Nice post Jimbo.

I disagree about ETA though.

D9 - Terrorism as a strategy doesn't equate to "i.e. an end to itself."

Regarding "terrorism as a strategy," perhaps I misunderstood Jimbo's original meaning. I took that to mean that terror was the overarching goal, the purpose, rather than a means to an end. So let me restrict my original statement about strategy, and just say terrorism for its own sake is nihilistic.

I don't see the conflict with Aun Shinrikyo. If the intent of the terror is to satisfy some other-worldly goal - i.e. there is nothing the groups are pursuing on earth but destruction - then for all practical purposes it is nihilistic. In fact, I would say that nihilism is the broader category to which the mystical apocalyptic types belong.

I am not advocating that one look at what a group's stated goals are (their "nominal" ideology, if you will) to the exclusion of what they actually do. A group may explicitly state some populist or class-warfare manifesto but in their actions betray a different, more petty and criminal motive (FARC comes to mind, but I am no expert). I am saying, to the contrary, that you should be able to categorize a group by inducing their motive as identified through their actions. You misunderstand me if you think I mean that we should just trust whatever BS propaganda motivation the terrorists claim to have in their speeches.

An example are the sundry Palestinian terror groups, who endlessly bemoan various small grievances against Israel (the latest settlement, incursion, whatever) as the motive for their suicide bombings, but whom you can be reasonably sure have the expulsion of non-Islamic influence from the entire region as the overarching goal.

If I am a terrorist leader, what I am going to do next has to depend on my long-term goals. Long terms goals are set in relation to values - explicitly or implicitly held. The value in this context, being the state of the world I hope to bring about through my terror campaign. What I am saying is that it is this end state that we have to try to identify, and by which we should classify terrorist groups. The way I think you identify it is by discovering the set of "ideas" that the terrorist defines as his ideal. This is what he will pursue. You identify his goals through his actions - of course - but a person's actions will tell you a lot about what their ideas are (i.e. his "actual" ideology). It is the terrorist's ideas that are most relevant to classifying him, as opposed to whether or not holding land is a primary goal. This is because the whole purpose of classification, as I can see it in this context, is to formulate a course of action to deal with them. I can think of no more relevant criteria in formulating this course than what the terrorist's ultimate goals are.

I am not saying that whether or not they want to gain and hold land is unimportant - and certainly it is in the context of an insurgency. But the fact is that there are terrorist groups who are perfectly content not to (Al-Qaeda et al) and who we must deal with nonetheless.

Ah ha! I think I have found the disconnect. D9, you are mirror-imaging. As we all know, you are a highly principled person and you loathe pragmatism. However, not all terrorist leaders are as principled as you. Some are, and those tend to be the ones with whom negotiation is futile (thats when you break out 'Getting To Yes'), very many are pragmatic. Depending on what their actual personal goal is (staying in power, not getting prosecuted, not getting cornholed in an Afghan prison) they may sacrifice their group's stated goals or principles in favor of a newer, more pragmatic course of action depending on the new situation in which they find themselves. Now you get into evaluating their situational awareness, but I think I've taken up enough room already.

Carlos Castano and his dealings with drug lords comes to mind.

Yup. And even now, he seems to be pursuing a goal of his own over the (now) modified goal of the AUC. Decommissioning? Redemption is a powerful motivator for Catholics and those with no family left.

I think we're really haggling over semantics, and a different idea of what an ideology is. Pragmatism is an ideology also - specifically, it is the ideology articulated and named by William James, John Dewey, Schiller, and others. It is in our vocabulary today, whether or not those who utter it realize it, because at the turn of the twentieth-century it was an explicit philosophy popular among the literati and intellectual "elite." Pragmatism is not an alternative to an ideology, it is an old and important one itself.

It is important, I agree, to know whether your opponent - in the sense of a group - is a band of pragmatic criminals. You would deal with someone like this very differently than a Aun Shinrikyo, or an Ayman Al-Zawahiri, which is my entire point. But enough on this, we probably disagree less in essence than in terminology.

But there are no groups. Just collections of individuals. Each with thier own biases, hopes, agendas, principles and faults. How each person acts affects teh dynamics of the whole. Dynamic, often chaotic; it goes beyond classifications and ideologies.

Disagree Jimbo. In the beginning there are no groups, only individuals. If the leaders do their jobs, later there are no individuals, only the group. How rapidly we forget the lessons on the psychology of group dynamics and the human need to belong. The military is a perfect example. Try being the only non-HALO qualified guy on a HALO Team, or the only guy on an NG Team that hasn't been to the Q. I'd rather take a whipping with the buckle end of the belt.

Everyone has their limits and the vast majority of people who are attracted to the groups we are discussing are not nearly as professional as you and your brothers. Their group dynamics are the same to a point, but very divergent after that point. Some call the human need to belong "need for affiliation" and in some individuals that is stronger than the need for power. Thus, leaders and followers are born. Everyone posseses these traits, just in vaying amounts.

Well I KNOW that! That's what I just said. The fact that they are not professionals, IMO, means they need it even more. Given this, how can you say there are no groups per your previous post?

Re: Terrorism and Insurgency
 

From the definitions thread:Are the effects of "terrorism" vs. "terrorists acts carried out as part of an insurgency" different to the intended audience?

Good question.

Welcome!

Thank you. Glad to be here and ready to learn. :)

Need what even more? Affiliation? Some do, some don't. I'll write more on it tomorrow.

Re: Re: Terrorism and Insurgency
 

For the most part. Depends on the symbolism of the target.