Terrorism, Terrorism and History, Terrorism and Policy

Terrorism

The post-Cold War era marked a shift in global security concerns, with terrorism emerging as the primary issue by the early 21st century. Following the Persian Gulf War, there was an optimistic outlook for international cooperation, but this changed dramatically after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, which were treated as the foremost global security threat by the US and allied nations.

Key Debates Surrounding Terrorism

Three central debates have arisen in the wake of 9/11:

  1. Definition of Terrorism: The term has become politicized, complicating efforts to distinguish terrorist acts from other types of violence.

  2. History of Terrorism: Understanding terrorism's historical roots can provide lessons for current security challenges.

  3. Policy Responses: Evaluating the effectiveness of the US’s responses to terrorism, including the military interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq and counterterrorism strategies.

Key points you touched on include:

1. The end of the Cold War and the rise of a "New World Order": This period of optimism was short-lived due to the rise of global terrorism, especially after the events of September 11, 2001.

2. The debates around terrorism post-9/11:

- How to define terrorism: It's a politically charged term, and its use depends heavily on who is labeling the act.

- The history of terrorism: The continuity of political violence and lessons from past conflicts.

- Policy responses: The U.S. global war on terror, which involved military interventions and continued through different administrations.

3. Political manipulation of the "terrorism" label: Examples from the U.S. (such as the treatment of Antifa, the January 6 Capitol events, or the 2020 protests) and Canada's political controversies surrounding protests against government policies (such as the Wet'suwet'en First Nation blockades and the Freedom Convoy) show how terrorism as a label is politically charged.

4. State vs. non-state terrorism: A crucial distinction is made between state-sponsored terrorism, where governments support non-state groups that carry out attacks, and non-state terrorism, where subnational groups conduct attacks to further political goals.

5. Examples of state terrorism: The U.S. government's use of atomic bombs in WWII, the ongoing situation in Ukraine with Russia's actions, and the designation of states like Iran as state sponsors of terrorism, illustrate the gray areas in how terrorism is defined when states are involved.

Canadian context

In 2019 a conservative MP caused a great deal of controversy by asking leading questions about rail blockades. Rail blockades that had been set up in support of the Wetsueten First Nation. The conservative MP asked whether or not these rail blockades constituted an act of terrorism.

On January 27, 2022. The leader of the Federal NDP job meet sing applied the label terrorism to the so called freedom convoy. A group of truckers and others that had set up a protest camp in Ottawa as part of a protest against vaccine mandates.

 Fear as a tactic

Violence is used with the goal of terrorizing an audience that goes far beyond the immediate victims. The terrorist acts might precipitate desired changes. The state might be pressuring its own citizens to change the offending policy. Alternatively, the general climate of terror, it might cause the state to go overboard. If the terrorist group provoke the target state into overacting, several beneficial things for that terrorist group might happen.

This summary is essential for understanding the complexities of terrorism, how it has evolved, and the strategic, political, and moral challenges involved in responding to it.

Terrorism and History

1. Historical Overview of Terrorism:

- Ancient Examples: Terrorist actions against the Roman Empire (e.g., the Sicarii in Judea) demonstrate that non-state terrorism has existed for centuries. These acts sought to expel foreign rule and caused significant fear, a hallmark of terrorism.

- Guy Fawkes and 1605: The Gunpowder Plot in England, where Guy Fawkes and conspirators attempted to blow up the House of Lords, is another early example of terrorism, driven by religious and political motives.

2. David Rapoport’s Four Waves of Non-State Terrorism:

- Anarchist Wave (1880s-1920s): Aimed at overthrowing the state, with notable acts of violence like assassinations of political leaders. The ideology was based on anarchism, seeing the state as an oppressive force.

- Anti-Colonial Wave (1920s-1960s): Focused on gaining independence from colonial powers. National liberation groups like the Irgun in Israel and FLQ in Canada fought for self-determination and independence, often using violence to challenge imperial powers.

- New-Left Wave (1960s-1990s): This wave was heavily influenced by Marxist thought, aiming to overthrow capitalist structures and imperial powers. Groups like the Red Brigades in Italy, Shining Path in Peru, and the Weather Underground in the U.S. used violent tactics to promote socialist ideals.

- Religious Wave (1979-present): Triggered by events like the Iranian Revolution and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. This wave sees groups using religious ideology as a primary motivation. Notable examples include Al-Qaeda, the Lord’s Resistance Army, and the 1985 Air India bombing. It also includes sectarian violence and groups like Aum Shinrikyo in Japan.

3. Caveats to Rapoport's History:

- Overlapping Motivations: Many terrorist groups draw upon multiple ideologies, meaning that one group's motivations may not be purely ideological but can combine elements from various belief systems.

- Emergence of Right-Wing Terrorism: In the 5th wave of terrorism, there is an increase in violence motivated by right-wing, nativist, or white supremacist ideologies. This wave has seen groups like the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers in the U.S. involved in acts of violence, with several notable incidents, such as the 2011 Norway attacks and the 2019 Christchurch mosque attacks.

