NationStates Jolt Archive

Since the advent of firearms, there has been an interesting trend in how groups fight each other.

In the beginning, firearms were inaccurate, but effective if used by groups of people who stood shoulder to shoulder and moved into near contact with other similar groups.

Someone got bright, and added rifling to increase the range of the weapons, and formations were forced to spread out - skirmishers were invented.

Rifles and artillery got better - and people were forced to dig trenches and spread out even more.

Machineguns were invented, and artillery became even deadlier, and people spread out even more. Armored vehicles were needed to survive crossing the battlefield.

Aircraft and other improvements made the battlefield even deadlier.

At the same time, during WW II, it became perfectly acceptable to bomb civilian areas wholesale (partly because aerial weapons were inaccurate, and partly because war was war).

Then nuclear weapons came along, and after two civilian cities were hit (with ostensbile military targets within them).

I believe that the strategy and tactics of modern terrorism came about after that time because it was becoming less and less possible for anyone to realistically fight a modern army.

Even with such tactics, things are still going badly for someone using terrorist tactics that involve direct attacks by human terrorists - while insurgents in Vietnam managed to lose only 8 insurgents for every 1 American killed, today insurgents can expect to lose 28 to 30 insurgents for every American wounded in a direct attack. Which leads them to indirect attacks using unattended or remote explosives - and since civilians were deemed valid targets (especially in the context of collateral damage), the terrorists see bombs as a viable alternative.

Terrorism's tactics therefore, have less to do with a particular ideology, and more to do with the impossibility of actually defeating a modern military in open combat - in essence, open combat against a modern military is suicide.

Questions, comments?

Terrorism's tactics therefore, have less to do with a particular ideology, and more to do with the impossibility of actually defeating a modern military in open combat - in essence, open combat against a modern military is suicide.
Well, duh?

What sort of ideology would require terrorism?

I dont really think that there is anything to say to that, it all seems pretty much true. Fighting a conventional war agains ANYONE without almost half a century technilogical advantage has been very difficult to do without large casualties since the invention of rifling.

(remember blackadder? "On no account must the enemy be armed with guns"...)


One more point that might be made is the increasing difficulty of carrying out military operations since the advent of television as a form of mass media, because when the general public can SEE just how horrific war is, they are likely to lose faith in a politician that commited their nation to such a course.

As for terrorism itself, it is, yes, simply a continuation of war against a technologically superior enemy.



What sort of ideology would require terrorism?

Well, any ideology that leads to conflict with such an enemy.

Well, duh?

What sort of ideology would require terrorism?

I'm trying to make a comment on the idea that some people have that somehow, a group uses terrorism because they like doing things that are horrific.

It has less to do with morality and more to do with trying to fight or resist without being killed.

It has less to do with morality and more to do with trying to fight or resist without being killed.
Indeed.

As it is, Islamist extremist ideology doesn't talk about methods, it talks about results, namely the creation of a powerful Islamic state in the Middle East. It leaves the decision regarding methods up to the individual, so you have some that blow people up, and some who run for elections in Egypt.

And I also don't think that they really think it started just yet. Just as Mohammed moved to Medina to gather strength before hitting back against those that did him wrong in Mekka, they sit back and gather strength before they actually start the real war. In realistic terms, that means it'll never happen.

Indeed.

As it is, Islamist extremist ideology doesn't talk about methods, it talks about results, namely the creation of a powerful Islamic state in the Middle East. It leaves the decision regarding methods up to the individual, so you have some that blow people up, and some who run for elections in Egypt.

And I also don't think that they really think it started just yet. Just as Mohammed moved to Medina to gather strength before hitting back against those that did him wrong in Mekka, they sit back and gather strength before they actually start the real war. In realistic terms, that means it'll never happen.

I think that the best they can hope for is to be disruptive.

Then again, if a radical Islamic group gets hold of smallpox, or a nuclear weapon, it will be a bit more than disruptive. But they are forced into asymmetric warfare after 100 years of having their forces annihilated by Western military superiority since the Battle of Khartoum.

So Terrorism is merely an evolved form of combat?

In that case, I wish to declare a "War on Trenches". Gentlemen, to our spades!

...
It has less to do with morality and more to do with trying to fight or resist without being killed.
nicely summed up, admirably dispassionate too. You will be accused of being a terrorist symphathizer though, because you left out the evilly bit. It is evil, remember?

nicely summed up, admirably dispassionate too. You will be accused of being a terrorist symphathizer though, because you left out the evilly bit. It is evil, remember?

