Terrorism: A General Discussion

WHAT IS TERRORISM?

Terrorism can be defined as the use of either violence or its threat to provoke widespread societal destabilization. These outcomes include instigating widespread panic, weakening or overthrowing political opponents, or causing a political transformation to occur (Lacquer, n.p.). LaFree et al. (9) define terrorism similarly as “the threatened or actual use of illegal force and violence to attain a political, economic, religious or social goal through fear, coercion or intimidation. In the latter definition, the accent is on the characterization of the use of force as illegal. In Goody (2-3), terrorism is also characterized as the use of illegal or illegitimate force against official authorities. These state authorities can be either domestic or transnational. Both papers point out that the state is the only actor with legalized access to the use of violence via the police and military. Therefore private individuals or organizations that resort to using terrorism can be treated as criminals by state actors.

WHY DO EXTREMISTS TURN TO TERRORISM?

Many writers agree that extremists turn to terrorism after a sense of alienation becomes especially acute. Davenport argues that terrorists generally feel estranged from society. They have developed big grievances and perceive themselves to be victims of some great wrong. They are also devotees to a political or religious cause. They would also disagree that their violent actions are illegal because they see them as politically justified. Terrorists typically don’t exhibit remorse or pity for their victims. This is why U.S. foreign policy objectives address the threat of terrorism.

Many writers argue that terrorism is a rationally selected strategy designed to accomplish a specific objective. Davenport and LaFree et al. (8) have reported that the common image of the terrorist as irrational and crazed is incorrect. LaFree et al. (8) have offered a rational actor theory of terrorist actions in the belief that it can reveal patterns in terrorist behavior. These patterns can be of use in planning counter-terrorism strategies. In general, terrorists have specific goals that they believe only violence can achieve and they will use weapons of mass destruction against civilian populations to accomplish their ends. If their goals are not achieved, terrorists will continue their activities undaunted. In some cases, terrorists will continue or even worsen their violent activities even after it’s clear that many of their objectives have been realized (Alonso 698). However, under certain circumstances, terrorists have been known to renounce violence (Alonso 698); although this occurrence is relatively rare.

Indeed, there are cases where the goals of terrorists have been achieved. For instance, Basque Nationalists from the group Euskadi Ta Askatasuna (ETA), who chafed for liberation from Spain under the regime of Franco, eventually moderated their position on violence. This occurred after the end of the Franco regime when Spain’s peaceful transition to a consolidated democracy rendered many of the nationalists’ complaints moot (Alonso 697-698). However, even in these cases, terrorist activities may continue. Although some Basque terrorists renounced violence in the late 1970s, others remained staunch extremists. The stated goals of these nationalists were nothing less than complete independence from Spain, regardless of whether it was democratic or not.

Some writers see behind these stated goals an ultimate objective that can be explained by rational actor theory. LaFree, Dugan, Xie. Singh (12-13) argue that terrorist organizations seek to maintain the survival of the organization for its own sake. They will need to continue to undertake terrorist activities to maintain relevance as terrorist organizations. It appears many long-time terrorists, raised in a culture of violence, may find transitioning to a peaceful civilian life too difficult.

WHO ARE TERRORISTS?

Similar to the assumption of terrorists as irrational, there is the prevailing view that terrorists are products of impoverishment. According to Davenport (n.p.), most terrorists are from middle-class backgrounds and some are wealthy. The poor and disadvantaged are more likely to join guerilla groups or criminal organizations. But individuals that form an organization for the specific purpose of carrying out terrorist attacks are usually not impoverished.

Western terrorists are generally literate and have experienced an advanced education. This is not to say they were successful in their educational careers. Many terrorists were college dropouts or did not get particularly good grades in school. In recent years, terrorists are increasingly recruiting members with specific technical expertise. In societies dominated by religious fundamentalists, their advanced education likely had a strong religious component (Davenport n.p.).

Most terrorists tend to be young. The leadership of such organizations trends towards middle age. But the actual field operatives are commonly below the age of 35. Recent research suggests that terrorist recruitment has trended even younger in recent years (Davenport n.p.). There have been reports of pre-teens and adolescents being recruited into terrorist organizations because they are also quite impressionable at that age.

Terrorists may be thought of primarily as male but this is also a misconception. Some research suggests female membership of Islamic terrorist groups is around 50 percent. Women may be limited to non-operational roles in such organizations. But female leadership roles are not unusual. Nor in their work as field operatives are women any less ruthless than males (Davenport n.p.). Thus terrorism has no strict gender component, therefore, modern profiling against Islam has encompassed both male and female constituents.

WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF TERRORISM?

Terrorism has been shown to have a powerful effect among those nearby to an attack. In addition to those physically harmed or killed there is the intense psychological trauma that can linger long after the attack itself. Those geographically distant from an attack have been shown to experience more modest effects. But for those nearby an attack, follow-up studies have shown some significant subsidence in its psychological effects over time. Some research has noted a difference in effect between one-time terrorist events, such as the September 11 terror attacks, and ongoing terrorism, such as is being experienced in modern Israel (Hobfoll, Canetti-Nisim & Johnson 207). When there is a chronic problem of terrorism, one national study has shown a notable increase in depression and post-traumatic stress disorder among members of the subject population.

Works Cited

Alonso R. “Why do terrorists stop? Analyzing why ETA members abandon or continue with terrorism.” Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 34 (2011):696–716. DOI: 10.1080/1057610X.2011.594944. Print.

Davenport J. Global Extremism and Terrorism. New York: Infobase Publishing, 2007. Print.

Goody J. “What is a terrorist?” History and Anthropology, 13.2 (2002): 139-143. Print.

Hobfoll SE, Canetti-Nisim D, Johnson RJ. 2006. “Exposure to terrorism, stress-related mental health symptoms, and defensive coping among Jews and Arabs in Israel.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74.2 (2006): 207–218. DOI: 10.1037/0022-006X.74.2.207. Print.

LaFree G, Dugan L, Xie M, Singh, P. “Spatial and temporal patterns of terrorist attacks by ETA 1970 to 2007.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 28 (2012):7–29. DOI 10.1007/s10940-011-9133-y. Print.

Laqueur, W. “Postmodern terrorism: new rules for an old game.” In: Davenport, J, editor. Global Extremism and Terrorism. New York: Infobase Publishing, 2007. Print.