, T and Harpham, E 1997, “Political theory and public policy: Marx, Weber, and a republic theory of the state”, in K Monroe (ed.), Contemporary empirical political theory, University of California Press, London. Parla, T and Davison, A 2004, Corporatist ideology in Kemalist Turkey: progress or order? Syracuse University Press, New York. Randall, F 1964, “Introduction”, in J Katz (ed.), The communist manifesto: Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Pocket Books, London. Read More