The "evil" part is used to recruit people and "justify" the actions.

However, it's not as though they have any choice, if they want to resist by violence.

I think that the best they can hope for is to be disruptive.

Then again, if a radical Islamic group gets hold of smallpox, or a nuclear weapon, it will be a bit more than disruptive. But they are forced into asymmetric warfare after 100 years of having their forces annihilated by Western military superiority since the Battle of Khartoum.
I think so much depends on the end goals of the group. Guerrilla groups, because they're fighting an insurgency inside a country as a rebellion (very generally speaking of course) eventually hope to take power (like Hamas for a recent example) and so they not only have to be disruptive, they eventually have to show that they can provide a governing infrastructure.

A group like al Qaeda, however, seems to exist only to disrupt. For all the rhetoric about foreign fighters in Iraq, the majority of people fighting there are locals who want a say in the government once the US leaves, and they want to hasten the US departure as much as they can, so they fit the insurgent/guerrilla model more accurately.

So unless we know al Qaeda's long term goals, it's hard to say how effective they'll be. Are they trying to restore the Caliphate? If they are, it'll be a decades long struggle, assuming they're not wiped out along the way, because they not only have to resist western influence, they have to take out the existing power structure, with precious little manpower comparatively speaking. They'll have to recruit like mad, and they'll need to continue to have a bogeyman like Bush to help keep the locals inflamed and interested.

I believe that the strategy and tactics of modern terrorism came about after that time because it was becoming less and less possible for anyone to realistically fight a modern army.

Even with such tactics, things are still going badly for someone using terrorist tactics that involve direct attacks by human terrorists - while insurgents in Vietnam managed to lose only 8 insurgents for every 1 American killed, today insurgents can expect to lose 28 to 30 insurgents for every American wounded in a direct attack. Which leads them to indirect attacks using unattended or remote explosives - and since civilians were deemed valid targets (especially in the context of collateral damage), the terrorists see bombs as a viable alternative.

Terrorism's tactics therefore, have less to do with a particular ideology, and more to do with the impossibility of actually defeating a modern military in open combat - in essence, open combat against a modern military is suicide.
I think you are close to hitting the nail on the head, but I have a comment: I would question your definitions as I would say you were talking about Guerrilla warfare and not Terrorism in this case.

Now, it is true that both could be considered to be forms of asymmetric warfare, but I like to define terrorism as attacks against civilian targets while defining guerrilla warfare as attacks against military targets. (Of course the definitions are more complex, but that's the most important distinction.)

I think you are close to hitting the nail on the head, but I have a comment: I would question your definitions as I would say you were talking about Guerrilla warfare and not Terrorism in this case.

Now, it is true that both could be considered to be forms of asymmetric warfare, but I like to define terrorism as attacks against civilian targets while defining guerrilla warfare as attacks against military targets. (Of course the definitions are more complex, but that's the most important distinction.)

I believe that "terrorists" are a natural outgrowth of "guerillas" because being a guerilla is becoming more and more difficult.

If you're a guerilla and you assemble at night to attack, say, a US military unit, you're not coming back.

If you're a terrorist, and move one or two men at night to plant a bomb by the side of the road, and it goes off remotely the next day, and kills just about anyone, it's about as good as it gets for your side.

I believe that "terrorists" are a natural outgrowth of "guerillas" because being a guerilla is becoming more and more difficult.

If you're a guerilla and you assemble at night to attack, say, a US military unit, you're not coming back.

If you're a terrorist, and move one or two men at night to plant a bomb by the side of the road, and it goes off remotely the next day, and kills just about anyone, it's about as good as it gets for your side.
You're arguing that the difference is one of tactics, while I think the difference is one of long term intent. If the intent is to target an enemy vehicle, and it goes off prematurely or someone else sets it off, I don't see that as terrorism, especially if you're in the middle of a combat zone. That's collateral damage in guerrilla warfare. If you set it off in a public place deliberately targeting civilians, that's terrorism.

Well, duh?

What sort of ideology would require terrorism?
Just read this transcript today:

What has changed in the 21st century is that, in the hands of terrorists, weapons of mass destruction would be a first resort -- the preferred means to further their ideology of suicide and random murder.

Straight off the White House website.

