Revised Terrorism Essay

Grace Picariello
April 26, 2017

Revised Terrorism Essay

Back in January when the terrorism class began, I thought that terrorism had to mean the use of violence against non-combatant targets, by non-state actors, in order to achieve a political goal of some sort. Today, I believe that same exact thing. The case studies that we talked about this semester have reinforced my belief that the United States State Department has created the definition of terrorism that ought to be universally accepted. In order to prove this I will cite two different case studies that we have looked at over the course of the semester. The first is the Earth Liberation Front, and the second is Al Qaeda. By looking at the actions of these groups separately, and eventually drawing connections between the two, it will be determined that both of these groups were subnational, both groups targeted civilians, and both groups were politically motivated. 

The Earth Liberation Front, or the ELF, is a domestic environmental terrorist group that has committed violent acts against logging businesses. The group of fourteen members banned together, passionate about saving the environment, to burn down several logging buildings and headquarters. Although they did not kill any civilians in the crusades, they did destroy the livelihoods of several people by destroying their source of income both temporarily and, in some cases, permanently. Furthermore, the ELF was motivated by politics completely. The environment is at the forefront of political debate and they took a strong stance in favor of protecting the climate. No matter how noble of a cause this might be, the way that the ELF went about making change or asserting their opinions was illegal and qualifies as terrorism. 

Al Qaeda is one of the most known terrorist groups in the world, especially to the United States. They are based in Afghanistan and other countries in the Middle East. Al Qaeda is a confirmed subnational group. They are completely separate from the state's official government. Al Qaeda primarily targets civilians by using violence and instilling fear and terror in them. Al Qaeda's political goal is to create a global jihad. They do not have an interest in gaining and ruling over land as a government, such as ISIS does. However, they do want their ideas to spread across the world, thus destroying Western ideologies that the United States and much of Europe values so much. All of these factors together qualify them as a terrorist group in the eyes of the United States and much of the world.

Researching different terrorist groups throughout the course of the semester has reinforced my belief in what the definition of terrorism is. I still do not believe that state actors can be classified as terrorists. I also do not think that combatants targeting combatants counts as a terrorist act. Lastly, if someone is not politically or ideologically motivated, they cannot be labeled a terrorist. The Earth Liberation Front, Al Qaeda, and several other groups understood to be terrorist organizations fit all of these characteristics laid out by the U.S. State Department. With this definition in place, the amount of things able to be tried as terrorism decreases which is helpful when it comes to counter-terror policies. Although the word "terror" has many different proposed definitions, the most useful and widely accepted is the one described here.

Abu Sayyaf and al Qaeda

            Terrorism, as we know, is a term that incredibly difficult to find a one definition that is widely accepted. An even more difficult task is accurately labeling a group or specific people as terrorist organizations or individual terrorists. This quagmire is demonstrated in categorizing some groups, whereas it extremely easier to determine the category of other groups. The two groups, the Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG) and al Qaeda fit the scenario just mentioned perfectly. Where it is difficult to concretely declare the ASG a terrorist group, it couldn’t be clearer that al Qaeda is a terrorist group. I believe that due to the more criminal nature of the acts committed by Abu Sayyaf, as compared to the large-scale acts of terror committed by al Qaeda, Abu Sayyaf should not be categorized as a terrorist group.

            Motive behind any action is usually the determining factor on how that act is labeled. Under the leadership of Ghalib Andang, also known as Commander Robot, the ASG was a bandit group than anything else during his time in command. The “‘entrepreneurs of violence,’” as they have been called, use kidnappings of foreigners on vacation or foreign journalists as some of their most profitable operations (Santos and Dinampo, 126). In the cases of the Sipdan and Dos Palmas kidnappings, “it soon became clear that money was the object,” and the kidnappings were purely criminal (Santos and Dinampo, 126). Islamic beliefs and political motives were never a real factor for kidnappings, as one person who was kidnapped learned, “they were only out to make money,” and that “they only used Islam as a front,” because “it was easy for them to recruit followers because they offered huge sums to entice people to join them” (Santos and Dinampo, 126). Kidnapping people for monetary gains should not be a deciding factor in why a group is labeled as terrorists – it does not separate them from any other criminal on the street looking to make a quick buck.

