Revision:Terrorism Notes

TSR Wiki > Study Help > Subjects and Revision > Revision Notes > Politics > Terrorism Notes

Terrorism

What is terrorism and why is it so difficult to combat?

• In an examination of the U.S. government's response to terrorism, a senior official in the office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff found that "it is not always clear just what one has in mind. The term has no precise and completely accepted definition."' He concluded, quoting the much cited Brian Jenkins, the Rand Corporation's expert on terrorism, that "the definition of terrorism seems to depend on one's point of view-it is what the 'bad guys' do."
• Wardlaw says that the use of terror does not in itself constitute terrorism. Terror must be used as "a symbolic act designed to influence political behaviour by extranormal means, entailing the use or threat of violence." Wardlaw adds his own definition: "Political terrorism is the use, or threat of use, of violence by an individual or a group, whether acting for or in opposition to established authority, when such action is designed to create extreme anxiety and/or fear-inducing effects in a target group larger than the immediate victims with the purpose of coercing that group into acceding to the political demands of the perpetrators.”
• Terrorism refers to a strategy of using political violence, social threats or coordinated attacks closely related with unconventional warfare in manner of conduct and operation.
• The term is often used to assert that the political violence of an enemy is immoral, wanton, and unjustified; and terrorist attacks are commonly characterized as "indiscriminate", "targeting civilians", or executed "with disregard for human life".
• According to the definition of terrorism typically used by states, academics, counter-terrorism experts, and non-governmental organizations, terrorists are actors who don't belong to any recognized armed forces, or who don't adhere to their rules, and who are therefore regarded as "rogue actors".
• Jason Burke, an expert in radical Islamic activity, has this to say on the word "terrorism":

  "There are multiple ways of defining terrorism, and all are subjective. Most define terrorism as 'the use or threat of serious violence' to advance some kind of 'cause'. Some state clearly the kinds of group ('sub-national', 'non-state') or cause (political, ideological, religious) to which they refer. Others merely rely on the instinct of most people when confronted with an act that involves innocent civilians being killed or maimed by men armed with explosives, firearms or other weapons. None is satisfactory, and grave problems with the use of the term persist. Terrorism is after all, a tactic. the term 'war on terrorism' is thus effectively nonsensical. As there is no space here to explore this involved and difficult debate, my preference is, on the whole, for the less loaded term 'militancy'. This is not an attempt to condone such actions, merely to analyse them in a clearer way."

• Other arguments include that:
  • There is no strict worldwide commonly accepted definition.
  • Any definition that could be agreed upon in, say, English-speaking countries would be biased towards those countries.
  • Most groups called "terrorist" deny such accusations. Virtually no organisation openly calls itself terrorist.
  • Many groups call all their enemies "terrorist".
  • There is no hope that people will ever all agree who is "terrorist" and who is not.
  • The term as widely used in the West reflects a bias towards the status quo. Violence by established governments is sold as "defence", even when that claim is considered dubious by some; any attempt to oppose the established order through military means, however, is often labelled "terrorism".
  • If we labelled groups terrorist on the basis of how their opponents perceive them, such labels would be very controversial, for example:
    • State of Israel, but also the states of Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan under the rule of the Taliban
    • The Contemporary Palestine Liberation Organization, but also the United States and CIA
    • Groups conducting revolution, such as the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), are routinely denigrated as "terrorist"
    • Almost all guerrilla groups (like Tamil Tigers or Chechen rebels) are accused of being "terrorist", but almost all guerrilla groups accuse countries they fight against of being "terrorist" too.
    • Organizations such as the American Revolutionary Sons of Liberty—revered in the Unites States—might have been considered "terrorists" by today's standards, which suggests the standards for applying the label are not consistent.
    • Resistance movement during World War II. Some historians even claim that resistance in Poland used biological weapons.
    • All forms of colonization (especially by North Americans and Europeans) which exposed indigenous peoples to diseases they had no immunity to especially if they were vaguely aware they were doing it.
• Because of this connotation, those accused of being terrorists rarely identify themselves as such, and instead typically use terms that refer to their ideological or ethnic struggle, such as separatist, freedom fighter, liberator, revolutionary, vigilante, militant, paramilitary, guerrilla (Spanish for "small war"), rebel, jihadi or mujaheddin ("one engaged in holy war"), or fedayeen ("prepared for martyrdom").
• The difference between the words "terrorist" or "terrorism" and the terms above can be summed up by the aphorism, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." This is exemplified when a group that uses irregular military methods is formally an ally of a State against a mutual enemy, but later falls out with the State and starts to use the same methods against its former ally.
• During World War II the Malayan People’s Anti-Japanese Army was allied with the British, but during the Malayan Emergency, members of its successor, the Malayan Races Liberation Army, were branded terrorists by the British.
• More recently, President Reagan and others in the American administration frequently called the Afghan Mujahideen freedom fighters during their war against the Soviet Union, yet twenty years later when the a new generation of Afghan men are fighting against what they perceive to be a regime installed by foreign powers and with the support foreign soldiers in Afghanistan, their attacks are labelled terrorism by President Bush.
• Since World War II there have been a whole host of men who when involved in a liberation struggle have been called a terrorist in the liberal western press, who later, as leaders of the liberated nations, have been called statesmen by the same news media, for example Menachem Begin and Nelson Mandela.
• Sometimes States that are close allies, for reasons of history, culture and politics, can disagree if members of a certain organisations are terrorists. For example for many years some branches of the United States government refused to label members of the IRA a terrorists, while it was using methods against one of Untied States closest allies, that, that ally (Britain), branded as terrorist attacks, this was highlighted by Quinn v. Robinson
• Although the term is often used imprecisely, there have been many attempts by various law enforcement agencies and public organizations to develop more precise working definitions of terrorism.
• The United Nations Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention has proposed a short legal definition: that an act of terrorism is "the peacetime equivalent of a war crime."
• United States court found that "the malice associated with terrorist attacks transcends even that of premeditated murder."
• More precise definitions of terrorism tend to be relativist, because views toward particular acts of political violence are often subjective. For example, according to the United States Department of Defense, terrorism is:

  "the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."

• The extent of disagreement on a single definition of terrorism is illustrated by contradictions between different agencies in a single national entity. While the DOD definition stresses the effects on institutions, the Federal Bureau of Investigation's definition highlights the unlawfulness of terrorism, and the State Department emphasizes the political motivations behind a terrorist act.
• The use of different definitions by different agencies could hinder a concerted effort to understand and prevent terrorist acts, since an interested party could fail to consider the same act as terrorist that another party does.
• These definitions are open to several points of criticism. First, they fail to make mention of who the targets of terrorism are and who terrorist agents may be. Second, definitions of what precisely constitutes "unlawfulness" will vary with the law and precedent of each nation. The ambiguity does, however, leave open the possibility that violent actions by state actors can qualify as terrorism.
• In response to the September 11 attacks, political leaders from Europe, North America, Asia, and the Middle East have placed the phenomenon of terrorism within the context of a global battle against systems of government perceived by those accused of using terrorist tactics as harmful to their interests.
• The European Union includes in its 2002 definition of "terrorism" the aim of "destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country."
• One of the reasons why it is so hard to combat is simply that none can give a definitive definition.
• Jonathan Steele called the war on terror “a war that can never be won” because terrorism is like crime, violence and poverty; it “will always be with us. At best they can only be diminished and contained”. “Terrorism is a technique. It is not…an enemy state”, it is not tangible.
• “is difficult to fight terrorism without endangering civil liberties” (Towston state university)
• “It is as impossible to "fight terrorism" as it is to "hate freedom." Terrorism, like freedom and evil, is an abstraction. It is a methodology, a style of fighting, that is employed across the world by various groups to various ends.” (Neal Schaffer)
• It is impossible to fight terrorism without addressing its causes, such as poverty, ignorance, disease and environmental degradation (Ved Bhasin)

What is the significance of the 9/11 attack?

• The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11) were a series of coordinated terrorist attacks upon the United States of America carried out on Tuesday, September 11, 2001. That morning, nineteen men affiliated with al-Qaeda hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners. The attackers crashed two planes into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Centre in New York City, one plane into each tower, causing the collapse of both towers within two hours. Hijackers of the third aircraft crashed that plane into the Pentagon in Arlington County, Virginia. Passengers on the fourth hijacked aircraft attempted to retake control of their plane from the hijackers, which crashed into a field in rural Somerset County, Pennsylvania.
• Approximately 3,000 people died in these attacks.
• Affected property owners and their insurers incurred billions of dollars in damages.
• In the aftermath of the attacks, many U.S. citizens held the view that they had "changed the world forever," that the United States was now vulnerable to terrorist attacks in ways it had not been previously.
• The Bush administration declared a war on terrorism, with the stated goals of bringing Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda to justice and preventing the emergence of other terrorist networks. These goals would be accomplished by means including economic and military sanctions against states perceived as harbouring terrorists and increasing global surveillance and intelligence sharing.
• The second-biggest operation outside of the United States was the invasion of Afghanistan, by a U.S.-led coalition. The U.S. was not the only nation to increase its military readiness, with other notable examples being the Philippines and Indonesia, countries that have their own internal conflicts with Islamic extremist terrorism.
• President Bush said "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001..."
• Also, the U.S. government has continued to maintain that the war on Iraq is critical to the American "War on Terrorism": "In the war on terror, Iraq is now the central front..." President Bush said on December 14, 2005.
• Two years after the attacks, the Program on International Policy Attitudes reported on an opinion poll it conducted of the American public from January through September 2003. The poll asked, "How likely it is that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the September 11th Terrorist attacks?" The response was 32% very likely, 37% somewhat likely, 12% not very likely and 3% not at all likely. This unsubstantiated view was promoted by the U.S. government in the lead up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, when for example, Vice President Dick Cheney suggested that Iraq was involved in the September 11 attack during a, "Meet the Press" interview: Iraq is, "the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9-11." No clear evidence has emerged to support the claim. (Unsubstantiated U.S. government claims to the contrary include: (1) allegations by Czech intelligence of a meeting between 9/11 ringleader Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague on the same day Atta was seen in Florida; and (2) evidence that Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, allegedly a contact of Iraqi intelligence, was present at a meeting in Malaysia where future 9/11 hijacker Khalid al Mihdhar is believed by the CIA to have attended.)
• The attacks had a significant economic impact on the United States and world markets. The New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), the American Stock Exchange and NASDAQ did not open on September 11 and remained closed until September 17. NYSE facilities and remote data processing sites were not damaged by the attack, but member firms, customers and markets were unable to communicate due to major damage to the telephone exchange facility near the World Trade Centre.
• When the stock markets reopened on September 17, 2001, after the longest closure since the Great Depression in 1929, the Dow Jones Industrial Average (“DJIA”) stock market index fell 684 points, or 7.1%, to 8920, its biggest-ever one-day point decline. By the end of the week, the DJIA had fallen 1369.7 points (14.3%), its largest one-week point drop in history. U.S. stocks lost $1.2 trillion in value for the week.
• North American air space was closed for several days after the attacks and air travel decreased significantly upon its reopening. The attacks led to nearly a 20% cutback in air travel capacity, and severely exacerbated financial problems in the struggling U.S. airline industry.
• The attacks brought international terrorism and Al Qaeda to the front of public attention. Whereas previously terrorist attacks had passed by with little attention, international terrorist attacks now grabbed headlines.
• The attacks caused the start of the war on terror and also brought Islam fundamentalism to centre-stage, increasing the amount of racially-motivated attacks on Muslims.
• Islam-Western relations have gained an increasing attention after September 11.
• Got Bush a second term
• Caused the War in Afghanistan
• Led to the Iraq War
• Damaged the Labour Party over here a bit
• Caused the 'Bush Doctrine' of pre-emptive strikes first on other countries
• Damaged the credibility of the UN after the whole weapons inspectors thing
• Talk of invading Iran now
• It also forced the Pentagon to stop gearing up for a war c.2020 with China and start focusing on less 'attractive' threats.
• Certainly the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq has also caused a re-alignment of some US alliances (more anti-Old Europe, pro-strategic allies outside W.Europe)
• Pushed the UK closer to the US and further from France/Germany. (Possibly splitting the EU in pro- and anti-US/UK camps.)
• Definitely damaged the UN as Bush felt he could ignore it. (dangerously like the way the big powers treated the League of Nations in the 1920's.)
• Made the US far more Interventionalist and less Internationalist. (Although the US has failed to sign all sorts of international agreements -i.e. Kyoto.)

Does the war on terrorism imply “a clash of civilisations”?