You're arguing that the difference is one of tactics, while I think the difference is one of long term intent. If the intent is to target an enemy vehicle, and it goes off prematurely or someone else sets it off, I don't see that as terrorism, especially if you're in the middle of a combat zone. That's collateral damage in guerrilla warfare. If you set it off in a public place deliberately targeting civilians, that's terrorism.

If a "terrorist" blows up a civilian target, and the civilians pressure the government to stop military action, that's a military tactic - you don't need to attack a military to damage or stop it if the military belongs to a Western country.

This can backfire, but you can keep doing it until the civilians get tired of it. Witness the effect on Spain. It's an effective strategy.

When Osama makes his announcements, you can hear him make the same offer to other civilians - call off your militaries, and he'll be happy...

He's a guerilla on a grand scale.

I'm trying to make a comment on the idea that some people have that somehow, a group uses terrorism because they like doing things that are horrific.

It has less to do with morality and more to do with trying to fight or resist without being killed.

Well, in the case of suicide bonbers the "without being killed" bit is in doubt, however - yes, clearly all that most instances of terrorism are is the continuance of hostilities by the only tactically available means.

Strategically speaking, it depends on having your enemy lose the will to fight through attrition.

Although I'd premise this concept as being situational. For example, the insurgency in Iraq falls into this mold. 9/11 did not. It was terrorism for political statement.

Straight off the White House website.

I dont think "random murder" can be an ideology. Murder is a way to accomplish something.

Even if the accomplishment is someone dead. I hope no-one is foolish enough to think terrorists kill becuase that is their goal. Terrorism is ALWAYS a means to an end. In the most current cases the goal is the destruction or just the modification of western society in general (Al Qaeda) or a specific society (IRA).

I believe that "terrorists" are a natural outgrowth of "guerillas" because being a guerilla is becoming more and more difficult.

If you're a guerilla and you assemble at night to attack, say, a US military unit, you're not coming back.

If you're a terrorist, and move one or two men at night to plant a bomb by the side of the road, and it goes off remotely the next day, and kills just about anyone, it's about as good as it gets for your side.
And here is another difference between the two, in my opinion. While terrorists deliberately targets civilians (to create terror - "nobody is safe"), guerilla fighters targets military units and do not deliberately try to kill as many civilians as possible (but might cause "unfortunate collateral damage").

If they are going after only military targets, they should not be labled as terrorists in my mind. For example, I have previously argued that the attack on the USS Cole could not be classified as terrorism, because it was an attack on a purely military target.

But again, this is just a question of definitions. In Iraq today, I tend towards seeing the insugents (who attacks US troops) as guerilla fighters, while I see the suicide bombers and people that are killing civilians as terrorists. It's not always easy to draw the line, however.

I hope no-one is foolish enough to think terrorists kill becuase that is their goal.
You'd be surprised how often I apparently offended people on these boards when I suggested that 9/11 wasn't about killing many people, but about symbolism.

People seem to actually believe that they did the whole thing just because they wanted to kill Americans.

Since the advent of firearms, there has been an interesting trend in how groups fight each other.

In the beginning, firearms were inaccurate, but effective if used by groups of people who stood shoulder to shoulder and moved into near contact with other similar groups.

Someone got bright, and added rifling to increase the range of the weapons, and formations were forced to spread out - skirmishers were invented.

Rifles and artillery got better - and people were forced to dig trenches and spread out even more.

Machineguns were invented, and artillery became even deadlier, and people spread out even more. Armored vehicles were needed to survive crossing the battlefield.

Aircraft and other improvements made the battlefield even deadlier.

At the same time, during WW II, it became perfectly acceptable to bomb civilian areas wholesale (partly because aerial weapons were inaccurate, and partly because war was war).

Then nuclear weapons came along, and after two civilian cities were hit (with ostensbile military targets within them).

I believe that the strategy and tactics of modern terrorism came about after that time because it was becoming less and less possible for anyone to realistically fight a modern army.

Even with such tactics, things are still going badly for someone using terrorist tactics that involve direct attacks by human terrorists - while insurgents in Vietnam managed to lose only 8 insurgents for every 1 American killed, today insurgents can expect to lose 28 to 30 insurgents for every American wounded in a direct attack. Which leads them to indirect attacks using unattended or remote explosives - and since civilians were deemed valid targets (especially in the context of collateral damage), the terrorists see bombs as a viable alternative.

Terrorism's tactics therefore, have less to do with a particular ideology, and more to do with the impossibility of actually defeating a modern military in open combat - in essence, open combat against a modern military is suicide.

