1000 Word Excerpt

Students of terrorism in undergraduate and graduate college programs are given textbooks that describe the phenomenon of “new terrorism,” a breed of terrorism that justifies or allows for “indiscriminate” killing of an adversary. Furthermore, authoritative books such as the 9/11 Commission Report lend credibility to these terms. One part of the report plainly states that al Qaida’s “open endorsement for indiscriminate killing” was novel. These books concentrate on a group’s justification for mass casualties, as if attaining a high body count is the only objective, and can downplay or ignore other factors that are present and apparently evolving.

Although some terrorist organizations may be preoccupied with attaining a large body count, those organizations primarily function on an emotional, not a deliberative, basis. Terrorist groups that act out of emotion are certainly capable foes. However, their ability to effect change is limited by their scope of attack. In other words, they seek to influence their adversaries by attacking only one of many potential dimensions. In contrast, “purposeful” terrorist organizations see their adversaries in a multidimensional capacity. Their method of warfare is consistent with trying to shape or adversely affect the will of their adversary and they generally do not behave or target in an “indiscriminate” fashion. These groups may seek to obtain a high casualty rate, but arguably, that is a mere component of their overall strategy, not the end game as many books lead the public to believe. In this chapter, we will discuss the base impetus for employing terrorism and then break down terrorist groups into two camps: organizations that simply react on an emotional level and those that act purposefully. The chapter will then examine the communications and training materials of three purposeful organizations – The IRA, Lebanese Hizballah, and al Qaida.

When examining terrorist groups and their attacks, the discussion often reverts to the group’s motivation for the attack. Many authors use phrases like “propaganda by the deed,” “gaining international recognition for their cause,” or “irrationality.” Still others couch the impetus behind terrorism in terms of ethnic, geo-political or religious reasons. Many people arrive at these typical answers without first examining the group’s most basic instinct for employing violence. This will provide a window into the organization’s behavior and better insight into their targeting. For most groups, the essence of this instinct is contained in passages from Aristotle’s Politics. The first passage reads:

There are two chief motives which induce men to attack tyrannies: hatred and contempt. Hatred of tyrants is inevitable and contempt is a frequent cause of their destruction…Anger, too, must be included under hatred and produces the same effects. Oftentimes the angry are more impetuous in making an attack for they do not listen to reason. And men are very apt to give way to their passions when they are insulted…Hatred is more reasonable, but anger is accompanied by pain, which is an impediment to reason, whereas hatred is painless.[i]

The second passage reads:

Any sort of insult (and there are many) may stir up anger, and when men are angry, they commonly act out of revenge, and not from ambition.[ii]

The thrust of these passages outlines an important, but much overlooked, component of how and when terrorism is employed. Arguably, these passages break a terrorist group’s strategic approach into two distinct camps: one of impulse and one of purpose. When examining a terrorist group’s actions, one has to determine where the bulk of the group’s operational activity lies. In other words, are those groups choosing to engage in a series of violent acts that simply inflicts punishment to redress historical strife (i.e. extracting the proverbial pound of flesh) or are those organizations searching for ways to remedy their current and future situation by targeting violence in an attempt to shape their adversary’s behavior? This is a crucial distinction that needs to be made and the descriptions below will help clarify the differences between both camps.

---

[i] Walter Lacqueur, ed, Voices of Terror: Manifestos, Writings, and Manuals of al Qaeda, HAMAS, and other Terrorists from around the World and Throughout the Ages, (New York: Reed Press, 2004), pp.13-14.

[ii] Lacqueur ed, Voices of Terror, p.11