• The Clash of Civilizations is a controversial theory in international relations popularized by Samuel P. Huntington. The basis of Huntington's thesis is that people's cultural/religious identity will be the primary agent of conflict in the post-Cold War world
• First of all, Islam-Western relations have gained an increasing attention after September 11. Even though many in the West have rightly reiterated that Islam is religion of peace and Al-Qaeda cannot be considered as representative of Islam, Islam vs. terror debate has frequently come into agenda. Not unexpectedly, the Western media looked at 'Islamic roots' of the terrible attacks. Thereafter, 'Islam', 'Islamism', 'political Islam' and 'Islamic fundamentalism' became the most frequently used terms in the media. Not surprisingly, the 'clash of civilizations' has also extensively taken place in this time.
• Either with us or against us… Osama bin Laden and George W. Bush have used this argument.
• The "War on Terrorism" or "War on Terror" (officially the "Global War on Terrorism" or "GWOT") is a campaign by the US government and some of its allies with the stated goal of ending international terrorism by stopping those groups identified as terrorist groups, and ending state sponsorship of terrorism.

The "War on Terrorism" was launched in response to the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington D.C. by Al-Qaeda.

• It has become a central part of U.S. President George W. Bush's foreign and domestic policy.
• Unlike earlier concepts and definitions of war—with defined nations, boundaries, standing armies, and navies—the "War on Terrorism" has largely been dominated by the use of special forces, intelligence, police work, and diplomacy.
• In 2005 the US' strategic goals have been expanded, from fighting a war on terrorism to fighting "The Long War".
• More recently, members of the US-government also used the labels "Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism" and "World War III".
• The United States retaliated against al-Qaeda after the September 11, 2001 attacks with the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001.
• The George W. Bush administration also considers the Iraq War part of the "War on Terrorism". The administration claimed that Saddam Hussein had partnered with Islamist terrorist groups, including al-Qaeda along with several other possible partners.
• Several subsequent investigations by U.S. government agencies, the United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and the 9/11 Commission found no evidence of substantial cooperation between Iraq and al-Qaeda during Saddam's rule.
• Other incidents that have been cited as contributing to the focus on terrorism include the World Trade Centre bombing of 1993, the 1998 United States embassy bombings, the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in October 2000, suicide bombings in Israel, and the Lockerbie bombing.
• Major terrorist incidents which occurred after the September 11 attacks include the 2002 Bali bombing, the Madrid train bombings, and the London Underground bombings.
• The country currently most affected by terrorism is Iraq.
• Since the US-led coalition invasion, a large number of Iraqis have been victims of bombings, kidnappings, and assassinations. Suicide bombings with dozens, even hundreds of victims, are a regular occurrence.

Criticisms of the "War on Terrorism"

