Does terrorism really work?

[Lord Cataplanga]

Via last month's Crypto-Gram I found a very interesting paper on the futility of terrorism.

It's rather long and repetitive, but here's a summary:

The conclusion the author reaches is that terrorism not only hasn't worked in the past, but rather it makes the target population "dig in their political heels". In the cases where it has worked, the author says, it was because the terrorists attacked military targets instead of civilians (like when Hezbollah made the French and Americans leave Lebanon in the 80's, or when the Soviets were forced to leave Afghanistan). Even state terrorism (when an oppresive state targets its own civilians) isn't a very good long term strategy.

The author then wonders why terrorism exists at all, if it's such a bad strategy, and mentions some interesting possible answers: stupidity, desperation and the fact that terrorist organizations often care more about their own survival (as an organization) than they care about their actual stated objectives.


Anyway, what I wanted to ask you people was, if the author is right and terrorism not only doesn't work but does the opposite of what it intends, what would happen if you staged a terrorist act and demanded the opposite of what you really want, as a form of reverse psychology? I know states do that all the time (false-flag opperations), but what about non-state actors? Has that ever been tried before?

[Nephew Twiddleton]

The nazis did that with the reichstag. Well that was more doing something and pinning it on someone else so they could get emergency powers. Hmm. Interesting thought there. I cant think of any historical precedents that quite fit the bill.

[Cain]

Worked well enough in Algeria.  The Soviet Union, too, now I think of it.

Historically, the Mongols used it pretty effectively, pioneering a crude form of what we today would call "psychological operations".  The Assassins built an entire state on the practice.

The problem is, while it is possible to make the case that "terrorism doesn't work", it is usually because terrorism that does work magically gets redefined as "civil war". 

Terrorism is a tactic used by governments, militias, religious organisations and individuals.  It's open to everyone because, essentially, terrorism is "I just killed this guy in order to teach you a lesson".  Or, as Sun Tzu more eloquently put it, "kill one, intimidate a thousand".

[Lord Cataplanga]

The problem is, while it is possible to make the case that "terrorism doesn't work", it is usually because terrorism that does work magically gets redefined as "civil war". 

Ah, that makes sense. The author of that paper was very insistent in that terrorism never works, and that the successful terrorist groups (like the Algerian Front de Libération Nationale) were actually guerrillas so they don't count. A transparent No True Scotsman fallacy.
He also says that successful guerrillas are more disciplined and don't target civilians, but this might be because history is written by the victors, so successful guerrillas will naturally make history say that they were nice guys.

Worked well enough in Algeria.  The Soviet Union, too, now I think of it.

The Soviet Union fell the moment it could no longer effectively terrorize its population, so that's an example of effective state terrorism, I think.

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

Che killed a puppy.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I think it depends on the goal of the terrorists. I'd say 9/11 was extremely effective in terrorizing the US, in forcing them to behave like a bunch of scared children, in wreaking havoc on the economic and political systems and in dividing the population.

One attack has had a decade of repercussions and those will continue to affect the lives of Americans (and the rest of the world) for many years to come, I think. 

[Lord Cataplanga]

I think it depends on the goal of the terrorists. I'd say 9/11 was extremely effective in terrorizing the US, in forcing them to behave like a bunch of scared children, in wreaking havoc on the economic and political systems and in dividing the population.

One attack has had a decade of repercussions and those will continue to affect the lives of Americans (and the rest of the world) for many years to come, I think.

Yes, if the intentions of Al-Qaeda were actually to destroy the economy of the US (and several governments and economies in the Middle East), rather than, whathever they said their true intentions were, then yes, they would have been very successful. But was that seriously what they were expecting? Because if it was, then that was some fantastic reverse psychology.

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

What were their goals?

And isn't it kind of embarrassing that ten years after the fact we're still reeling from the experience, and the vast majority of Americans don't have a satisfactory answer to that question? Not that I think I'm particularly well versed on the subject, but it feels like that's the kind of vitally important information every American should not only have access to, but should be spoon fed as part of every discussion of how 9/11 "changed everything." We can't expect voters to be rational actors without understanding this shit.

If the goals were "to escalate conflict with the West and damage the national psyche of America" I think you can slap a mission fucking accomplished sticker on the whole thing. If the goals were instead "to get the West, and America in particular, to leave the Middle East the fuck alone" then it totally backfired.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I think it depends on the goal of the terrorists. I'd say 9/11 was extremely effective in terrorizing the US, in forcing them to behave like a bunch of scared children, in wreaking havoc on the economic and political systems and in dividing the population.

