Post by BaalShemRa on Sept 5, 2004 9:28:55 GMT -5
Terrorism by small groups isn’t intimidation, it’s provocation, although it might be intended as intimidation by some such groups, that is not the bulk of its effect. It’s about making the reptilian part of the brain take over from the cortex and make decisions.
Perhaps the central purpose of terrorism is not to scare the general population per se ( not intimidation ) but rather make it see red. The government, in the mistaken belief that bigger=better or because the voting public thinks that, uses a sledgehammer to kill flies. The predictable externalities of using the sledgehammer is that fence sitters become sympathisers and passive sympathisers can become active agents.. So you've just gone from a small group to a growing guerilla movement.
The belief that bigger=better means that overwhelming force is likely to be used. This results in bad PR for us and makes the local population as well as those who feel connected to the local population become more hostile to us. While convincing the hostile active agents is likely not worth it, what we can do is avoid actions that will help the recruitment and networking efforts of the enemy organisation.
The pictures of small children dead, innocent people suffering, even if just a very small number of people die from this, skews our risk analysis. If one wanted to reduce the number of deaths, tackling more mundane causes would be more effective but that’s not the way most people see it, especially after having watched a sensationalistic report. They just look at the small picture, at the horrible character of the act, much like plane crashes attract a lot of attention than car crashes, even though the latter result in far more deaths. Terrorism, not in the sense of Cromwell or Robespierre but in the Bin Laden sense, is about making your enemy lose it and go postal/berserk, digging himself deeper into a hole with its indiscriminate since emotional actions.
But you can't explain that to people who are scared and angry, it's like arguing with someone who's drunk.
None of this is to say that nothing should be done. An Operation Condor-like campaign could be used, units similar to the Green Berets could also be useful. Armoured divisions are great when fighting nation-states and that PR isn’t important. In insurgencies, PR may be the most important aspect since it’s about draining the lake in which the fish swim and making sure the lake doesn’t get bigger, to use the Maoist analogy.
Perhaps the central purpose of terrorism is not to scare the general population per se ( not intimidation ) but rather make it see red. The government, in the mistaken belief that bigger=better or because the voting public thinks that, uses a sledgehammer to kill flies. The predictable externalities of using the sledgehammer is that fence sitters become sympathisers and passive sympathisers can become active agents.. So you've just gone from a small group to a growing guerilla movement.
The belief that bigger=better means that overwhelming force is likely to be used. This results in bad PR for us and makes the local population as well as those who feel connected to the local population become more hostile to us. While convincing the hostile active agents is likely not worth it, what we can do is avoid actions that will help the recruitment and networking efforts of the enemy organisation.
The pictures of small children dead, innocent people suffering, even if just a very small number of people die from this, skews our risk analysis. If one wanted to reduce the number of deaths, tackling more mundane causes would be more effective but that’s not the way most people see it, especially after having watched a sensationalistic report. They just look at the small picture, at the horrible character of the act, much like plane crashes attract a lot of attention than car crashes, even though the latter result in far more deaths. Terrorism, not in the sense of Cromwell or Robespierre but in the Bin Laden sense, is about making your enemy lose it and go postal/berserk, digging himself deeper into a hole with its indiscriminate since emotional actions.
But you can't explain that to people who are scared and angry, it's like arguing with someone who's drunk.
None of this is to say that nothing should be done. An Operation Condor-like campaign could be used, units similar to the Green Berets could also be useful. Armoured divisions are great when fighting nation-states and that PR isn’t important. In insurgencies, PR may be the most important aspect since it’s about draining the lake in which the fish swim and making sure the lake doesn’t get bigger, to use the Maoist analogy.