Intro to Homeland Security

CHAPTER 3

Modern Terrorism and Natural Disasters

Chapter Objectives

To understand the definitional issues surrounding the study of terrorism and why they are relevant

To understand the components of terrorism and what differentiates it from regular crime

To understand the relationship between terrorism and natural disasters as they relate to homeland security

Chapter Outline

• Introduction

• Brief History of Terrorism

• Early Political Terrorism

• Modern International Terrorism

• Political and Social Foundations

• Terrorism: The Term

• What Is Terrorism?

• Political and Social Theories of Terrorism

• Individual and Group-Level Theories

• Terrorism as Strategic Choice

• Modern Global Terrorism, U.S. Terrorist Attacks, 9-11 Attacks

• U.S. Terrorist Attacks

• 9-11

• Understanding Terrorism—Organization and Threat

• International Terrorism

• Domestic Terrorism

• Natural Disasters

• Hazards

• Risks

• Types

• Chapter Summary

Introduction

The bombs detonated almost simultaneously at 10:36 AM. The first, in Nairobi, Kenya, was hidden in a truck driven towards the United States embassy, probably with the intent to park it in the underground garage beneath the embassy.1 The second, in Dar es Saalam, Tanzania, was hidden in a similar manner to the first.2 The first bomb, the driver of which managed to get it closer to the building, ripped through the building, killing 212 people and wounding around 4,000. The second bomb, which was stopped at the security perimeter, killed 10 people and injured 77. Of the total number of people killed, only 11 were Americans, despite the extensive damage to both embassies and the destruction of a nearby facility in Nairobi.3 The bombs were large enough to register as small earthquakes, and the bomb in Nairobi shattered windows as far as 1 km away from the actual blast.4

The American response to the attacks was swift, with the U.S. engaging in Operation Infinite Reach, sending cruise missiles into Sudan and Afghanistan to attack those responsible for the bombings.5 The FBI quickly identified several of the perpetrators and one of them made the Ten Most Wanted list.6 Terrorist organizations such as Egyptian Islamic Jihad and Al Qaeda were linked to the attack, and discussions among the terrorists took place in countries as far away as Azerbaijan.7

While this sounds like an attack that happened recently, this attack was on August 7, 1998, approximately 15 years ago. For the first time, it introduced the figures of Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri to the American people, who would have such a profound impact on the American psyche 3 years later on September 11, 2001.8 Already, the “new” nature of terrorism was seen—a loosely networked affiliation of individuals, hard to track, with a presence in countries around the world. The increasing emphasis on the number of casualties too can be seen in hindsight.9

KEY TERM

Terrorism—the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

Why, then, was the U.S. unprepared for the attack 3 years later, which would thrust terrorism onto the American public as the most important problem facing our country? Why, despite our response to the attacks in Africa, were the terrorists undeterred from attacking the U.S. homeland?

The answers to these questions are unclear, and much of any plausible answer depends on the position of the person trying to answer it. This chapter is one attempt to understand the reasons. It approaches the topic of terrorism holistically, by examining what terrorism is and how we can distinguish it from regular crime, looking at terrorism in a historical context and identifying potential reasons that individuals engage in terrorist behavior. Additionally, it examines the reason that terrorism can be effective, particularly the psychological impact it can have, and, in that light, also examines the role of natural disasters on the American public.

© Justin Guariglia/age fotostock.

It is no surprise that there was a general perception that government needed to be changed after the events of September 11, 2001. The aftermath of the 9-11 attacks was the worst man-made disaster on U.S. soil since the bombing of Pearl Harbor, over 50 years earlier. The subsequent development of the Department of Homeland Security represented the largest change in government structure since the development of the Department of Defense.10 However, just 4 years after the worst terrorist attack in United States history, Hurricane Katrina demonstrated that even a major overhaul in the nation’s security apparatus was insufficient to deal with all hazards. In addition to the human cost, these two events combined caused over $3.4 trillion dollars in economic damage,11displaced 400,000 people,12 and had profound effects on the national psyche.13 Even so, the U.S. remains predominately focused on the security threat that terrorism represents and expends a great deal of money to avoid another 9-11-like event. This chapter covers the hazards of terrorism and natural disasters with a particular focus on the development and causes of terrorism.

Brief History of Terrorism

Terrorism is by no means a new phenomenon. Scholars have identified attacks that can be classified as terrorism from as far back as 32 A.D.14 While today we tend to think of terrorism in religious terms, largely as a result of the amount of emphasis placed on the terrorist organization Al Qaeda after the 9-11 attacks, this has not always been the case.15 Terrorists have a variety of motivations, ranging from religious beliefs to socio-political objectives to single issues such as animal rights or abortion. Partly because of this wide range of motivations, terrorism has been very hard to define and there remains no agreed-upon definition that spans even the agencies within the U.S. government.16

Acts that could be called terrorism have been going on since at least the first century. Religious groups such as the Zealots used close-range attacks to deliver bloody political messages to the Romans and Jewish sympathizers, and by the 17th century, groups were regularly utilizing bombings to deliver their messages. The development of terrorism can be broken up, broadly, into five periods, each distinguished by the predominant motivating factor for terrorism present during the respective eras. Each of these periods has important distinctions that have added elements to what we call terrorism today. Importantly, when examining the different eras of terrorism, the time periods are not mutually exclusive; they frequently overlap. In fact, as seen in the following example, sometimes individual groups can span several different eras of terrorism.

While modern religious terrorism brings to mind planes flying into buildings, religious terrorism is not new.17 In fact, in terms of what we would consider terrorism today, religious terrorism is the oldest type, ranging back to at least the first century A.D.18 Ancient religious sects such as the Zealots, a 3rd century Jewish group, used public acts of violence, including some of the first recorded acts of chemical warfare, to send a message to their enemies. Other groups also used this type of violence to intimidate rivals, as in the case of the Assassins (a Shi’a Muslim sect) and even used religiously motivated killings as the basis for entire subcultures, such as the Thugee, a Hindu religious group dedicated to the Goddess Kali.19

As with modern religious terrorism, the primary distinction of ancient religious terrorism is the motivating factor behind the attacks. These groups provide, in many ways, excellent models of comparison for modern religious terrorist organizations, discussed elsewhere.

BOX 3.1 “Regime de la Terreur”

© HultonArchive/iStockphoto.

Perhaps most important in terms of the development of what we consider modern terrorism is the period during the French Revolution known as the “Reign of Terror.” This period of history was marked by citizen tribunals dedicated to the eradication of what was left of the aristocracy in France after the revolution.20 These tribunals would receive secret testimony about individuals in the population who were supposedly a part of the aristocracy or supporting it. The goal, which was considered positive at first, was to create a spectacle out of the execution of those individuals found guilty in order to influence others to not support the monarchy or become counter-revolutionary.21 This was also known as la terreur, and those who carried it out were terrorists. It is estimated that 40,000 people were killed during the Reign of Terror.22 Eventually, the leader of the revolution, Robespierre, was accused and executed in the same way that he oversaw so many others, by guillotine.23 As mentioned earlier, though it was originally considered a positive term, “terrorist” eventually came to mean an excess of violence and abuse of power. Over time, it developed into the term “terrorism” that we have today.24

The Reign of Terror is important insofar as it added the word “terrorism” to modern language usage. Additionally, it reinforced the political nature of terrorism, something now recognized as essential to our understanding of the concept.25 Further, because of the excesses of the revolution, the word terrorism gained a negative connotation, an aspect that remains with the word today. This negative view is partially what makes terrorism so difficult to define, as no groups wish to be labeled as a terrorist group and actively seek to change how their image is defined.26

In addition, like groups in other eras of terrorism, the Regime de la Terreur was successful, if only for a time. Robespierre and his compatriots were in charge of France, and despite their later ousting, it proved that terrorism could be an effective means of control. This lesson was well learned by later dictators such as Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin, who while not considered terrorists in the sense we mean it today, certainly used terror to control their populations’ behavior.27

The era of “state terrorism” is fundamentally different from the previous era and the eras that came after it, because those who committed the terrorist acts during this era were nation-states (a country, or state, that has a unified culture and belief system). Beginning during the Reign of Terror (see Box 3.1) during the French Revolution and continuing off-and-on throughout World War II, the era of state terrorism was characterized by high levels of violence carried out by states to control their own populations. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, and other dictators of that era are prime examples of those who engaged in this type of terrorism.28 While modern terrorism is usually thought to be carried out by subnational actors, state terrorism is carried out by the political entities in control of the country. This, through separating state terrorism from what we generally would consider terrorism today, is important as it demonstrates the ineluctable political nature of terrorism.29

Early Political Terrorism

Early political terrorism was accompanied by the increasing use of propaganda in conjunction with the rise of the anarchist political view.30 The groups that utilized violence to achieve their goals also frequently used the printed word to more specifically communicate goals and effect change. However, much of the violence was unorganized, given the nature of the anarchist world view. This is not to say violence during this period was without effect. Incidents like the 1886 Haymarket bombing in Chicago by anarchists and perhaps most importantly, the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand (one of the precipitating factors of World War I) by Serbian nationalists, did have lasting societal impact.31 Subsequent to the anarchist and nationalist attacks was increasing violence supported by the Soviet Union. Specifically, left-wing political organizations like the Red Army Faction and the Baader-Meinhoff Group who, during the 1960s, utilized violence for political ends, were often given money and arms by the Soviets.32Additionally, it is during this period that we first begin to see cooperation between organizations, notably the Baader-Meinhoff Group and the Palestinian Liberation Organization, a precursor to modern religious terrorist organizations. Trading arms for training, the groups established an important bridge, despite the fact that their goals were quite different.33 This “networked” nature of terrorism has become a hallmark in the modern age of terrorist attacks.34

Two major events preceded the re-emergence of religious terrorism in the late 20th century: the Iranian Revolution of 1979 and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Combined, these two factors led to both a weakening of the structural system in these countries, keeping religious groups from gaining prominence, and it gave individuals an alternative system to motivate their actions.35 More specifically, before the Cold War ended, religious groups found themselves under-supported, with most effort going towards political organizations at the direction of either Soviet or Western powers. With the loss of financial and political support beginning in the mid 1980s, and the total collapse of support in the 1990s, religious groups were free to take up the mantle of political change that had been dominated by the political groups.36 Additionally, individuals who were relying on the promise of communism to provide them with better living circumstances had wearied of promises unkept, so with the rise of the alternative Iranian model, individuals were poised to support groups who adopted a similar strategy. Further, Iran had an explicit goal to export the revolution to other countries, specifically in the Middle East, but also worldwide.

KEY TERM

Strategy—a plan of action or policy designed to achieve a major overall goal.

