I have decided to post some essays I have written. They may not be in chronological or topical order and I have not taken much time to format them but I hope you enjoy them (My Prof's did).
Brent Budowsky's Op Ed in The Hill ( http://pundits.thehill.com/2007/08/08/‘give-me-liberty-or-give-me-death’/#more-1474 ) reminded me of some points in this essay.
"February 26, 1993 I was an eleven-year-old student in Brooklyn New York. At the time I did not understand what was happening in Manhattan other than the fact that my friend who lived in Manhattan got to come over after school to wait for his parents. In the days to follow I remember seeing news reports about the attack on the World Trade Center but I am not sure if I understood much about the incident until later on.
Terrorism, a strategy used to create instability that has existed since Roman times, is a growing trend due to international political instability and the growing media pervasiveness. No expert has or is likely to form one definition for terrorism; the best strategy is to define terrorism by commonalities between terrorist groups, terrorists, and terrorist acts.
According to Magstadt, terrorism seems to have been born from religious groups, three specifically, the Thugs, the Zealots, and the Assassins (464). The Zealots, the oldest of the three, were a Jewish group existing in and rebelling against pagan Rome around 66-73 CE. In the 11th century the Assassins, a sect of the Shi’ite Muslims, attempted to cleanse Islam by murdering outsiders (not unlike the current groups of Muslim extremists). Most recently the Thugs terrorized India by ambushing and murdering other Hindus on highways to serve some perverted sense of religious duty for hundreds of years until being eradicated in the nineteenth century. This is not however defining all terrorism as religiously driven. There have been many other secular groups throughout history examples would be Anarchists, Communists, Non-Religious Fundamentalists, Nationalists, and Neo-Nazis. Experts offer that the inception of the current type of terrorism was some time in the late 1960’s some even going as far as attributing events of 1968 as being the seeds of the trend (Magstadt 464). These events are the hijacking of an Israeli airliner, the arson attack of a Frankfort department store by the gang Baader-Meinhof, Yasir Arifat’s coronation as leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization, and the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr which opened the floodgates of violence enacted by the groups like the Black Panthers and the Weathermen (Magstadt 464).
Since this turning point about 30 years ago the nature of terrorism has metamorphosed into a whole new challenge. During this time the US mainland has become at risk for attack from inter- and trans-national terrorists. Additionally, modern terrorism has become more violent, focusing on mass casualties and public attention. There is yet no grater example of these points than the attack on the World Trade Center in New York. Terrorist groups have also steadily increased the taking of foreign, often American, hostages. This trend of hostage taking is perpetrated to facilitate the voicing of political demands, to attract even more attention via media coverage and Internet publication of video, to use as a chip to trade for the release of compatriots (an unlikely occurrence when the US is the jailer), to show their influence and power over governments by influencing policy, and lastly to raise funds for the continuation of terrorist actions. A result of these modifications in organization and action is that terrorists are better financed than ever before and even though huge amounts (millions) of their money has been frozen internationally as an organization or movement they do not seem to be slowing down. This may be attributed to the amoeboid nature of modern terrorist groups. Modern groups do not have a central office or headquarters and may not even have a single leader. Even with the presence of a single leader or figurehead the synergistic nature of these groups suggests that the capture of any one person is not enough to conquer the movement. This is especially true in the case of Muslim extremists since some of their leaders are operating under the guise of religious leaders and may not be prosecutable as long as they do not actually engage in anything more than spreading radical religious propaganda (a luxury afforded to them by the democracies that they oppose). The existence of sleeper cells and other aspects supporting multifaceted organization must make raising funds and executing other functions without detection and prosecution easier.
The UN Office on Drugs and Crime offers 4 separate definitions of terrorism, each slightly different than the last reflecting changes over time (UNODC). This is a main challenge of combating terrorism; there is no good, singular, definition for an act of terrorism. Because of this prosecuting terrorists can be problematic since it may be difficult to identify who is a terrorist. The most effective method of identification is to analyze commonalities of terrorist groups and methods and draw parallels between knows groups. One of the main commonalities between all terrorist groups is the existence of an ideology or commonly oversimplified idea that is used to recruit new members and remind the membership of their righteous mission. Other common factors of terrorist groups are the use of violence to instill fear, a target recently civilian but historically governmental, an objective or goal such as media attention or installation of fear, a motive like political goals or grievances, a perpetrator an individual or group, and legitimacy (Opheim). Many official definitions include the need for a terrorist act to be unlawful since it would otherwise fall under the scope of protest.
