How to Defeat Terrorism

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Benjamin Kuipers <kuipers () cs utexas edu>
> Date: May 19, 2004 8:13:18 PM PDT
> To: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
> Subject: How to Defeat Terrorism
>
> For IP, if you wish.
>
> Ben
>
> How To Defeat Terrorism
> Benjamin Kuipers
> 18 May 2004
>
> Terrorism is a tactic used by a small set of extremists to fight against an overwhelmingly powerful opponent while surrounded by a large population that mostly just wants peace and quiet.
>
> Terrorism can be defeated.  To do this, first we need to understand how terrorists are kept away in the best case, then how terrorists can fight against this mechanism, and finally what works and what doesn't work to foil those aims.
>
> The Thin Blue LIne
>
> Although terrorists are not merely criminals, it is helpful to think about what keeps criminals under control in our society.  Ask any police officer:  it is not the police and the courts who keep criminals at bay.  It is the society as a whole.  It is the ordinary people who call the police when they hear a problem starting.  It is the ordinary people who trust the police and cooperate with them to bring criminals to justice.  The "thin blue line" only works when it is backed up by the vast majority of ordinary people.
>
> This, by the way, is why police brutality is so damaging to law and order in our society.  If ordinary people lose trust in the police, they won't call and they won't cooperate.  If they fear that calling the police to quiet down a loud party could result in their neighbors' kids being shot dead, they won't call.  And they also won't cooperate in more serious cases.  Without community backup, the "thin blue line" starts to feel very thin indeed.  And criminals become bolder.
>
> Likewise with terrorists.  Terrorists are defeated when the large majority of the community feel that they can trust the local authorities to maintain law and order and work for the common good. Then ordinary people will turn the terrorists in to the authorities when, or even before, they strike.
>
> The Unabomber was an insane but highly intelligent man living alone in the woods, writing a manifesto and killing and maiming people with mail bombs.  After his manifesto was published, he was turned in to the FBI by his brother, who recognized the writing and made the correct but agonizing decision to be loyal to society over blood.  We can only wish that a relative or neighbor of Timothy McVeigh had been in a position to make a similar decision before he struck in Oklahoma City.
>
> In even the best, most civilized, law-abiding society one can imagine, there will be small numbers of extremists tempted by terrorist tactics.  Ideally, the vast majority of people will see them as marginal nut-cases, and will report them to trusted authorities if they show signs of turning extreme ideas into dangerous action.  Terrorist acts can never be totally eliminated, but a cohesive community that trusts its authorities can defeat a continuing terrorist movement.
>
> One man's terrorist is another man's freedom-fighter.
>
> But what if the society is not civilized?  What if the authorities are hated and feared rather than trusted?  Then the true terrorist can always find support and hiding places among sympathizers who are not willing to become terrorists themselves, but are not willing to support the authorities either.
>
> The terrorists' best strategy is to drive a wedge between the people and the authorities.  Then the "thin blue line" becomes thinner and weaker.  The ordinary people, or at least some of them, protect and support those they see as fighting for freedom, religious faith, patriotism, or some other deep value, against overwhelming odds.
>
> The biggest danger to the terrorist is the trust the people have in the authorities.  As that trust is weakened or destroyed, the terrorists gain strength and freedom of action.  Their prime goal must be to eliminate the trust between the people and the authorities.
>
> How can they act most effectively to eliminate that trust?  Here is where the meaning of terrorist violence is often misunderstood.  The classic terrorist act is to blow up some innocent victims.  But the actual destruction is not the goal, in a military sense.  There is a symbolic goal of showing that the more-powerful enemy can be touched and deeply harmed, but even that is not the real goal.
>
> The real goal is to provoke massive retaliation.  The tiny group of terrorists who actually committed the act may escape entirely, may take casualties, or may even be entirely destroyed, but the larger terrorist movement feeds on the retaliation.  The important thing (from the terrorists' perspective) is for the massive retaliation to harm many people in the general population, even among their own supporters.
>
> The point is to incite the authorities to act in a way that erodes the people's trust in them.  The people lose trust, the terrorists are seen as freedom-fighters, and they gain support, cover, strength, and freedom of action.