Why Terrorism Works

Excerpt from The Chronicle Review essay by Bruce Hoffman

Does terrorism work? Its targets and victims steadfastly maintain that it does not, while its practitioners and apologists claim that it does. Scholars and analysts are divided. Given the untold death and destruction wrought by terrorists throughout history, the question has an undeniable relevance that has only intensified since the September 11 attacks. Yet a definitive answer unaccountably remains as elusive as a universally accepted definition of terrorism itself.

Anonymous Soldiers: The Struggle for Israel, 1917-1947 by Bruce Hoffman

Anonymous Soldiers re-creates the crucial period in the establishment of Israel, chronicling the three decades of growing anticolonial unrest that culminated in the end of British rule and the UN resolution to create two separate states. This book tells the story of how Britain, in the twilight of empire, struggled and ultimately failed to reconcile competing Arab and Jewish demands and…

New Post has been published on http://www.therakyatpost.com/columnists/2014/07/07/terrorism-history-repeating/

Terrorism and history repeating itself

IS history repeating itself? This is not the case of those who cannot learn from history and are doomed to repeat it, as philosopher George Santayana once said. But it is the case of those who have learned from history.

In the wake of militancy and extremism “terrorism”, for example, has been used to define threats and subversive elements during the Communist insurgency in Malaya and Malaysia.

The Communists — members of the defunct Malayan Communist Party — were labelled as “terrorists” — hence “Communist terrorists”.

The Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria’s (ISIS) offensive, which may redraw the borders of Iraq, Syria and much of West Asia, besides posing a threat to Europe, the West and the rest of the world, is the work of what we label as “terrorists”.

Such labels in the words “terror” and “violence” are almost always associated with Islam, not to mention the description of “jihadist”.

There is, however, a different picture from Inside Terrorism, written 20 years after the Iranian Revolution and prior to Sept 11, 2001. Bruce Hoffman in his 1998 book belaboured on the definition of terrorism.

Perhaps tacitly responding to the many labels associating Islam with terrorism, he suggested it may be helpful to understand the notion of terrorism as a political concept — fundamentally and inherently political and not religious.

As we are seeing in Iraq and Syria, terrorism is about power — the pursuit of power, the acquisition of power, and the use of power to achieve political change.

But what we should not underestimate is that the fundamental characteristics of terrorism is that it is planned and calculated. It is a systematic act.

Hoffman’s rationale in defining terrorism was that the meaning of the term has changed so frequently over the past 200 years.

“Terrorism” can be traced to the French Revolution from the late 1780s through the decade of the 1790s. The revolution was the first European social revolution instrumental for the modern idea of democracy, autonomy, individual liberty and nationalism.

At the time, the word has a decidedly positive connotation. Underlying it was the system of regime de la terreur of 1793-4, from which the English word came, and was adopted as a means to establish order during the transient anarchical period of turmoil and upheaval that followed the French uprising of 1789.

Hence, according to Hoffmann, unlike terrorism as it is commonly understood today, to mean a revolutionary or anti-government activity undertaken by non-state or subnational entities, the regime de la terreur was an instrument of governance wielded by the recently established revolutionary state.

It was designed to consolidate the new government’s power by intimidating counter-revolutionaries, subversives and all other dissidents whom the new regime regarded as enemies of the people.

Interestingly, Hoffman noted that perhaps, terrorism in its original context was also closely associated with the ideals of virtue and democracy, as was the belief of French revolutionary leader Maximilien Robespierre.

What we should note is that despite the divergence from its subsequent meaning, the French Revolution terrorism still shared at least two characteristics in common with the modern-day variant.

First, the regime de la terreur was neither random nor indiscriminate, but organised, deliberate and systematic.

Second, its goal and its very justification — like that of contemporary terrorism — was the creation of a new society in place of a fundamentally corrupt and undemocratic political system.

It is ironic that the regime de la terreur has contributed much to the creation of modern (Western) civilisation and the notion of the secular state.

In the ISIS offensive and the expressed idea for an “caliphate” and the French Revolution, do we see history repeating itself in adverse ways?

In the Ramadan of abstinence, we pray for peace, order and stability.

Selamat berpuasa.

A Murad Merican