There are many different types of terrorism other the Muslim extremist form that we are currently most familiar with. As with all attempts to define terrorism there are overlaps in the definitions of the types of terrorism. The most successful form of terrorism is nationalist terrorism. Nationalist terrorists seek a homeland for their nation; examples would be Kurds and the PLO. Some who have committed nationalist terrorism have gone on to be the recipients of Nobel peace prizes. Recently the US has experienced domestic terrorist attacks in Oklahoma, Atlanta, and at various abortion clinics across the country. These attacks are new in our country and defined by the fact that the perpetrator is a citizen of the country being attacked and does not agree with the institution he is attacking. Inversely, state terrorism is defined by the government attacking its citizens this is not unlike one of the many crimes that Saddam Hussein is being tried for. Another type of terrorist type present in the US is the ideological terrorist that can either be leftist or right wing. Examples of leftist would be the E.L.F. and Earth First who act against businesses and other representatives of capitalism in the attempt to move people to save the environment. Right wing examples of ideological terrorists include the KKK and other groups who are mainly racially driven. Nearly a subset of ideological terrorism is the religious terrorist group. These groups are based on the belief of divine command towards a religiously dogmatic goal and are on the rise. Lastly there are international and transnational terrorists; international groups, sometimes called state-sponsored, are defined as being supported by a government who supports the ideology of the terrorist group, the Taliban in Afghanistan would be a prime example of a government supporting a terrorist group. Transnational terrorists, in contrast to international terrorists, are not backed by a singular government. Since the defeat of the Taliban it seems that Al Qaeda is now a transnational group even though they were conceived as a nationalist group in the 1980’s to combat the Soviets.
There are many causes of terrorism one of the foremost being ideological factors. These factors often parallel with the types of terrorism. Examples of these ideologies are communistic fighting against capitalism, anarchistic opposing any authority, fundamentalist conquering non-believers, nationalist liberating from colonial powers, neo-Nazi anti racial diversity, and anti-government opposing establishment. All of these exploit the power of ideas to influence others and rally support amongst those who feel disenfranchised. This attachment can be the explanation as to why so many people are ready to sacrifice themselves for the cause, feeling that the ideology is who they are and without it they are nothing. This use of ideology is eerily parallel to the way that many armed forces train their soldiers, in particular the way that the US recruits many soldiers from impoverished areas where advancement in society may seem out of the question.
Environmental factors are also a leading antagonistic force, which can lead to the formation of terrorist groups. In a situation where a society feels that voting has become ineffective and becomes anxious for change a terrorist group may form taking advantage of the situation trading in ballots for bullets. Other environmental factors can lead to the creation of a culture of violence where violence is a way of life, a tradition passed down from father to son, and generation to generation. These cultures of violence are present in Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Liberia, El Salvador, Lebanon, and Northern Ireland (although the I.R.A. has recently disarmed to avoid being prosecuted as a terrorist group).
Psychologically terrorists also have commonalities, according to Kidder’s Unmasking Terrorism, terrorists are dualists often oversimplifying complex issues and being uninterested in debate over their given ideology (outlined in Magstadt 476). Other commonly shared psychological traits of terrorists are frustration, orientation toward risk, self-righteousness, utopianism, social isolation, a need to be noticed, and a taste for blood (outlined in Magstadt 476). These commonalities fit the psychological profile of a fanatic. Interestingly, a synonym for fanatic is zealot, after the aforementioned terrorist group. Hoffer’s analysis of fanatics in The True Believer paraphrased by Magstadt states that fanaticism,
. . . whether political or religious, is almost always based on hatred . . . In this view, the fanatic places hatred in the service of a cause or vision. Hatred is in turn a unifying force for fanatics . . . hatred provides a reason for living, often appealing to individuals who are insecure, have little sense of self worth or lack meaning in their lives.
Further more the cause driving a fanatic may not be wholesome. Magstadt paraphrases Ibid, stating that fanatics “ . . . embrace a cause not primarily because it is just or holy but because they have a desperate need for something to hold onto” (477). All of these psychological analyses seem to suggest that terrorists, as fanatics, could be treated as one would treat another person with a clinical disorder. I have no idea how a government would go about this without violating civil liberties but none the less an interesting analysis.
