Reminiscing Lessons on Terrorism and Counterterrorism - The Pertinence of Recognizing Nuance

It has been a delightful journey to participate in the MOOC (Massive Open Online Course) ''Terrorism and Counterterrorism: Theory and Practice'', led by Leiden University and offered via Coursera, and thereby expand my knowledge on the history of terrorism in conjunction with its evolvement as well as Counterrorism policies and their ensuing ramifications, from a critical angle.

Honing both my competence and enriching my erudition in the discipline that I strive to pursue as my Post-Graduate degree has been at the forefront of my extracurricular ambitions, and this six-week MOOC served as a wellspring of enlightenment thereby.

Among the most intriguing, thought-provoking and striking findings explored in this MOOC and specifically, the academic publications featured therein, render the following that I deem especially worthy of shedding light on:

• There is no unanimously endorsed definition of terrorism – neither within academia nor in the sphere of politics. An alarming reality impeding quality research and preventing transferable analyses. In similar vein, there prevails no universally accepted disambiguation between who qualifies as a Terrorist who does not. Liberation Fighter or Terrorist; Where do these respective concepts begin and end?
• Terrorism is not a contemporary phenomenon – Historically, terrorism has always existed in various forms, characterized by divergent methods of violence and approaches to meet political objectives. David Rapoport distinguishes between Four Waves thereof that emerged and declined over the course of history.
• Contrary to widespread stereotypes and preconceived notions echoed by Right-Wing Populists, the overwhelming majority of terrorist attacks befall Muslim-majority countries (90%), with nearly all victims being Muslims themselves (90%) . This, together with a plethora of further research outcomes elucidate that terrorism is, in fact, not inherently anti-Western, nor predominantly targets Western countries.
• Levelling violence against civilians is not the core objective of terrorism. Not only do the victims of terrorist attacks not constitute the ultimate addressees, but terrorism aims at provoking a particular political response. Moreover, terrorism lives and thrives upon excessive media attention and societal paranoia. As Brian Jenkins captured lucidly: ''Terrorism is theatre: Terrorists want a lot of people watching, not a lot of people dead.’’ (Jenkins, B. M. (1974). International terrorism: A new kind of warfare. The Rand Corporation)
• In line with the aforementioned, Frank Furedi argues that Terrorism is not merely defined by the act in itself, but also by the manner in which society reacts to it. A collective identity, a commonly shared sense of self and raison d’être embodies a powerful source of empowerment and reinvigoration following an attack.
• According to Furedi, a newfound narrative has entrenched its foothold in the West which distorts terrorism out of proportion and assigns a paradoxical innate duality to it. It antithetically argues that it is? an undefeatable and inevitable force majeure reminiscent of a natural catastrophe of apocalyptic heights on the one hand, yet to be reckoned with by means of grand strategies as well as mighty heaps of resources on the other. This paranoia and oxymoronic rhetoric, in turn, afflicts the west with increased receptiveness towards terrorist activity, leaving this hemisphere in a cycle of self-imposed vulnerability. By that logic, the West practically created, or at least, augmented its terrorism problem. Policies should thus seek to yield resilience rather than playing into anxieties.
• There are no causal links between poverty, lack of education and the increase in radicalization. Intensive research testifies that most terrorists recruited happen to be educated young males from the western hemisphere originating from middle or lower-middle income countries.
• Terrorists, with the partial exception of Lone Actor Terrorists, are not ‘crazy’. Blaming terrorists’ atrocities on presumed mental disorders or psychological abnormalities is an oversimplification of the complexity as well as rationality underlying terrorism. The morally reprehensible character of their acts of aggression does not negate that terrorism is a means to a logically calculated end, emanating from perceived indignity and injustice.
• Military intervention has proven to engender one of the least effective counter strategies to combat terrorism. Majority of terrorist groups have ceased to exist primarily by virtue of two reasons: (1.) The groups have transitioned into the realm of politics; (2.) Members of the groups have been eliminated by law enforcement authorities. A dexterous interplay of several policy instruments, including but not limited to intelligence work, political negotiations and economic sanctions, is imperative.
• Deradicalization is very much feasible. However, stimulating disengagement poses more sustainable than initiating a change in worldview. ?

It is scientifically sound, critical, up-to-date and accessible academic discourse as provided by this MOOC that is indispensable in today’s age of rampant misinformation, and that simultaneously lays the groundwork for an upcoming, bright-minded generation of young Counterterrorism policymakers and scholars who bring new, diverse thought to the discipline.