Like ancient religious terrorism, many of the groups engaging in terrorism today have multiple goals, but retain their religious motivation.37 Unfortunately, with the increase in technology, their ability to kill those whom they feel are their enemies has grown, and so has their willingness to do so. Scholars like Bruce Hoffman38 have argued that because terrorists have no earthly constituency—in other words, no one to please here on earth, because their primary allegiance is to God alone—there is very little to stop them from utilizing even weapons of mass destruction against their enemies. Combined with the idea that anyone opposing their viewpoint is an enemy of God, it provides modern religious terrorist organizations with powerful incentives to commit devastating acts of terrorism.39

Modern International Terrorism

Modern international terrorism is less defined by its motivation or tactics, as in previous eras of terrorism, as it is by the nature of modernity. The first attack generally considered modern international terrorism took place in 1968, an important year technologically speaking, as the first news satellite was launched. This first modern terrorist act, a hijacking by a PLO-related group, was modern because it made use of both wide media coverage, as well as a potent symbol of Israel, as the plane hijacked belonged to El-Al, Israel’s national airline. Perhaps more importantly, it was the first hijacking where the specific purpose was to force negotiation with the terrorists, who had previously been ignored by Israel.40 This combination of elements has come, in large part, to define what terrorism means in the modern era (see Box 3.2). Attacks are designed to be widely broadcast, affecting a large audience, and frequently are designed to be deadly. Modern terrorism has redefined the relationship between the media and terrorism as well. Coverage of major terrorist events comes in real-time, with the goals of the groups taking responsibility communicated along with the carnage they create. Perhaps the best example of this type of terrorism is September 11, 2001, discussed more elsewhere.

KEY TERM

International terrorism—the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims committed by those from outside of one’s own state/country.

KEY TERM

Domestic terrorism—the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims committed by those from within one’s own state/country.

BOX 3.2 Typologies of Terrorism

Typologies of terrorism, or ways to categorize attacks, are important to the study of terrorism as a phenomenon and specifically to homeland security. Because terrorism is an incredibly wide-ranging phenomenon, with motivations by terrorists being as diverse as saving animals to bringing about Armageddon, it is important to understand the “rationale” for a terrorist attack in order to be able to stop it and attacks like it in the future. It is important to understand that while groups usually fall primarily into one type of terrorism or another, groups can frequently be classified as more than one type (e.g., right-wing nationalist). Additionally, as is the case with most issues regarding terrorism, there is no agreed-upon typology for terrorist groups. The sections following detail frequently used ‘types’ of groups in the terrorism literature.

Domestic/International

Perhaps the most widely used typology within the context of government counter-terrorism operations is the distinction between domestic and international terrorists and terrorist groups.41 While the difference is simple, with international terrorism originating from outside the borders of the country in which the attack takes place and domestic terrorismoriginating from within the country where the attack happens, it is important because of the division of labor within the United States government. Organizations like the FBI are almost exclusively focused on domestic terrorism because of their limited overseas reach (though this has changed somewhat since 9-11) and organizations like the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) are focused almost exclusively on international terrorism.42

Even with a generally simple distinction, however, the difference between a domestic and international terrorist attack is not always easy to determine. If an attack is carried out by citizens from within the country, but directed from outside the country, a decision has to be made on who has primary jurisdiction, and designation of the attack as domestic or international becomes difficult and sometimes controversial. Especially large attacks, such as 9-11, frequently have elements of both domestic and international terrorism involved, making investigations complex. Nevertheless, the distinction between the two remains important both for those responsible for responding to terrorism as well as those who study it.

Left-wing/Right-wing

One of the most frequently utilized typologies in the literature on terrorism is based on the historical political difference in the United States. Left-wing terrorist groups focus on the destruction of the state, with the usual justification that the state is not representative of the people and needs to be replaced with a socialist, anarchist, or communist government (or lack of government in the case of anarchists). Right-wing groups tend to be more authoritarian in nature and frequently operate in support of the government, or even argue for additional government control—particularly of groups that they believe threaten the state. The FBI still regularly uses this terminology (i.e., left-wing and right-wing) to describe terrorist organizations.43

Though this typology has been used frequently, especially in the context of domestic terrorism, there are limits to its relevance. While the left/right distinction is useful in the context of the United States and in some places in Western Europe, there are many places where this dichotomy does not hold. Further, even in the U.S., there are good reasons to believe that the distinction is more historically relevant than currently so. While there is no doubt that a political divide still exists within the U.S. that falls along these ideological lines, there is less terrorism that corresponds to these lines directly. In fact, more domestic terrorism appears to be stemming from a religious or nativist orientation, similar to the rest of the world during this era of modern international terrorism.

Nationalist

Nationalist terrorism is focused on the national aspirations of a group of people, usually defined along ethnic boundaries. Historically, groups such as the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Irish Republican Army (IRA) can be considered nationalist in orientation.44 Even in the United States there have been nationalist groups, particularly those organizations dedicated to the independence of Puerto Rico and groups who refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the current government. Internationally, these groups are more prominent and have had more success. National independence movements, such as the Algerian movement for independence, have even met with reasonable success in the international arena.

Single-issue

Single-issue terrorist organizations are those organizations without a broad ideological or political agenda, but rather those who focus on a specific issue of interest to members of those groups. Anti-abortion groups who bomb clinics, while having perhaps a religious background, are only engaging in terrorism against those who they believe are responsible for abortions. Similarly, animal rights and environmental terrorists engage selectively against those who they believe harm animals or the environment. Groups like the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), Earth Liberation Front (ELF) and the Army of God (AOG) only engage those whom they believe to be in violation of their moral standards on a single issue.45

Like other forms of terrorism, single-issue terrorism is frequently found in association with other ideological underpinnings. As mentioned earlier, groups who bomb abortion clinics frequently have a religious motivation, and those who attack animal labs sometimes have political motivation beyond saving animals. Nevertheless, the groups that engage in this type of terrorism largely focus their violence on the individuals they feel are responsible for their specific issue of choice.

