Strategic Studies - Terrorism

Abstract Terrorism is another aspect of the increasing prevalence of irregular warfare. It is a very slippery term; there is no one definition for it that is widely accepted. In recent years there has been a debate on whether the nature of terrorism has changed, scholars have differentiated between old and new terrorism. It is important to note Clausewitz invaluable contributions to strategic studies, he stated it is not the nature of war that changes, it is its character. This is also true for terrorism as Clausewitz acknowledged the existence of irregular warfare even when the world was more pre-occupied with inter-state wars. Spencer (2006:2) states that many scholars, government analysts and politicians point out that since the mid-1990s terrorism has changed into an inherently new form with new characteristics. Spencer then questions how the established characteristics of terrorism today justify the concept of new terrorism. This essay aims to challenge the validity of the concept of new terrorism. My analysis seeks to prove that many of the attributes that are identified with terrorism today were basically there in old terrorism. I seek to approach my analysis using three characteristics: goals, methods and organisation. My analysis will focus on such terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda and its offshoots, the Japanese group Aum Shinrikyo and the Lebanese Hezbollah (which is sometimes listed under the old terrorism banner). Introduction We are living in a period when the prevailing political and economic structures are widely perceived not merely to be changing, but subject to radical transformation and it is perceived that in this new era the political and economic forces are causing profound changes in the nature and conduct of war (Fleming, 2009:213). There has been what scholars have coined new wars which are characterised by unconventional or irregular warfare. There exist three kinds of irregular warfare: terrorism, guerrilla warfare and insurgency. Terrorism is thus a form of irregular warfare. It is important to note that irregular warfare has always been there just that it has been overshadowed by inter-state regular warfare of the past. Irregular warfare is asymmetrical: the opponents are certain to be very different (Gray, 2005:245). There is no one definition for terrorism that is widely accepted yet but one that will suffice for now is that terrorism is a politically motivated tactic involving the threat or use of force or violence in which the pursuit of publicity plays a significant role (Spencer, 2006:3).
1

Another definition that tries to capture the very essence of terrorism is that terrorism is exemplary violence executed primarily for the purpose of inducing fear among the general public (Gray, 2005:256). Apart from the problem of distinguishing it from guerrilla warfare, crime or mad serial killers, the well-known phrase one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter, is often used to highlight the problem of implying a moral judgement when classifying the term terrorism (Spencer, 2006:2). During the war against the Apartheid regime the marginalised black population saw the ANC and its leaders as freedom fighters and yet the white government demonised them and labelled them terrorists. My essay will thus seek to delve deep into the so called new phenomenon that has been labelled new terrorism. I will seek to establish that many of the characteristics that were present in old terrorism are still present in new terrorism just that technological advancements and globalisation have played major roles in shaping the character, motivations and methods of todays terrorist. It is also important to note that according to Clausewitz it is not the nature of war that changes, it is its character thus terrorism has not changed, it has simply evolved to suit the times. Criticism Many scholars do indeed view terrorism today as vastly different from old terrorism. The new terrorism is another form of terrorism that is taking form; it is different in the sense that it is more based on realisation of identity. This is whereby fundamental Islamic networks are not fighting for territory or political power but the need to expand their religious autonomy against the background of westernization (Sheehan, 2007:222). Although terrorism has evolved it still cannot be qualified as new. As much as we would love to define it as new terrorism the fact is terrorism as we know it has existed for a long time now; the tactics may be a bit different but that is so because of the changing world circumstances.
Characteristics of old terrorism v new terrorism

Spencer (2006:6) states that from around the mid-nineteenth century to the First World War revolutionaries and anarchists used bombings and assassinations as frequent weapons in their struggle against autocracy. Terrorism today is said to be inspired by religion, mainly radical Islam whilst old terrorism is said to have been inspired by secular and political motivations. Independence struggles were based on the idea of attaining freedom for the exploited black populations in Africa.
2

Terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda claim to be fighting a religious war in a bid to establish as Islamic Caliphate and rid the world of infidels. However it cannot be argued that such groups no matter how much they claim a religious ideology, their ideology is still politically motivated to an extent. When examining the demands and goals of Al Qaedas or other new terrorists associated with them, it becomes apparent that many of them represent clear political targets (Spencer, 2006:14). It is important to note that terrorists in the past sought to win the hearts of the people, they did not seek to alienate themselves from the general populace. Terrorists did not want to use excessive indiscriminate violence themselves as this would reduce their claim of legitimacy and alienate them from supporters, therefore reducing their access to new recruits and funding (Spencer, 2006:7). Terrorists of today have been known to use excessive violence to achieve their goals. Spencer (2006:10) states that the threat of mass destruction is a fundamental part of the concept of new terrorism. It can be argued however that terrorists of the past did not have the technologically advanced weapons that exist now so they could not attack wide areas. It can also be said indiscriminate mass-casualty attacks have existed as a characteristic of terrorism for a long time now. An example would be the bombing of an Air India flight in 1985 by Sikh terrorists with 329 fatalities (Spencer, 2006:15). Although this cannot measure up to the 9/11 attacks casualties but it still serves to prove that the use of indiscriminate violence is not a new thing in the terrorist world. It has been said that terrorists of today are likely to acquire biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction to use in their agendas. For instance, the Al Qaeda network could obtain nuclear weapons and once in possession of nuclear weapons this group may resort to nuclear use against a country or society that it detests (Paul, 2012:160). This however can be disputed as groups such as the PKK and the Tamil Tigers which were both an example of old terrorists were supposed to have used chemical weapons; in 1992 the PKK poisoned water tanks of the Turkish air force near Istanbul with a lethal dose of cyanide, and in 1990 the Tamil Tigers attacked a Sri Lankan military camp with chlorine gas (Spencer, 2006:19). In old terrorism the particular targets of terrorist assault are not usually inherently important, even when they are of high symbolic or economic significance, though the destruction of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Centre in New York was an exception to that rule (Gray, 2005:256). There has been a shift in targets; non-state actors are targeting civilians and infrastructure. Terrorists simply have become indiscriminate in terms of their targets.
3

Old terrorists tried to increase their support base through propaganda, all their attacks were aimed at ensuring that the general public took notice of their activities. Whenever the ANC carried out a terrorist attack they claimed responsibility for their actions. However it has been claimed by new terrorism theorists that terrorists today sometimes deny responsibility for their actions, they are concerned with publicity as they assume people know what they are fighting for. Terrorists still want many people watching, and one has to realise that the larger, more co-ordinated and dramatic the attack, the larger the audience is going to be (Spencer, 2006:18). Thus the continued increase in fatalities could be seen as a way of trying to gain publicity and not just as another characteristic of new terrorism. The proliferation of technology as well as the accessibility of information useful to terrorists on the internet is dangerous new trends which have contributed to the emergence of new terrorism (Spencer, 2006:18). In this age of technological advancement terrorism has had to adapt and cannot remain archaic as it would be rendered ineffective. Cyber warfare can enable actors to achieve their political and strategic goals without the need for armed conflict. Also cyber warfare is cheaper than arms warfare because the damage is different from that of previous forms of warfare such as launching missiles against enemy states (Farrell and Rohozinski, 2011:30). However this is probably because of the advancement in technology, if this technology had existed in the past terrorists would have used it to achieve their goals. Suicide terrorism where the bombers are prepared to die with their victims has been characterised as a characteristic of new terrorism. However as Spencer (2006:20), points out that suicide bombing has been used extensively by the Hindu Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka from 1983 onwards. Terrorists in the past had state backers; freedom fighters in Africa were largely backed by the Russians and the Chinese in their endeavours to attain freedom. Terrorists today however have been labelled as independent and not backed by any state actors. This however is not true as some states still finance some terrorist groups whilst staying in the background. Afghanistan has been accused of backing Al Qaeda which has also been linked with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Conclusion All in all it can be said that Spencers view that terrorism today is similar to terrorism of the past. Many of the attributes that have been given to new terrorism have actually existed in
4

old terrorism for centuries now. Just as Clausewitz stated the nature of war isnt what changes but it is its character. Terrorism in todays world has had to adapt to all the social, political, economic and technological changes that are happening in the world. New methods of terrorism have had to be adopted to suit the changing times, some of the strategies have just been modified and made better. Nothing is new under the face of the sun; all our habits have just evolved from a time before us. I am in total agreement with Spencer (2006:25) when he says that maybe the term new terrorism could be replaced by phrases such as terrorism of today or simply terrorisms without referring to old, new, traditional or modern. The creation of such distinctions creates boundaries where none existed and this would help in the acceptance that a variety of different forms of terrorism in the world at any time (Spencer, 2006:26).

Reference List Farwell, James P and Rafal Rohozinski Stuxnet and the Future of Cyber War. Survival: Global Politics and Strategy, vol.53, no. 1 (2011). Fleming, Colin M. New or Old War? Debating a Clausewitzian Future. Journal of Strategic Studies vol. 32, no. 2 (2009). Gray, Colin S. War, Peace and International Relations: An Introduction to Strategic History. New York: Routledge. Paul, T.V. Disarmament Revisited: Is Nuclear Abolition Possible? Journal of Strategic Studies, vol. 35, no. 1 (2012). Sheehan, Michael. The Changing Character of War. (2007). Spencer, Alexander. Questioning the Concept of New Terrorism Peace Conflict and Development, Issue 8, (2006).