Then and Now: The Goals and Objectives of Terrorism

(US Embassy building in Dar Es Salaam after the 1998 bombing. Courtesy of  WikimediaCommons.)

          After the Friday the 13th massacre in Paris, people wonder why certain extreme religious groups (or political groups) resort to violent acts and destroy properties in the pursuit of their goals and objectives. Only a handful of terrorists carried the attacks, but the carnage had resulted in the death of 130 innocent people. To understand why those committed individuals would carry such terroristic acts, the reader must understand what terrorism is all about. 

          Terrorism is a relative term as some people would say.  We heard so much about the truism “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.”  People in the United States branded Usama bin-Laden as a terrorist, but those in the Muslim world regarded him as a hero ala Che Guevarra. (Regan 2005).

          There is no precise meaning of terrorism and political scientists define it in many forms, depending on what side of the political spectrum they belong. 

        However, terrorism—even if defined with a political slant or with a positive overture---has always resulted in the deaths of innocent people and the destruction of public and private properties.    

          Dr. James M. Smith, former Director of the United States Air Force Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), once said, “Terrorism is a physical attack intended to produce a psychological effect.”  (Smith 2003).  On the other hand, Gorski said, “Terrorism intends to cause a chronic state of psychological vulnerability and instability in the targeted population.  Death and destruction are merely a mean to achieve these ends.”  (Gorski 2002).

          By and large, terrorism is a form of psychological warfare that intends to diminish the will of the people and influence their collective frame of mind against the established government.

          Given the preceding, the terrorists seek to cause "political, social and economic disruption, and for this purpose frequently engage in planned or indiscriminate murder.”  (Lacquer 1977).

          A terrorist leader once said, "A terrorist is like a bee and the government is like a man;  when the bee keeps stinging his target on the various parts of his body, the man will attempt to slap the bee from every direction until he loses control of himself. "             

       In their fight, the terrorists want the democratic government to act recklessly to their bloody handiwork.  The goal is to pressure the government to impose draconian measures that would lead to the curtailment of civil liberties and constitutional rights of the people.  For example, in response to the 9/11 attacks, the United States government had enforced stringent controls in the airport and harbors in an attempt to ferret out suspected terrorists and to stop them from inflicting further damages to the homeland.  But then again, the 19 al-Qaeda members had different objective on their minds, which was to “use violence to further what they see as divinely commanded purpose.” (Wikepedia 2005).

            The imposition of rigid security measures and the limitation of movements in public places had received unfavorable response and condemnation from progressive groups.  For instance, the American Civil Liberties Union decried the post 9/11 security controls as “blatant discrimination and state-sanctioned bigotry to outright physical brutality,” which allegedly targeted the people of Arab-descent living in the United States.  (Porter 2002).  The terrorists' goal is to portray the United States government as helpless and incapable of protecting the security and well-being of its citizens. And by sowing terror and creating destruction, the terrorists hope to stir up the government to use unpopular extra-legal measures (e.g., martial law) and anticipate the citizenry to rise up.

          Augusto Angcanan Jr., a retired Filipino police general, suggests a positive way to deal with terrorism, and he shares his opinion in the following statement.  Angcanan said, “Terrorism is the means to an end, not an end in itself.  Let alone, terrorism can accomplish nothing in terms of political goals; it can only aim at obtaining a response that will achieve those goals for it.  Said another way, terrorist violence is aimed not so much on the target upon which the initial act is committed but to much wider audience who will view and interpret the act.  The success of terrorism is due in large part to the miscomprehension of the strategy by its opponents, which is a failure to focus on the critical issue of how to respond properly to provocations and threats.  Brutality and repression are induced responses that will alienate the government from the masses, thus set the stage for revolution.  In dealing with the problem of terrorism, paramount is the rule of law and our respect for human rights.”  (Angcanan 2005).                

         Terrorists do not place a demarcation line between themselves and their targets because they consider everyone and anything as front-line targets.  There are no women, children, and old folks in their psychotic eyes.  Buildings and structures--whether private or public-- are not exempt for destruction if it would advance their struggle.  In this regard, they would kill and destroy in an indiscriminate fashion and in vicious disregard of human lives and properties.  Terrorists sow terror acts in the hearts and minds of the people as means to advance their ultimate cause whether for political, religious, or economic reasons.  

          From the 1960s up to the 1980s, the struggle for worldwide revolution and transformation of social order were the dominant themes of the decades.  The battle was between Capitalism and Communism. It was the United States of America versus the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic.  The fight was against two competing political ideologies.  It was also a war of attrition between the State of Israel and Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Liberation Organization.

          For three decades, some communist-leaning groups and PLO factions came into existence, and the rest was history.  Each group had its own objectives yet had similarity in its protracted war against the United States and the free world—the use of terrorism as a form of weapon to fight its target-government enemies. Groups like the Black September, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), Baader-Meinhoff, and Brigada Rossi made their political statements through assassinations, bombings, hijackings, and kidnappings.  Their ilks come and go, but history shows these terror groups hardly ever grab hold of power and always fail to accomplish their ultimate aspiration.  (Lacquer 1977).   

          After the collapse of the Berlin Wall, the battle had shifted from political to religious issues with the creation of transnational religious terror groups like al-Qaeda, Jemaah Islamiyah, Boko Haram, and the recent Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).  It appears the definitions above of terrorism no longer apply to these current crops of terrorist groups. Or are they still?  
          The communist leaning groups fought for political and societal causes and not for a religious war like what the world is facing right now.  The old-era terrorists killed their targets, not themselves. Now, the modern terrorists not only kill innocent people but also themselves. Strapping their bodies with bombs and blowing up themselves in public are now common occurrence whether in the urban areas like Paris or in the rural spots like Kabul.

          The terrorists of the past always bargained with the Western governments to achieve their goals and to raise global awareness to their cause (e.g., PFLP clamoring for a Palestinian state).  This isn’t true with the  current terror groups nowadays. ISIS didn't bargain with the United States when it beheaded the American journalist Steven Sotloff, and neither talked with the United Kingdom when it killed British aid worker David Haines.  Boko Haram members kidnapped hundreds of girls and they too didn’t negotiate with the Nigerian government. Instead, the group killed their victims unmercifully.  The Taliban didn't seek a trade with the Pakistani government when it killed 132 people in Peshawar.

          The genocides of Christians in Iraq and Syria by ISIS are testaments that the goals and objectives of terrorism have clearly changed.  Today, all the Islamist-terrorists wanted is to kill infidels and demolish all landmarks that symbolize Christianity and Western civilization. And asking the American government and the European Union for concessions or telling the free world to capitulate to their demands is not their game anymore.

          To know the current crop of Islamist-terrorists better is to understand the pronouncement of Hussein Massawi, a former Hezbollah Leader, when he said: “We are not fighting so the enemy will offer us something.  We are fighting to wipe out the enemy."  sDg.