Religious

Terrorist organizations that have religion as their motivation are some of the most dangerous. This is because, unlike nationalist groups for instance, they usually do not cater to a constituency. Instead, these groups and individuals feel that their primary duty is to God, and frequently this means they are willing to go to greater lengths in terms of the amount of destruction and death they are willing to cause. This is primarily because, while groups with a constituency must have support to achieve their goals, the religious group’s goals are frequently transcendental in nature and will only be achieved through the group’s actions. Additionally, those who do not support the groups are frequently considered apostates or enemies of God, and are therefore subject to the same treatment as those whom the group opposes.46

As mentioned earlier, religious groups are perhaps the primary type of organization now engaging in terrorism worldwide. This perhaps accounts for the increase in the number of deaths seen post 9-11, though attacks on military and police forces in Iraq and Afghanistan have no doubt inflated that number. Even so, moving forward, it is likely that religious terrorism will remain the most frequently encountered type of terrorism and will also remain one of the most difficult to defeat.

Summary

Typologies of terrorism allow us to separate one type of group from another. This is essential for both operations against terrorists as well as research regarding terrorists and their organizations. While many of the “types” of terrorism are not mutually exclusive, distinguishing between types allows for comparison between organizations and assists with a variety of practical tasks necessary for combating terrorists. While the preceding is only a small sample of the potential types of terrorism, understanding the most frequently used types is essential to understanding both the literature on terrorism and the groups that carry it out.

The history of terrorism has much to teach about what we recognize as terrorism today. Throughout each era, groups with different motivations and capabilities used violent tactics to communicate a message to a target audience. While several of the eras overlap, it is important to note the progression of terrorism from a politically/religiously motivated activity through the time where it was used as a method of control by states, to the modern era of terrorism, which in many ways resembles the earliest days of terrorism.

Terrorism, for instance, stands in contrast to criminal acts such as robbery and murder, the sole purpose of which is contained within the act itself. As will be seen in the following section, the elements differentiating terrorism from regular crime are important to understand, as without them it would be difficult to combat the phenomenon. However, the definition of terrorism has also proven perhaps the most difficult part of both studying and understanding terrorism.47

Political and Social Foundations

The political and social foundations for terrorism are complex. There is no clear agreement on the definition of terrorism, while the concept of “crime” is more generally agreed upon.48 In the sections following, definitional issues of terrorism are explored along with some of the psychological and sociological explanations for terrorism. The response to terrorism in a homeland security context is at least partially dependent on the way the concept (of terrorism) is defined, and what is believed to cause it.

Terrorism: The Term

Definitions of terrorism have varied widely among scholars and practitioners.49Definitions have been suggested from the very basic, such as, “you know it when you see it,” to complex definitions put together by committees that are essentially impractical.50 Even various agencies within the U.S. government have definitions of terrorism that scarcely resemble one another. For instance, compare the definition used by the FBI and the one used by the U.S. Department of State. The FBI’s definition:

The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof in furtherance of political or social objectives.51

Important elements in this definition include the use of force, the fact that it can be against persons or property, and that the goal is to coerce a government or civilian population for social or political reasons. Compare this to the Department of State’s definition of terrorism: “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents.”52

In the Department of State’s definition we see different areas of emphasis with some commonalities to the FBI definition. Specifically, the requirement of premeditation, the sub-national status of the attackers, and the noncombatant nature of the targets represent important differences between these two definitions; the use of violence and the political nature of the attacks represent common areas. This same overlap and difference is also found in the Department of Defense (DOD) as well as the National Counter-Terrorism Center (NCTC) definitions.

Significantly, the definition utilized by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) (18 USC § 2331—Definitions) for terrorism is quite broad, encompassing both domestic and international terrorism as well as defining who can be a terrorist and what acts might constitute an act of terrorism. Of particular interest is the acts defined as terrorism do not necessarily need to be violent; they need only be considered dangerous to human life while containing the other elements listed in the definition. Box 3.3 offers a comprehensive discussion of the DHS definition of terrorism.

BOX 3.3 DHS Definition of Terrorism

Definitions of terrorism are frequently complicated as they have to take into account the requirements of both the agency (or agencies) coping with it as well as the multifaceted aspects of the phenomenon itself. The Department of Homeland Security’s definition is a good example of this and can serve as a paradigm for examining other government definitions.

DHS Definition

1. the term “international terrorism” means activities that:

A. involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;

B. appear to be intended:

i. to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

ii. to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

iii. to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

C. occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum;

2. the term “national of the United States” has the meaning given such term in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act;

3. the term “person” means any individual or entity capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property;

4. the term “act of war” means any act occurring in the course of:

A. declared war;

B. armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or

C. armed conflict between military forces of any origin; and

5. the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that:

A. involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

B. appear to be intended:

i. to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

ii. to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

iii. to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

C. occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.53

Summary

The DHS definition of terrorism is from the U.S. Code and encompasses a variety of elements that the other definitions presented in this text do not. Most interestingly, it provides not only definitions for domestic and international terrorism, but also include elements describing who is to be considered a terrorist. In some ways, despite its length, it is a very broad definition of terrorism as it does not specify who the targets necessarily are (can be government or civilian) and does not include violence as a necessary element; only actions that are dangerous to human life. When examining other definitions of terrorism, it is instructive to consider what elements they have in common with this definition and what elements are different.

Finally, aside from the general definitions of terrorism, there are also specific acts that further muddy the waters. For instance, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AEPA) of 2006 (18 USC § 43—Force, Violence, And Threats Involving Animal Enterprises) states that interfering with or damaging the property of an “animal enterprise” (including testing facilities, circuses, etc.) can be constituted as an act of terrorism. This is fundamentally different from other definitions of terrorism as it is specific to one type of terrorism and bases the criminality of the act on the identity of the victim, not the motivation of the attackers.

