Government Responses to "Terrorism"

By Faiz Ahmed
Oakland University

Terrorism is the weapon of the weak, and can be either a small irritation or a big threat to the ruling establishment.

There is no one particular type of terrorism, and therefore, when dealing with terrorism, the regime will use strategies that are flexible and have the ability to change and adapt.

There are a few different strategies to deal with terrorism that Peter Sederberg demarcates in his article, “Conciliation as Counter-Terrorist Strategy”. He states that there are two basic methods of dealing with terrorism, one is the “war model”, and the other is the “rational actor model” (Sederberg 1995, pg 300-301).

The “war model” basically means that the terrorists are the enemies that have waged war on the establishment and therefore must be eradicated. The notion of bargaining and talking to terrorists does not enter the picture. The problem with this war model is that if the repression of the terrorist organization becomes so extreme that the terrorist’s support community gets effected, then like the National Liberation Front of Algeria, the terrorist organization may well be destroyed but it makes them martyrs and thereby makes the organization more endearing to the support community and will eventually lead to mass uprising against the regime.

Sederberg further divides the war model into two categories, the limited war and the unlimited war. Unlimited war means total destruction of the opposing group. Limited war on the other hand is usually sporadic breakouts of violence between periods of negotiation either to punish the opposition or to achieve political gains. Limited war usually is a part of a war fought for negotiable ends. (Sederberg 1995, pg300-301)

In some instances the unlimited war model worked pretty well. The Jewish Terrorist groups that fought against Britain for the independence of Israel fought an unlimited war.

They did not fight to achieve small or limited goals, rather for the complete removal of British influence from the Palestinian Protectorate. Similarly the Algerian freedom struggle had a similar unlimited objective, the complete removal of French influence from Algeria. The French in this instance also fought an unlimited war, to achieve the complete destruction of the National Liberation Front.

However as with the case of the Irish Republican Army vs. the UK government, although it started off as an unlimited war, it ended up becoming a limited war for the sheer reason that it went on for almost a century. It was a limited war because there were frequent negotiations between the two groups and now the leaders on the political arm of the IRA, Sinn Fein have representatives in the UK government.

The other model that Sederberg talks about is the “rational actor model”. This model has two arguments. One is that “those resorting to terrorism possess adequate rationality to calculate costs and benefit. If the regime therefore can raise the costs to a sufficient level of severity and certainty they will deter challengers from employing terrorism” (Sederberg 1995, pg 301).

This approach basically runs the risk of going too far in the repression and it is actually an approach that many terrorist organization use against the governments that they choose to fight. They raise the costs of fighting. The Afghan fighters used this against the USSR.

The second argument with regards to ‘rational actor model’ is that since the terrorists are rational actors and if they see that they gained something out of committing terrorist attacks such as a compromise on the part of the government, then they may be encouraged to use terrorist methods even more(Sederberg 1995, pg 301).

If the unlimited war model is not effective, and the limited war model is appropriated, then it brings about negotiations.

At this stage there are a few choices that the government has. Since totally crushing the group and its supporters is not viable option, then selectively assassinating some of the group’s leaders may be an option for the regime. Alternatively instigating factional violence and disruption between rebel groups if other groups do exist can be fruitful to the government. Infiltrating the organization and sowing the seeds of division is also a viable option for the regime. Another method is to offer the organization an alternative route to try to bring about the changes they desire in a hope that the challengers will stop using violence.

One method of ending terrorism is to give the support community certain concessions so as to alienate the terrorist organization for carrying out its acts of violence.

Many times terrorism rears its ugly head because of occupation, repression, colonization etc. The most rational way to stop terrorist activity against the regime and the predominant population group is to free the people the government had colonized. The Republic of India had many groups that took to terrorism to gain freedom, some even traveled to London to carry out acts of vengeance against British elites who had ordered large scale repression in India. They did not undertake any violent activity after the decolonization of India neither did Algerian or Israeli militants use violence against their former colonizers after attaining freedom. The best way to end nationalist terrorism is to leave colonized lands and the best way to prevent the start of a freedom struggle is to discourage any type of oppression against minorities but usually this is not an option most governments even consider, however granting concession proved to be successful in the struggle between the IRA and the UK.

The American clash with terrorism.

The United States is determined to destroy Al-Qaeda and its affiliates. The problem is that al-Qaeda is just one organization among many others that have the same basic ideology.

The more militant muslim organizations call for the establishment of an Islamic theocracy and the removal of US troops from Muslim lands. They also fight against their own governments which do not follow the Islamic principles of governance like Egypt and are supported by the USA.

The 9/11 attacks caused the USA to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, adopt many security procedures at international borders and the passing of the patriot act.

The security measures that the US government implemented at airports have definitely made the USA less susceptible to Terrorist attack by air, but whenever someone builds a wall, someone else comes along and builds a bigger ladder.

The blunder the US government made was invading Iraq. If the US had not invaded Iraq, firstly, it would have been able to allocate all its resources and troops to the war in Afghanistan thereby running a more concentrated campaign against al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Secondly, Iraq turned out to be the quagmire that Saddam Hussein predicted. The US troops have been in Iraq for seven years now, and the situation has not gotten any better. The government of Iraq is still weak and the US has no definite plan of withdrawal.

Thirdly, where Iraq had no Al-Qaeda affiliates under Saddam Hussein’s rule, it has a large number of groups that are very similar in their worldview to al-Qaeda.

The Invasion of Iraq and the bombing of villages in Pakistan has created more enemies for the USA than it had before the 9/11 attacks. The Iraq invasion and the military action inside Pakistan has created wide spread resentment and radicalization among Muslims worldwide.

The Nigerian underwear bomber, the Times Square bomber and the fort hood shooter are all the enemies that the US has created for itself because of the Iraq invasion and the aerial bombings of villages in Pakistan.

The invasion of Afghanistan may have been justified even in the eyes of some Muslims but the Iraqi blunder and the bombings of the Waziristan region of Pakistan have definitely given many Muslims the feeling that the US is at war with Muslims thus making it easier for terrorists organizations to recruit new members.

Bruce Hoffman, in his book, “Inside terrorism” mentions that although Al-Qaeda as an organization has been “damaged”, it continues to “inspire the broader radical Jihadist community” (Hoffman 2006, pg289)

There is an important point to note, in an article for newsweek co-authored By Kevin Peraino and Michael Hirsh, they acknowledge the fact that the organization Al-QAEDA is no more. The organization that seemingly perpetrated the September 11 attacks on the US is no more. It is an ideology and emotional resentment and bitterness that the USA is now battling.

“The Terrorist cells these countries harbor are not quite the Al-Qaeda of 9/11. While the leaders are sometimes the same, flitting from place to place, Al Qaeda has also mutated into a franchised brand name that is no longer centrally directed. These diffuse cells often use cyberspace to inspire and loosely direct a more individualistic, do-it-yourself terrorism”. (Peranio and Hirsch,2010)

This is the biggest problem that the US faces. Although the USA has destroyed Al-Qaeda, the organization, completely, it will never be able to destroy the resentment among Muslims. The resentment has escalated because of the two wars. By continuing the wars that were started nearly a decade ago, the USA continues to radicalize its enemies further. The radical emotions among certain Muslims that led to the 9/11 attacks are now even more definite.

The overall threat for the USA is now even worse than it was before 9/11 because there are more people who are angry because of the indiscriminate US military bombings and pointless invasions and bombs don’t win a battle of hearts and minds.

It is now up to the USA to win back the hearts and minds of people overseas both Muslim and non-Muslims and work towards mutual benefit.

First published with East West Link News - ewlnews.com