Transcript Terrorism: An Introduction (pts. 1 & 2)

An Introduction to
Terrorism
Part I: Terrorist objectives,
methods, and their
psychological impact
Michael A. Bozarth, Ph.D.
Department of Psychology
University at Buffalo
Copyright 2005-2014 Michael A. Bozarth, Ph.D.
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.
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
Copyright 2005-2014 Michael A. Bozarth, Ph.D.
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.
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
Terrorism
“positive” societal change
Criminal
Terror
financial gain
TERROR
inflict suffering
Copyright 2005-2014 Michael A. Bozarth, Ph.D.
Pathological
Terror
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
Copyright 2005-2014 Michael A. Bozarth, Ph.D.
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.
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
Copyright 2005-2014 Michael A. Bozarth, Ph.D.
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.
Types of Terror
Type
Motivational Attributes
Terrorism
goal-oriented non ‘selfserving’ motive
(group benefit)
Criminal
Terror
goal-oriented ‘self-serving’
Pathological
Terror
not goaloriented
(personal benefit)
biological
malfunction?
(nobody benefits)
Copyright 2005-2014 Michael A. Bozarth, Ph.D.
Terror &
Psychopathology
Terrorism
seldom involves
psychopathology
Criminal Terror
often involves
borderline or frank
psychopathology
exclusively
motivated by
psychopathology
Pathological
Terror
Copyright 2005-2014 Michael A. Bozarth, Ph.D.
Relationship among Terrorism,
Criminal Terror, & Psychopathology
Psychopathology
Criminal
Terror
Terrorism
Copyright 2005-2014 Michael A. Bozarth, Ph.D.
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 cyberterrorism 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.
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)
12
Killed
Photo from www.tofugu.com
5,700
physically injured
Photo from www.ait.org.tw
9,000+ psychologically ‘injured’
10,000’s terrorized
Copyright 2005-2014 Michael A. Bozarth, Ph.D.
Beltway Snipers
(Washington DC region, 02 - 24 October 2002)
10
Killed
Photo from www.FBI.gov
3
physically injured
Photo from Gwww.azette.net
100’s psychologically ‘injured’
100,000’s terrorized
Copyright 2005-2014 Michael A. Bozarth, Ph.D.
Sequence of Beltway
Sniper Attacks
The Beltway snipers were
particularly effective in
spreading terror and
disrupting normal life
because they killed at random
and covered a wide area.
Originally though to be
Muslim extremists, in the final
analysis it was simply
criminal terror masquerading
as al-Qaeda type terrorists.
Copyright 2005-2014 Michael A. Bozarth, Ph.D.
911 Attack on America
(World Trade Center & Pentagon, 11 September 2001)
3,025
Killed
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)
Copyright 2005-2014 Michael A. Bozarth, Ph.D.
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.
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.
Focus Question Set #2


What are the methods of
terrorists? (e.g., targeting
civilian populations)
Why do terrorists use the
tactics of terrorism?
End of Part I
(Regular academic instruction
ends here in this module.)
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

1921
1948
1950s
&
1960s
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
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 the
New 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 2005-2014 Michael A. Bozarth, Ph.D.
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.