One of the main goals of any terrorist attack is to gain publicity for the cause; people want to know what the driving force behind an attack was. This is gratifying to the individual himself, “it makes otherwise obscure and nondescript individuals feel important” (Magstadt 477). Since news networks prefer to air bad news than good it is no surprise that a terrorist attack gets huge amounts of free publicity. This is a main part of the reason that democracies are more vulnerable to attack than other, less free, governments. Since free speech is a keystone of democracies it would be impossible to legislatively curtail the media exposure that an attack receives. Of course the media could censor it self for the good of society but unless some sort of agreement between networks was enacted I doubt this is a possibility. Free speech and civil liberties are a thin ice topic, which is far reaching as it includes many other policies such as wiretapping, racial profiling, immigration, and trade. How much can a democratic government push the limit of its people’s rights under the guise of public safety before the people revolt? Without eliminating democracy it is impossible to eliminate all terrorism. Focusing on one type makes it easier but the challenge is still great. Democracy stands for compromise, mutual trust, and tolerance, ingredients that are not part of the terrorist recipe. This dichotomy is the reason that democracies are easily vulnerable to physical and psychological attack (Magstadt 485). It would be much less effective and more difficult to attack a totalitarian government since they do not allow citizens much freedom.
“Since being jolted by the terrorists attacks of Sept. 11 and the persistent, mysterious spread of anthrax, the government has been struggling to discern what weapon, if any, might be aimed at the nation next” (Broad). This is the current and perhaps most important challenge currently facing the United States, not will a terrorist group attack but when at what amplitude. Given that terrorist’s traditionally use unconventional methods and are themselves difficult to define it is difficult to create an accurate model to answer this question.
Even when specifically addressing Muslim extremists it is difficult to define a solution to the problem. According to the President the key is “…promoting freedom, justice, and human dignity- working to end tyranny, to promote effective democracies, and to extend prosperity through free and fair trade and wise development policies” (Bush). This sounds like a reasonable statement but I fear that it may not be effective. The Presidents statement makes the claim that ending tyranny will curb terrorism. This is because tyrannies support terrorists; the unstated assumption is that democracies will not support terrorism. This ignores the fact that tyrannies may not be evil, may not support terrorism, and even could be an ally. Even if the answer is to promote democracy indiscriminately will we continue supporting a democracy even if the citizens elect an undesirable regime as the result of a fair election? Many US citizens feel that this has occurred in the past two elections and yet most have faith in the democratic system. If a terrorist group wins office in a legitimate election what is stopping them from sponsoring international terrorism? It seems as if our government has decided that it is our responsibility to not only lead by example but to assimilate the rest of the world to our standards. This makes me wonder if democracy is the right answer for every nation at every time. Given that democracy during its inception and early stages is very unstable it is difficult to imagine how replacing a stable autocracy and oligarchy with democracy will, at first, curb terrorism unless it can be proven that the current government is supporting terrorist activity. Since the process of developing democracy is slow the unstable period could last over a decade in which time the perceived power vacuum would result in numerous power grabs if improperly managed. Imagine if the US decided to enact democracy in every non-democratic government within the next five to ten years. The influx of terrorist attacks would without doubt be unsurpassed by any other period of history. Without a doubt a gradual movement towards democracy is the correct path to follow for a state of global democracy to be successful. If the goal of Muslim extremists is to recapture the area of the caliphate, historical Muslim empire, perhaps even they would have to participate in democratic government to succeed in their goal. Another complaint often voiced against our society is our capitalism. It seems that democracy and capitalism go hand in hand but would it be possible and effective to attempt to separate the two? Is there a reason that a democratic government must embrace capitalism as long as its citizens are in agreement against it? In the end given the instability of democratic revolution as proven by the French revolution, American Revolution, and recently the push towards Iraqi democracy perhaps embracing a more gradual change is the best course of action.
Instead of the US mission being the war on terror and the promotion of democracy perhaps NATO should take on the responsibility of deciding whether a government is a threat to global security and peace. If NATO became a stronger influence by way of taking the reins and replacing the US as the “world police” perhaps the target on our back would become smaller. In effect the US, more or less bucking NATO policy by relying on possibly unreliable intelligence to initiate what boils down to a coup (even if driven by good intentions), has created global political instability. As we know since any political instability breeds’ terrorism effectively our “war on terror” in its current form may be working against itself. Perhaps instead of focusing on our country proactively leading the “war on terror” we should focus on unifying existing democracies and even positive non-democracies towards the common goal of increasing global political stability and in turn “drying up the well” that terrorism feeds from.
Works Cited
Broad, William J., and Stephen Engelberg and James Glanz. “Assessing Risks, Chemical, Biological, Even Nuclear” Washington Post 1 November 2001. 10 April. 2006
Bush, George W. “The National Security Stratigy of The United States of America” March 2006
Magstadt, Thomas M. Understanding Politics Ideas, Institutions, & Issues. Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth, 2006.
Opheim, Michael. “Terrorism” MSCD. Denver, CO. 10 April. 2006
UN. Office on Drugs and Crime. Definitions of Terrorism. Accessed 10 April. 2006
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_definitions.html"Labels: Terriorism America Freedom Liberity