            This is unlike al Qaeda’s motives for their attacks. Clearly slated in fundamentalist Islamic beliefs, Osama bin Laden proclaimed to all of his jihadist followers, “Cavalry of Islam, be mounted...You should know that your coming-together and cooperation in order to liberate the holy places of Islam is the right step towards unification of the word of our umma under the banner of God’s unity” (Lawrence, 30). Al Qaeda should be categorized as a terrorist organization because they commit attacks of terror in the name of Islam. Most definitions of terrorism note the importance of a religious or political motive, as clearly seen in al Qaeda and noticeably absent from the ASG.

            However, with a shift in leadership, it looks as though the ASG is becoming more terroristic in nature. With more attacks towards “civilians or non-combatants, and spreading terror or extreme fear among the civilian population related to some political objective,” the ASG seems to be shifting towards a more radicalized group (Santos and Dinampo, 130). Though those characteristics of their attacks fit within most definitions of terrorism, I still believe that because the ASG should not be deemed a terrorist group. First, the ASG acted much more like criminals than terrorists in the early 2000’s, which saw a rise of international terrorism, therefore it is too early to categorize them other than radical criminals with substantial funds to fund their semi-rogue attacks. Second, there is no firm stance for political reform or the spread of religion with the ASG, a key factor separating terrorist attacks from isolated attacks of violence.

Bibliography

Lawrence, Bruce. Messages to the World – The Statements of Osama bin Laden. New York:         Verso, 2005. 30.

Santos, Soliman M., Paz Verdades M. Santos, Octavio A. Dinampo, and Diana Rodriguez. "Abu   Sayyaf Reloaded: Rebels, Agents, Bandits, Terrorists (Case Study)." Primed and             Purposeful: Armed Groups and Human Security Efforts in the Philippines. Geneva:            Small Arms Survey, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, 2010. 126-30.

Drones, Locals, and the Ideological “War on Terror”

In his book, Al Qaeda, the Islamic State, and the Global Jihadist Movement, Daniel Byman notes that, “US actions that outrage the population allow terrorists to portray themselves as Robin Hoods and make the people more willing to overlook their brutality, extreme ideology, and repeated attacks on fellow Muslims (Byman, 204). Drone attacks may eliminate some extremists but the damage it causes within the community is detrimental to the United States if its goal is to win the ideological “War on Terror”. Establishing peace in the Middle East cannot be done through drone strikes or military training, other tactics must be used to illustrate al Qaeda’s flawed ideology.

Drones: saving American lives, but at what expense?

Byman states that while there were only a few drone strikes during the Bush administration, President Obama favored drones as a counterterror strategy as it eliminated targets without putting U.S. soldiers at risk. Although, drones have crippled al Qaeda by forcing senior leaders into hiding they have also caused America to lose its moral high ground. This bolsters the terrorist narrative and is not effective when countering affiliate organizations who have many members and potential leaders (Byman, 209). In order to persuade the local population America actually wants to create peace in their region drone strikes must be phased out. Although, saving American lives is important, the men and women who bravely step forward and join the military recognize that they may be deployed at one point to defend their country. According to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, The UN counted 46 civilian casualties from drone strikes in 2015 and 57 in 2016 in Afghanistan.* Taking the warrior out of war may save American lives but it could also prolong the “War on Terror” by encouraging blowback.

Byman states that civilian casualties are an “affront, especially when these casualties come at the hands of a foreign government, and can inflame nationalism” (Byman, 202). The unpopularity of the United States in the Middle East further elevates this tension. Jihadist groups are able to recruit new members by pointing to the United States drone strikes. Another way in which terrorist groups like al Qaeda and ISIS spark anger and discontent is by pointing to unstable governments. Attempts to train the local military police force have been unsuccessful because of corruption within the government. Instead of a consistently trustworthy governmen, Muslim nations are often plagued by brutal regimes. By arguing they can provide a more reliable, albeit oppressive, regime locals may be persuaded to support terrorist groups.

The best way to fight terror in the Middle East is to discredit the organizations which advocate for violence. The United States should emphasize, “how bad the jihadists are, not how wonderful America is” (Byman, 212). It’s hard for an American to convince a person who was taught songs of how horrible America is in Elementary school that the United States is a land flowing with milk and honey. Critics of al Qaeda within the Muslim world hold more credibility than any propaganda scheme the United States could offer. Al Qaeda and its affiliates have killed many more Muslims than Western Jews or Christians (Byman, 212). This should be highlighted not to illustrate how great America is compared to the Middle East but to depict the inconsistent and harmful tactics used by terrorist organizations. This could deter young people from supporting them and eventually result in more stability in the Middle East.

