What is terrorism?

There is widespread misunderstanding of what terrorist organizations are, but it is important for analysts and security professionals to have a clear idea of what it is. Terrorism is essentially a type of warfare used by non-state actors, and because they are forms of warfare the state is in conflict with them. War, terrorism, insurgency, civil war, ethnic cleansing, and genocide all have specific definitions to distinguish what type of violence is occurring, and without distinguishing between the types of violence, analysts cannot accurately assess them or forecast behavior.

Terrorism: Definition

We will start with an explicit definition before discussing the broader concepts. Combining the history, motivations, organization, and tactics of terrorist organizations, terrorism as a political phenomenon includes:

• Political motivation
• Violence or threats of violence
• Perpetuated by a sub-state or non-state actor, including individuals, cells, or organizations
• Attacking noncombatant targets that are meant to be symbolic
• An intention to have psychological effects and the deliberate creation and exploitation of fear beyond the victim(s) or target(s).
• Creation of publicity generated by violence to obtain leverage, influence, and power

With the definition elucidated, it is now time to explore the critical aspects of this phenomenon.

Terrorism: History of the Concept

Defining terrorism is a contentious issue in and of itself, even within the American government. In fact, the State Department, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Defense all have different definitions for terrorism. This problem exists even though terrorism is not a new phenomenon, dating back at least 2,000 years with Zealots, an ethno-nationalist terrorist organization in the Roman occupied Palestine. During the first century Zealots, called Kanai in Hebrew because of their weapon of choice, would walk into a crowd and stab a Roman or Jewish official, put the knife back into his cloak, and move away. The official would fall dead and no one would know the perpetrator, which would cause fear in the population. Of course, the Zealots ultimately failed because soon the Romans grew tired of the unrest in Palestine and simply destroyed Jerusalem in AD 70. Other famous historic examples include the Assassins, a radical Shia sect in the 11th century, and the Thugi, devotees of Kali in India. However, the phenomenon began to significantly increase after the French Revolution and with the rise of industrial powers.

The word terrorism entered the English language after the French Revolution and the regime de la terreur of 1793-94, but unlike its usage today it had a positive connotation. Terrorism was associated with justice because the Committee of General security and the People’s Court killed thousands of “enemies of the people” by the guillotine. Maximilien Robespierre, the revolutionary leader, attempted to use terrorism to bolster the ideals of the revolution including virtue and democracy. He said, “Terror is nothing else than justice, prompt, secure and inflexible.” However, the excesses of the revolution and the regime’s terrorism soon led to Robespierre’s downfall. During the 19th century and early part of the 20th terrorism became associated with sub-state revolutionary and anti-monarchical movements in Europe, especially after the 1848 revolutions on the continent. The term revolutionary became synonymous with terrorism during this time. In the middle of the 20th century terrorism would come to mean brutal repression by totalitarian regimes like Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia, but this was a short interlude. After World War II and the beginning of the Cold War, terrorism once again became associated with revolutionary movements, primarily anti-colonial movements, and within a few decades terrorism would become linked to ethno-nationalist and ideological movements.

Terrorists in fact will often name their organizations in a way to eschew the word, usually including words like “liberation” or “defense” or use completely neutral names. Everyone seems to view the label as a pejorative, and terrorist organizations will typically claim the states they are fighting are the “real” terrorists. Terrorists will also attempt to say because their cause is justified, they are righteous and therefore are the “freedom fighters.” Freedom fighter is the politically correct name terrorists or their sympathizers will assign to themselves. Yasser Arafat claimed at his 1974 United Nations Speech that the “difference between the revolutionary and the terrorist lies in the reason for which each fights. For whoever stands by a just cause and fights for the freedom and liberation of his land from the invaders, the settlers and the colonialists cannot possibly be called terrorist…” In his speech he also criticized those that attempted to thwart terrorism, arguing they “are the people who actions should be condemned, who should be called war criminals: for the justice of the cause determines the right to struggle.” One of al-Qaeda’s statements claimed, “When the victim tries to seek justice, he is described as a terrorist,” implying that states only use the term to discredit those who challenge the state’s power.?