• Critics argue that terrorism is being exploited for other purposes;
• That it has resulted in human rights abuses;
• That it has decreased the personal freedom of US (and other) citizens;
• That it has served as a pretext for restricting access to government information.
• Also, there is a fine distinction between guerrilla operations and terrorist operations. Many guerrilla organizations, such as the Zionist armed group known as the Irgun in British-Mandated Palestine, the Algerian National Liberation Front (FLN) during the Algerian War of Independence, and Vietnam's National Liberation Front (NLF), included urban terrorism as part of their overall strategy.
• The notion of a war against terrorism has proven highly contentious, with critics charging that it has been exploited by the participating governments to pursue long-standing policy objectives, reduce civil liberties, and infringe on human rights.
• Some argue that the term war is not appropriate in this context (as in war on drugs), since they believe there is no tangible enemy, and that it is unlikely that international terrorism can be brought to an end by means of war.
• Others note that "terrorism" is not an enemy, but rather a tactic; calling it a "War on Terror," they say, obscures the differences between, for example, anti-occupation insurgents and international jihadists.
• The term "Terrorist" is highly subjective, as well. Former CIA agent Luis Posada Carriles is wanted for a 1976 bombing of a civilian airliner that killed 76 people. Requests by two different countries (Cuba and Venezuela) for his extradition from the United States have been denied by the Bush Administration.
• Many have argued that the invasion of Iraq was intended primarily to stabilize and better control a region crucial to the world's oil supplies. "President Bush's Cabinet agreed in April 2001 that 'Iraq remains a destabilising influence to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East' and because this is an unacceptable risk to the US 'military intervention' is necessary." (The debate.org). Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world (Saudi Arabia has the largest reserves)
• One set of critics is against the "war on terror" in its entirety. They believe there is a distinction between criticizing the way the "war on terror" is conducted and criticizing the "war on terror" itself. The reason they think it is important to be against the "war on terror" as a whole is because it sacrifices liberty to security. As a consequence, these critics are often unhappy not just with the current administration but much of the opposition as well.
• Some cite the high civilian casualty rate in Afghanistan. Some 3,000+ Afghan civilians died in the U.S. bombing of Afghanistan.
• Amnesty International has described the secret worldwide network of detention facilities as the "gulag of our times". The organization claims that ghost detainees are held indefinitely without charge and without access to lawyers, effectively being extrajudicial prisoners of the United States, and that they have been tortured and even killed, sometimes after extraordinary rendition process.
• The U.S budget surplus has turned into a huge deficit, leaving less for health insurance improvements and other domestic initiatives. Others argue that war is not a cost-effective way of ensuring security against stateless terrorists, and that intelligence and police efforts can also be effective.
• Many argue that U.S. oil money indirectly benefits terrorists via states such as Saudi Arabia, and that the U.S.'s unwillingness to break its relationship with such states reflects ulterior motives in the war.
• As in the Persian Gulf War, many have argued that the invasion of Afghanistan was intended primarily to stabilize and better control a region crucial to U.S. oil supplies. It is also argued that although the war on Iraq should not be considered part of the "war on terror", the supporters of the war on Iraq presented terrorism as the main reason to invade that country.
• Many argue, from pacifist, antimilitarist or other standpoints, that the violence of bombings and invasions will only provoke further hatred from the Muslim world, and that the poverty and desperation associated with war will furnish terrorist organizations with ample recruits. This is further reinforced by Ayman Al-Zawahiri, spiritual leader of Egyptian Islamic Jihad, who confirms that "A jihadist movement needs an arena that would act like an incubator, where its seeds would grow" (in a translation quoted by Stephen Coll in Ghost Wars).
• The ongoing "War on Terrorism" with clearly visible casualties but without any major victories on the side of the U.S. may further increase the support for terrorism.
• While there have not yet been any permanent positive results from the "War on Terror", it has been the reason on many occasions for permanently limiting personal freedom and civil rights.
• With the "War on Terrorism" being the main aspect of the U.S. government's policy, many fear that it prevents acting on other important issues as health care, education, prevention of poverty and environmental protection.
• Human rights abuses at Guantánamo have severely damaged the reputation of the Western culture.

Support for the "War on Terrorism"

• Its supporters argue that a reduction in civil liberties is a necessary price to pay for greater protection against what they perceive as a heightened risk of terrorism.
• They also contend that some previous wars waged by America and its allies lasted many years but were ultimately successful.
• Supporters assert that democracy in traditionally authoritarian countries has a transformative power that will add to peace and stability.
• Supporters downplay civilian casualties by arguing that many who live near terrorist cells are likely to support them materially.
• Some argue that war could act as a deterrent against terrorists, demonstrating to potential recruits that they would face certain retribution. This argument may hold less water in reference to suicide terrorism, or when terrorists expect to become martyrs, but can be argued to deter such attacks by weakening the logistical base which provides martyrs with explosives and points them toward effective targets.
• Some analysts argue that democracy in the Middle East might elevate Islamists or radicals--who then implement their autocratic agenda--but the long term results of increased democratic governance will lead to a better outcome than the status quo even if the emerging democracies initially oppose U.S. policies.
• Supporters note that there have been no attacks since September 11, 2001, in the United States.
• Supporters of the "War on Terrorism" say that just as Ronald Reagan was vehemently opposed by the peace movement and many foreign countries, his policies were arguably the policies that brought down the Soviet Union, and maintain that George W. Bush may make the Middle East free.
• Supporters point out that there have been remarkable achievements outside of Afghanistan; Libya gave up its nuclear weapons program, Lebanese protestors forced out much of the Syrian occupation, Lebanon is making strides toward democracy, and Egypt and Saudi Arabia have held limited elections.

Comments

These notes are aimed at people studying for Edexcel A Level Politics, module 5 and 6, route D, but will be suitable for other people too.

Originally submitted by joker13na on TSR Forums.