Is Terrorism the "New Normal"?

We see more incidents of ‘terrorism’ daily. Just today (October 2, 2017) as I write this short piece, the news is reporting a horrific mass-murder in Las Vegas, Nevada, with over 50 killed and hundreds wounded from automatic weapon fire into a country music festival attended by over 20,000 people. Here, the head of the Sheriff’s Department calls the crime one of mass-murder rather than terrorism, saying that labeling the crime terrorism requires him to apply a set of criteria, including determining the purpose for committing the atrocity before he would call it terrorism. With the killer dead, that change many never come.

That horrific act drove other incidents to the inner pages, and further down in the radio and television news, which only a day earlier was full of yet another bombing, a knifing and other mayhem in France; in Edmonton, Ontario, Canada, a policewoman was shot, and others are injured in walkways by the same killer. In those cases, the authorities called it terrorism. Each week we need other incidents involving knifings, bombing, attacks by automobile, truck, knives and guns, and, in most cases the label is also quickly applied.

But are these cases terrorism? If they are, do we have an evolving definition and purpose for the crime, and its peculiar circumstances? If it is not, then what is actually happening, in increasing numbers of localities throughout the world? What do we call it, and how do we react?

First, let’s look at what terrorism is supposed to be.

The trouble is that terrorism has too many definitions, not all of them in agreement with the others. Part of the problem of defining terrorism lies in what Cronin (2002) has called ‘an unassailable definition’, one which can stand scrutiny in a wide range of situations and occurrences. The problem with his suggestion is that people guard their definitions tightly, even though they may be in violent agreement with others. Thus, there has not emerged to date any single definition to which all can agree.

We can start simply, perhaps with the Merriam-Webster definition of the term. In their view, Terrorism is the “systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion”. That gets a bit along the path, but what are many of these ‘terrorists’ trying to coerce?

Going a bit further, Dumas (2012) approaches a definition from a political perspective, indicating that “the word ‘terrorist’ often refers to someone who uses violence to further a cause with which the speaker disagrees,” He goes further, and indicates that, to him, terrorism is a tactic, and not an end to itself. Laqueur (2000) goes even further in saying that the greatest difficulty in arriving at a consensus definition, beyond it simply being a tactic, is that there are multiple forms of terrorism, each with its own peculiar characteristics, and even these are constantly changing.

So, where does that leave us? We have our Merriam-Webster definition that terrorism involves coercion, and others who tell us that coercion is often a tactic designed to force change. But on whom? So far, we are creating as many questions as we are trying to answer.

There is a common thread here, though. Terrorists of whatever persuasion have a purpose for their actions. Al-Qaeda started as a support movement for expelling the Russians from Afghanistan, quickly included hatred for the United States as well because, in their religious view, the presence of infidel troops on the Holy Ground of Saudi Arabia was sinful, and its king should be deposed for his actions.

ISIS, now calling itself simply the Islamic State or Daesh, has a stated purpose of re-establishing Islam as the primary force in all those lands where Islam once ruled. Their leader, al-Baghdadi, styles himself the ‘Khaliffa’, a reference to leaders of Islam descended from Muhammed. Other terrorist groups, both religious and political also state some purpose for their actions, and utilize terror to bring forward their aims and purpose.

The Global Terrorist Database (GTD), maintained by the University of Maryland, and one of the few authoritative sets of data on terrorism, lists over 42,000 incidents which meet its definition of a terrorist act. GTD emerged from work originally done by the Pinkerton Global Intelligence Service (PGIS), a private security organization. Data collected by Pinkerton from 1970 through 1997 became the basis for the first GTD effort. Since that time, GTD has evolved and became a full-time project of the Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and the Responses to Terrorism (START Center) now at U. Md. In 2011. GTD (2016) is the latest complete year of data added to the Database.

In addition to PGIS, other data sources were also included in the consolidated database, and coded according to the definition initially applied by PGIS:

 "the threatened or actual use of illegal force and violence by a non-state actor to attain a political, economic, religious, or social goal through fear, coercion, or intimidation."

As it assumed responsibility for the database starting in 1998, START revised its definition, breaking it into components, which could then be coded for analysis as events occurred. While doing so, the Center also expressed its concerns.

