pols 373 foundations of comparative politics what makes a terrorists? march 6 and 8, 2007 professor...

POLS 373 Foundations of Comparative Politics

POLS 373 Foundations of Comparative Politics

What Makes a Terrorists?

March 6 and 8, 2007Professor Timothy C. Lim

California State University, Los Angeles

2

What Makes a Terrorist?

Explaining Political Violence



“One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”

What does this statement suggest? What does it suggest about defining

the concept of terrorism?

What does this statement suggest? What does it suggest about defining

the concept of terrorism?

3





Defining Terrorism: A First Look

Which of the following are terrorists?Members of the African National Congress (ANC) who fought against the white South African government during the period of apartheidStates that use weapons of mass destruction against civilian populationsMembers of an “insurgency” in post-Hussein Iraq who attack both military and civilian targetsSoldiers who murder and rape civilians without authorizationMembers of organizations, such as al Qaeda, who carry out attacks against civilian targets

4





Defining Terrorism: A Few Definitions

“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.” (Schmid and Jongman, 1983)

“Terrorism constitutes the illegitimate use of force to achieve a political objective when innocent people are targeted.” (Walter Laqueur)

“Terror is nothing other than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible; it is therefore an emanation of virtue; it is not so much a special principle as it is a consequence of the general principle of democracy applied to our country's most urgent needs." (Maximilien Robespierre, 1794)

“The deliberate, systematic murder, maiming, and menacing of the innocent to inspire fear in order to gain political ends …. Terrorism …is intrinsically evil, necessarily evil, and wholly evil” (Paul Johnson)

This definition tells us that there are many motivations for terrorism, from the purely individual, to the

criminal, to the political: essentially, anyone, any group, or any state that commits “anxiety-inspiring”

violence is a terrorist

This definition tells us that there are many motivations for terrorism, from the purely individual, to the

criminal, to the political: essentially, anyone, any group, or any state that commits “anxiety-inspiring”

violence is a terrorist

This definition tells us that terrorism is necessarily

“illegitimate” (which technically means “not authorized by law”): but, this creates a very broad definition of terrorism, since most (violent) force is not authorized by law. It also raises the question: whose law? If a state authorizes the use of force against civilians, does that make it

legitimate?

This definition tells us that terrorism is necessarily

“illegitimate” (which technically means “not authorized by law”): but, this creates a very broad definition of terrorism, since most (violent) force is not authorized by law. It also raises the question: whose law? If a state authorizes the use of force against civilians, does that make it

legitimate?

The last two definitions provide a useful contrast: one argues that terrorism, by definition, is virtuous while the other argues that it is inherently evil: these are examples of ideologically-based and highly polemic

defintions

5





Defining Terrorism: Key PointsThere is little agreement on how to define terrorism: one study in the 1980s, noted that there were 109 separate definitions in the literature

The difficulty of defining terrorism is compounded by the ideological, political and emotional

“baggage” the term carries Still, despite the extreme difficulty of defining terrorism, any study of terrorism requires a clear-cut definition, an operational definition

… as one scholar puts it, we need to transform the concept of terrorism “into a useful analytical term rather than a

polemical tool” (Martha Crenshaw)

6

Here is one “analytical definition”

[Terrorism is …] the deliberate creation and exploitation of fear through violence or the threat of violence in the pursuit of political change….Terrorism is designed to create power where there is none or to consolidate power where there is very little. Through the publicity generated by their violence, terrorists seek to obtain leverage, influence and power they otherwise lack to effect political change on either a local or international scale.

In addition, terrorists are subnational or non-state actors.

~ Bruce Hoffman (a terrorism “expert)

Key Elements of Definition: What does the statement that terrorism is premised on the “pursuit of political change” suggest? What does it tell us about the underlying basis or motivation of terrorist activities?

Key Elements of Definition: What does the statement that terrorism is premised on the “pursuit of political change” suggest? What does it tell us about the underlying basis or motivation of terrorist activities?