Questions, comments?

I think you also need to consider logisitcs in the terrorist's tactics as well. They don't have anything approaching the numbers, resources, equipment, or training to mount anything resembling a military operation, much less a battle with a well-prepared army.

Considering the costs of, for example, a single tank, you need to factor in training, maintainance, cost of the equipment, living expenses, etc. A car-bomb can be made using a vehicle ripped off a back alley and a few household chemicals in the right proportions.

The 9-11 attacks show this kind of economy. They paid for enough training to fly a plane, the weapons needed to take control of the planes, and not much else. It achieved the kind of effect an attack by a large military force would at much less cost to Al-Qaeda.

I dont think "random murder" can be an ideology. Murder is a way to accomplish something.
Exactly. So that's a small straw that adds to my thoery of Bush being full of shit.

If a "terrorist" blows up a civilian target, and the civilians pressure the government to stop military action, that's a military tactic - you don't need to attack a military to damage or stop it if the military belongs to a Western country.

This can backfire, but you can keep doing it until the civilians get tired of it. Witness the effect on Spain. It's an effective strategy.

When Osama makes his announcements, you can hear him make the same offer to other civilians - call off your militaries, and he'll be happy...

He's a guerilla on a grand scale.
I don't think so--the guerilla is one who hopes to take charge of the government one day--Hamas, the Tamil Tigers, Hezbollah. Bin Laden hasn't really shown any interest in that side of it, so far as I know. Even in Afghanistan, he didn't take part in the governance side of the Taliban from what I understand. I don't see what Bin Laden is hoping to transition this into.

I believe that the strategy and tactics of modern terrorism came about after that time because it was becoming less and less possible for anyone to realistically fight a modern army.i disagree, the problem "cant fight directly, enemy army far too powerful" is at least 2 millenia old. i believe in the fith book of the gaulic war caesar reports about ambiorix, who after having luck in destroying a garrison the romans had left in his tribes region, knew he had no chance winning a fieldbattle against the experienced, well equipped roman army comming for him. he had his people hide in the woods and then they would ambush small detachments of roman soldiers. caesar was afraid of this tactic too.
caesars trump card was, that, although his enemies wanted to frame him for starting an offensive war, the senate let him take the neccessary steps and he had the tribe of ambiorix completely wiped out, no survivors, issue resolved.

i disagree, the problem "cant fight directly, enemy army far too powerful" is at least 2 millenia old. i believe in the fith book of the gaulic war caesar reports about ambiorix, who after having luck in destroying a garrison the romans had left in his tribes region, knew he had no chance winning a fieldbattle against the experienced, well equipped roman army comming for him. he had his people hide in the woods and then they would ambush small detachments of roman soldiers. caesar was afraid of this tactic too.
caesars trump card was, that, although his enemies wanted to frame him for starting an offensive war, the senate let him take the neccessary steps and he had the tribe of ambiorix completely wiped out, no survivors, issue resolved.


Not practical now. If you are unarmored, relatively untrained people with AKs, fighting US troops who wear modern body armor and have far more training and things like air support, you're going to die.

It's essentially impossible to catch a large US force in an unprotected position. Never enough to swing the balance one way or the other.

So asymmetrical warfare is mandatory, if you expect to survive, much less achieve any political goal.

I don't think so--the guerilla is one who hopes to take charge of the government one day--Hamas, the Tamil Tigers, Hezbollah. Bin Laden hasn't really shown any interest in that side of it, so far as I know. Even in Afghanistan, he didn't take part in the governance side of the Taliban from what I understand. I don't see what Bin Laden is hoping to transition this into.
Wasn't his stated goal to get american troops out of Saudi Arabia, and then to go on to topple the Saudi regime? (Though not to install himself as a new leader, as far as I can remember) Only thing he was doing in Afghanistan was hiding and training, since the Taliban was friendly and sympathetic to his cause. (Freeing the city of Mecca)

At the same time, during WW II, it became perfectly acceptable to bomb civilian areas wholesale (partly because aerial weapons were inaccurate, and partly because war was war).

Then nuclear weapons came along, and after two civilian cities were hit (with ostensbile military targets within them).

I believe that the strategy and tactics of modern terrorism came about after that time because it was becoming less and less possible for anyone to realistically fight a modern army.