These differences of definition is by no means limited to government agencies, however. Academics studying the phenomenon of terrorism have also been unable to reach consensus on what definitively constitutes an act of terrorism. In fact, Alex P. Schmid54 attempted to reconcile the 100-plus definitions found in the academic literature into a single, comprehensive definition and found it was impossible. Others have referred to the definitional issue in terrorism as the “black hole of terrorism studies.”55

A further complication is the fact that some terrorists themselves seek to redefine what they are called. In general, even perpetrators of terrorist acts do not want to be defined as “terrorists.” Instead they would rather be labeled “freedom fighters” or “insurgents.” In fact, many terrorist organizations actively argue their cases in the media that they are not terrorists, in some instances even arguing that a government constitutes the “real” terrorists (see for example, Osama bin Laden’s claim of responsibility for 9-11). This debate is not idle talk; how we define terrorism is important on several levels. A clear definition makes prosecution much easier, and it also allows academics to study phenomenon more efficiently so that the problem can be better understood and addressed.56 Without a comprehensive, cohesive definition of terrorism, this is made much more difficult.

What Is Terrorism?

Despite the differences in definitions, of which there are many, there are some common themes that arise regularly. In fact, there seem to be five generally agreed-upon attributes to attacks that are termed terrorist.57 These are by no means universally acknowledged. However, these elements are present within most definitions of terrorism:

• Political (social or religious) motivation

• Violence or the credible threat of violence

• Sub-national actors

• Instrumental in nature

• Victim/target separation

These five elements are usually straightforward and can be used to determine whether an event is a terrorist attack or a different form of crime. The first element, the political nature of the act, is the most important. It is the element that most clearly distinguishes an act of terrorism from the merely criminal. Second, any act of terrorism has to be violent, or at least credibly threaten violence. In this case, violence is construed broadly to include destruction of property, as in the FBI definition earlier, as well as in specific designation, such as the AEPA. Third, acts of terrorism are carried out by sub-national actors. If the actors conducting an attack were part of a recognized nation-state, it would be an act of war, not an act of terrorism. The last two elements of terrorism—the instrumental nature of an attack and the separation of the victim and target—are closely linked. Any act of terrorism must be instrumental insofar as the goal of the attack is not the violence itself, but rather to motivate change. This is closely linked to the final element, which is victim/target separation. Specifically, while terrorists kill victims, the victims represent a means to an end: the influence on the actual target. More concretely, terrorists kill individuals (their victims) to influence their target (whomever they wish to influence). This is distinct from murder where the victim and target are the same.

In short, terrorism is a complex phenomenon encompassing a wide variety of acts and actors. An agreed-upon and comprehensive definition has been hard to come by, even within the federal government. Individuals who conduct terrorist attacks actively seek to change who the public perceives as “terrorists” and frequently are referred to in terms other than “terrorist” by the media, who wish to appear unbiased. However, despite these differences, there are five basic elements that make up what most people generally consider terrorism: political motivation, violence, sub-national actors, instrumental in nature, and victim/target separation.

Political and Social Theories of Terrorism

Just as there are ongoing disagreements about the definition of terrorism, there are strong differences among academics and others as to what causes terrorism. Those engaging in this argument have generally fallen into two camps, though the arguments each camp is making are not necessarily mutually exclusive.58 The first group argues along the lines of traditional criminological/sociological/psychological theory, suggesting certain psychological and/or sociological factors cause individuals to become terrorists. The second focuses on the rationality of terrorism as a choice among many for furthering a political or religious objective.

Individual and Group-Level Theories

There have been a great number of theories posited for why individuals engage in terrorism. Many of these have a basis in psychological or sociological explanations of behavior. Ted Robert Gurr,59 for example, examines the idea of relative deprivation, or the view of a particular group feeling underserved or undervalued in comparison to other groups. Other scholars have looked directly at poverty, type of government, and even childhood trauma as reasons people join terrorist organizations. One of the most frequently attempted efforts in terrorism studies is, in fact, the development of a psychological “profile” of a terrorist. All such attempts at this have failed, thus far. In fact, the majority of psychological studies done on known terrorists (usually those who have been captured and imprisoned) suggest that terrorists do not differ in noticeable psychological ways from the general population.60

This fact, that terrorists are essentially the same as everyone else, is difficult for people in the general population to accept. It is much easier and comforting to think of terrorists as “loony” or “crazy.” While there has been no success at developing a psychological profile of terrorists, there has been some interesting work done regarding the psychology of terrorism itself. John Horgan,61 particularly, has focused his work on psychological factors that lead to the individual ability to carry out acts of terrorism. Additionally, scholars such as Drake62 have focused attention on those elements of terrorist attacks that are influenced by not only the psychology of the perpetrator, but the psychology of the victims as well, in order to understand how they are related. For instance, analyzing how the 2013 Boston Marathon bombers selected their target may focus on not only the psychology of the two brothers (Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev), as well as the behavior of the marathon runners and spectators (individuals focused on running or watching the runners, not security).

Psychology is, of course, not the only social science that has been applied to the understanding of terrorism. Sociology and political science have also affected our understanding, particularly through an emphasis on power dynamics within groups and between groups and countries, as well as examining new techniques, like social network analysis, that allow for the disruption of terrorist cells around the world. The bulk of the research in these fields, however, has been at the country level of analysis, examining the factors that make a country more or less likely to be the victim of terrorism, or to produce terrorists. An exception to this is the work done in political economy, which has focused on terrorist decision-making. Work by scholars such as Enders and Sandler63have revolutionized the way that terrorism as a phenomenon is examined, and others, like Bueno de Mesquita,64 have helped us understand why some terrorist organizations are more deadly than others.

