Terror as a Tactic

Hattie Pipes

Professor Shirk

Global Politics of Terror

February 6, 2017

Terrorism is a dynamic term; however, it exhibits some constant traits. Generally, modern terrorism involves strategic violence to further a political ideology. When questioning my peers, parents, and professors, they emphasized that terrorists employ violence to refute an established authority. Philip Bobbitt notes in, Terror and Consent: The Wars for the Twenty-First Century” that historically terrorism reacted against the values of the constitutional order (Bobbitt, 44). Terrorism is not a term invented by politicians used exclusively to demonize one’s enemies, as Lisa Stampnitzky asserts in, Disciplining Terror: How Experts Invented Terrorism, terrorism employs asymmetrical warfare to challenge the constitutional order.

Terrorism is not an invention of the state

Terrorism was not a term created by the Bush administration. President Theodore Roosevelt called for the first international crusade to safeguard civilization against anarchy (Rappoport, 10). In 2001 the United States response to terror was drastic because the actions taken against the nation were radical. Terror cannot be confined or relegated to the past, as it is a term which changes in every era and depends upon evolving tactics. Strategic violence  Terror is fluid but its complex definition does possess certain qualities. David Rappoport, notes in his article, The Four Waves of Rebel Terror and September 11, “revolution was the overriding aim in every wave, but revolution was understood differently in each” (Rappoport, 2). Rappoport elaborates that revolution is often seen as the radical reconstruction of authority. Although, nations (e.g. North Korea) can engage in terrorism against their own people it is more common for non-state actors to engage in terror. Whereas nations have the opportunity and the desire to engage in international dialogue to prevent war non-state actors who are not fond of the established authority are unafraid to disrupt convention through terror. This ever-present evolution of the act of terror is what makes it challenging to define. Stampnnitzky is correct that the term was employed frequently after 9/11 but this was not because of purely political reasons. Post 9/11 the Bush Administration recognized that terror was a threat which could not be ignored, hence the emphasis on the war on terror. At the time, little was known of the potency which terror presented; the United States reaction could be considered a natural governmental response to an external threat.

The Imperial governments of the 18^th Century readjusted their tactics to confront piracy. Per Mark Shirk’s, Bringing the State Back into the Empire Turn, pirates took advantage of “layered sovereignty.” Arguably the FBI and CIA’s lack of effective organization and communication resembles that of the scattered interests of empires’ in the 18^th century. Although, the Bush administration did challenge terrorism with language, they also employed other tactics. Many of these involved the military. Soldiers were deployed with subject matter experts and the creation of the Asymmetric Warfare Group (AWG) in 2003 (then known as the Army IED Task Force) were part of this effort. Rappoport notes the Vietnam war, “stimulated an enormous ambivalence about the value of the existing system” among young people in the West (Rappoport, 7). Yet, Rappoport also believes the September 11 attack “created a resolve in America and elsewhere to end international terror.” Perhaps the Bush Administration hoped to avoid the lack of support which shadowed the Vietnam War by uniting its citizens and other nations against terrorism through language. However, defining terror broadly and labeling all terrorists as evil was not their core strategy to confront terrorist groups.

Terrorism as an asymmetrical tactic used by non-state groups

Terrorists do not ‘play by the rules’ or adhere to international laws regarding warfare. Terrorists employ vehicle born improvised explosive devices (VBIEDS) and other unconventional tactics because they are unable to compete or challenge state actors in traditional warfare. Terrorists undermine their adversaries’ through tactical but unconventional violence. Michael Rubin, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and former Pentagon official notes that, “In every era…weak forces utilize surprise, technology, innovative tactics, or what some might consider violations of military etiquette to challenge the strong.” Non-state actors apply asymmetrical warfare to further their political aims. The tactic of terror often relies upon asymmetrical warfare. Charles Tilly of Columbia University notes in his article, Terror, Terrorism, Terrorists, that terror deploys threats “outside the forms of political struggle routinely operating within some current regime” (Tilly, 1). Terrorists often employ the strategic use of violence to voice their grievances and their desire for a new world order. They view terror as a political action which is more desirable than any established within the “current regime”. Perhaps they prefer it because it provides an almost immediate reaction from the regime in control. It reminds the regime of their existence and their discontentment in a potent and succinct manner.

Terrorism challenges the traditional constitutional order

            Although, the United Nations power to enact change is debated it does provide a meaningful space for dialogue and diplomacy. Terrorism is a weapon employed by the weak; often non-state terrorist groups view the UN as illegitimate. However, non-state actors are not the only ones who question Western authority. Former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sees the UN structure as “one-sided, stacked against the world of Islam.” Rappoport notes the fourth wave of terror held both religious and political goals. Regardless of religious aims, terrorism employs violence to challenge those in authority. Rappoport focuses on four waves with the initial wave beginning in 1880 and the final wave leading up to the early 2000s. The Anarchist Wave in Russia saw terror as a new form of communication. Terror revitalized the rebels cause and was an effective way to challenge convention. Even if ISIS kills civilians by bombing a train station their main goal is to challenge that nation’s authority, not murder innocent people. They can achieve their goal of reaching a larger audience through the asymmetrical tactic of terror.

Conclusion:

Terrorism is not a term which was invented in the wake of 9/11, the goal of uniting a nation against a common enemy is a tactic which President Theodore Roosevelt employed. Terrorism constitutes the use of asymmetrical warfare to challenge an established order or authority. Unconventional military tactics refute traditional norms of warfare and challenge the nation or state which the terrorist group targets. An act of terror can arise from a radical mindset which emphasizes hatred for one’s enemies but is mainly a tactic which is not constant. Terrorists may target certain nations due to religious or political differences but their aim is to ultimately confront the constitutional order.

Bibliography:

Bobbitt, Philp. “Terror and Consent: The Wars For The Twenty-First Century.” Alfred A. Knoff, (2008): p 44.

Stampnitzky, Lisa. “Disciplining Terror: How Experts Invented Terrorism.” Cambridge University Press. p 3.

Rappoport, David. “The Four Waves of Rebel Terror and September 11” Anthropoetics 8, no. 1 (Spring/Summer 2002) p 2, 7, 10.

Tilly, Charles. “Terror, Terrorism, Terrorists.” Sociological Theory 22.1 (March, 2004): p 1.

Shirk, Mark. “Bringing the State Back into the Empire Turn.” International Studies Review, (2016): 6-16.

Rubin, Michael. “Asymmetrical Threat Concept and its Reflections on International Security” Presentation to the Strategic Research and Study Center (SAREM) under the Turkish General Staff Istanbul, (May 2007), p 1. Accessed 4 Feb. 2017.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. (n.d.). BrainyQuote.com. Retrieved February 6, 2017, from BrainyQuote.com Web site: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/mahmoudahm238154.html