What Do Terrorists Want?
Terrific piece in Wired, "The Seven Habits Of Highly Ineffective Terrorists," by security expert Bruce Schneier, quoting Stanford terrorism researcher Max Abrahms countering the notion that terrorism is "inherently political":
These seven tendencies are seen in terrorist organizations all over the world, and they directly contradict the theory that terrorists are political maximizers:Terrorists, he writes, (1) attack civilians, a policy that has a lousy track record of convincing those civilians to give the terrorists what they want; (2) treat terrorism as a first resort, not a last resort, failing to embrace nonviolent alternatives like elections; (3) don't compromise with their target country, even when those compromises are in their best interest politically; (4) have protean political platforms, which regularly, and sometimes radically, change; (5) often engage in anonymous attacks, which precludes the target countries making political concessions to them; (6) regularly attack other terrorist groups with the same political platform; and (7) resist disbanding, even when they consistently fail to achieve their political objectives or when their stated political objectives have been achieved.
Abrahms has an alternative model to explain all this: People turn to terrorism for social solidarity. He theorizes that people join terrorist organizations worldwide in order to be part of a community, much like the reason inner-city youths join gangs in the United States.
The evidence supports this. Individual terrorists often have no prior involvement with a group's political agenda, and often join multiple terrorist groups with incompatible platforms. Individuals who join terrorist groups are frequently not oppressed in any way, and often can't describe the political goals of their organizations. People who join terrorist groups most often have friends or relatives who are members of the group, and the great majority of terrorist are socially isolated: unmarried young men or widowed women who weren't working prior to joining. These things are true for members of terrorist groups as diverse as the IRA and al-Qaida.
For example, several of the 9/11 hijackers planned to fight in Chechnya, but they didn't have the right paperwork so they attacked America instead. The mujahedeen had no idea whom they would attack after the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan, so they sat around until they came up with a new enemy: America. Pakistani terrorists regularly defect to another terrorist group with a totally different political platform. Many new al-Qaida members say, unconvincingly, that they decided to become a jihadist after reading an extreme, anti-American blog, or after converting to Islam, sometimes just a few weeks before. These people know little about politics or Islam, and they frankly don't even seem to care much about learning more. The blogs they turn to don't have a lot of substance in these areas, even though more informative blogs do exist.
All of this explains the seven habits. It's not that they're ineffective; it's that they have a different goal. They might not be effective politically, but they are effective socially: They all help preserve the group's existence and cohesion.
Something called "deindividuation" happens in a mob. That's where a person's individual indentity gets swallowed up in favor of group goals -- even if that person would normally be opposed to whatever those group goals are.
Consider a certain group of "progressives" who popped up around these parts. They accused me of using racist language for writing this:
Not surprisingly, black leaders are outraged. Also not surprisingly, their outrage is not directed at women in the black community who squeeze out litters of fatherless children
In response to their accusations, I posted links from my blog to show where I used the very same term to describe rich white women, Catholic women, and Muslim women who had a large number of children, and explained that I feel strongly that children -- of any color -- need daddies. Somebody looking to find the truth would be satisfied at this point. A mob looking for their next kickball is not, and was not.







Sounds reasonable - people join all sorts of personality cults(gangs, religion, scientology) why shouldnt terrorism be the same?
lujlp at October 7, 2008 3:26 AM
the key issue is who leads such a group, and why? foot soldiers may well be apolitical, but leaders have an agenda. even if that agenda is helping out a more moderate or subtle political movement. terrorism skews responses and reactions to it, making status quo a different point on the continuum. who is pulling the strings? well, that'd be the $64K question. maybe it's simpler than that, and no-one is. it appears, though, that someone has a design, and terrorists in general feed it... if they are not much more than cannon fodder, the individual foot soldier still has power over the innocent.
SwissArmyD at October 7, 2008 11:25 AM
The terrorists have already won. The whole point of thier war against the United States was to draw it into an economic fiasco, to fight wars abroad and gut it financially. They know they can't win in actual warfare; but they could certainly count on the United States spending massive amounts of taxpayer money and borrowing siginficiantly more from foreign countries that it would deadlock us in a financial mess. I think the article speaks to small-minded terrorists with no vision of what they want, other than harm to others. The more dangerous ones believe that bankrupting a nation by luring them into a drawn out war. As it was xplained on Bill Maher the other night, the only way Bin Laden is going to die is from the laughter at being too successful on this front.
farker at October 8, 2008 10:41 AM
The war is a horrific fiscal burden, but we needn't commend our adversaries for powers that they don't have. Given the magnitude of the misconduct in our financial services sector, this was going to happen anyway. People who inherit money like Osama Bin Laden did aren't capable of the kind of financial abstractions you describe; they're more about flying planes into buildings.
If there's a more pathetic creature on the surface of this planet than Bin Laden, I can't think of the name. This guy hasn't been seen in 8 years. If he lives, which I doubt, he's getting dialysis in a cave. The enthusiasm for wretchedness which he represents has been named and engaged with horrible violence and tremendous efficacy.
(And again, I think he's dead, dead, dead.)
People take Mahar and Stewart and Fey etc far too seriously. These people are clowns. If you turn to them for laughter, you need it too badly. A lighter spirit will not be given to you by watching television.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at October 8, 2008 11:13 AM
Leave a comment