L9 - terrorism and insurgency Flashcards
(29 cards)
intro
1884 Royal Observatory London
- first recorded incident of international terrorism
- French anarchist in London tried to blow up the observatory, ended up blowing only himself up
- led to anti-immigrant backlash
“the secret agent - Joseph Conrad” = fictional account of terrorism/counter-terrorism
where might you strike? what might you do?
“But what is one to say to an act of destructive ferocity so absurd as to be incomprehensible, inexplicable, almost unthinkable; in fact, mad? Madness alone is truly terrifying, inasmuch as you cannot placate it either by threats, persuasion, or bribes. Moreover, I am a civilised man. I would never dream of directing you to organise a mere butchery, even if I expected the best results from it. But I wouldn’t expect from a butchery the result I want. Murder is always with us …What do you think of having a go at astronomy?”
- international conference political crime in Milan -> stage a terrorist attack to get deligates to come to arrangement were all agree to crack down on terrorism
- attack science over people
recent study of terrorism
9/11 brought terrorism to the forefront of research agendas in IR
(vast growth in terrorism research)
- Terrorism studied from 1970s, especially after spate of airline hijackings
- At least 95 percent of terrorism research produced after 9/11 (approximately)
- Despite major increase in terrorism studies in US and Europe after 9/11, by 2010s major decrease in US but still significant in Europe
Terrorism still defies definition (contested concept)
Emergence of Critical Terrorism Studies (2006): understand terrorism as a process of social construction + understand and criticise counterterrorism
terminological confusion
concepts of terrorism, civil war, insurgency etc. have overlap
depending on what side you stand on:
- freedom fighter
- patriot
- terrorist
- guerilla
- extremist
what is the diff between:
- terrorism
- irregular warfare
- revolutionary warfare
- guerilla warfare civil war
-> UN failed to agree on conception terrorism
arrows - diff phenomena
radicalization/extremism/political subversion (can include violence, but more emphasis on education/converting people)
->
terrorism
->
insurgency
->
civil war
terrorism = middle ground between radicalization and insurgency
main diff insurgency and terrorism is the scale, the size: terrorism is smaller in size (!tactics are similar, insurgents can use terrorist tactics, but usually a bit more)
defining terrorism
(early ideas terrorism are based on Russia, attacks on the Tsar)
“the sustained use of violence against symbolic or civilian targets by SMALL groups for political purposes through coercion, fear, drawing widespread attention to a POLITICAL GRIEVANCE, and/or provoking a draconian or unsustainable response”
- Terrorism cannot result in change on its own
- you attack so that gov overreacts, losing legitimacy, so that the terrorists get more support, moving to the insurgency level
- By provoking a response, terrorists hope that their opponent will overreact
Hijacking, bombings, and assassination are criminal acts but the legal status of those who conduct them can change if the violence is carried out for a recognized political cause
- Assassinating monarchs in late 19th century are considered acts of terrorism
- Hijackings of ships off coast of Somalia are criminal because the motivation is financial gain
- criminal acts vs terrorism = political reasons (not e.g. monetary)
“Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby – in contrast to assassination – the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience (s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought.”
- Schmid’s complex definition
- pointed out =
- anxiety inspired method of repeated violent action (not just a one off acc to this definition)
- main target is not the same as the immediate human victims
Terrorism is a unique form of non-state violence which requires its own categorization and is distinct from other form of political violence (hoffman)
- Focus on terrorism’s role as a vehicle for communication of propaganda
- “propaganda of the deed”
- Violence used as a means to draw attention to a political cause
how to categorise terrorism?
diff types of terrorism + diff goals
- Separatism
- Overthrow governments
- Revolutionary movement
- Enforce authoritarian regime
- Right-wing movement
- Harm or destroy natural resources (environmental terrorism)
- Cyber terrorism
- Domestic versus transnational
- environmental terrorism, national terrorism, lone wolf terrorism, cyber terrorism
Goals of terrorist groups may shift over time…
!important diff: majority of transnational/itnernational terrorism is a recent phenomenon (majority of it began in the 1960s/70s)
terrorism vs insurgency
crucial diff is scope and scale of violence
- Terrorism rarely results in political change on its own while insurgency attempts to bring about change through force of arms
- In an insurgency, the adversaries are asymmetric, and the weaker, and almost always a substate, group attempts to bring about political change by administering and fighting more effectively than its state-based for through the use of guerrilla tactics.
(Raids and ambushes, often by units of organized forces against local security forces, characterize such tactics)
having the means to contest, hold and govern territory - political control - is key
(terrorist group does not control the territory, the insurgency does)
- How to characterize Hamas or Hezbollah: started as terrorist groups now also control territory, provide sociaewlfare to local communities -> more insurgent that terrorism
terrorism rarely results in political change that is desired by the terrorist groups
most insurgencies fail, but quite a few succeed and thus do lead to political change
most important take away
terrorism rarely results in political change that is desired by the terrorist groups
most insurgencies fail, but quite a few succeed and thus do lead to political change
quick historical overview
prior to 9/11 terrorism studies only marginal role in polsci and IR, after the agenda was hijacked by terrorism -> it became the dominant subfield
- Research on terrorism played marginal role in IR prior to 9/11
- Current perceptions shaped by al-Qaeda and ISIS; what was before?