The implications for deterministic research such as that found in the fields of psychology, political science, and criminology has led to important developments in our understanding of terrorism.65 Our understanding of terrorist targeting, psychological motivation, socio-economic background factors, and power dynamics allows for ever-increasing effectiveness in the fight against terrorist organizations, both in the United States and abroad. However, many of these factors, obviously, are difficult to change externally. The U.S. has little ability to alter socio-economic factors or individual psychology, for instance. There is, however, a research perspective that suggests the ability to affect terrorist behavior and (perhaps) even the decision to become a terrorist in the first place.

Terrorism as Strategic Choice

While psychology and the other social sciences look at factors that determine whether or not someone is likely to become a terrorist, there is another area that examines terrorism and terrorists from a different perspective.66 It assumes that, rather than background factors causing someone to become a terrorist, individuals make a conscious choice to engage in terrorism. It assumes that individuals who are interested in political (or social or religious) change can choose to go about creating the change in a variety of ways. One of those choices, among many, is to engage in terrorism.67

This is a novel approach as it has some implications that differ if background factors are assumed to be causal. For instance, if individuals are compelled to become terrorists, say by some individual-level psychological factor, then it makes little sense to negotiate with said terrorist. If, on the other hand, the terrorist is making a conscious choice to engage in terrorism, instead of running for office for instance, then perhaps it is possible to change the terrorist’s mind by engaging in cooperative negotiation.

The implications for adopting this strategic model of terrorism are broad. The ability to convince terrorists to change their behavior through negotiation or some other means would clearly alter our view of the problem of terrorism. If terrorists are rational decision-makers interested in achieving specific goals, providing alternative methods of achieving these goals may deter them from their original plans. Additionally, actions like “target-hardening” (the strengthening of the security of a building or location in order to protect it from future attack) may change the terrorists’ decision calculus and deter them from attacking specific targets. Further, by opening opportunities for political participation, it may be possible to give terrorists other means by which to achieve their goals, making their violent intentions unnecessary.

While the goals of terrorists usually are made clear by the terrorists themselves, their underlying motivation is not always clear. Methods that help us understand terrorism include different social science disciplines that can all be useful in determining why terrorists carry out attacks, and can also help determine where and how terrorists might attack next. The strategic-choice approach to terrorism also gives homeland security practitioners additional methods to influence terrorist decision-making and provides new opportunities to change terrorist behavior.

Modern Global Terrorism, U.S. Terrorist Attacks, 9-11 Attacks

Modern global terrorism is unique in the history of terrorism because of both the level of violence and the reach of the terrorist acts.68 Terrorists have learned how to use the media to communicate their messages to an incredibly wide audience, especially with the advent of the Internet.69 In addition, modern terrorists have become much more sophisticated in their cooperation with one another and in their use of financial networks and communication.70 This has made combating terrorism more difficult and more complex.

While the focus of the world has been on global terrorism, it is important to note that even terrorists operating domestically have utilized many of these same increases in capability. The wide availability of information for creating weapons, establishing secure communications, and the ability to plan and coordinate attacks have made so-called “home grown” terrorists sometimes just as threatening as global organizations with a great deal more funding and organization.71

U.S. Terrorist Attacks

While it is easy to focus on the recent events of September 11, 2001 as the “beginning” of terrorism in the U.S., it is important to remember that even well before that horrific attack, America had suffered devastating attacks from terrorists.72 Importantly, while some of these attacks were by terrorist organizations that might be considered international, like the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, many have been by groups entirely from the U.S. Perhaps the most significant home-grown terrorist attack, the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, was carried out by an individual who most would consider a “low risk” for terrorist activities, judging by today’s standards.73 Other entities, like The Order in the 1970s and more recently the Unabomber, have also carried out successful attacks in the United States that captivated and terrorized the nation.74

9-11

Of course the most significant terrorist attack in U.S. history is September 11th. This attack, aside from being the largest single loss-of-life from a terrorist act, is also a paragon of modern terrorism.75 Not only was it a mass-casualty event, but it took full advantage of the media, both during the attack and after, and targeted specific, recognizable symbols of American and Western power.76 The attack is considered by many to be the benchmark that other terrorist organizations may try to reach and exceed.77

In addition to the direct loss of life and financial losses incurred, 9-11 also motivated an incredible overhaul of our national government. The creation of the Department of Homeland Security was a direct response to the 9-11 Commission Report,78 and its creation suggested that poor information-sharing was, in large part, to blame for the success of the attacks. This change in government structure fundamentally changed how we view security in the United States, as well as how we combat threats such as terrorism.

Understanding Terrorism—Organization and Threat

Terrorism is a difficult problem to solve, given its wide variety of motivations, its relative ease of attack, and the wide publicity given to even unsuccessful operations.79Understanding how terrorism is organized, both domestically and internationally, is essential to combating the threat. One way to do this is to create a typology of terrorism, which allows academics and practitioners alike to understand a group’s motivations, attack strategies, and goals, and additionally, allows for comparison between groups. One of the most commonly used typologies of terrorism is also one of the simplest: international versus domestic terrorism.80

International Terrorism

International terrorism, as outlined in the DHS definition of terrorism (taken from the U.S. Code) earlier, is terrorism that originates partially or substantially in a jurisdiction outside of the United States. Despite the relative simplicity of the distinction between international and domestic terrorism, it is not always easy to determine which an attack is. Other times, such as with the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, determining whether an attack is domestic or international is less challenging. Making the determination is essential, however, to determining jurisdiction for the investigation. An agency such as the CIA has a much larger international reach than the FBI and takes a much larger role in cases of international terrorism.

One of the important aspects of international terrorism as it relates to the United States is that the attack does not have to take place within the borders of the United States. Attacks like the Beirut bombing, a truck bomb at the U.S. Marine Corps barracks in Beirut, Lebanon in 1982, have targeted U.S. interests and property abroad.81 One of Al Qaeda’s first large-scale attacks was against the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing citizens of those countries and U.S. citizens alike.

