ICAR News Network

Six years after September 11th, where do we stand in understanding and combating terrorism? While gains have been made, and infrastructure hardened, we are still hampered by a widespread, fundamental misunderstanding of terrorist groups. I believe terrorist organizations are rational actors, by that I mean that organizations have tactical and strategic goals, developed within their own religious, historical and cultural contexts and pursued through actions and propaganda. As we struggle to identify risks to the West, it is imperative that we understand these goals and the frames they come from. Rationality does not mean infallibility. Certainly the outcome of an attack may not have been what planners intended. But it does mean that understanding the goals will lead to better prediction of the actions that may be taken. This only works if we can understand the patterns of decision-making and critical contexts that terrorists work within, not expect that their patterns will mirror ours.

I was recently involved in a conversation about the risk of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) attacks by terrorist groups. The formula presented was Risk= Intent X Infrastructure X Knowledge. The understanding of necessary infrastructure and nuances of knowledge was quite complete, but the definition of intent boiled down to this: if the group is anti-Western, then the group has intent to use WMD. I was amazed that no calculation of goals and outcomes was included in intent, nor did they consider how using WMD fit or did not fit with the moral standards of the civilian population the terrorist group stems from. If recent changes in Iraq and the increasing alliance of the Sunni tribal leaders with Coalition forces teaches us anything, it is that there is a limit to the amount of violence a civilian population will sanction from a terrorist group, and crossing that line will lose the support of the population. Terrorist groups recognize the risks of action outside the moral boundaries of their host. But do we, and those making counterterrorism policy, know that? Or are we so beholden to the worst case scenario that considerations of potential terrorist attacks must be boiled down to Intent = Anti-Western sentiment. Until we can move past these destructive oversimplifications, we will continue to spend resources and time, fighting shadow terrorists on empty battlefields.