24 October 2001

Terrorism's Failure

Michael Kelly's "from the editor" column in this month's Atlantic Monthly is well worth reading -- as is the rest of the magazine (one of the few mags worth subscribing to in paper form). The entire column is online, but I found this particular paragraph compelling:

Among those who have dreamed of revolution and new orders, there has always been much faith in what the nineteenth-century anarchist and theorist of terror Mikhail Bakunin called "propaganda of the deed." Johannes Most, a German socialist and advocate of terrorism, was an early proponent of mass public slaughter as a means of inducing a transformative fear. All the great monsters of the past century's great, monstrous societal schemes were convinced of terror's power to force submission. Hitler thought the London blitz would drive the British to their begging knees; Stalin thought his purges would strike such a fear into the hearts of the Russian people that they would never challenge their masters again. The anarchists were wrong, the fascists were wrong, the communists were wrong. The interesting�and the wonderful�truth is, as Wilkinson wrote, that "the overall track record of terrorism in attaining major political objectives is abysmal."

Despots of all sorts (and terrorism can be considered a form of despotism) have long underestimated the power of freedom, and free peoples. They apparently confuse the fact that free peoples are often subject to strategic military surprise (and now, terrorism) -- a point driven home by my old mentor's little known masterpiece Kingdoms of the Blind -- with inherent weakness or inferiority. Sure, a love of freedom often leads us to disregard matters of internal and external security, especially during good times. But when provoked, democratic peoples tend to be a resilient bunch. And we usually aren't the ones left hiding in caves.

ADDENDUM

When I first posted this tonight, I raised the question with Callie about ascribing positive political motives to Osama bin Laden and his brand of terrorism. That is to say, I questioned the Wilkinson assumption that Osama bin Laden is seeking a "major political objective" as understood by Wilkinson. I suggested that, unlike most recent terrorist movements (whether we're talking about FARC or the IRA or the PKK) that are seeking a clearly defined political end, Osama bin Laden's ultimate motivation (despite the suggestions by those who would "understand" his brand of Islam, and think it is, politically, to chase the West from "Islamic" lands) may very well be almost a psychopathological urge to wreak as much destruction as possible on those whom he CANNOT defeat politically. Interestingly, Sean posts a blurb from a P.J. O'Rourke interview that suggests that terrorism broadly is just such a reactionary, destructive force (but I really think it's applicable to Osama bin Laden more narrowly -- since some terrorist movements do indeed have a positive political end in mind):

I think that terrorism is essentially a reactionary thing - it really has more to do with fighting back a world that is changing. The reason for much of terrorism in the world is that we are moving towards an open, liberal, cosmopolitan, tolerant, modern indeed middle-class world, and it terrifies certain people who have a hold on, and a power over, other people by virtue of things that are not tolerant, not liberal, not modern, not middle class. It isn't because they are intent on winning that terrorists resort to these things, it is because they are losing.

[Posted @ 09:24 PM CST]