Cui bono?
Terrorism is notoriously resistant to strict definition, and the most obvious reason for this is generally understood. Unlike (for instance) guerrilla warfare, ‘terrorism’ is not merely a tactic, but an intrinsically abominated tactic. Whatever the technical usage of the word, it adheres to the register of propaganda, as a partisan denunciation. It is what the other side does.
This partisan skew is reinforced by technical considerations. Even more than guerrilla warfare, terrorism is a tactic suited to relatively disorganized non-state actors. When even guerrilla warfare is impractical, terrorism is the mode of violent ‘resistance’ that remains. In the sentimental language of the Left, it is the warfare of the weak.
If these factors are recognized, a realistic definition of terrorism can be constructed that coldly acknowledges both aspects of its positioning, as an ideologically motivated atrocity without state legitimation. Terrorism is violent partisan criminality. It is aggressive violation of the law in the service of a political cause.
In a post written prior to the identification of the Boston Marathon bombers, Richard Fernandez makes a point that is far from original, but all the more important for being clearly true, and widely accepted as being true:
The ascription of guilt in public attacks has become highly politicized. Each ideological side is rooting for its own set of villains to be identified as guilty. The Left desperately want the perpetrators to come [from] the Tea Party, White Supremacist Groups or at least Christians while the conservatives want the perps to be Muslims or drug addled lions of the Left.
Acts of terror taint a cause, its supporters, and its demographic base with violent partisan criminality. Who benefits? In the case of American domestic terrorism, at least, the answer is almost insultingly obvious. Those identified with the target of terror are strengthened by it, those pre-positioned as enemies of the terrorists even more so. After the atrocity occurs, the cry immediately arises: please let it not be ours.
This is distinctly odd. An act that is inherently political has a valency that directly and explicitly contradicts its superficial partisan motivation. Terrorism is not only something the other side does, it is something that — when reptilian partisan considerations are all that count — one wants the other side to do. How utterly delightful (if unavowable) to be blessed with spectacular public confirmation that one’s enemies are violent partisan criminals.
An inevitable consequence of this oddity is the proliferation of conspiracy theories. If the guiding question is cui bono?, the inescapable implication is that the target — ultimately, the State — is the only agent with a rational interest in terror taking place. ‘False flags’ make much more sense than raw terror ever could. This way lies madness, and perhaps an ineluctable mass insanity.
The alternative to conspiracy theory can only be common sense, but it finds itself surprisingly stressed. Is terror rationally explicable at all? Are its proponents simply deranged? Or do they perceive subtle advantage in sheer escalation — feeding their enemies, as a way to feed the war? With the world becoming ever more Black Swan-compatible, this is a story that has scarcely begun.
ADDED: Driven to kill by brutalist architecture.
ADDED: ‘George Washington’ on False Flag Terror.
If at the moment of detonation the state gathers what it can by spectacular force to appear intelligible and justified, then ‘false flags’ do seem to be the only means by which one can answer the guiding question that you pose. As the image of a dying Socrates is to the portals of science the ‘false flag’ is to the state. . .
Feeding the enemy aside, how much nourishment can really be found in ‘false flags’?
[Reply]
admin Reply:
April 23rd, 2013 at 9:37 am
If you’re looking for something beyond a glib ‘hostile terror is the steroids of the state’ you’ll have to feed me a little more fishing line.
[Reply]
Federico Reply:
April 23rd, 2013 at 12:02 pm
Putin found some nourishment.
[Reply]
adsorb Reply:
April 23rd, 2013 at 3:40 pm
Looking but not finding anything beyond steroids. Conceded for the moment. Clearly nourishing. . . It has sent me in circles somewhat -stuck wondering about the utility of receiving terror (if there is even a question of it).
[Reply]
There are many problems here, but I’ll focus on one for now.
The problem here is that ‘terrorism’ is not merely a tactic, nor merely an intrinsically abominated tactic.
A tactic is rational means to achieve a short-term end. And there can be little doubt that terrorism by some parties at some points in History is almost purely such a tactic.
But with the Atrocity-Islamist, the act itself is an end. The psychological state of the actor is one of wish-fulfillment, achieving a dream of martial glory, an ‘honorable’, ‘fighting’ death (in the case of Chechens, the prefer to go down fire-fighting, and not begin-and-end their careers via self-detonation). Fighting and killing the wicked infidel oppressor, showing one’s ‘superior’ courage and commitment, is fun and exciting.
In other words, being a terrorist, the planning, the comrade of conspiracy, the adrenaline – is enticing and improves the terrorists utility. And this private benefit (and a good amount of cognitive bias – obliviousness or apathy about short-term political results, since the war never ends until it’s won), often overwhelms whatever political strategic setbacks may result – and that’s assuming that these counterproductive setbacks are even appreciated.
[Reply]
admin Reply:
April 23rd, 2013 at 9:33 am
OK, that all sounds extremely convincing, but how is it not — from the perspective of politico-military rationality — “simply deranged”?
[Reply]
Handle Reply:
April 24th, 2013 at 1:32 am
Perhaps it depends on the context. The Taliban are a good example of mixed rational-calculus and derangement.
