Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: The Puzzle of Terrorism: kill soldiers, not civilians

  1. #1
    Council Member davidbfpo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    11,793

    Default The Puzzle of Terrorism: kill soldiers, not civilians

    A short article by Professor Max Abrahams that argues conventional wisdom is wrong and tactics like leader decapitation do not help:
    http://politicalviolenceataglance.or...tional-wisdom/

    Increasingly, empirical evidence has revealed that terrorism is a remarkably ineffective tactic for groups to induce government concessions. ...What I found is that groups are far more likely to attain their demands when their violence is directed not against civilian targets, but military ones... the attacks on civilians actually lower the odds of government concessions.
    Referring to another article in a journal he explains why this happens:
    It turns out that certain kinds of groups are significantly more likely to attack civilians than others those suffering from leadership deficits in which lower level members are calling the shots. Leadership deficits promote terrorism by empowering lower level members of the organization, who have stronger incentives to harm civilians.
    The journal article is openly available on:https://www.academia.edu/5365151/Exp...h_Phil_Potter_
    davidbfpo

  2. #2
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    123

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by davidbfpo View Post
    A short article by Professor Max Abrahams that argues conventional wisdom is wrong and tactics like leader decapitation do not help:
    http://politicalviolenceataglance.or...tional-wisdom/



    Referring to another article in a journal he explains why this happens:

    The journal article is openly available on:https://www.academia.edu/5365151/Exp...h_Phil_Potter_

    Having read the "leader decapitation never works" theory earlier I will respectfully disagree, again. It is quite possible, he is not differentiating between a terrorist group and an insurgent group. A very blurred line in case of middle east.

    IMO, most insurgencies and terrorist groups, like most cults are "personality" centric and since these "personalities" eventually turn into paranoid megalomaniacs they keep other "leaders" of the movement at arms length and keep their growth stunted. When these "personalities are decapitated", their successors find themselves with the toughest job for which are they are not trained for i.e. being charismatic. Case and point, Laden and Jawahiri and also Prabhakran.

    You will also find also find striking similarities mentioned above in Indian political parties and underworld gangs. Many parties who gave prime ministers to India do not exist any more and gangs who ruled cities like Mumbai are nowhere to be found.

Similar Threads

  1. Domestic political violence (USA)
    By slapout9 in forum Law Enforcement
    Replies: 93
    Last Post: 01-14-2018, 03:42 PM
  2. Is one man's terrorist really another man's freedom fighter?
    By McArthur in forum Adversary / Threat
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 11-09-2012, 09:40 PM
  3. The Relationship between American Soldiers and Afghan Civilians
    By Base Host Study in forum RFIs & Members' Projects
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-22-2011, 06:12 PM
  4. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 09-04-2009, 07:04 PM
  5. Sunni and Shi'a Terrorism: Differences That Matter
    By Jedburgh in forum Adversary / Threat
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 02-21-2009, 08:44 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •