Copyright 2005-2014 Michael A. Bozarth, Ph.D. An Introduction to Terrorism Part I: Terrorist...
-
Upload
holden-crumbley -
Category
Documents
-
view
221 -
download
3
Transcript of 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
Copyright 2005-2014 Michael A. Bozarth, Ph.D.
Copyright 2005-2014 Michael A. Bozarth, Ph.D.
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
Copyright 2005-2014 Michael A. Bozarth, Ph.D.
Copyright 2005-2014 Michael A. Bozarth, Ph.D.
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
Copyright 2005-2014 Michael A. Bozarth, Ph.D.
Three Primary Motivational Dimensions to Consider
financial gain TERROR inflict suffering
“positive” societal change
Criminal Terror
Pathological Terror
Terrorism
Psychological
Displacement Behavior
Conditioning factors
Copyright 2005-2014 Michael A. Bozarth, Ph.D.
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”)
Copyright 2005-2014 Michael A. Bozarth, Ph.D.
Copyright 2005-2014 Michael A. Bozarth, Ph.D.
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)
Copyright 2005-2014 Michael A. Bozarth, Ph.D.
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
Copyright 2005-2014 Michael A. Bozarth, Ph.D.
Copyright 2005-2014 Michael A. Bozarth, Ph.D.
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
Copyright 2005-2014 Michael A. Bozarth, Ph.D.
Terror & Psychopathology
Terrorism seldom involvespsychopathology
Criminal Terror often involvesborderline or frankpsychopathology
PathologicalTerror
exclusivelymotivated bypsychopathology
Relationship among Terrorism, Criminal Terror, & Psychopathology
Copyright 2005-2014 Michael A. Bozarth, Ph.D.
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?
Copyright 2005-2014 Michael A. Bozarth, Ph.D.
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?
Copyright 2005-2014 Michael A. Bozarth, Ph.D.
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)?
Copyright 2005-2014 Michael A. Bozarth, Ph.D.
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?
Copyright 2005-2014 Michael A. Bozarth, Ph.D.
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
Copyright 2005-2014 Michael A. Bozarth, Ph.D.
Copyright 2005-2014 Michael A. Bozarth, Ph.D.
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?
Copyright 2005-2014 Michael A. Bozarth, Ph.D.
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
Copyright 2005-2014 Michael A. Bozarth, Ph.D.
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
Copyright 2005-2014 Michael A. Bozarth, Ph.D.
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.
Copyright 2005-2014 Michael A. Bozarth, Ph.D.
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
Copyright 2005-2014 Michael A. Bozarth, Ph.D.
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)
Copyright 2005-2014 Michael A. Bozarth, Ph.D.
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)
Copyright 2005-2014 Michael A. Bozarth, Ph.D.
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
Copyright 2005-2014 Michael A. Bozarth, Ph.D.
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
Copyright 2005-2014 Michael A. Bozarth, Ph.D.
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.
Copyright 2005-2014 Michael A. Bozarth, Ph.D.
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
Copyright 2005-2014 Michael A. Bozarth, Ph.D.
When does attacking hard targets have a higher impact than attacking soft targets?• conventional military campaigns• totalitarian regimes
Copyright 2005-2014 Michael A. Bozarth, Ph.D.
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
Copyright 2005-2014 Michael A. Bozarth, Ph.D.
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
Copyright 2005-2014 Michael A. Bozarth, Ph.D.
Copyright 2005-2014 Michael A. Bozarth, Ph.D.
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
Copyright 2005-2014 Michael A. Bozarth, Ph.D.
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?
Copyright 2005-2014 Michael A. Bozarth, Ph.D.
An Introduction to Terrorism
Part II: Considerations for developing effective counter-
terrorist strategies
Copyright 2005-2014 Michael A. Bozarth, Ph.D.
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
Copyright 2005-2014 Michael A. Bozarth, Ph.D.
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
Copyright 2005-2014 Michael A. Bozarth, Ph.D.
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
Copyright 2005-2014 Michael A. Bozarth, Ph.D.
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’
Copyright 2005-2014 Michael A. Bozarth, Ph.D.
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”
Copyright 2005-2014 Michael A. Bozarth, Ph.D.
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
Copyright 2005-2014 Michael A. Bozarth, Ph.D.
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
Copyright 2005-2014 Michael A. Bozarth, Ph.D.
Colonial Africa c. 1913
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scramble_for_Africa
Copyright 2005-2014 Michael A. Bozarth, Ph.D.
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”)
Copyright 2005-2014 Michael A. Bozarth, Ph.D.
Responding to Terrorist Demands (prioritized list)
Diplomacy when possible, but• unlikely to work in most situations• reinforces terrorist tactics
Undermine terrorist support
Copyright 2005-2014 Michael A. Bozarth, Ph.D.
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’
Copyright 2005-2014 Michael A. Bozarth, Ph.D.
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
Copyright 2005-2014 Michael A. Bozarth, Ph.D.
Isolate the Terrorists
Neutralize support base• foreign governments• popular/civilian sympathizers• other terrorist organizations
Copyright 2005-2014 Michael A. Bozarth, Ph.D.
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.’)
Copyright 2005-2014 Michael A. Bozarth, Ph.D.
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
Copyright 2005-2014 Michael A. Bozarth, Ph.D.
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• destroy or neutralize “breeding
grounds”
Copyright 2005-2014 Michael A. Bozarth, Ph.D.
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
Copyright 2005-2014 Michael A. Bozarth, Ph.D.
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)
Copyright 2005-2014 Michael A. Bozarth, Ph.D.
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
Copyright 2005-2014 Michael A. Bozarth, Ph.D.
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
Copyright 2005-2014 Michael A. Bozarth, Ph.D.
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
Copyright 2005-2014 Michael A. Bozarth, Ph.D.
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]).
Copyright 2005-2014 Michael A. Bozarth, Ph.D.