Understanding Terrorism after the Paris Attacks: Islamic State and Beyond

Dr. Lee JarvisPolitics, Philosophy, Language and Communication Studies

University of East AngliaNovember 2015

What happened in Paris?• 13 November 2015

• Bombings and shootings, three groups of attackers• Stade de France – first explosion• Bataclan Concert Hall – deadliest attack• Shootings at bars and restaurants

• 130 people killed, hundreds more injured• Many were young, French people• > 20 foreigners, including from the UK, Algeria, Germany.• Nine attackers now dead

• One - Salah Abdeslam - remains on the run

• ‘Islamic State’ claim responsibility:• ‘Let France – and those who walk in its path – know that they will remain

on the top of the list of targets of the Islamic State…This attack is the first of the storm and a warning to those who wish to learn’

What is the Islamic State?• Emerged out of al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI)

• Founded by Abu Masab al-Zarqawi after the 2003 US-led invasion• Notorious for its brutality

• Split from Al Qaeda in 2013• Now a separate entity run by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi

• Focus: capturing land in Syria and Iraq• Re-establishing a ‘caliphate’• Foreign fighters and hostage beheading videos• Funding via wealthy supporters, criminality, and oil sales• Little overseas focus until recently

• ‘Islamic State’ name is controversial:• Some prefer ‘ISIS’, ‘ISIL’ or ‘Daesh’

Three Questions• Were the attacks in Paris an act of terrorism?

• If so, what makes them ‘terrorist’?

• Why did the attacks take place?• What were their causes and contexts?

• What should be done in response to the attacks?• How effective are the current responses likely to be?

Question 1

Were the attacks in Paris ‘terrorist’?

What is Terrorism?

• Schmid (2011):• >250 academic, governmental and inter-governmental definitions.

• Some common features, but no consensus:• Violence• Communication• Political motivation• Non-state perpetrator

• Controversial

• Different types of definition:• Government definitions are often vague• Academic definitions are often complex and long

Selected definitions of terrorism (from Shanahan 2010)

• Terrorism simply means deliberately and violently targeting civilians for political purposes (Richardson 2006)

• The deliberate creation and exploitation of fear through violence or the threat of violence in the pursuit of political change (Hoffman 2006)

• Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets … by sub-national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience (US Department of State, Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism 2003)

Schmid and Jongman (2011)

• Drawing on 109 different definitions:• Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action,

employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby – in contrast to assassination – the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human targets are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorists (organisation), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audiences(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion or propaganda is primarily sought.

Why define terrorism?• Three common reasons:

• Academic rigour• Policy responses• Political critique

• Why is defining terrorism so difficult?• A pejorative label:

• “Terrorism is something the bad guys do” (Richardson 2006)• Overuse and ‘stretching’:

• Cyberterrorism, narcoterrorism, agroterrorism, bioterrorism• The meaning of terrorism changes over time:

• Origins in the French Revolution• Diversity of terrorisms:

• “there is not one terrorism but a variety of terrorisms and what is true for one does not necessarily apply to others” (Laqueur 2003).

Were the Paris attacks ‘terrorist’?

• Violent?• Certainly

• Communication?• Perhaps to inspire fear in audiences?• To change French – or Western – foreign policy?• To encourage potential recruits?

• Political?• Inspired by or directed at foreign policy?• Linked to ‘state building’ in the Middle East?

Question 2

What caused the Paris attacks?

Waves of Terrorism• David Rapoport (2003):

• 1880s: Anarchist terrorism• 1920s: Anticolonial terrorism• Late 1960s: New left terrorism• 1979: Religious terrorism.

• Thoughts:• Criticised for simplicity• But, demonstrates:

• Terrorism’s long history• Terrorism’s use for a variety of

motives• Social contexts matter

• Ideas and technologies

Causes are complicated

But:• There is no such thing as a ‘terrorist

profile’• Most ‘terrorists’ are relatively

‘ordinary’:• “most terrorists appear to be normal

in a clinical sense” (Schmid 2014)

What caused the Paris attacks?

• Macro-level: • Sustained violence in Syria and Iraq, and the rise of ISIS

• Popular uprisings and power vacuums• Rivalry between communities, and between militant groups• ISIS weakened in recent years• Response to French foreign policy• Particular interpretations of Islam

• Micro-level:• Individual alienation

• But, beware notions of ‘radicalisation’• Difficult to look inside the mind of a ‘terrorist’

• Intervening - meso-level - factors:• Failures of intelligence and border security• Group dynamics

Question 3

What should be done?

Types of counter-terrorism

Description Understanding of terrorism

Examples

Use of force Military force to disrupt or prevent terrorism

A form of warfare

• Wars on terror• Assassinations

Intelligence and policing

Counter-terrorism via security services

A crime • Intelligence gathering• Community policing

Homeland security

Improving resilience and protection from terrorism

A manageable security threat

• Counter-terrorism laws• Infrastructure

protection

Conciliation and dialogue

Non-violent efforts to address root causes

Outcome of grievances and conditions

• Negotiations• Public diplomacy• Development initiatives

What is being done?• Condemnation and coalition building

• UN Security Council Resolution• Member states to take ‘all necessary measures’

• European Union mutual defence clause• ‘Obligation of aid and assistance’• Invoked by France for the first time

• Air strikes on targets in Syria and Iraq• France, Russia, US and UK (In Iraq)

• Police raids across France and Belgium• Hundreds of searches, deployment of thousands of police and soldiers

• ‘State of emergency’ in France; ‘Lockdown in Brussels’• Border control restrictions across Europe• New security measures at transport hubs

Will it work?• Limitations of military power

• Fixed targets are rare• Risk of civilian casualties• Increased resentment• Makes diplomacy more difficult

• Exceptional security measures• Effectiveness is difficult to evaluate• Risk creating a climate of fear• May exaggerate the terrorist threat • Often outlast their initial

justification

Conclusion• Terrorism is a rare phenomenon, especially in the global North

• 40,000 people die each day from hunger alone• 32,658 people killed by terrorism last year

• 80% in 5 countries: Iraq, Nigeria, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria • ‘Outside of 2001, fewer people have died in America from

international terrorism than have drowned in toilets’ (Mueller 2005)

• Responses to terrorism often cause more harm than terrorism itself• Efforts to kill 41 men in drone strikes up to November 2014 led to

the deaths of 1,147 people• Hardening of attitudes toward the refugee crisis• Islamophobia in France, the UK and beyond• Counter-terrorism policy is often excessive and rushed

Thanks for listening!

Dr. Lee JarvisPolitics, Philosophy, Language and Communication Studies

University of East AngliaWeb: leejarvis.com

Email: l.jarvis@uea.ac.ukTwitter: @LeeJarvisPols