-
What are Robert Pape's (The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism) 5 main findings on Suicide Terrorism
- 1. it is strategic (not isolated/random)
- 2. strategic logic designed to coerce modern democracies to make concessions to national self-determination
- 3. rising in the last 20 yrs, bc terrorists have learned that it pays (Israel withdrawal from Gaza)
- 4. while moderate suicide terrorism leads to moderate gains, more ambitious campaigns are not likely to get greater gains
- best way to contain is to reduce terrorists confidence in their ability to carry out attacks
-
PAPE: Is there any specific profile of a terrorist
no - varies in gender, age, employment, education ...
not jsut about religion (islam) ... biggest group is Tamil Tigers (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam - LTTE) - Hindu
-
PAPE: Terrorism follows __________ to achieve _________
What to they aim to get by inflicting pain
strategic logic; designed to achieve political purposes -- compel target government to change policies
Inflict pain enough to overwhelm their interest to overcome terrorists demands
-
PAPE: Demonstrative Terrorism vs Destructive Terrorism vs suicide terrorism
demonstrative - directed at gaining publicity
Destructive - aggressive - seeks to coerce opponents and mobilize supporters
suicide - most aggressive - pursue coercion at the expense of losing support in their own community.
-
PAPE: How does the willingness to die affect punishment
- - attacks are more destructive
- - signal more pain to come
- - by deliberately violating norms (violence) they are better positioned to increase expectations about escalating future costs
-
PAPE: Suicide Terrorism most likely to be used against governments with what type of system. Why?
Democratic rather than authoritarian
- - democracies thought to be vulnerable to coercive punishment
- - suicide terrorism is a tool of the weak --> target states have the capacity to retaliate with much harsher punishment (?)
- - attacks harder to recognize in auth. states
-
PAPE: limits of suicide terrorism
- - ambitious campaigns are likely to fail - only somewhat more effective than regular coercive punishment (air power, sanctions)
- - does not affect the target states interests in the issues at stake
- - unlikely to cause targets to abandon goals central to their wealth and security
-
Max Abrahms - Why Terrorism (targeting civilians) Doesn't Work
When CGTG (Civilian-Centric Terrorist Groups) attack civilians, target states think that they are trying to destroy their values, society, or both --> much less likely to make concessions
When terrorists attack civilians, the people coorespond the organization with suffering of all sorts - failing economies, fear, erosion of civil liberties, ect. --> groups actual intentions dont matter
-
Abrahms - Whether Terrorism is successful or not depends on target selection
2 types of Groups / targets
Also depends on objectives - 2 types
- Civilian-Centric Terrorist Groups (CCGT's) - target civilians, unsuccessful
- Guerilla Groups - target governments, diplomats - sometimes successful
- Limited objectives - territory, natural resources - more likely to be resolved, still not usually tho
- Maximalist Objectives - ideology, veliefs, values - less likely
hard to distinguish objectives though
-
Abrahms - why do some have the notion that terrorism works
writers often say that terrorism works but arguments are empirically weak / based on a few well known terrorist victories - Hezbollah, Tamil Tigers, Palestinian terrorist groups
however, achieve their goals only 7% of the time, when attacks on civilians > attacks on militaries, groups fail to achieve objectives
|
|