- 1990s: Hamas, Hezbollah, lone wolf attacks (Oklahoma City 1995)
- 1970s-1980s: IRA, PLO, Action Directe, Red Brigades, Red Army Faction, ETA, individuals such as Carlos the Jackal
- 1950-1960: Malaya, Vietnam, Cyprus, Algeria
- 1914: assassination of Franz Ferdinand
- Late 19th century Russia
terrorist groups now draw upon tactics/lessons earlier groups, they are inspired by them
contemporary terrorism, think of Baader/Meinhof-Bande, Japanese Red Army (literally butchering each other)
- didn’t achieve much at all
modern day terrorism = airplanes hijackings common
- unusual 9/11 they didn’t just hijack, they combined it with suicide terrorism, using the airplanes as missiles
-> rise of counterterrorism, first was mainly seen just as a type of criminal activity
does terrorism work?
Actors may choose terrorism because they expect it to work for them
- it clearly works in terms of getting attention
- but unusual about it: critical terrorism studies folks: we overemphasize how successful terrorist attacks are
- we tend to give cases much attention (even when only few die) -> in that sense it seems to work
Examples of any successful terrorist groups?
- very few cases
Impossible to measure the effectiveness of terrorism due to use of other methods
- measuring deterrence and effectiveness shouldn’t be done by looking at attention they get, but in achieving their political goal
Very hard to evaluate whether terrorism was productive or counterproductive regarding the outcome
Example of Front de Libération National (FLN) in Algeria: did terrorism contribute to the outcome?
- If yes, how much?
- in getting the French gov to withdraw
- had some impact on french gov policy (also influenced by counterterrorism techniques)
- but was more about insurgency + large nr troops necessary to keep territory
terrorist targeting - strategy vs tactic
strategic model:
- terrorist weigh their available options based on presumed political payoffs
- terrorists attack civilians when the expected political result is better than with other available tactical options
- e.g. Irish Republican Army: didn’t want to target Americans bc they got support from sympathizers in Boston (who were Irish)
- suicide terrorism common in e.g. Sri Lanka, also e.g. Al Qaida, ISIS BUT other groups not able to find people willing to do this (eg. Baader/Meinhof group)
important to distinguish between terrorism as a strategy vs as a tactic
- as strategy it is mostly ineffective in achieving political goals of terrorist group
- but as a tactic it can be an effective means of communication
everything is cost benefit analysis of how much attention you get etc.
there is a great deal of strategizing in these groups
Herbert Marcuse, ‘murder is not a political weapon 1977)
marxist theorist
observes end 60s, early 70s:
all protest movements against Vietnam war in particular: rather tahn furthering causes, they were generating a counter revolution rather than helping their cause
- red army faction in germany e.g. killed/kidnapped/exploded BUT was counterproductive: it got attention, but less support
- if your real goal si to change the political system -> do other tactics
- left wing groups resulted in right wing support
(preventative counter revolution)
quote paraphrased: left terrorism does not contribute to weakening of capitalism + can’t be justified in view of demands of revolutionary morality
- liquidation of individuals does not undermine normal functioning of the capitalist system = it strengthens its repressive potential
- victims represent the system, but are replaceable and exchangeable
state support?
left-wing terrorism supported by the SU
“the terror network”, “watching the Jackals”
- connection eastern european intelligence studies and terrorist groups: provided weapons, explosive material, fake passports etc.
- e.g. red army factions (supported by East German stazi)
- were not directing them, but enabling their action
= idea terrorist groups can’t surivive long without state support: need a safe haven, fake passports etc., need to be based somewhere
policy responses to terrorism
- diff definitions cause confusions
- unclear upon which factors depends success
- tension between short term (hard) responses and longer term (soft) solutions
- counterterrorism vs de-radicalization
Q: how does terrorism end? can you actually defeat a terrorist group
rise of coutner-terrorists
70s, 60s
e.g. GIGN France
GSG9 or smth in Germany
police forces responsible to take the lead in fighting terrorism
most famous counterterrorist action: raid on entebbe
- combi Palestinian, West German terrorist
- hijacked French plane in Athens, brought it to Uganda
- counterterrorist action: raid on entebbe = Israelis went to free hostages, with bit of help of Kenya
- some casualties (wikipedia: 1) on Isreali side: brother of Benjamin Netanyahu (scholar on terrorism, created expert institute terrorism + prime minister)
post-cold war terrorism
the terrorism review = now de-classified CIA journal (bits of it still classified)
gives sense that there are ..??.
- e.g. India United Liberation Front of Assam guerillas ambushed a vehicle in Assam, killing a candidate for the ruling Cognress party and four others
- e.g. Japan: woman sprayed unidentified gas in underground theater in Tokyo amusement center causing panic , 17 people admitted for burning eyes and sore throats
global war on terrorism
George W. Bush sept 20 2001:
“Our war on terror begins with al-Qaida, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated.”
size and scale 9/11 = important change with terrorism: previous attacks were relatively small
+ size of response was novel
US gov wanted revenge, make a statement: who should we go after? which terrorist groups
- how big/wide should they make the war on terror?
