Main Content

Lesson 1: Cross-disciplinary Perspectives on an Evolving Homeland Security Mission Space

Defining Terrorism

“One man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter” 

 
As you have just read, according to the US Code, "Terrorism is premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents.” (US Code Title 22) Nevertheless, even some of the most basic characteristics of terrorism can cause problems. For example, targeting "non-combatants" seems to be unambiguous. However, Americans typically refer to the 1983 attack on US barracks at Beirut airport or the attack on the USS Cole as terrorist attacks - but these attacks targeted US servicemembers and might be more accurately considered part of war.  Moreover, a war environment changes what might be considered terrorism.  For example, civilian deaths from bombings during World War II, although not explicitly intentional, were seen as acceptable collateral damage at best and a means to deflate the other side's will to fight.
 
Refer to reference handout Legal Definitions of Terrorism to review the multifaceted perspective on what constitutes terorrism.

To summarize, there are certain characteristics that do establish a basis for terrorism. Politically-motivated violence or threatened violence,  purposefully targeting civilians or non-combatants, creating a psychology of fear in a society, and insuring recognition for the perpetrator are characteristics of terrorism. Further, while it is important to understand terrorism, we should not necessarily expend too many resources in refining a definition, risking to miss the point of how to practically counter terrorism.

Terrorism and Counterterrorism

The meaning of counterterrorism is most easily understood by comparing it to terrorism. This is most easily done by looking at goals and actions.  The goals and actions that terrorist take can be distilled to the three "Rs" of terrorism:

  • Response: a terrorist act is a response to a perceived or perhaps actual injustice. For example, it might be global such as the Palestinians' call for statehood. It might be regional -- the Chechen desire for independence. Or, it might be ideological, Al Qaeda's perception that Islam has been humiliated globally; or even personal. Domestically, for example possible demonstrations by pro- and anti-abortion groups today undergo a law-enforcement driven terrorism threat assessment at the local and regional level, to identify potential occurrence of unplanned violence, such as involvement of known radical organizations, bombings, or violence against clinics.
  • Reaction: terrorism is intended to invoke a reaction from the targeted group. This might be fear, political change, or even military reaction. Robert Kilcullen in the Accidental Guerilla provides an exceptional model whereby a disproportional repsonse by authorities is the goal of terrorist acts in order to turn the local population against a government.  
  • Recognition: the exploitation phase of the act. It has four distinct targets and is meant to bring recognition to the perpetrating group and their cause among the targeted population; inspire and mobilize the group's membership and supporters; attract new recruits to the cause; and expose the group's "plight" to the broader international community. 

Because of its multiple goals, recognition brings up some interesting questions.  For example, does an act require exploitation by the group to be effective? Probably, although there might be tactical reasons such as a follow-on attack to wait on claiming responsibility.  The cyber-attack on Estonia in 2007 went without a claim for responsibility.  No one seemed to have an interest in bringing recognition to themselves in this case. This may be attributed to the unsubstantiated involvement of the Russian government, however. While it appears to have been conducted by an unaffiliated group of "hackers", it remains unclear the extent to which the Russian government was involved and it may not have wanted to face the international condemnation for its involvement. Notwithstanding, the importance of recognition seems to be confirmed by groups claiming responsibility for most attacks. The Pakistani Taliban (Tehrik e-Taliban Pakistan) actually posted a YouTube statement claiming responsibility for what they assumed would be a successful attack by Faisal Shahzad in Times Square in May 2010.

So what then is counter-terrorism? Counter-terrorism is the efforts aimed at preventing, protecting against, mitigating, responding to, and recovering from terrorist attacks.

The United Kingdom for example has clearly delineated its counter-terrorism strategy based on the principle of the 4 "Ps":

  • Prevent (i.e., gathering intelligence in order to interdict),
  • Prepare (i.e., making society aware of threats and gearing them to respond to and recover from them),
  • Protect (i.e., hardening targets), and
  • Pursue (i.e. hunt down the terrorists).

The United States has followed a similar path defined by what instruments to apply, how to apply them, and where to apply them - or put another way, prevent, prepare, mitigate, and recover. These encompass the relentless pursuit of terrorists which includes a combination of military action, intelligence gathering, and partnership building; addressing upstream factors of radicalization and violent behavior, and preparing the population to absorb a terrorist attack by avoiding over-reaction and insuring recovery by planning, training, and exercising for the event.

Hence, counter-terrorism is the practice of collaboration and information sharing within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), among DHS and other federal, state, and local agencies, as well as the private sector, and with partner countries globally.

What is Not Terrorism

In order to combat terrorism, it is important to have a rational perspective of what it is, and what it is not. According to  Paul Pillar, an attack by a government’s duly uniformed or otherwise identifiable armed force is not terrorism but war. (Howard, p. 25) This definition establishes a context for better understanding terrorism. While individuals and governments may perpetrate terrorist acts during a time of war, the context of war means they are not terrorism per se. Of course, certain acts in wartime do exceed the acceptable norms of civilized behavior test and thus are punishable as war crimes. Second, while terrorists perform criminal acts or coalesce with criminal groups, differences exist. Criminals seek material gain and have limited, if any, political objectives. They also tend to benefit from a prosperous economic system in which they operate and thus have no desire to destroy it. Third, crime may, and often is, perpetrated by individuals.  


Top of page