Citations:

Byman, Daniel (2015). p. 204-212. Al Qaeda, the Islamic State, and the Global Jihadist Movement. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, "Afghanistan: Reported U.S. Air and Drone Strikes 2015." 12 Feb. 2015. Retrieved 20 April. 2017.

Abu Sayyaf and Drug Cartels

                  Many different criminal groups use terror as a tactic to gain more control and influence over civilians and rival groups. Instead of political or religious goals, they use terror for financial purposes. The fear from others is financially beneficial for them because their power would be more stable and not threatened. Sometimes the line between criminal organization and terrorist groups can be blurred.

                  The modern day Abu Sayyaf uses terror in the form of kidnappings. This spreads fear among the people of the Philippines as well as their main form of income. More often they try to kidnap locals because it is more successful and quicker in getting the ransom. They are also not selective in their targets, so they are not attacking one specific group, just people who they think will get them a higher ransom. Kidnapping is a common practice in the Philippines and the effectiveness of Abu Sayyaf makes them more influential. Another tactic that they use is piracy. They bored ships and similar to the kidnappings, use ransom for a financial gain.

                  Another group that sometimes is blurred are drug cartels. This type of terror is called narcoterrorism. This is when narcotics traffickers try to influence the policies of a government or a society through violence and intimidation to reduce the effective enforcement of anti-drug laws. One of the most known examples of this was Pablo Escobar and the Medellin Cartel. Escobar used bombs and firearm violence to scare the government as well as civilians to gain power. “His terror campaign resulted in the killings of thousands of people, including politicians, civil servants, journalists and ordinary citizens. The violence claimed the lives of three Colombian presidential candidates, an attorney general, scores of judges and more than 1,000 police officers.” Both of these groups use terror to gain financial strength. 

                  In most definitions of terrorism, they talk about how it is a political or another ideological based act. This means that the person committing the crime is doing so because they feel they are righting a wrong and often trying to make a difference. However, if a drug cartel blows up a market place, they are doing so for their own protection, not to right a wrong. This is still an act of terrorism because they are trying to instill fear on others. It is important that there are different classifications of terrorism and they are different definitions for each type.

                  Understanding of the end goal of these groups to be able to combat them most effectively. I do think that it is important that these groups are acknowledged as groups that commit terror for financial benefit because the only way to stop them is to effectively limit their end goal. For drug cartels this entails stopping their drug trade. This is different than other groups such as ISIS who is trying to gain land for an Islamic State. It is difficult to decide what a specific group is just based on their actions. I think that terror is more of a tactic than a specific group because of this.

Blog Post #3: The United States War on Terror

David Solomon

Professor Shirk

POL 357-B

23 April 2017

United States War on Terror

There are many critics of the strategies and tactics employed by the United States in their attempt to combat terrorism around the globe. Focusing on the practices of rendition, torture, bulk data collection, and drone strikes, critics see these as hypocritical and accuse the United States of committing terrorism themselves. However, contrary to these critics, I see the actions conducted by the United States in their “War on Terror” as necessary and effective in combating various terrorist cells deemed dangerous to the national security of not only the United States, but their allies as well. Although I do not believe states can commit terrorism, I am not going to argue why I believe this is true and/or focus on this topic. Rather I am going to look into the intentions behind the “War on Terror” and explore the various avenues in which the United States takes to execute their goal of eliminating terrorist groups.

I do acknowledge that the various actions taken by the United States in combating terrorism may result in innocent people being negatively affected and subsequently fearful of our government and military. A good example is this are the accounts of Pakistani civilians fearful of drones being used in their country to specifically target suspected terrorists in their communities. As noted in the article Living Under Drones,

Drones hover twenty-four hours a day over communities in northwest Pakistan, striking homes, vehicles, and public spaces without warning. Their presence terrorizes men, women, and children, giving rise to anxiety and psychological trauma among civilian communities. Those living under drones have to face the constant worry that a deadly strike may be fired at any moment, and the knowledge that they are powerless to protect themselves. These fears have affected behavior. (Stanford/NYU vii)

My argument is to not dismiss the personal accounts of innocent civilians and noncombatants inhabiting the areas in which the United States is targeting and say that drones do not instill fear among these people. The passage above clearly disapproves this point. However, the intention behind these strikes is not to negatively affect the wider community of people living in an area being targeted. Drones have proven to be effective tools of precision and have helped the United States in undermining the hierarchical structures of various terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda. Drone strikes are used as an alternative to more conventional methods which in many cases would cause a greater amount of collateral damage than drones currently do. The United States is not trying to punish or terrorize the innocent civilians of countries who have terrorist cells located within. If anything, the United States is protecting the innocent civilians who live in the surrounding communities by eliminating suspected individuals.