Terrorism: Causes and Motivation

There are multiple explanations for the causes and motivations for terrorists, including individual, state, societal, and transnational levels of explanation, but Louise Richardson states that terrorists require a disaffected individual who wants revenge for themselves or someone else, an ideology to legitimize the use of violence, and a complicit society that is conducive or sympathetic to violence. Legitimizing ideologies have multiple forms, including ethno-nationalism, Marxism, right-wing politics, and religion. Importantly, terrorism is a strategic and rational choice; terrorists seek changes in the status quo, which they believe violence can help them achieve. It is also the “weapon of the weak,” meaning they do not have the political and military strength to counter their opposition through other tactics. Therefore, terrorists will have short-term organizational objectives and long-term political objectives, and the short-term objectives are revenge, renown, and reaction. Long term goals vary by organization: a national state, a communist/fascist government, laws based on Islam.

To achieve these, though, terrorists will use the short-term objectives in order to achieve their aim. Revenge is the most direct short-term objective of terrorist organizations. Al-Qaeda sought revenge for the support the U.S. gave to Israel, the suffering of Palestinians, and the Saudis allowing the U.S. to station troops in their holy land. The Palestinian Liberation Organization wanted revenge for Israel’s establishment and expansion. Marxist terrorists in Europe would kill political figures they believed were corrupt capitalists, revenge for their harm to the economic order. Terrorist attacks can also bring the organization renown, which can give them more power or help them achieve their goals. Bruce Hoffman states, “One of the enduring axioms of terrorism is that it is designed to generate publicity and attract attention to the terrorists and their cause” (Inside Terrorism, p. 198). After the well-publicized Black September attacks at the Munich Olympics in 1972, Palestine achieved observer status at the United Nations and had significant diplomatic relations open with other countries. Terrorists also want to elicit a reaction to their attacks, either having the state acquiesce to their demands or having the state overreact to swell the organizations ranks. Al-Qaeda successfully got Spain to remove their troops from Iraq after the 2004 Madrid bombings and the U.S. to entangle itself for over a decade in Afghanistan.

Organization and Tactics

There are four main ways that terrorists will organize themselves: individually, cells, hierarchical structures, and a network. Individual terrorists are called lone wolves, meaning they plan and carry out the attack by themselves. Radicalization or inspiration may occur within a group, but they operate independently. Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber, and Nidal Malik Hassan, the Fort Hood Shooter, were both radicalized within groups, yet they committed their attacks by themselves. Terrorists might also organize themselves into independent cells of a few people, making them hard to penetrate. Cells are used by smaller organizations or those who want to be exclusive; these will include smaller Islamist groups or environmentalists like Earth Liberation Front. A hierarchical structure is used for more established groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, or the Tamil Tigers. There are definitive people in charge and levels of soldiers. Finally, terrorists might organize themselves into a network, much like al-Qaeda that has branches in Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia. Each organizational choice is dependent upon objectives and resources and is not exclusive to any ideological orientation.

Terrorists have specific tactics and strategies they will use to achieve their short and long-term objectives, but there is also a really important symbolic aspect to their violence. Their violence is sometimes meant to attack ideas, not just people and infrastructure, and “while the damage inflicted is real, the terrorists’ main purpose is not to destroy property or obliterate tangible assets but to dramatize or call attention to a political cause” (Hoffman, Inside Terrorism, p. 231). Al-Qaeda flew planes into the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon because they represented America’s economic and military power. Narodnaya Volya would kill Russian monarchs in attempt to bring down the czarist regime, and Red Army Faction in Germany would kill American citizens and NATO representatives that embodied “imperialism.” When assessing terrorist behavior, never forget that violence can be applied to symbols and not just operationally important targets.

Terrorism and Analysis

The word terrorism can be thrown around without due consideration to its definition and history, so it is critically important that analysts and security professionals have a clear understanding of the concept. This also matters when explaining issues to clients who might have an exaggerated fear of terrorism because they do not understand the problem. Importantly, this goes beyond just terrorism. When analyzing and assessing political and geopolitical issues, the analyst must be absolutely clear in their definitions and ideas in order to accurately assess and forecast.

Final Note

The greatest scholar of terrorism is Dr. Bruce Hoffman of Georgetown University. I highly recommend reading his books on the subject, including Inside Terrorism (3rd ed.), Anonymous Soldier, and God, Guns, and Sedition. Other great scholars include Daniel Byman (A High Price, Deadly Connections, Spreading Hate, and Al-Qaeda, the Islamic State, and the Global Jihadist Movement) and Louis Richardson (What Terrorists Want).