Why a new approach is needed now to combat terrorism

Members of Al Qaeda flew commercial jets into the World Trade Center in New York on September 11, 2001

When members of Al Qaeda flew commercial jets into the World Trade Center in New York on September 11, 2001, the idea of ​​who a terrorist was became clear to the world. But 23 years later, the reality is that there is no one “kind” of terrorist. As security forces around the world grapple with a myriad of threats from a variety of groups, a fundamental agreement on who the adversary is becomes crucial.

An effective definition of terrorism is necessary to provide national security services with operational rules of the game and to facilitate joint efforts at the international level based on the shared perspective of peace and war, of friends and enemies, of threat scenarios.

Good, evil and the terrorist

A person is a terrorist because of what he does, not because of what he believes. He is prosecuted for his actions.

Discussing terrorism on the theoretical level of “good and evil” is counterproductive and pointless. Even if we all agree that terrorism is the manifestation of evil, it is not possible to agree on who the terrorists are.

This is because the category of evil, in today’s fragmented world, is only comprehensible at the local level, difficult to share beyond one’s cultural boundaries. Evil as a concept depends on cultural perspectives and therefore cannot lead to a definition of terrorism based on an objective assessment of harm and threats.

Moreover, in a world of conflict, the same effect can be caused by terrorists, insurgents, freedom fighters and other groups who use violence and do the same thing, but for different reasons and with a different label.

The whole question of the “good or evil” of an action depends on the reasons that motivate that action, so again, it is a vague criterion. The acceptance or rejection of actions cannot depend on the value of “good or evil”, nor on the reasons that generate them.

This is yet another reason to change the way we measure terrorism, to forget about “good and evil” and focus instead on the results of terrorism, and to prohibit the effects that we cannot accept. These effects, unlike the ideas that form motivations, can be counted and measured. When “a terrorist act is such because of the effects it generates, and not because of the causes that impelled it,” then the way is open for everyone to agree on a common counter-strategy against terrorism.

Defining Terrorism

Ten years after 9/11, Alex P. Schmid, Distinguished Fellow at the International Centre for Counter-Terrorism (ICCT) and Director of the Terrorism Research Initiative (TRI), gathered the opinions of dozens of experts to arrive at a scientific definition of terrorism for the 21st century.

The result is a long list of characteristics, including an emphasis on the aim of ‘terrorising’, the identification of communications as a specific element of terrorism and the use of force indiscriminately directed at ‘civilian’ targets.

This multitude of definitions makes it difficult to arrive at a common operational perspective for combating terrorist threats.

Unfortunately, too many definitions of terrorism refer to experiences gained around this phenomenon in a world that no longer exists.

Italy is a good example of this.

A history of violence

Italy is known for the violence the country has experienced in the last 30 years of the 20th century, from far-left groups such as the Brigate Rosse (Red Brigades) to far-right groups (Nuclei Armati Rivoluzionari), along with the mafia and other organized crime.

Italy was ravaged by violent political terrorism. People wanted to change the state to affirm another idea of ​​the state.

Based on that experience, anti-terrorism laws have now been drafted to address this phenomenon.

Today’s terrorism, however, has nothing to do with the terrorism of the past. So old regulatory instruments are still being used to regulate a phenomenon that has changed.

This means that for an effective, contemporary response to terrorism, we need to go back to identifying the phenomenon as it exists today, and ask ourselves the basic question: “What is terrorism?”

In recent years, terrorism has proven itself to be flexible, adaptable and opportunistic. It is highly adept at exploiting an enemy’s vulnerabilities and through this ability it gains strength.

In its TE-SAT Terrorism Situation and Trend Report 2023, Europol provides an overview of current forms of terrorism and dangerous groups. In addition, Europol warns that “the boundaries between different forms of terrorism, including right-wing, left-wing, anarchist, jihadist and other ideologies, are likely to become more blurred in the future”.

Europol finds that similarities have already been observed between terrorist and violent extremists across the ideological spectrum.

Salad bar terrorism

Ideologically, today one can speak of Salad Bar terrorism (or mixed ideology terrorism), where the ideological dimension is present, but it is articulated on the basis of personal taste, in order to justify the choice of violent confirmation of one’s ideas.

Yet the real reasons for terrorism can be found in terrorism itself as a choice and action. They lie in the conviction that terrorists have that only violence can change a situation that is already irreparable, urgent and dramatic. The personalized ideology that terrorists create for themselves is the justification for the terrorist action and not the real motivation.

In this context, recruitment and propaganda are strategic parts of the ideological puzzle: ideas must be reassembled on the basis of a flexible and adaptable image that forms the scenario in which the terrorist’s violence will be expressed.

This fragmentation is the main characteristic of terrorism that affects the identity of young people (since young people are the main victims of terrorist propaganda and recruitment). A fragmentation where geographical, political and cultural borders are no longer useful, reorganized by the global network of communication technologies.

More than ideology

The first challenge that emerges is the need to rethink the meaning of nation and state.

There are many paths that can lead to terrorism and that is why the definition of terrorism based on reasons and motivations does not work: the unpredictable Salad Bar ideology offers many ways to become a terrorist.

Ideologies no longer provide sufficient analytical categories to effectively identify and then prevent threats. The reasons that drive radicalization today are multiple and arise from different inputs.

A good example of the failure of the current approach to terrorism are the many tools developed by law enforcement agencies to identify potential terrorists, the so-called Terrorist Risk Assessment Instruments.

All this has led to bad results so far, because it is based on the wrong assumptions of continuity, linearity and ideal coherence. Today’s Salad Bar Terrorism, on the other hand, offers a circular route, fast and unpredictable, and always original for everyone.

For example, the Australian Institute of Criminology recently published a report on the use of four risk assessment tools. These tools are designed to assess the threat posed by radicalised criminals and, in some cases, justify keeping them behind bars or under close supervision after serving their sentences.

The AIC report found that there is “relatively little research into the effectiveness of these tools,” which it said “poses a barrier to their use and undermines confidence in expert judgments that rely on these tools.”

Often there are no reliable signals to identify the ‘typical terrorist’ until it is too late.

Nowadays, a more effective method for identifying a potential terrorist risk might be the so-called ‘Digital Humint’ approach. This analyses both the ‘real’ and the ‘virtual’ dimensions simultaneously, examining not only the network of offline relationships and habits, but also the ecosystem of social media and chat rooms.

A new approach

A new approach, abandoning the ideological dimension as the basic dimension of terrorism, is crucial. This means that “a terrorist act is considered because of the effects it produces, not because of the causes that underlie it”.

This approach is not only supported by the previous empirical results and failures of counterterrorism efforts. It also has a theoretical basis from the field of crisis management, where a crisis is defined as an event whose effects are not controlled by a system.

It also has a practical basis, in seeking an agreement on “what terrorism is” by referring to the effects, to the damage caused, for which an objective assessment can be agreed. This is fully in line with the needs of the criminal justice system and the legal framework.

In the EU, terrorism is defined as its purpose: “(a) to seriously intimidate a population; (b) to unlawfully compel a government or an international organisation to perform or refrain from performing an act; (c) to seriously destabilise or destroy the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organisation”, without any reference to a typology of ideological motives.

Terrorism is not what it used to be, but those fighting terrorism have failed to see that. Bold decisions must be made to abandon outdated approaches and tools that can no longer deliver results.

What worked 50 years ago to combat terrorism in the 1970s and 1980s is irrelevant today, because contemporary terrorism bears little resemblance to earlier manifestations. After all, human society has changed.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published via a syndicated feed.)