Copyright 2005-2014 Michael A. Bozarth, Ph.D. An Introduction to Terrorism Part I: Terrorist...

Copyright 2005-2014 Michael A. Bozarth, Ph.D.

An Introduction to Terrorism

Part I: Terrorist objectives, methods, and their

psychological impact

Michael A. Bozarth, Ph.D.Department of Psychology

University at Buffalo

www.PsychologyofTerrorism.com

Defining “Terrorism”

There is not a one-size-fits-all definition that adequately describes all cases that might be considered terrorism

There are, however, some common features for most cases that can be readily identified by considering the “terrorist’s” motivation and its relationship to pathological behavior



Terrorist’s Objective

To affect political, social, economic, or religious change through the use of fear and intimidation• unable to accomplish objectives

through democratic or other legitimate process

• unable to directly confront their opposition militarily

An Alternative View of the Terrorist

In contradistinction to the often held stereotypic view of terrorists as evil people desiring to inflict pain and suffering on others• the terrorist might be considered by some to be a victim of

circumstances• this “reactionary model” of terrorism suggests that the

terrorist turns to terrorist activity because it is the only means available to achieve their objective involving a justifiable and positive societal change from their perspective

Terrorists in some cases may seem to have surprisingly “altruistic” motives



Difference Between Terror & Terrorism

Terror involves inflicting fear and anxiety on the victim(s)

Terror can be goal oriented or gratuitous• produce “positive” political, social,

economic, or religious change• extortion for financial gain• pathological desire to inflict suffering


Three Primary Motivational Dimensions to Consider

financial gain TERROR inflict suffering

“positive” societal change

Criminal Terror

Pathological Terror

Terrorism

Psychological

Displacement Behavior

Conditioning factors


Terrorism & Criminal Terror

Terrorism is directed towards “positive” change for a larger group• seldom ‘self-serving’ often ‘sacrificing’

Criminal terror benefits the individual• extortion for financial or social gain• often involves frank or borderline

psychopathology

Self-Perception of Individuals using Terror

Terrorist usually view themselves as the “good guys” and their opponents as the “bad guys”

Individuals employing criminal terror often (not but always) realize they are the “bad guys”

Individuals displaying pathological terror probably don’t care (i.e., distinguish “good” from “evil”)



Terrorism & Pathological Terror

Terrorists seek change through the use of fear and intimidation• but this seldom involves mentally

disturbed individuals Some people use terror

gratuitously• this usually involves mentally

disturbed individuals

Pathological Terror as a Terrorist Tool

Some degree of pathological terror can be useful to terrorist organizations, but

Those motivated primarily by pathological terror are mentally unstable and not constrained by the terrorists’ agenda

Therefore they are usually a threat to the organization and excluded or only marginally involved (e.g., suicide bomber)


Other Potentially Important Variables

Aggressive behavior can also be produced or amplified by other psychological processes• Frustration-aggression behavior• Classic displacement behavior• Conditioning hate and fear

Motivational variables give directionality to behavior



Types of Terror

Terrorism goal-oriented non ‘self-serving’ motive (group benefit)

Criminal Terror

goal-oriented ‘self-serving’ (personal benefit)

Pathological Terror

not goal-oriented

biological malfunction? (nobody benefits)

Type Motivational Attributes


Terror & Psychopathology

Terrorism seldom involvespsychopathology

Criminal Terror often involvesborderline or frankpsychopathology

PathologicalTerror

exclusivelymotivated bypsychopathology

Relationship among Terrorism, Criminal Terror, & Psychopathology


Terrorism

Psychopathology

CriminalTerror

Usual Criteria for Formal Definitions of “Terrorism”

Several other terms are commonly found in government definitions of terrorism

• Unlawful act• Violence or threat of violence• Acts against Noncombatants

But are these qualifiers useful or too restrictive?


Terrorism as an “unlawful act”• Of course it’s unlawful from the

perspective of the government ‘victims’ who make the laws

• Silly legal jargon to insure criminal prosecution of terrorists?


Terrorism as a “violent act”• Does it really have to threaten

physical violence?• What about forms of cyber-terrorism

not involving physical harm (e.g., financial ruin)?

• What about rape (cf. psychological vs. physical harm)?


Terrorism as an act against “noncombatants”• Perhaps it is important to exclude

military personnel from definitions of terrorist attacks, but what about law enforcement officers?

• What about military personnel not performing combat duties?


Academic definitions should be transcultural and should contain criteria even the terrorist would agree with

“Yes, I’m a terrorist, but my cause is just.”