The Taliban goal is to use violent intimidation to reconquer Afghanistan and regain and retain power there. They want to use that power to create a “pure” Islamic state, and, frankly, a sanctuary and/or base of operations for your global motley crew of Islamist militants who want to hook up with the Jihad, or maybe just get trained and organize their own offshoot. North Pakistan serves that purpose today, mainly for Sunnis, and there’s a reason you’ll find Chechens there too.
Now, obviously the Taliban are under a lot of pressure that is preventing them from presently accomplishing their goal. Especially the kind of pressure that emanates from the blast wave emerging from that drone-launched hellfire missile. But, as they themselves like to say, “You’ve got the watches, but we’ve got the time”.
Now, after the first few months of the Afghan campaign and the decision to stop hot pursuit (well, mostly, more or less) at the Durand Line, the Taliban could have taken a few moments to think and realized that the Americans don’t really want to be there a minute longer than they think they have to. And that their assessment of “have to” is basically the metric of number of current attacks. They want to declare victory and go home, and if things are quiet for just long enough, they will! The strategically right answer for the Taliban (and I haven’t met a single veteran that disputes this point in any degree), would have been to do nothing, recover, recruit, rearm, and …wait the Americans out.
No more than two years without a single incident and the Americans would have abandoned the hell-hole to the Devil. Meanwhile, the Afghan government, and most definitely their pathetic, inexperienced, cowardly, and corrupt military and police units, would have been easy pickings, what without years of training and hundreds of billions of free armaments and gear from ISAF.
But, I’m telling you, these guys are impatient and impractical. They’re not strategic or pragmatic. All they know how to do is fight and die, and it’s all they want to do. They think it terrifies us, and they live for that. Their thinking – when projected to long time horizons – is fuzzy at best. I’m even willing to believe that the way their whole system operated relies upon constant action – that they wouldn’t be able to recruit and retain members just to wait for the Yankees to go home. Perpetual Focoism.
On the other hand, the constant stream of harassment, killings, and bombings, also keeps the population constantly aware of what’s going to go down when the infidels leave. It’s going to be ugly, and the Taliban wants and needs to send a constant message that, when the revolution comes, they can and will put anybody in their way against the wall. It’s a Psychological Operation that needs constant refreshment or the effect with depreciate and degrade.
[Reply]
fotrkd Reply:
April 24th, 2013 at 1:42 am
@ admin
“You’ve got the watches, but we’ve got the time” – sounds like a terrifying phrase Duzsl
could utilise.
admin Reply:
April 24th, 2013 at 6:13 am
A significant proportion of the Taliban activity is probably better described as ‘guerrilla warfare’ than as ‘terrorism’ because it is plausibly directed towards seizing state power. It’s hard — or impossible — to understand attacks on the US homeland in the same way. There’s an overlap, of course, but the distinction is especially relevant to questions of strategic purpose.
It could be a motivating factor.
[Reply]
Posted on April 23rd, 2013 at 12:12 pm | QuoteI agree with Handle, the perpetrator of the terrorist act often slides into the kind of mindset which would make them commit the final action incrementally, rather than as a one-time, balanced decision.
However, the Terror Planner, who creates the cause and puts them there does look at the problem on a larger scale. This is where we need to look for a (warped) rationale. I propose the reason they encourage terrorist acts is that without them, they have no presence in the Cathedralist media – so abstractly, their choice isn’t between being seen as a ‘good cause’ or as ‘violent, partisan criminals’ but between having no recognition or some. The Chechens, through their violence, at least have gained acknowledgement of their struggle and are the most celebrated repressed-statelet in Central Asia. Sure, many more people despise what they have done than support it, but at least it has some kind of recognition. In the west, the same would go for AQ after 9-11.
False flag claims become useful to those groups who have some voice in the Cathedral, albeit a very marginal one – they can hijack the event and promote their own position through the prism of their re-imagining without having to suffer the enmity that the perpetrator receives. This is especially true in the moments just after the attack, when there is a huge media space to fill, and very little content beyond a simple narrative how-it-happened.
[Reply]
Posted on April 23rd, 2013 at 12:24 pm | QuoteI think it’s probably a mistake to be looking for meaning in between the Motives of the Terrorists (foreign, especially) and the We Are Vindicated games played by the Western targets. I just can’t bring myself to believe that terrorists are all that cognizant of the game you so succinctly described, or if they are, it doesn’t matter to them. Did these Chechen brothers give any thought to how their action would be framed and played out by the status-whores of the Cathedral and the nationalists on right-wing radio? Did Timothy McVeigh think about it? I really don’t think so.
Their reasons—the motives of all terrorists—are inscrutable and legion. “Political agency” (or lack thereof) is, in my opinion, a convenient cover. Terrorism is simply the random manifestation of the violence and tribalism that we in the neoreaction accept as part of the human condition. Western Society has advanced so far, of course, that such violence and tribalism has been mitigated to a great extent. (When it spills over, we’re shocked! There are places in the world where such a bomb blast is as newsworthy as taking a shit.)
The question “who benefits?” is largely divorced from the raw fact of violent outbursts masked in ideological garb. Hence why I ignore the conspiracy theorists. A better question, perhaps, is “who can make the most of it?”
[Reply]
Posted on April 24th, 2013 at 12:02 am | Quote