Today I leave you with a really dry explanation of terrorism and various problems with defining and pinpointing it as a national threat. I've been wanting to post for a while now but couldn't think of anything so today you just get a republished paper from one of my politcal science classes. Lucky you.
There are a few problems with defining terrorism. In the vernacular it has become misconstrued by emotional ties to recent terrorist activity. A more objective definition of terrorism is: a method by which nongovernmental actors use violence to achieve political ends by inspiring fear of further violence. Even excluding popular input, this definition raises issues. The first issue is recognizing that terrorism is a method not a political ideology. A clear distinction can be made when examining who employs terrorism. Terrorism can be used by groups anywhere, "For example, the Irish Republican Army (IRA) bombed innocent civilians in British cities to raise the cost of British control of Northern Ireland. Al Qaeda commits its attacks in order to raise the cost of various policies it opposes" (D'Anieri 228). It is clear terrorism is a method because it transcends nationalities; however that doesn't mean there's not a particular type of international player that uses it. The second issue with defining it is distinguishing terrorists’ actions from other uses of violence. D'Anieri states that "it is important not only what is done and to whom, but by whom it is done" (228). States are not considered "terrorists" if they bomb another country because "only states can use force legitimately, in the generally accepted view" (D'Anieri 229). The reason for this is that states are supposed to govern public matters and have deterrents like public welfare and values. Terrorists are private players taking part in public matters and cannot be deterred the same way.
While there are many theorized causes to terrorism, none of them can be definitively proven. One explanation for terrorism is rational choice theory, in which the terrorist is left with no other option and terrorism is the only rational way to achieve their desired end. However, Islamic extremist groups that employ terrorism to establish a region-wide Islamic government don't fit this criterion. D'Anieri states "it does not appear useful in achieving positive goods such as control of a territory or of a government" (232). Poverty is offered as another explanation because poverty stricken people may be more willing to adopt extreme beliefs and a desire to overthrow the current system. There is, however, no direct link between the two since "a significant number of terrorists come from relatively wealthy backgrounds" (D'Anieri 233). This includes Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden who came from a family of millionaires. Finally, some think Islam is the source of terrorism because of beliefs like jihad, or holy war, which are used to justify terrorist actions. This is a really faulty explanation for a few reasons. One, jihad is not a widespread belief. Two, other extremists have used religious justification for their actions. For example "Hindu hardliners in India and Jewish extremists in Israel make similar claims, as did Christian Crusaders for centuries" (D'Anieri 234). Lastly, "much terrorism throughout history has not been religiously motivated" (D'Anieri 234). It was only recently that Islam came to the forefront. Other extremist actions throughout history have been fueled by nationalism and whatever was popular at the time. There is really no clear cause of terrorism yet.
For next time, would you rather have an essay on how to dissect literature or Osama Bin Laden? I was thinking the latter but I'm pretty sure we're all tired of hearing about his death the possible political significance of it.
Blah,
Jamin
No comments:
Post a Comment