 | |  | |  | |  | |  |
|
| I N S I G H T -------- Krzys Wasilewski Obligation To Truth ASH Smyth Darwin's CEOs Atul Bharadwaj Right To Be Respected Debi Ghate Two Realities: Hirsi Ali Kate Huber Threat of Water Shamim Islam Diplomatic Intentions Karen Hughes The West's Failure Onkar Ghate |
What Terrorists Want: Who is absurd – war on terror or the enemy?
By ASH Smyth
Posted: July 1, 2006
There has long been a need for an academic deconstruction of terrorism for students, and for a
layman’s guide to cast out the critical misapprehensions rooted in popular (mis)understanding.
Louise Richardson’s new contribution serves as both, a textbook and a myth-buster.
In dealing with the popular misconceptions which obstruct efforts to effectively tackle terrorism, What
Terrorists Want starts with the basics, a reflection of the startlingly poor comprehension of the problem
in the target countries (and of the urgent need for the book). Terrorism, Richardson states, is ‘the
deliberate targeting of non-combatants for a political purpose.’ And it is a means, not an end. She
argues that terrorism is rational (even in the case of suicide tactics), morally justified by its
practitioners, and not always religiously-motivated. Certainly, it is far from being the exclusive preserve
of Islamic extremism, historically and in the present.
What Terrorists Want provides a coherent and operable framework for understanding terrorism’s
causes and demands. There are too many types of terrorist – and simultaneously too few terrorists in
total – to enable a single root cause to be isolated (poverty, for example). Accordingly, Richardson’s
researches into terror organisations lead her to the conclusion that ‘what causes terrorism is a lethal
cocktail of a disaffected individual, an enabling community, and a legitimizing ideology.’
While disaffected individuals are ten-a-penny, this neat equation assists us in grappling with the other
two key concepts:
First, if the legitimating ideology is a religion, the problem may be much more intractable. Though
religion may not always be the cause of a war, it certainly does strengthen the resolve of the warriors --
in Sri Lanka, for instance.
Second, the ‘enabling community’ is now a global one. As John Gray noted in Al Qaeda and What it
means to be modern, even those who disdain technological globalisation will utilise it to expand their
network, broaden support and carry out their attacks.
As far as demands are concerned, Richardson distinguishes between primary demands – like ethno-
nationalist secession, imposition of religious government or the repudiation of capitalism, and the
more-achievable secondary objectives, or the three Rs: Revenge, Renown and Reaction. Terrorist
successes in these objectives are obvious and abundant, so much so that one might be tempted to
argue that the generally-unachievable primary demands are just for show.
Though the book is admirably easy to read (considering its subject matter), and compellingly argued,
the reader will be forced to make two critical decisions.
The first is whether to agree with Richardson’s contention that, since terrorists are rational, their
demands are all in some way susceptible to negotiation. Many will not stomach the implications of
this, on principle, even if it is true. The second is whether to agree that the war against terrorism --
being merely a tactic, and not an enemy in itself -- is absurd. Richardson makes a strong case that
simply by making the declaration of war, the coalition powers handed victory to the terrorists, granting
them Reaction, countless new opportunities for Revenge, and elevating them to the status of equals
on the field of combat (Renown).
Lastly, What Terrorists Want is light on solutions to the problem; not the least because there are very
few to be offered. Aware that the victory we seek against terror(ism) is unobtainable, Richardson
recommends containment, not combat; patience, not violence; maintenance of democratic principle,
however difficult. It all looks right on paper, isolated from emotions, bad press, and voter-pressure. Let
us hope she has found the solution. But it would be a brave leader who took this to his people in the
aftermath of the next terrorist attack.
Having attended Richardson’s seminar at the Centre for Defence Studies, King's College London, I
can testify that the more-contentious aspects of the book do not sit well with everyone. But perhaps it is
good that they do not: after all, she is calling for nothing less than a total re-evaluation of how we
consider, and react to, terrorism. She may yet be proved wrong, but until that time What Terrorists Want
ought to be on the bookshelf in every government office. Certainly, for any student of international
affairs it is an essential reading.