The threat posed by international terrorism to the United States is obviously large. This was one of the significant lessons learned from the 9-11 attacks on New York City and the Pentagon.82 Since 9-11 there has been a concerted effort to thwart international terrorist attacks that include many international partners. Thus far, these prevention efforts have been largely successful. However, even with the death of Osama bin Laden, there remains an international movement with significant support that will continue to attempt attacking the United States. This is clearly indicated in the 2011 National Intelligence Estimate, released by the Director of National Intelligence:83

Courtesy of Colonel Emerson Begolly.

We judge the U.S. Homeland will face a persistent and evolving terrorist threat over the next 3 years. The main threat comes from Islamic terrorist groups and cells, especially al-Qa’ida, driven by their undiminished intent to attack the Homeland and a continued effort by these terrorist groups to adapt and improve their capabilities.

Domestic Terrorism

Domestic terrorism, or terrorism originating within the United States, is a continuing threat to homeland security.84 While the 9-11 attacks, because of their dramatic nature, have focused attention on international terrorism, domestic terrorism has a potent history in the United States and continues to be actively carried out by various organizations within the nation, stemming from a variety of motivations. Anti-government attacks, such as the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, the Olympics bombing in 1996, which was motivated by anti-abortion sentiments, and the Vail, Colorado arson that was motivated by animal rights ideology all demonstrate this variety in motivation.85

Domestic terrorism remains one of the principal threats to homeland security.86 The form this threat takes is varied, including eco-terrorism and animal rights terrorism, militia extremism, anarchist extremism, white supremacy, anti-abortion terrorism, and other forms. The FBI has stated that they consider eco-terrorism the most threatening form of domestic terrorism, and has documented over 2,000 attacks resulting in over $110 million in damages since 1979.87 Similarly, as recently as February 2012, white supremacist terrorists have been arrested and charged with transporting explosive devices and firebombing the home of an interracial couple.88

In addition to the “normal” domestic threats such as eco-terrorism and white supremacy, there is the additional problem of home-grown terrorists with religious motivations. Particularly, there is a significant concern that international organizations, such as Al Qaeda, may attempt to support, but not direct, domestic terrorist organizations. The National Intelligence Estimate suggests,

Although we have discovered only a handful of individuals in the United States with ties to al-Qa’ida senior leadership since 9-11, we judge that al-Qa’ida will intensify its efforts to put operatives here… We assess that the spread of radical—especially Salafi—Internet sites, increasingly aggressive anti-U.S. rhetoric and actions, and the growing number of radical, self-generating cells in Western countries indicate that the radical and violent segment of the West’s Muslim population is expanding, including in the United States. The arrest and prosecution by U.S. law enforcement of a small number of violent Islamic extremists inside the United States—who are becoming more connected ideologically, virtually, and/or in a physical sense to the global extremist movement—points to the possibility that others may become sufficiently radicalized that they will view the use of violence here as legitimate.89

Like 9-11 for international terrorism, many of these attacks, and particularly Oklahoma City, indicate the potential threat that domestic attacks presented for the U.S. and have led to widespread efforts of cooperation between local and federal law enforcement agencies to attempt to combat them. These efforts, though generally successful, have not been able to halt domestic terrorist activity in the United States.

In short, terrorism has been and continues to be a significant threat for the United States. Additionally, despite large-scale efforts, particularly regarding international terrorism, there remain dedicated groups who wish to attack the U.S. Domestically, these groups range in motivation from single-issues like abortion and animal rights, to home-grown religious terrorist organizations modeled on Al Qaeda. Internationally, the threat remains largely religious in nature, with Al Qaeda, and groups inspired by them, seeking to make large-scale attacks within the U.S.

Natural Disasters

Natural disasters, like terrorism, are one of the major threats the United States experiences on a regular basis.90 Events like Hurricane Katrina, and more recently a series of tornadoes in the Midwest, remind us that while we face human-made threats regularly, natural hazards remain equally deadly and happen with much more frequency. As with terrorism, there are methods by which the government can mitigate the threat of, and cope with the results of, natural disasters. The sections following cover the difference between natural hazards and threats, and some of the governmental responses to natural disasters when they happen at each level: national, state, and local.

Hazards

Hazards, in the context of natural phenomenon, are potential harms to humans or the environment caused by natural events. Hazards can be caused by hydrological, meteorological, seismic, geologic, volcanic, and mass-movement processes that occur in nature.91 Though frequently used interchangeably with the concept of threat, the two ideas are distinct. In the United States, there are a wide variety of natural hazards including earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, wildfires, floods, lightning strikes, landslides, sink holes, drought, and others. These hazards cause a tremendous amount of damage nation-wide each year. Floods alone accounted for $8.4 billion dollars in damage to the economy in 2011 and were responsible for 114 deaths, and the decade leading up was more costly in terms of lives than previous decades.92 Additionally, though not usually given as much media attention as terrorist attacks, natural hazards occur with more frequency and result in a great deal more loss-of-life than man-made hazards, over time.93

KEY TERM

Hazard—a danger or risk.

Risks

Risks are hazards when combined with their probability of happening. For instance, while an earthquake is always a hazard, it poses little threat to states in the Southeast and is, therefore, not considered a significant risk in that location. More concretely, risks are more contextually specific than hazards, even if they are comprised of the same phenomenon. Hazard risks, therefore, are always examined within their respective locations. There are frequently hazards that pose little risk, but never risks that do not consist of a hazard.94

KEY TERM

Risk—the possibility of loss or injury.

Courtesy of the NOAA.

