Terrorism: What, Why, and How to Stop It

The daily news seems to highlight an upsurge in terrorism, with each incident more violent than the last, leading us to ask: Why do they do this? And what is the best way for the world to respond?

Although it never really left, recent world events have thrust terrorism back into the consciousness of people around the globe. Dealing with it effectively requires understanding its tactics, ideology, and psychology.

The Nature and Purposes of Terrorism

The word terrorism derives from the Latin, terrere, which means “to frighten,” and the first modern use of the term derives from the 18th-century “Reign of Terror” associated with the French Revolution. Terrorism is as old as civilization, and as timeless as human conflict. It has existed ever since some factions discovered that they could intimidate the many by targeting the few. However, terrorism has achieved special prominence in the modern technological era, beginning in the 1970s as international terrorism, continuing through the 1980s and 1990s as domestic terrorism in the U.S. and elsewhere, and apparently coming full circle in the 21st century with mass terror attacks in nations including the United States, France, and, most recently, Israel.

Psychologically, terrorism can be viewed from several perspectives. On the one hand, almost all conventional armed conflict contains an element of terror. Why threaten war at all unless the goal is to intimidate your enemy into complying with your demands? And if they resist, your strategy is to instill as much fear as possible in order to increase the likelihood of their capitulation. Additionally, where one side’s conventional combat forces are numerically or technologically deficient, terrorism puts disproportionate psychological power into the hands of a small group of ideologues or opportunists.

Terrorist Typologies

Historically, a terrorist act is rarely an end in itself but is rather designed to stoke fear in whole populations by targeting a small, representative group. However, this may be changing with acts of mass terrorism, and the tactics may relate to the different aims of various terrorist groups. Instrumental terrorism describes acts carried out to coerce the target group into taking some action or complying with a demand. Theoretically, at least, the terror will end if and when the demands are met or a compromise is forged.

By contrast, there is little that may be done to appease the perpetrators of retributive terrorism, who are primarily interested not in influencing, but in destroying their enemies. Here, the target is hated not because of what they do, but for the very fact that they exist, so nothing less than their complete expungement will suffice. Often, instrumental- and retributive-type terrorist groups are admixed and ill-defined even amongst themselves, which further complicates effective responses to them.

Terrorist Goals and Strategies

Yet, several elements appear to be almost universal in modern terrorist activities. The first is obviously the use of extreme violence as a primary instrument of coercion or intimidation. In this sense, the true targets of the terrorist act extend far beyond those directly affected. The goal of these activities is to use threats, harassment, and violence to create an atmosphere of fear that will eventually lead to some desired behavior on the part of the larger target population or government.

Second, victims are selected for their maximum propaganda value, usually ensuring a high degree of media coverage. A great deal of thought may go into the symbolic value of the attacks, or the victims may simply be targets of opportunity. This aggressive approach may backfire if the goal is to garner wider world sympathy, especially if noninvolved innocents, including children, are killed along with the direct targets. But in a malevolent twist, if the aim is actually to inflict as much pain and panic as possible, then indiscriminate slaughter may serve only too well: The target population had better comply because these terrorists will “do anything.”

Third, unconventional military tactics are used, especially secrecy and surprise, as well as deliberately targeting noncombatants; this is the commonly cited distinction between a terrorist and a soldier. Again, if the goal is to inflict maximum horror, then it makes sense to choose locations that contain the largest number of victims from all walks of life. Everyone is a target. No one is safe. These types of glaring acts are also the most likely to keep the terrorist group and their perceived grievances in the news cycle.

Fourth, intense and absolutist loyalty to the ideologies and aims of the organization characterizes most terrorist groups. Although there are exceptions, the bulk of hard-core terrorist members are typically not part-timers or mercenaries. The willingness to commit unspeakable acts — not to mention giving one’s own life — necessitates an unshakable belief that these acts are somehow for some transcendent and worthy purpose.

Ethics and Morality Essential Reads

HIPAA Compliance After a Patient Dies

Can You Be a Hero?

Are Terrorists Mentally Ill?

It is tempting to brand atrocious behavior as "crazy," because doing so helps take some of the willfully malevolent sting out of it. For example, such explanations are routinely proffered for the etiology of serial killings and school shootings, because reducing such an outrage to an anomalous scientific curiosity — as we do with a frightening disease — inserts a psychological barrier between our knowledge of the act and the terrifying and hopeless feelings that knowledge provokes. If only we can determine the “causes” of these behavioral pathologies, maybe we can discover a “cure.” Finally, pathologizing a violent act against us delegitimizes any traces of justification we may reluctantly suspect underlies the act: Nope, we didn’t do anything wrong; they’re just a bunch of malevolent psychos.

In fact, the few studies that have directly examined the mental status of captured terrorists have failed to disclose significant signs of intellectual impairment or serious mental disorder. What these individuals do show is a heightened ability to rationalize and compartmentalize their violent motives and activities, believing that these are necessary actions in fighting for their cause: Evil transformed into nobility. But ideology is not psychopathology, so these individuals fully know what they’re doing and willfully, indeed enthusiastically, do it.

Stopping Terrorism

The standard response of antiterrorism units throughout the world has consisted of a surgical version of “shock and awe.” After a terrorist act occurs, find out who and where the perpetrators are, hit them soon, hit them hard, and thereby teach a lesson to any other miscreants who may be thinking of hatching and executing similar plots. However, systematic analysis shows that this unitary retaliatory approach to terrorism frequently not only fails to deter and discourage it but may in fact only perpetuate endless cycles of retribution.

This seeming paradox can actually be explained by an elemental principle of psychophysiology: habituation. Application of a novel, aversive stimulus typically elicits a marked response from the nervous system the first few times it occurs. Repeated application of the stimulus results in a lessening of the response: In essence, the nervous system adaptively “tones down” the impact of the event so that the individual can go about their business. An exception may occur with especially painful or damaging stimuli that threaten the life and safety of the organism; then, the nervous system may actually become more, not less, responsive to repeated application of the painful intrusion, or ones like it, a phenomenon called sensitization.

The problem with most counterterrorist tactical responses by otherwise civilized nations is that they rarely are the final suppressive measures the retaliatory forces intend them to be. In fact, such response doctrines of escalating proportionality may completely defeat the whole purpose of deterrence: What better way to bake in habituation than to administer carefully titrated doses of punishment, progressively inoculating your enemy to further retaliation, and thus emboldening him through your perceived impotence? Reluctant to be seen as barbarians themselves, the stronger side fails to wage a war of total destruction, thereby diluting the effect of whatever half-hearted efforts it applies and ends up achieving not pacification, but further rebellion.

This is the conundrum of fighting terror: demonstrating resolve without descending into the same depraved depths as your adversary. The many types of terrorists and reasons for terrorism virtually guarantee the failure of one-size-fits-all approaches. Many authorities advocate a forceful but flexible approach: an unwavering commitment to eliminating the extant threat and protecting one’s citizens, combined, where possible, with a willingness to diplomatically engage the majority nonviolent portion of the aggrieved population, wielding some measure of hope as a psychological counterforce to the sense of militant desperation fueling or speciously justifying atrocities carried out to entrench and expand the power of an evil few. The alternative is a Hobbesian “war of all against all,” which 21st-century technology must render untenable.

Note: Information provided herein is for educational purposes, and is not intended to provide individual clinical or forensic advice or opinions. For such cases, always consult with a qualified legal, medical, or mental health professional.