This type of definition defines the ‘territory’ in an impartial fashion



Terrorist’s ‘Weapons’

Kidnapping & hostage taking Assassination Improvised Explosive Device (IED) CBRN (cf. NBC)

• chemical (e.g., sarin gas)• biological (e.g., anthrax)• radiological dispersal (e.g., dirty bomb)• nuclear (i.e., mass destruction)

New millennium—new methods• cyber-terrorism• other ‘non-violent’ threats?


Terrorist’s Method to Accomplish Goals

To instill “terror” in target audience to force capitulation• often by using the most terrifying

means available (see note below) , including• kidnapping, assassination, IEDs, CBRNs

• by affecting many more people than directly affected by physical actions• media and government-response play a

critical role in the impact of terrorism


Terrorists’ Targets: Hard and Soft

Hard targets• high-ranking government officials• military bases• fortified police stations (e.g., Northern Ireland)

Soft targets• individual civilians• shopping areas• schools• cultural, sporting, & religious venues


Widening the “Target” to ‘Hit the Mark’

Level 1: Government Leaders

Level 2: Police & Military

Level 3: Government Workers

Level 4: Civilian Supporters

Level 5: All Civilians

Terrorists increase their range of targets to achieve their goal. Most terrorist organizations include civilian targets, often preferred over hard targets.


Target Impact-Value

Most people probably believe that hard targets have a higher impact value than soft targets

This is generally true for conventional military campaigns, but this is not true for terrorist campaigns against democracies


Freedom’s Paradox: You can surrender it to terror!

Terrorist tactics probably work best against democracies, where targeting civilian populations has the greatest impact (i.e., civilians elect the government which sets the policy the terrorists wish to change)


Terror Value of Soft Targets

In addition to being easier to attack, soft targets actually have a higher terror value for the average citizen than do most hard targets (e.g., killing people “like me” makes the threat more personal and increases the individual terror value)


Tokyo Subway Attack(Sarin gas attack by Aum Shinri-kyo cult, 20 March 1995)

12Killed

5,700 physically injured

9,000+ psychologically ‘injured’

10,000’s terrorized

Photo from www.ait.org.tw

Photo from www.tofugu.com


Beltway Snipers(Washington DC region, 02 - 24 October 2002)

10Killed

3 physically injured

100’s psychologically ‘injured’

100,000’s terrorized

Photo from Gwww.azette.netPhoto from www.FBI.gov

Sequence of Beltway Sniper Attacks


The Beltway snipers were particularly effective in spreading terror and disrupting normal life because they killed at random and covered a wide area.

Originally though to be Muslim extremists, in the final analysis it was simply criminal terror masquerading as al-Qaeda type terrorists.


911 Attack on America(World Trade Center & Pentagon, 11 September 2001)

3,025Killed

1,000’s physically injured

10,000+ psychologically ‘injured’

A nation terrorized


When does attacking hard targets have a higher impact than attacking soft targets?• conventional military campaigns• totalitarian regimes


A Tyrant’s Hard Targets Are Most Vulnerable

“Soft targets” have little influence on totalitarian government leadership

“Hard targets” can erode totalitarian control (through attrition) or even instigate a coup de tat


Psychological Impact of Terrorism

Strong motivation to terminate terror Evokes classic ego defense mechanisms

and displacement Often produces

• frustration-aggression reaction• general increase in mental illness• Acute Stress Disorder (ASD)• Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)

Response to terror can aid the terrorist organization

• Magnitude of reaction seen as an indicator of the perceived threat

• over-reacting can make the threat seem more serious than it actually is

• over-reacting can strengthen the terrorists’ support base by alienating neutral parties and by encouraging supporters & independent attacks

• Displacement aggression • seems to confirm the terrorists’ charge of an

oppressor who is “not-like-us” and “not human”• causes victims of displaced aggression to identify with

the terrorists seemingly fighting for them



Responses to Similar Events Vary Dramatically

Response to terrorism is determined by social cognition and other dynamics• Madrid train bombing (11 March 2004)

• elect new government• withdraw troops from Iraq

• 9/11 attack on America• solidify government support• Bush doctrine: hunt & kill/preemptive war


End of Part I(Regular academic instruction

ends here in this module.)

Focus Question Set #2

What are the methods of terrorists? (e.g., targeting civilian populations)

Why do terrorists use the tactics of terrorism?


