February, 2010

Will the Real Straw Man Please Stand Up?

by Risa Brooks
The Conversation
February 25th, 2010

Thanks very much to my colleagues, Dr. Hillyard and Dr. Pillar, for their responses to my discussion of the underlying causes of terrorist violence. I welcome the opportunity to continue the conversation. Let me begin with Pillar’s rejoinder. He claims that in my effort to raise questions about the effects of socioeconomic factors and democracy [...]

Read: Will the Real Straw Man Please Stand Up?

Terrorism Involves Methods, Not Objectives

by Paul Pillar
The Conversation
February 24th, 2010

I am still at a loss, even after reading Paddy Hillyard’s thoughtful reply to all the response essays, just what actions by the United States constitute the supporting, sponsoring, and perpetration of terrorist incidents. I’m not saying there have never been any, but Hillyard does not identify specific actions, only locales. Nor does he offer [...]

Read: Terrorism Involves Methods, Not Objectives

Does Terrorism Really Pay Politically?

by Max Abrahms
The Conversation
February 23rd, 2010

If the conventional wisdom is correct that terrorism pays politically, then blowing up civilians is perfectly rational political behavior, and deterring aggrieved groups therefore rests on issuing moral appeals to depraved leaders such as Osama bin Laden. Fortunately, terrorism is a suboptimal political tactic, arming governments with a ready-made message to deter the aggrieved from [...]

Read: Does Terrorism Really Pay Politically?

Response to My Critics

by Paddy Hillyard
The Conversation
February 19th, 2010

I would like to thank Max Abrahms, Risa Brooks, and Paul Pillar for their insightful and critical responses to my piece. All three take issue with different parts of my argument. Max Abrahms raises an interesting methodological point about research approaches into political violence and argues that there are two main camps: lumpers and splitters. [...]

Read: Response to My Critics

Not a Cure-all, But a Contribution

by Paul Pillar
The Conversation
February 18th, 2010

The comments by Risa Brooks regarding economic and political roots of terrorism exhibit a characteristic frequently exhibited by debunking of such roots: an absolutist straw man. We are warned not to place stock in economic development as far as counterterrorism is concerned because the evidence shows that development assistance is not “the remedy” to terrorism. [...]

Read: Not a Cure-all, But a Contribution

The Semantics of Terrorism

by Paul Pillar
Reaction Essay
February 17th, 2010

Paul Pillar makes the case for clarity of terms in the debate over terrorism. He first argues that this area of public policy is especially burdened by loaded language. He next proposes a definition of the word terrorism on which he thinks he and Paddy Hillyard can agree. Finally, he suggests that labels for various violent acts may work to obscure the difficult issues underlying them. If so, we should return to these fundamentals, and agree to put debate over the labels aside.

Read: The Semantics of Terrorism

Democracy and Prosperity Aren’t Cure-Alls

by Risa Brooks
Reaction Essay
February 15th, 2010

Risa Brooks casts doubt on the correlation between democracy and terrorism prevention, and likewise the correlation between prosperity and terrorism prevention. We commonly observe terrorist organizations with political wings or allied political parties, for example. And many terrorists are well-educated, middle-class individuals. Further, many very poor societies have little terrorism to speak of. Addressing the root causes of terrorism is a noble goal, but these causes may be so idiosyncratic or so driven by small group dynamics that we can’t easily reach them via public policy.

Read: Democracy and Prosperity Aren’t Cure-Alls

Lumpers versus Splitters: A Pivotal Battle in the Field of Terrorism Studies

by Max Abrahms
Reaction Essay
February 10th, 2010

Max Abrahms cautions against lumping together all groups found under the terrorist label. Not all political violence is alike. Significant differences exist, he argues, between terrorists who target civilians and those who attack military targets. The former tend not to achieve their stated political goals — and this is a usable message for governments wishing to protect their populations. If terrorists don’t achieve their political objectives when they attack civilians, we should ask what other motivations they may have, and address those as well.

Read: Lumpers versus Splitters: A Pivotal Battle in the Field of Terrorism Studies