One attack has had a decade of repercussions and those will continue to affect the lives of Americans (and the rest of the world) for many years to come, I think.

Yes, if the intentions of Al-Qaeda were actually to destroy the economy of the US (and several governments and economies in the Middle East), rather than, whathever they said their true intentions were, then yes, they would have been very successful. But was that seriously what they were expecting? Because if it was, then that was some fantastic reverse psychology.

The first goal of terrorism is to cause terror. When a nation is terrorized, they will make stupid decisions and huge mistakes. No one with Bin Laden's education would, in my opinion, think that the US would turn tail and run when attacked on their home soil. Did he foresee a 10 year war in multiple countries? I dunno. He probably didn't plan on having some dudes with guns drop into his compound.

However, I think he did plan to terrorize the US and expected long term fallout, economically, politically and socially.

Cain would probably have a much better answer

[Cain]

The problem is, while it is possible to make the case that "terrorism doesn't work", it is usually because terrorism that does work magically gets redefined as "civil war". 

Ah, that makes sense. The author of that paper was very insistent in that terrorism never works, and that the successful terrorist groups (like the Algerian Front de Libération Nationale) were actually guerrillas so they don't count. A transparent No True Scotsman fallacy.
He also says that successful guerrillas are more disciplined and don't target civilians, but this might be because history is written by the victors, so successful guerrillas will naturally make history say that they were nice guys.

Worked well enough in Algeria.  The Soviet Union, too, now I think of it.

The Soviet Union fell the moment it could no longer effectively terrorize its population, so that's an example of effective state terrorism, I think.

Well, the idea that successful guerrillas don't target civilians is patently false, as the FLN frequently targeted the pied-noirs in Algeria, causing them to end up fleeing the country.  Then there were the FLN cafe wars in France, which often involved bombing public areas with complete disregard for the possibility of civilian casualties.  The first groups to call themselves terrorists did refuse to target civilians, and indeed called themselves terrorists in order to differentiate themselves from common criminals and murderers, but by and large, every group at war will end up puporsefully targeting civilians, in some way or another.  In the modern age of total warfare, the line between a civilian and military target is almost blurred beyond distinction, and when it comes to terrorism - where the intended effect is to use casualties to change government policy - that distinction almost disappears entirely.

It is likely the case that a more succesful terrorist group is a more powerful one, and a more powerful one is more likely to go after the military and security services, as it is capable of fighting them, instead of targeting just civilians, which confuses the cause and effect of how effective civilian targeting is.  If I have sufficient manpower, I want to attack the principal tools of repression by the state, rather than focus on random civilians.  It's a strategic choice, not a moral one.

[Cain]

I think it depends on the goal of the terrorists. I'd say 9/11 was extremely effective in terrorizing the US, in forcing them to behave like a bunch of scared children, in wreaking havoc on the economic and political systems and in dividing the population.

One attack has had a decade of repercussions and those will continue to affect the lives of Americans (and the rest of the world) for many years to come, I think.

Yes, if the intentions of Al-Qaeda were actually to destroy the economy of the US (and several governments and economies in the Middle East), rather than, whathever they said their true intentions were, then yes, they would have been very successful. But was that seriously what they were expecting? Because if it was, then that was some fantastic reverse psychology.

Their aim was, apparently, to provoke a reaction, and get the US bogged down in Afghanistan and other Middle Eastern conflicts.

The hope was this would prove the US to be a morally bankrupt Crusader-Zionist nation conspiring against the Ummah, and cause Muslims to rise up against US-backed dictators in the region, overthrow them and install more Islamic governments, as a precursor to restoring the Caliphate.  Under leadership and advice from Al-Qaeda, of course.

Naturally, this didn't quite work out as planned, but the US at least played along with part of the script.

The plan always was to undermine the "Far Enemy", because it was seen as the principal pillar of power for the secular Arab dictators.  That this ended up happening economically was....well, it was hoped, but not exactly planned for.  Bin Laden had hoped for more of a military victory, his belief being that in a zone where US technological advancements are negated, such as Afghanistan, the US would need to rely on brute force - and would lose.  That a few incidents like the one in Somalia, with the corpses of US troops being dragged through the streets, would be enough to cause them to retreat.

Others though, in particular the more strategic jihadi writers, did consider the economic impact of the conflict, though even they probably did not expect what happened in 2008.