What Terrorists Want
by Louise Richardson
Publisher: John Murray, 2006, ₤12.99
### ### ###
ASH Smyth is a student of MA in Intelligence and International Security at King's College, London. He
blogs at http://nonanglisedangeli.blogspot.com
By ASH Smyth
Posted: July 1, 2006
There has long been a need for an academic deconstruction of terrorism for students, and for a
layman’s guide to cast out the critical misapprehensions rooted in popular (mis)understanding.
Louise Richardson’s new contribution serves as both, a textbook and a myth-buster.
In dealing with the popular misconceptions which obstruct efforts to effectively tackle terrorism, What
Terrorists Want starts with the basics, a reflection of the startlingly poor comprehension of the problem
in the target countries (and of the urgent need for the book). Terrorism, Richardson states, is ‘the
deliberate targeting of non-combatants for a political purpose.’ And it is a means, not an end. She
argues that terrorism is rational (even in the case of suicide tactics), morally justified by its
practitioners, and not always religiously-motivated. Certainly, it is far from being the exclusive preserve
of Islamic extremism, historically and in the present.
What Terrorists Want provides a coherent and operable framework for understanding terrorism’s
causes and demands. There are too many types of terrorist – and simultaneously too few terrorists in
total – to enable a single root cause to be isolated (poverty, for example). Accordingly, Richardson’s
researches into terror organisations lead her to the conclusion that ‘what causes terrorism is a lethal
cocktail of a disaffected individual, an enabling community, and a legitimizing ideology.’
While disaffected individuals are ten-a-penny, this neat equation assists us in grappling with the other
two key concepts:
First, if the legitimating ideology is a religion, the problem may be much more intractable. Though
religion may not always be the cause of a war, it certainly does strengthen the resolve of the warriors --
in Sri Lanka, for instance.
Second, the ‘enabling community’ is now a global one. As John Gray noted in Al Qaeda and What it
means to be modern, even those who disdain technological globalisation will utilise it to expand their
network, broaden support and carry out their attacks.
As far as demands are concerned, Richardson distinguishes between primary demands – like ethno-
nationalist secession, imposition of religious government or the repudiation of capitalism, and the
more-achievable secondary objectives, or the three Rs: Revenge, Renown and Reaction. Terrorist
successes in these objectives are obvious and abundant, so much so that one might be tempted to
argue that the generally-unachievable primary demands are just for show.
Though the book is admirably easy to read (considering its subject matter), and compellingly argued,
the reader will be forced to make two critical decisions.
The first is whether to agree with Richardson’s contention that, since terrorists are rational, their
demands are all in some way susceptible to negotiation. Many will not stomach the implications of
this, on principle, even if it is true. The second is whether to agree that the war against terrorism --
being merely a tactic, and not an enemy in itself -- is absurd. Richardson makes a strong case that
simply by making the declaration of war, the coalition powers handed victory to the terrorists, granting
them Reaction, countless new opportunities for Revenge, and elevating them to the status of equals
on the field of combat (Renown).
Lastly, What Terrorists Want is light on solutions to the problem; not the least because there are very
few to be offered. Aware that the victory we seek against terror(ism) is unobtainable, Richardson
recommends containment, not combat; patience, not violence; maintenance of democratic principle,
however difficult. It all looks right on paper, isolated from emotions, bad press, and voter-pressure. Let
us hope she has found the solution. But it would be a brave leader who took this to his people in the
aftermath of the next terrorist attack.
Having attended Richardson’s seminar at the Centre for Defence Studies, King's College London, I
can testify that the more-contentious aspects of the book do not sit well with everyone. But perhaps it is
good that they do not: after all, she is calling for nothing less than a total re-evaluation of how we
consider, and react to, terrorism. She may yet be proved wrong, but until that time What Terrorists Want
ought to be on the bookshelf in every government office. Certainly, for any student of international
affairs it is an essential reading.
What Terrorists Want
by Louise Richardson
Publisher: John Murray, 2006, ₤12.99
### ### ###
ASH Smyth is a student of MA in Intelligence and International Security at King's College, London. He
blogs at http://nonanglisedangeli.blogspot.com
| (c) 2006 New Criterion Foundation, London |
| Security. Ideologies. Multiculturalism. |