Key Elements of Definition: Terrorism is “design to create power where there is none.” What does this suggest or tell us?

Key Elements of Definition: Terrorism is “design to create power where there is none.” What does this suggest or tell us?

Key Elements of Definition: In this definition, terrorists cannot be “states.” Is this a legitimate, non-ideological, analytically significant distinction?

Key Elements of Definition: In this definition, terrorists cannot be “states.” Is this a legitimate, non-ideological, analytically significant distinction?

Summing Up: Is this a reasonable definition of terrorism? Does it serve the purpose of distinguishing terrorism from other types of violence? Does it avoid emotionalism and polemics?

Summing Up: Is this a reasonable definition of terrorism? Does it serve the purpose of distinguishing terrorism from other types of violence? Does it avoid emotionalism and polemics?

7





Defining Terrorism

One Last Caveat: No matter how try to define the word “terrorism,” just the mere mention of itcauses problems. For this reason, it mightbe preferable to come up with a newterm altogether …

One set of scholars proposes this alternative:

Violent substate activismViolent substate activismThis is, I think, a very useful term, but for our

purposes, we will use the word terrorism in our discussion that follows

8

Explanations of TerrorismExplanations of Terrorism

Rational ChoiceCultural ApproachesStructural Approaches

9





The Logic of Terrorism

To understand the rational choice explanation, we must be begin with a fundamental premise, namely, …

Terrorism is a ________ act

rational

What does it mean to say that terrorism is “rational”? What are the implications of this premise?

What does it mean to say that terrorism is “rational”? What are the implications of this premise?

10






Key Implications

To say that terrorism is rational is to say that terrorists are not crazy, that they are not “abnormal” or otherwise suffering from a psychological disorder that compels them to behave in a pathologically violent manner

To say that terrorism is rational is to say that terrorists, like everyone else, have specific, “reasonable” goals they wish to achieve through their actions

To say that terrorism is rational is to say that terrorists engage in a rational process of strategic calculation; that they weigh the costs and benefits of many options and choose the “best one”

11





The Logic of (Suicide)Terrorism

A Logical Quandary?

Can suicide terrorism be considered a rational act?

The answer is not at all clear; what is clear, though, is that suicide attacks are effective, very effective. Indeed, they are one of the most effective “tools” in the arsenal of terrorist organizations

For terrorist organizations, then, suicide attacks represent a relatively low cost way of achieving a political goal: consider the suicide attacks launched by Hizballah against the US and French military contingents stationed in Beirut in 1983

12






If terrorism is a rational act, we must still explain why the choice of terrorism is made, why individuals become terrorists

To rationalists, the answer is clear …

Individuals turn to terrorism when they believe that no other viable option exists to achieve a political goal; terrorism arises when the “benefits” of using terrorism outweigh the “costs

13






The lack of viable options is key to understanding terrorism. It tells us, among other things, that …

Terrorism is a response to objective conditions--political, social or economic inequality, injustice, oppression, exclusion, and so on (conversely, that terrorism is less likely in the absence of inequality, oppression, injustice, and exclusion)Terrorism is rarely a first response; instead, it is typically a last resort, an option used when all other methods have failedTerrorism is a “weapon of the weak”Terrorism is most intense in places where inequality, injustice and oppression are very high and the “costs” of terrorist activity are relatively low--if the costs are too high, if any resistance is absolutely doomed to failure, then terrorism would not be anticipated

14






Rationality, Mistakes, and Constraints: Additional Points

Terrorists, while rational, often make serious, even deadly miscalculations; some decisions, in short, are very bad ones

One reason is the lack of __________________________ ; in addition, strategic ________________ makes any outcome problematic

Another reason is the fact that they typically face overwhelming odds against success in the first place: consider Hizballah’s confrontation against Israel and the United States …

perfect informationinteraction

15






A Question …

Was there a reasonable political objective?

Was there another reasonable method of achieving this goal?

Did the attack benefit Al Qaeda? Could these benefits be appropriately weighed against the probable costs?

Indeed, did Al Qaeda achieve its goal? Did it win?

Can Al Qaeda’s attack against the United States be explained from as a rational decision?

16





Culture, Religion and Terrorism

Most culturalists would agree that there is a strong relationship between culture and political violence; the relationship, however, should not be described as strictly causal…

Particular cultures make terrorists

Culture can contribute toto the making of terrorists*

* Under certain conditions and in certain political, social or economic contexts; morever, pretty much any (religiously-based) culture--from Islamic, to Hindi,

to Christian, to Jewish-- has this same potential

17






A discussion of therelationship betweenculture and terrorismwith former terrorists

Pay careful attentionto what is said aboutthe importance ofculture …

Video Removed(can be downloaded

separate file)

18






Important Caveat

Culture or cultural factors do notact alone. The importance of cultureas a variable must always be understood within particularcontexts

Culture is a meaning-making medium that interacts with other forces (social, political, and economic) to influence or shape the behavior of individuals, communities, and even whole societies

What does mean? What “particular type of context” might matter?

What does mean? What “particular type of context” might matter?

19






While culture and cultural factors do not act alone, culture can still be said to have an autonomous effect insofar as culture may provide a necessary basis for collective (as opposed to individual) action

That is, one might say that without an appeal to cultural or religious symbols, certain collective undertaking would be difficult if not impossible too achieve

This is probably truer with terrorism than with other types of collective endeavors since the becoming a terrorists requires an extraordinarily high level of commitment and risk--and sometimes certain death

20






The Case of Terrorism in Lebanon

The larger context: Prior to the emergence of terrorism in Lebanon, Lebanese society was characterized by the unequal division of political and economic privileges between Muslims and Christians

Domestic inequality was exacerbated the country’s weak security situation, both domestically and internationally: Lebanon was subject to two military incursions by Israel, the first in 1978 and the second in 1982

The dominant group in Lebanon was supported by Israel; the subordinate group was supported by Iran

Important Note: Inequality and seriously imbalanced power relations are an underlying factor in many, if not most cases of terrorism: Northern Ireland, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Algeria, Pakistan, and Palestine, to name a few. At the same time, inequality and political discrimination don’t always lead to terrorism; conversely in relatively equitable societies, incidences of domestic terrorism occur

Important Note: Inequality and seriously imbalanced power relations are an underlying factor in many, if not most cases of terrorism: Northern Ireland, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Algeria, Pakistan, and Palestine, to name a few. At the same time, inequality and political discrimination don’t always lead to terrorism; conversely in relatively equitable societies, incidences of domestic terrorism occur

21






The Case of Terrorism in Lebanon

What role did culture play in the rise of terrorism in Lebanon?

Was there a natural fit between “pure” Islamic values, practices, and beliefs and terrorism?

How were Islamic values co-opted to justify or legitimize terrorist violence, especially with regard to the use of suicide bombers?

The use of suicide attacks was justified by the spiritual leader of Hizballah in the following manner: When an enemy cannot be attacked through conventional means, then the combatant must fight with “special means,” which includes purposefully sacrificing one’s own life. But “such an undertaking differs little from that of a soldier who fights and knows that in the end he will be killed. These two situations lead to death; except that one fits in with conventional procedures of war, and the other does not.” Thus, “there is no difference between dying with a gun in your hand or exploding yourself.”

The use of suicide attacks was justified by the spiritual leader of Hizballah in the following manner: When an enemy cannot be attacked through conventional means, then the combatant must fight with “special means,” which includes purposefully sacrificing one’s own life. But “such an undertaking differs little from that of a soldier who fights and knows that in the end he will be killed. These two situations lead to death; except that one fits in with conventional procedures of war, and the other does not.” Thus, “there is no difference between dying with a gun in your hand or exploding yourself.”

pols 373 foundations of comparative politics what makes a terrorists? march 6 and 8, 2007 professor...

Documents

civilian populations

civilian targets soldiers

los angeles slide

political violence

concept of terrorism

white south african

african national congress

weapons of mass destruction