Terrorism is often used to accomplish political objectives (politics by other means…) –but does it work? Is terrorism effective enough of a tactic to endure beyond our generation? Let’s take a case study and see where it goes:
I will link a historical terrorist attack to a present day attack and then tack on some thoughtful and interesting analysis is one that is familiar to most students of American History: The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. In June, 1914, Sarajevo, a Serbian, by committing a single murder, plunged Europe into the “great war.” Soon Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, which then caused the Central Powers (Germany, Austro-Hungarian Empire, Ottoman Empire) to go to war with the Entente (France, Belgium, England, Russia, Serbia, Italy). About 20 million people died in WWI, which was ignited by a single act of terror (I know there were underlying nationalistic tensions, but the assassination was the match dropped on the gasoline.)
In February, 2005, the former Prime Minister of Lebanon, Rafik Hariri was assassinated by a 1,000 pound bomb detonated under his motorcade in Beirut. A well-liked leader, respected philanthropist, and outspoken critic of Syria, Hariri’s death was seen by the public to be tied to his disapproval of the continual occupation of Lebanon by the Baathist dictatorship of Bashar Assad. Initially, his death provoked a surge of Lebanese Nationalism, which stoked Syria to withdraw most of its forces from Lebanon. Peace for the country would be (very) short-lived, as tensions between Iran and Israel heated up, with Iran’s proxy Hizballah turning southern Lebanon into a war-torn wasteland during its rocket war with Israel in the summer of 2006.
The connection? While something akin to WWI has not broken out in the Middle East yet, there is definitely a parallel in the underlying nationalistic, cultural, and religious tensions in the area. State boundaries seem to matter less and less, and a fervent Shia crescent, based in Iran and extending through Iraq into Lebanon, is emerging that transcends national boundaries. Opposing it is an equally fervent Sunni crescent based in Saudi Arabia that extends from Egypt and the Gaza Strip, through Syria, Iraq, and into the Arabian Peninsula. Caught in between are the Americans in Iraq and the Israelis. In other words, the great powers of this century are aligning as they did during WWI.
Lest you think I am a doomsayer, let us just analyze 2005 Lebanon and 1914 Serbia on a micro level: Small country, Multiple foreign-power interests, Elite assassinated, problems result from said elites’ assassination that re-align the region’s balance of power. That is using terrorism to obtain a political and a social objective. So I pose a simple question: did/has terrorism worked? Have the employment of its tactics achieved their planner’s objectives?
You pose an interesting question. I have wondered for some time about the definition of terrorism (and in fact have a reading program this year to help clarify that in my own mind).
When you discuss “state” boundaries, it is helpful to remember that the “state” boundaries which exist in the Middle East were established following the fall of the Ottoman Empire after WWI. Those people never knew those state boundaries prior to the early 1920′s, but were instead bound together by a common language (Arabic) and a common religion (Islam). Of course, following WWII, they became bound together by a perceived common enemy: Israel.
Anyway, if you are a repressed member of a dictatorship and you want to lash out and make change, what tools to you have? What we call terrorism, I would think. Yet how is that substantially different from what I observe on the streets of Detroit (not that I go there much–no reason to, and certainly not unarmed). How is “terrorism” as practiced in the ME that much different from what the gangs do in our big cities here in the USA?
I am not saying we should not kill all those who advocate violent means to change us all to muslims. Oh no. I just think we all (all Americans who are back here in the states) have a duty to combat the domestic terrorism we have around us every day.
Short term outcomes:
Serbia was hit hard (highest per capita deaths, IIRC) in the war. Syria was forced to remove its army — PR fiasco (I wonder if there were any coup attempts against Assad jr.?)
Long term:
Serbia was able, for a while, to dominate its multi “ethnic” state; but now is facing the loss of its historical territory (Kosovo).
Syria — unknown, but consider that the Palestinians still do not have their own state, and the terrorism started by the PLO has now morphed into, in part, a civil war between rival Pali factions. Lybia’s state sponsored terrorism led to its being isolated for a generation. On the whole, I do not see terrorism as being an effective strategy for long term success.
