Why Terrorism Works

[B-Man]

This link is to an interview with Alan Dershowitz related to his new book. He makes some brilliant points about why terrorism has worked and how the world should deal with terrorism, so as to discourage future terrorism rather than encourage it. The article is long but well worth reading.

http://www.salon.com/books/int/2002/...itz/index.html

[John Feeney]

I haven't read the whole article yet, but I'd like to see some discussion of whether Dershowitz is in fact right that terrorism "works." He cites some examples, but that seems fairly meaningless without also examining the results of many (probably randomly selected) terrorist efforts over the years. Relative to diplomacy or nonviolent resistance, for instance, is its track record very good? I had thought not.

I think this could be an important question because if it could be shown that on the whole it does not work, that could provide an opening for widespread efforts to inform people of this, thereby, possibly, reducing the motivation for some to become terroists.

[scalf]

do you really think terrorists or potential terrorists are logical???g;l [img]/forums/images/icons/smirk.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/icons/tongue.gif[/img]

[MMMMMM]

I just finished readng the article. I think Dershowitz is saying is that terrorism does not work as well as organized non-violent resistance works, but that the responses of the rest of the world to terrorism help terrorism perpetuate itself. Terrorism draws attention to a cause and provokes overreaction fron democracies which in turn causes loss of the "moral high ground" in the eyes of the public. Terrorism also in a sense validates itself by causing people to take "the cause" more seriously--sort of a squeaky wheel gets the most grease effect, or the most vocal player at the table in a ruling dispute gets listened to the most. He points out that the Palestinian cause is no more of a cause than the Tibetan cause, for instance, but that attention and recognition attained by the PLO is far greater.

He suggests a sort of carrot-and-stick approach to terrorism, and says that rewarding terrorism is counterproductive. In other words, agree to some of the terrorist's demands but on a sliding scale with a predetermined future settlement date: the more terrorism between now and then, the less they get.

Well, John, I know I'm not telling you anything you won't gather from reading the rest of it yourself, but it does help me to remember and define it somewhat if I briefly summarize such a long article.

As to the question you raised of whether terrorism really works, I think the answer is yes and no, and it seems that Dershowitz's suggestion of using a sliding carrot (and possibly stick) scale may have some merit.

I personally think it is very important that the world does not reward or validate terrorism as a doctrine and practice--that it should dealt with in a manner that makes it less, not more, appealing to those who feel they have a cause which must be addressed. The two main reasons for my viewpoint here are: 1) that it is a morally bankrupt philosophy, and 2) that as the world becomes an increasingly dangerous place due to technological proliferation, the fewer people that are subscribed to such philosophies the less likely we will be to suffer major apocalyptic tragedies.

[HDPM]

It is also why we have to go after states that sponsor terrorism, probably even more than the terrorists. The Bin Ladens of the world may have a totally irrational outlook and will do what they do no matter what. But Governments like Iran and Iraq (and maybe even Saudi) might stop if they know that sponsoring terrorists means they lose power and all the benefits that flow from it. Most government leaders want to keep power and all their palaces. That kind of policy also means we better not sponsor any terrorism.

[Ray Zee]

what we did in afganistan might have been the biggest blow to terrorism ever. by eliminating the taliban rule, we showed the world that whole leaderships will be taken out. this way it gives great pause to a country to be involved or supporting a terrorist org. no one in power wants to lose that position.
there is no way to stop the individual people except to root them out and destroy them, and make sure their cause never gets off the ground. this way there is little incentive for others to follow. its just too bad the whole world wont get behind this idea.

[andyfox]

Dershowitz is, as usual, wrong on some of his facts. Massive bombs, placed in crowded civilian centers, where dozens of people were indiscriminately murdered and maimed was an innovation of Mehachem Begin's Irgun in October 1937. Before, Arabs (and, less often, Jews) had sniped at cars and pedestrians, and occasionally lobbed a grenade.

The Arabs soon imitated this tactic, which was deliberately designed to cause terror in the general Arab population of Palestine. The bombs helped persuade moderate Arabs of the need to resist Zionism by force.

The "standard equipment" of modern terrorism, the camouflaged bomb in the market place and bus station, the car bomb and the truck bomb, and the drive-by shooting with an automatic weapon--these were introduced into Palestine by the Jewish terrorists. (The suicide bomber was indeed an Arab innovation.) Begin's book, The Revolt , became something of a textbok for terrorists all over the world.

[Much of the above taken from Righteous Victims by Benny Morris]

The Palestinians saw that terrorism worked for the Jews,chasing the British out of Palestine, and imitated their enemy.

[andyfox]

"Going after states that sponsor terrorism"

Between 1979 and 1987, the U.S. armed, trained, and financially backed the military forces of the government of El Salvador, which carried out a policy of ongoing, systematic murder against the Salvadoran population. About 1 percent of El Salvador's population was destroyed, over 70,000 men, women, and children who were noncombatants. Ditto another 70,000 murdered by the military in Guatemala. And the contras in Nicaragua targeted civilian as well, with our support and knowledge.

Would the people of these countries have been justified in going after the state that sponsored this terrorism?

"That kind of policy also means we better not sponsor any terrorism"

Indeed.

[John Feeney]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
do you really think terrorists or potential terrorists are logical???

[/ QUOTE ]

Well of course many act on the basis of emotion, irrational beliefs (from our perspective anyway), and indoctrination. But it's a matter of degree. Some are going to be more rational than others. My thought is just that if some fraction could be convinced that other viable tactics would help their cause more than terrorism, maybe that would divert some to those tactics instead.

Certainly some will not be dissuaded at all. But if even a small portion is, I would think that would make it worth the investment in some sort of "marketing campaign" selling the ineffectiveness of terroism.

[brad]

clearly, andy , youre an anti-semite.

and if you dont agree with dershowitz that torture should be routine in US law enforcement, (his argument is that once you get 'immunity' you can be forced to testify, and if not, you can be thrown in jail, so why not extend the punishment (which is now incarceration) to torture, since legally you are compelled to testify)
then you are also anti-american.

brad