Internationally effective strategies in combatting terrorism
Reader comment on item: Democrats Unlearn 9/11

Submitted by Daniel Arthur (Republic Of Korea), Jan 8, 2004 at 21:09

Combatting terrorism is a policy that's publicly supported not just by Republicans & Democrats, but by virtually by every nation state on earth. That support now includes countries that have in the past been knowingly, negligently or unwittingly, home or haven to terrorists themselves: Saudi Arabia, Syria, Pakistan, Indonesia etc. While it's tempting to view 'terrorism' as a primarily Islamist-extremist strategy against the US & the West, the violent, political targetting of civillians is much older & more widespread than the current US experience.

As such, when assessing the effectiveness of different approaches to combat terrorism there are many examples beyond the 2 recent US strategies that are, in purely tactical terms, worth considering. Chief among those should obviously be any international examples where the endemic terrorist targetting of civillians has substantially subsided &/or been effectively contained.
(Completely eradicating isolated acts of terror may never be possible: As the example of Timothy McVeigh illustrates, disturbed individuals will use violence to gain media attention for their cause as long as there are disturbed individuals, media attention & violent means, none of which are in short supply.)

Substantial reductions of chronic terrorist attacks have been achieved, for example, in Northern Ireland/England (IRA), Basque/Spain (ETA), Sri Lanka (Tamil Tigers)etc. Considering the deep seated, enduring nature of the violence in both the Basque region (1930's>) & Northern Ireland (centuries) the overwhelming decline of terrorism in both is a remarkable achievement. Both are also highly instructive. They provide a clear history of different approaches that failed, as well as more recent approaches which have succeeded. In both it was precisely a militarized 'war on terror' type approach which consistently, massively increased acts of terror & created international sympathy & financial support for the terrorists. The highly militarized approach was hugely expensive, increasingly deadly to civillians of both sides & by inflaming & expanding the crisis, utterly counter-productive. In both conflicts real gains were finally achieved by the withdrawl of armed forces, increased use of intelligence & 'police work' & covert negotiations. That's what consistently, historically, in Spain, UK, Sri Lanka & elsewhere has been most effective in 'combatting terrorism' successfully.

By contrast the Bush Administration seems to be emulating the Sharon/Israeli model of a highly militarized approach to terrorism. This has yielded the worst ever security crisis for the Israelis, a skyrocketing civillian death toll, a diplomatic disaster for the Israeli government & an economy that is haemmoraging. It's understandable for any nation whose citizens have been attacked by terrorists to initially seek the vengeance a 'War on Terror' can offer. However, in the longer term that strategy has consistently proved to be disastrously counter-productive. In any war it's worth considering whether military 'victories' that make the victors less safe, are even victories at all.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments. For informational purposes, we identify countries from which comments are sent.