“It is well-recognized that divergent definitions of terrorism abound and that the nature and causes of terrorism are hotly contested by both governments and scholars. While certain broad elements of terrorism are generally agreed upon (such as the intentional use of violence), many other factors (such as whether the victims of terrorism must be non-combatants or whether terrorism requires a political motive) continue to be debated. Indeed, even where there is some consensus at the broadest level, there is often disagreement on the details.” Source: START GTD Methodology. ?Found at: https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/using-gtd/

One critical change occurred as the definition evolved. In the latest versions of the GTD, to qualify for inclusion in the database, the act or acts had to be an’ intentional act of violence or threat of violence by a non-state actor.’ That was in addition to three other carefully selected criteria, including (1) The act was aimed at attaining a political, economic, religious, or social goal, (2) An intent to coerce, intimidate or convey a message to an audience other than the immediate victims, and (3) The action was outside the precepts of International Humanitarian Law. These criteria enabled the documentation of numbers of criminal acts which, to some criteria could be called terrorism, but to others, they might be excluded. Coding enabled this varied analysis.

So, how does this help to define terrorism, and how do we apply it to current events? Let’s look at several recent events.

First, the killing of the policewoman and the injuries to pedestrians in Edmonton, Ontario in Canada was by a man who shot her, yelling ‘Alahu Akbar’, a common radical Islamists expression, an ISIS flag was found on the seat of his van, and he had been cited in social media in several places claiming solidarity with ISIS. He could certainly be called a ‘non-state actor’, and he at least claimed some political if not religious affinity to ISIS. Most will believe that his actions were not intended simply to kill the policewoman and injure other without reason. In terms of the final criteria, his actions in coming both murder and mayhem as well as injuries to the innocent pedestrians are well outside the norms of both domestic and international law.

Can we call this person a terrorist? A lone terrorist? Personally, I would vote for his inclusion in the database, even if the actual link to ISIS cannot be provided.

Conversely, looking at the gunman in Las Vegas, Nevada, making the same set of comparisons to the criteria is much harder. The man is probably a non-state actor, but we have no idea of his purpose in committing the crime; only that he was dedicated to whatever purpose he had by carefully planning his crime for days before the commission of it. Likewise, without knowing the purpose, we cannot attribute his actions against the people at the concert to some other group against which he looked on with enough disfavor to injure innocent people to make his statement. He certainly fulfilled the last criteria by committing large-scale murder.

The same type application of criteria occurs, or should occur before the term ‘terrorist’ is applied following some horrific crime. If we accept the views of Dumas (2013) and Laqueur (2000), the crimes are themselves tactics, designed to influence political, religious, or other behavior by those leaders whom the assailant cannot directly influence.

Coming full-circle to our original question, and the title of this article, “Is Terrorism the New Normal”?

The answer to that question remains complex. On the one hand, the answer is probably YES, when viewed from the perspective that these types of attacks will continue into the foreseeable future, perhaps get worse, and spawn myriad acts by those wanting attention from the media, those with significant serious mental illness, and those who seek to strike back for some perceived injustice, usually to themselves.

On the other hand, people should not live in constant fear that these types of activities will happen to them. The actions are so varied, so dispersed, and so asynchronous, it is impossible to pre-determine where, when, or how they will occur. People can only continue to live their lives with some degree of safety, observe their surroundings, and stay alert, but not coerced by the possibility of events happening to them.

Perhaps the time has come for some great national commission in each country, bringing together disparate political, social, religious, and economic views, to sit down and discuss how their society can live, be properly protected, and secure, laying the groundwork for a plan to address these issues of terrorism, without the usual arguments and rancor. Perhaps it is time to rethink how we want society to function.

If we do nothing, then terrorism can indeed become the new normal and rule our lives. Let’s agree on what it is and prepare; let’s also agree on what it is not, and treat those situations for that they are-crimes which earn punishment in a reasonable society. 

Bibliography:

Cronin, A. K (2002). "Behind the Curve: Globalization and International Terrorism." International Security 27( 3) (Winter 2002/03): 30-58.

Dumas, L J. (2013) “21 Transnational & Contemporary Problems”. Counterterrorism and Economic Policy, 83. pp. 83-98. Retrieved from: https://heinonline.org/HOL/Print?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/tlcp21&id=85 

Laqueur, W. (2000). The New Terrorism: Fanaticism and the Arms of Mass Destruction. New York: Oxford Press. P.6.

 Merriam-Webster (2013) “Terrorism”. Dictionary definition from Internet .com site

START (2016). Global Terrorism Database, University of Maryland, Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START). Found at: https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/