- Iraq was also talked about being part of the global war on terror
- between Afghanistan and Iraq US was also engaged militarily in other areas (e.g. Philipines and Georgia after AFghanistan also to fight terorrism)
- much activity where there was little response in the past
global war on terrorism: change that it was permanently + that they looked at state sponsors
drone strikes often used to attack terrorists: target profiles, kill lists
- JPEL: joint prioritized e? lists = kill list = based on intelligence = non-stop since 9/11
- eg. in Africa and Pakistan
- setting up global infrastructure to set up drone strikes and counterterrorism acts = on industrial scale
reading how al-Qaida ends
Audrey Kurth Cronin
- critical of US gov policies: decapitation simply doesn’t work if you look at how other terrorist groups work
- you need to look at thigns in a diff way, figure out what is actually effective
- by having US military on the ground in Iraq -> creating worlds greatest terrorist training camp
“Terrorism, like war, never ends; however, individual terrorist campaigns and the groups that wage them always do”
“The only outcome that is inevitable in the current U.S. policy is that militarily focused efforts will end, because of wasteful or counterproductive effort and eventual exhaustion”
do states commit terrorism?
critical terrorism theorists wonder this
some cases, e.g. Latin America 1960s/70s/80s: great deal of criticism on LA gov policies using terrorism to target rebel groups?
strategic bombing or terror bombing?
- basic idea of using terror to try and coerce and achieve political change is not per se for terrorist groups, it is also part of military strategy
- e.g. Churchill wants to spread terror in Germany -> air force said we don’t do terrorism
- idea of attaacking the population to get poltical change
goes back to General Giulio Douhet = cynical airpower theorists after WW1:
- gain control of air and then bomb civilian population centers
- better way to fight war: gain air superiority, attack cities, create fear, so that they surrender
- create civilian pressure to end war
- way to change gov behavior is to terrorize the population
- cheaper alternative than trench warfare
Bombing to win (Pape): analysis of attempts to coerce states through use of airpower and bombing civilian population centers show that it always fails
-> argues it is better to concentrate on using airpower to achieve military victories
- no matter if it is done by civilians or groups, terrorism doesn’t work acc to his account
-> insurgency
to win means not to lose + external support?
insurgent groups after Washington: idea you do not need military victory, you simply need to survive
- e.g. Mao Zedong: drawing upon Washington
often overlooked = external support often crucial to success
- e.g. Spain, France supported US independence
- to provide safe haven, etc.
- e.g. Afghanistan much support from Pakistan
famous insurgent - TE Lawrence
use of guerilla tactics
external force
fighting against the Turks
pioneer of hit and run tactics: going after Turkish forces in the Middle East (esp. trains, blowing up tracks and trains)
“the printing press is the greatest weapon in the my of the modern commander”
== he is getting support from British gov: weapons, money = necessary to organize the revolt against the Turks
modern insurgency: Maoist insurgency 3 stages
Stage 1: Strategic Defensive: avoid pitched battles but limited tactical offensives where local superiority can be obtained. Aim is to stretch security forces
Stage 2: Stalemate: Prolonged battle to wear down adversary
Stage 3: Strategic Offensive: End game of conflict in which large insurgent forces overwhelm government forces and seize control of territory/state
- now you are more or less equal in terms of power
Insurgency is “80% political and 20% military”
- key purpose of insurgents activities is about winning support, turning the public against the government
- political indoctrination crucial
- train forces so that they win the hearts and minds of the population
e.g. also Taliban Afghanistan: start with few forces, become bigger, only in 2021 begin to largely capture territory
decolonization and insurgency
after WW2:
- Dutch insurgency in Indonesia e.g.
- British in Malaia?
also other cases:
- Sri Lanka: Tamil Tigers wage insurgency for decades
- Colombia: FARC wage insurgency for decades, utlitmately unsuccessful
- Cuba: Fidel Castro wages guerrilla war for 3y, overthrows Batista regime = really successful
- Bolivia: Che Guevara tries to generate insurgency (tries to gain support in Congo, withdrew and ended up in Bolivia, who also didn’t want to support) but fails to generate support - killed by security forces
many last a long time and don’t achieve much in the end
counterinsurgency tactics
Support of population necessary (winning hearts and minds)
- how to win the hearts and minds of the peasantry if you are actually support the landlords? = challenging
Government must function in accordance with the law
Government must prioritize defeating the political subversion, not the guerrillas
Legitimacy is key objective
Counterinsurgents must prepare for a long-term commitment
Good coordinating machine between civil and military agencies
Intelligence!!!
Minimum use of force (not agreed upon by all counterinsurgency scholars: some say it is better to use terrorism to counter insurgency)
External and Internal counterinsurgency: host nation/external power (e.g. US/Coalition and Iraqi Govt)
- Build-up local capacity
- But can be problematic if local govt disincentivized to throw away crutch
- diff between what to do with your own insurgency + what to do if you are going against an insurgency on someone elses territory
- by doing counterinsurgency in someone elses territory you are admitting the gov can’t doo it tmeslevess, can’t rule on their own