An Introduction to Terrorism

Part II: Considerations for developing effective counter-

terrorist strategies


Understanding the Terrorist

“One person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter”• organized terrorism is seldom rooted in

mental illness• there is often some legitimate goal for the

terrorist organization• there is usually a broad support base

• but very few terrorists are open to compromise


Understanding the Terrorist, continued

Most terrorist organizations have traditionally sought national or regional change

Some terrorists seek global change• most have specific, tangible

objectives (even if irrational)• a few have apocalyptic motives


Terrorists Are Seldom Open to Compromise

Their demands usually involve radical change in the status quo• uniting Northern Ireland with the Republic

of Ireland in the south• formation of the state of Palestine• overthrow of the secular Egyptian

government (in progress as of 2013?)• establishment of an Islamic state in Iraq &

removal of Western influence


The Terrorists’ Resolve

The more one ‘invests’ in a cause, the stronger that cause is psychologically defended

The transition from activist to terrorist (and the willingness to use violent methods) involves psychological changes that tend to dichotomize the ‘world’


The Terrorists’ View

Terrorist tend to view things as• right and wrong (black & white

without shades of gray)• them and “us”

Terrorists tend to view their opponents as • evil, inhumane (dehumanized)• not like “us”


Responding to Terrorist Demands (prioritized list)

Diplomacy when possible, but• unlikely to work in most situations• reinforces terrorist tactics

Undermine terrorist support Direct physical confrontation

• hunt and kill• neutralize “breeding grounds”

Temper media coverage


Diplomacy and Negotiated Settlement

There are many cases in the 20th Century where terrorist tactics were effectively used to force change or to right an injustice• Republic of Ireland (although the Northern

counties remain in dispute)• State of Israel (although national

boundaries remain in dispute)• De-colonization & sovereignty of African

nations

1921

1948

1950s &

1960s


Colonial Africa c. 1913

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scramble_for_Africa


Diplomacy & Terrorism in the 21st Century

Conditions have changed radically • national sovereignty is no longer the

primary force behind many terrorist organizations

• some terrorist organizations seek global changes extending well beyond their social, political, economic, or religious spheres of influence (e.g., a “New World Order”)




Undermine terrorist support


Undermining Terrorist Support

Minimize social-political conditions that spawn terrorism

Isolate the terrorists Divide political factions Rally allies against terrorism Harsh and severe retaliatory action Temper media aiding ‘recruitment’


Minimize Social-Political Conditions for Terrorism

Diminish social-economic conditions that present legitimate grievances• food and economic aid• combat social, religious, economic, and

political suppression Provide alternative, rational plan for

resolving the conflict


Isolate the Terrorists

Neutralize support base• foreign governments• popular/civilian sympathizers• other terrorist organizations


Divide Political Factions in the Terrorist Movement

Exploit differences and conflicts among individual factions of the terrorist movement

Consider supporting factions willing to adopt a non-terrorist approach to achieving objectives(Historically this has usually ‘backfired,’ but it still seems to be a

rational approach. At a minimum, it diminishes the number of terrorist groups that must be ultimately ‘dealt with’ and better focuses the ‘target.’)


Rally Allies Against Terrorism

Show the terrorists to be irrational fanatics who threaten global peace and stability

Develop allies who have a common interest in neutralizing the terrorist threat

Develop a clear multinational plan for combating terrorism





• hunt and kill• destroy or neutralize “breeding

grounds”


Harsh and Severe Retaliatory Action

When you know your target, “take it out” — “hunt & kill”• collateral damage is less important

when imbedded in tacit supporters• act with an understanding of the

psychological principles of punishment and contingency management


Neutralize Terrorist “Breeding Grounds”

Minimize social-political conditions that spawn terrorism (first priority from list of responses)

Covert operations when feasible Direct military action when

appropriate (e.g., Bush doctrine)





• hunt and kill• neutralize “breeding grounds”

Temper media coverage


Temper Media Coverage

The media are (mostly unwilling) allies of the terrorists

The media need to self-censor coverage and not just push the most sensationalistic story• confirm story & factual information• present clear & balanced perspective• consider impact of coverage


Terrorism in theNew Millennium

Terrorism is a global problem that is not going away without direct action• terrorism affects many people far removed from

the terrorist activity• terrorists seldom compromise

An effective response to terrorism requires decisive and often harsh action, uncharacteristic of the traditional American Psyche


Focus Question Set #3

What terrorist groups were active in previous generations? Did they achieve their goals?

What are some of the major terrorist groups active today? Which are the most serious concern for the United States? Most serious threat worldwide?

Copyright & Fair Use

All material used in this presentation is copyright 2014 Michael A. Bozarth, Ph.D. unless otherwise referenced in the text. It may be used in part or in its entirety for noncommercial purposes as long as proper citation to the original source is provided. For online presentations, reference to the original webpage URL or to the main website www.PsychologyofTerrorism.com is appreciated.For printed presentations, reference to: M.A. Bozarth (2014), An Introduction to Terrorism, lecture presentation.

Written permission for reproduction of material contained herein for commercial purposes should be first obtained from the author (e-mail: [email protected]).


Date post:	14-Dec-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	holden-crumbley
View:	220 times
Download:	3 times

Copyright 2005-2014 Michael A. Bozarth, Ph.D. An Introduction to Terrorism Part I: Terrorist...

Documents