Similarly to that of drones, the United States usage of rendition, torture, and bulk data collection, are all used with the intention to strictly curb the operations and functionality of terrorist groups. Although critics will point towards the United States abuse of the extrajudicial nature of these tactics, and specifically with tortue - its human rights violations, these strategies have worked for the United States and are only used against suspected terrorist. It is hard to argue for the morality of counter-terrorism strategies, but unlike conventional wars between nations, terrorist groups are not going to abide by some code of laws when it comes to combat. Because of this, the United States has to essentially fight fire with fire and use unconventional methods themselves to have effective results in mitigating terrorist operations. I acknowledge and agree that these methods employed by the United States only have short term success and inevitably play a role in perpetuating a never ending cycle of violence particularly within Middle Eastern countries. However, when looking at the tumultuous situation in the Middle East currently and the seemingly unanimous animosity people of this area of the world have for the West, it is hard for the United States not to continue these actions. I am not saying that everyone in the Middle East wants to kill westerners and specifically Americans, but rather the overall attitude this region has towards the West is very much negative and as a result has made it so any sort of more passive or peaceful strategies of counter-terrorism may pose to put the national security of the United States at risk.

Overall, the United States “War on Terror” should not be perceived as terrorism since they’re goal is not to instill fear among innocent people. They are not terrorizing indiscriminately and intentionally killing non-combatants to push a political agenda. Although these may be the unfortunate implications of the strategies and tactics employed by the United States, at the end of the day all they’re trying to do is to mitigate the operations of terrorist groups.

Domestic Terrorism- ELF

Grace Picariello
April 19, 2017

Earth Liberation Front

The Earth Liberation Front, more commonly known as the ELF, is classified as a domestic, environmental terrorist group that committed crimes of terror in the early 2000s. The group consisted of fourteen members, who were mainly from the left wing. Angry at the way large corporations and smaller businesses were taking advantage of the environment, they began protesting publicly, taking a "hippie" approach at first. They wrote letters of protest to hundreds of different corporations that they thought were destroying the environment and used peaceful techniques like sitting with signs and conducting small marches. However, when the group came to the realization that these tactics weren't producing the results they wanted, they took to a more violent approach. The group was responsible for mass arson on several buildings and businesses. ELF member Daniel McGowan was horrified and shocked when he heard that he was being put into the category of a terrorist. The group believed they were fighting for a noble cause and did nothing more than commit a few federal crimes. They did not see themselves as terrorists. On the contrary, the Earth Liberation Front ought to be considered a domestic terrorist group as they were an organization of non-state actors, who used violence and terror against civilians in order to achieve a political goal. 

The ELF, like most other political or terrorist groups, believe that the cause they are fighting for is a just and noble one that works for the good of the majority. Logging companies were cutting down trees at furious rates and this angered the environmental advocates, who were not politically involved prior to their formation. The group had little knowledge about the environment up until this point. Certainly, they were not categorized as a group of state actors. This makes them subject to fit the definition of a terrorist group. Although two more categories must be met. Terrorists must attack non-combatants for a political goal.

The members of the Earth Liberation Front would argue that the companies they attacked were not innocent since they were contributing heavily to the environmental problems that loomed. Furthermore, ELF never actually harmed a human being during any of their protests or burnings. Although they did not use violence against people, they certainly instilled fear into those who were involved in the logging business in any way. This fear was that their livelihood and main source of income would be destroyed unlawfully. This fear became real for several business owners and loggers. Many of the companies, once burned to the ground, were not able to rebuild.

Terrorist groups, as defined by the United States Department of State, must be acting violently as a means of achieving a political goal. It is no secret that environmental protection is at the forefront of political debates. ELF made it clear that the cause they were fighting for was the environment and their targets were companies and industries that were destroying it. Any logging business would be subject to attack. Watching the documentary, it was shocking to me how little remorse they displayed over the atrocities they were orchestrating. They felt that since they were not targeting humans directly, they were nothing more than a group of young adults committing multiple counts of arson. This, unfortunately for them, was not how the justice system saw it. Since this group was comprised of non-state actors, who were targeting non-combatant peoples in order to attain a political goal, the Earth Liberation Front should, without a doubt, be categorized as a terrorist group.