Let us not forget that terrorism goes beyond just those few movements. To see how effective terrorism can be just look at our own country, after the Civil War the KKK and other organizations essentially reversed the outcome of the war forcing African Americans back into a quasi-slavery through the use of terrorism. It took around a century or so for the country to right its self and African Americans to reject being terrorized. I think it can be said that terrorism is an effective strategy for a time but eventually people get tired of being scared and it no longer works.
It works if your objective is to destroy things. You could destroy people, countries or regions, but it isn’t useful in any practical way.
Are you reading War of the World by Ferguson right now?
Terrorism worked for Arafat, but that’s about it. Didn’t work for Northern Ireland, or the FARC, or the Chechnyans….and Bin Laden’s unique brand of terror, designed to force US troops out of the Middle East, had the opposite of the desired effect.
correction, that would be “Chechens.”
Was typing too fast!
Of course it works, it would be folly to suggest otherwise. The events both preceding 9/11 and afterward have had the net end result of becoming the single most divisive issue in the USA, the costs engendered as a direct consequence of the several terrorist acts have had an exceptional effect both in direct costs, those being not only the enormous expense to maintain our military but in the destruction of human life. The lifestyle of our people has been dramatically changed as we travel from one place to another, being searched, questioned and otherwise putting up with the new American Gestapo, TSA, all an illusion to make us feel safer? Who’s kidding who? They are the most ineffective and inept body of Government which are now being paid for by the Federal Government when it had been paid for by the traveler.
To the next level, it has destroyed a President who is now being ravaged by former supporters.
What an inane question.
I would point out, Patrick, that while I’m certain that Bin Laden enjoys splitting the US on the issue of fighting terrorism, that was not his original intention for launching a jihad on America.
His goal, as stated repeatedly by Bin Laden, was to expel US forces from Arab lands and to disrupt US support for Israel. Neither has happened.
So I don’t find Charlie’s question inane in the least. He wanted to know if terrorism works, so far….it hasn’t.
Patrick J. Little, do you even know what inane means? It would be folly to suggest that your comment could point to a teachable moment:)
Who should we take seriously, the person who posted a question about terrorism or the person who called TSA, as useless as it may be, “the new American Gestapo”? Your retarded comment is divisive:)
John, do not assume that bin Laden’s plan has failed simply because there are more boots on the ground right now in the Middle East. An Arab, like many easterners, think in terms far different from you and I. Three or four years in what is viewed as a centuries-long struggle against the West is but a drop in the bucket.
Imagine how long troops will be in the Middle East if a democrat is elected, especially a liberal one, as President in 2008.
I’m certain bin Laden would have assumed a massive American response, where they would be tied down and bled for several years (giving Iran a chance to surge forward with their nuclear program, mind you) until the American population would grow weary, pull up stakes, and leave for good.
How’s that for a plan?
2. Do you agree with the authors of Faith and Force that terrorism is not irrational? Is it either unethical or politically dangerous for a nation to try to respond to the grievances of terrorists as part of their anti-terrorist strategy? The authors of Faith and Force discuss peacemaking initiatives in response to terrorism, but only briefly. What do you see as the value of the just peacemaking paradigm and strategies in response to terrorism; and what are some specific things that governments, groups, churches, etc., could do? Make some use of the Nouwen book.
can anyone help me write up something in response to this?! pleeeease!?
I would not define the assassination of the Archduke as terrorism. I think terrorism is a tool some choose to use, which attacks civilians and uh creates terror. Attacking specific targets like political leaders and the military I don’t think is terror; more like guerrilla warfare.
I found this page looking to see if terrorism has worked. I don’t think it has. For it to have worked, the group using it would have needed to achieve their goals. I can’t think of a case where they have…
Greeting. We cannot destroy kindred: Our chains stretch a little sometimes, but they never break.
I am from Croatia and learning to read in English, tell me right I wrote the following sentence: “Advantage or frontline flea control for your cat or dog.Flea markets in san antonio, tx on yahoo! Local get ratings reviews on flea markets with photos, maps, driving directions and more.”
Thank ;-) Yachne.