4. Terrorism as a Historical Norm: Terrorism has existed long before the 21st century and has been shaped by various political, ideological, and religious motivations. It is not a new phenomenon tied only to events like 9/11.

This historical lens highlights that terrorism is not a recent development but part of a long-standing pattern of politically motivated violence aimed at achieving specific objectives, whether national independence, ideological change, or religious supremacy.

Defining State and Non-State Terrorism

Definitions vary but typically include:

  • Non-State Terrorism: Planned politically motivated violence against non-combatants by clandestine groups.

  • State Terrorism: When states use violence against civilians to instill fear for political purposes.

  • State-sponsored Terrorism: Involves supporting non-state terrorist groups as part of foreign policy.

The 5th wave of terrorism

We have entered a new 5th wave of modern terrorism where right wing or nativist, or white supremacist language is symbolism that these are what’s used to justify the acts of violence.

In the US this includes groups like the Proud bOYS, the Oath keepers, and Anon Rapaport notes that for 2017 terrorist attacks in the US were inspired by far right ideology, they significantly outnumbered those inspired by epithet leftist or jihadist ideology.

42 attacks to 11 attacks to 8 attacks.

Includes attack in Norway 2011, killing 77 people mostly children.  An attack  at a mosque in Quebec City in 2017 that killed 6, and include march 2019 attack on mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand that killed 51 people.

Terrorisms is the historical norm

Started long before 911.

 Terrorism is motivated by a wide variety of beliefs

Terrorism and Policy

Responses to terrorism have included:

  1. Military Interventions: Bush’s declaration of a global war on terror post-9/11 led to military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq.

  2. Legislative and Law Enforcement Measures: Responses that focus on police and judicial systems rather than military action, as seen after prior attacks.

  3. Addressing Root Causes: Recognizing that terrorism can be a symptom of deeper social and political issues and advocating for foreign policies that prioritize human rights and diplomacy.

Responding to Terrorism:

- Different approaches are debated, each with its own set of strengths and weaknesses. These include military action, criminal justice responses, addressing root causes, or maintaining existing civilian institutions.

The American Response to 9/11

1. Treat Terrorism as a Military Threat:

- President George Bush’s rhetoric post-9/11 led to the "Global War on Terror," focusing on military action against groups like Al-Qaeda. This policy aimed to confront terrorism globally but faced challenges, especially regarding international support and the nature of terrorism as a non-state actor problem.

2. Treat Terrorism as a Criminal Act:

- The 1993 World Trade Center bombing saw the U.S. focus on using judicial and law enforcement institutions (FBI, courts, etc.) to apprehend and prosecute terrorists. This approach contrasts with the military one used post-9/11.

3. Addressing Root Causes:

- This strategy advocates for addressing underlying issues like political instability, foreign policy decisions, and socio-economic factors that fuel terrorism. Examples include U.S. policies in the Middle East, including military interventions and support for autocratic governments, which some argue contribute to terrorism’s rise.

4. Do Nothing Out of the Ordinary:

- This approach involves handling terrorism through existing institutions (police, emergency services, and the judicial system) without resorting to extraordinary measures like military interventions.

Weighing the Costs of Terrorism vs. the War on Terror

- The Cost of Terrorism:

- While terrorism costs lives and damages property, its prevalence is relatively low. Over 20 years, terrorism in the U.S. resulted in about 445 fatalities, a small fraction compared to other causes like lightning strikes or lawnmower accidents.

- The Cost of the War on Terror:

- The "Global War on Terror" has cost the U.S. significantly, with the total amount spent on military action, counterterrorism efforts, and related activities reaching $8 trillion. Additionally, the war led to the deaths of 15,000 U.S. military personnel and an ongoing human rights debate.

The Future of Terrorism: Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

- Chemical, Biological, and Nuclear Weapons:

- Terrorists could pose a significant threat using chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. While chemical weapons are easier to deploy, biological and nuclear weapons present greater risks due to their potential for mass casualties and difficulty in controlling their spread.

Did the War on Terror Increase Terrorism?

- Instability in the Middle East:

- The U.S. military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan have been argued to have exacerbated instability in the region, allowing groups like ISIS to rise. The long-term effects of the War on Terror, especially on human rights and global security, remain a significant point of critique.

This analysis points to the complexity of terrorism and policy responses, showing how various approaches can affect both the causes and the outcomes of counterterrorism efforts.

Terrorism Risks and Impact on Society

While the threat of terrorism is significant, historical statistics indicate that the risk of dying from terrorism, especially in the US, is comparatively low, especially when placed against other dangers such as accidents. Post-9/11 costs of the global war on terror have raised debates on the balance between security and civil freedoms.

 Conclusion

The landscape of terrorism is complex, influenced by both historical and contemporary events. Effective responses must be nuanced, considering the political implications of labeling terrorism and the need for comprehensive strategies that address the root causes of violence.