The process of developing methods to deal with hazards, including determining how probable the risk of a hazard is, is called risk management. Risk management in regards to natural events is one of the primary responsibilities of government, and there has been a long history of risk management at all levels of government.95 Risk management includes both qualitative and quantitative methodologies, and knowledge of an area’s history of hazards and disasters is critical to risk management.

Types

Natural disasters are what happens when a threat comes to fruition and overwhelms the ability of a single agency to deal with it. Examples from history abound. Perhaps the most memorable natural disaster in recent memory is Hurricane Katrina. This, however, was not the largest natural disaster in the history of the United States when measured by relative cost, nor even the deadliest hurricane when measured by loss of life. That title belongs to the Galveston Hurricane of 1900, during which 8,000 individuals died.96 In fact, there are usually several dozen declared disasters every year. In 2011 alone there were 99 major declared disasters in the U.S. totaling over $80 billion dollars in damage.97

KEY TERM

Natural disaster—an event that occurs in nature, not caused by humans, that affects the environment and results in financial and/or human loss.

Different types of disasters occur with different frequency in various locations around the country. Floods, for instance, affect many sections of the nation and are one of the most costly types of disaster. Even relatively rare events, such as tsunamis, can cause huge amounts of damage, and therefore must be taken into account when generating response plans. Further, many disasters compound when they occur. Again, taking earthquakes as an example, related disasters like fires, floods and others may happen at the same time.98 This is clearly illustrated by the recent nuclear disaster caused by a tsunami in Japan.99 Within this context, government has a series of responsibilities: mitigation or the reduction of the probability of disasters happening; preparedness or preparing for when disasters happen; response during the disaster event; and recovery, for after the disaster has passed.

Over the course of the United States’ history, there have been a variety of major natural disasters, and the methods by which these disasters have been addressed have changed with the rise of emergency management as a professional discipline and academic discipline. Despite this improvement in our ability to deal with disasters when they happen, natural disasters continue to deeply affect both property and life throughout the nation in a variety of ways. In Box 3.4, the most frequently occurring types of disaster are examined.100

Natural disasters are much more frequently occurring, but receive less attention, than terrorist attacks. This is surprising not just because of the difference in the number of occurrences, but also because the combined monetary cost of natural disasters dwarfs that of terrorism in most years. In any event, both terrorism and natural disasters require a large response effort, and many times, the recovery requires similar elements. This closely ties the two types of events together, even though their causes are distinct.

BOX 3.4 Frequently Occurring Disasters

Floods

Floods affect nearly every area of the country and can be among the most damaging types of natural disasters. While floods technically are defined as any time a significant amount of water overwhelms land that is normally dry, larger floods can not only cause extensive damage but may persist for significant periods of time. Floods have a variety of causes including torrential rain, dam breaks, and frequently for large floods, hurricanes.101According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s flood statistics, the most costly flood in U.S. history was caused by Hurricane Katrina in Louisiana and surrounding states, and resulted in over $16 billion dollars in damage as well as at least 1,836 deaths.102

Wildfires

Wildfires, sometimes known as brush or forest fires, are fires that surpass the ability of local fire suppression groups to contain them. They can burn huge amounts of acreage, destroy property, and frequently result in deaths. These fires are usually caused by humans, but can also be caused by lightning strikes if weather conditions are dry enough. They are becoming a more significant problem across the country as people build their homes in more wooded areas.103

Tornadoes

Tornadoes are frequently occurring, powerful storms that appear as rotating, funnel-shaped clouds. They are among the most destructive types of natural disasters, with winds sometimes reaching 300 miles per hour and damage trailing up to 50 miles. In the largest tornadoes, the path of destruction can reach a mile wide. Tornadoes usually develop as part of a larger storm system, but occasionally tornadoes develop so rapidly that there is little advanced warning. Nearly every state in the country is at risk for these severe storms.104

Hurricanes

Hurricanes are large, powerful storms that develop in the open ocean and move onto coastal areas. The Atlantic hurricane season lasts from June to November while storms in the Pacific tend to develop between May and November. These storms can be hundreds of miles wide and frequently spawn other significant weather events such as tornadoes and flooding. In order to be classified as a hurricane, wind speeds much reach a minimum sustained level of 74 miles per hour105 but winds can reach up to 200 miles per hour in the most severe storms. Coastal communities are most at risk, but even areas far inland sometimes sustain significant damage from large hurricanes.106

Chapter Summary

The attacks on 9-11 motivated the modern change of homeland security in America and marked one of the seminal events of the early 21st century. The attacks were as devastating as they were because of the fear generated by Al Qaeda, something they were practiced at achieving through events like the Bali bombing. Terrorism generally is designed to generate fear to motivate change in the individuals and groups targeted by it, and in some respects, September 11th was a success for the terrorists.

However, despite the fact that America and the rest of the world are now familiar with terrorism in an everyday context, there is no agreed upon definition of the term. History, however, gives us several elements that have remained consistent with the concept of terrorism over time. It is politically, socially, or religiously motivated, violent, is carried out by sub-national actors to achieve some goal, and the victims and targets are rarely the same. Nearly all definitions, despite their variations, carry most or all of these elements.

Natural disasters, like terrorism, can be physically and emotionally devastating. Unlike catastrophic terrorism, however, natural disasters occur with frequency in nearly every part of the country. Wildfires and floods are the most frequent types of natural disasters in the U.S., but many other types, such as hurricanes and tornadoes, also cause a significant amount of damage each year.

© PA Photos/Landov.

Both terrorism and natural disasters require response from every level of government when an event occurs. These responses are frequently similar, especially in the immediate aftermath of an event. Thus, terrorism and natural disasters are linked directly in the context of homeland security. As homeland security develops in its “all-hazards” approach to disaster management, there will be closer ties across these types of events—despite their different and disparate causes.