I did a limited amount of academic work on terrorism at the Naval War College. What surprised me was the extent to which people focused on the definition of terrorism. In most cases it seemed the purpose was to narrow the definition such that all things within the label terrorism were very bad. To me, terrorism is "acts of violence by a nontraditional military force aimed to affect public opinion rather than economic or military capabilities". Much of what went on in the American Revolution was thus terrorism. Al Qaeda is clearly terrorist. Propaganda can use the same definition except not requiring an act.
So what are the conditions where terrorism can be effective? Spain is clearly one scenario:
Government policy strongly opposed by people
Democracy with impending election
Polls reflect that dislike of government policy is outweighed by other policies/factors
Would this still be true if the policy was not terrorist-related? Perhaps a parallel is with the ecoterrorist actions (spiking trees, etc.) in the US during the 1990s. It brought to public attention a largely untenable policy (abuse of old-growth forests). A failed parallel is the Weather Underground. Perhaps this indicates that terrorism is only effective in the nascent stages prior to hardening of public opinion. Looking out 15 years, would a senior citizens group protesting cuts in social security via terrorism be effective?
What other scenarios exist?
Goal of group is to recruit new members and attract money
Target will receive widespread media coverage
Target country will not undertake military action
Target is in line with long-term goals of organization
A good example would be the Embassy bombings. 9/11 is an extreme example where #3 was misjudged.
Any other suggestions for effective scenarios? I think the direction to solve terrorism is to determine the effective scenarios and then tactically close off one or more conditions. It is unnecessary to solve all the conditions.
Comments