An interesting hypothesis, but flawed. Modern terrorism (if there is a modern terrorism distinguishable from "ancient" terrorism) began in the middle on the 19th Century, in Russia during the reign of Tsar Alexander II. Those first terrorists used the same tactics: they planted bombs under bridges where they knew the Tsar would be traveling by train, they infiltrated and stored dynamite in the basement of the Winter Palace, where the Tsar and his family lived.

Modern terrorism is not a reaction to modern weaponry; it is simply an old tactic for a small, mobile group to take action against a specific target or group of targets.

Since the advent of firearms, there has been an interesting trend in how groups fight each other.
*shakes hand* Kind of redund, but well put

An interesting hypothesis, but flawed. Modern terrorism (if there is a modern terrorism distinguishable from "ancient" terrorism) began in the middle on the 19th Century, in Russia during the reign of Tsar Alexander II. Those first terrorists used the same tactics: they planted bombs under bridges where they knew the Tsar would be traveling by train, they infiltrated and stored dynamite in the basement of the Winter Palace, where the Tsar and his family lived.

Modern terrorism is not a reaction to modern weaponry; it is simply an old tactic for a small, mobile group to take action against a specific target or group of targets.
Hm.... I have no idea, but would it realy have been possible for those terrorists/revolutionaries to defeat the tsar's army at the time?

Hm.... I have no idea, but would it realy have been possible for those terrorists/revolutionaries to defeat the tsar's army at the time?
Absolutely not. The terrorists were primarily students, and weapons were generally not availible. They did have some pistols, but their primary weapon was dynamite smuggled in Western Europe.

EDIT: I see what you're getting at, there. What I'm trying to say is not that the conclusion is necessarily wrong, but that the conclusion in invalid because the premises it is derived from are invalid.

Hm.... I have no idea, but would it realy have been possible for those terrorists/revolutionaries to defeat the tsar's army at the time?

The 19th century incidents of terrorism coincide with the development of explosives and better firearms, which allowed the asymmetrical warfare to begin.

About halfway down the timeline of my hypothesis.

You would never, in the days of swords, be able to get a handful of guys to really make a difference no matter what they did.

There's also been a sea change in sensibility amongst Western cultures to wholesale warfare - we seem to have become horrified at the prospect of major military-on-military warfare in the same destructive vein as WW II - only the US seems to have the stomach for it, and only if they are using extremely modern weapons in a position of extreme advantage - nothing like the gristmill nature of combat in WW II or Korea.

IMO, there's a difference between terrorism and guerilla warfare. Although the media calls the Iraqi attackers "terrorists", they are actually guerillas because they're attacking military. OTOH, the 911 attacks, and the bombings in Madrid & London were terrorism because they were directed against civilians. Both are types of asymetrical warfare, but I think they should engage directly, army against army. I'm an American, in case you couldn't guess. ;)

Modern terrorism (if there is a modern terrorism distinguishable from "ancient" terrorism) began in the middle on the 19th Century, in Russia during the reign of Tsar Alexander II. Those first terrorists used the same tactics: they planted bombs under bridges where they knew the Tsar would be traveling by train, they infiltrated and stored dynamite in the basement of the Winter Palace, where the Tsar and his family lived.
There's a difference between 'terrorism' of that sort and blowing up a car bomb in the middle of a crowded marketplace. The Russian terrorism was really direct action; in Rudolf Rocker's words, 'every method of immediate warfare by the workers against their economic and political oppressors.' Bombings against civilians are not direct action against economic and political oppressors; they are a more modern tactic, and do not claim the same lineage or justification.

IMO, there's a difference between terrorism and guerilla warfare. Although the media calls the Iraqi attackers "terrorists", they are actually guerillas because they're attacking military. OTOH, the 911 attacks, and the bombings in Madrid & London were terrorism because they were directed against civilians. Both are types of asymetrical warfare, but I think they should engage directly, army against army. I'm an American, in case you couldn't guess. ;)

I'm not trying to pass any moral judgment - I'm just saying that direct action is a technical impossibility for them.

Direct action against a modern Western military is suicide - especially against the US military in a military-on-military scenario.

You will notice that the attacks on civilians in Spain were very effective in getting the Spanish military to leave Iraq. This is why they attack civilians.

Part of the reason they did 9-11 was to get the US to take its forces out of Saudi Arabia. While the US will not admit that it removed its forces in response to the attack, the US certainly did remove its forces from Saudi Arabia.

Cause and effect, IMHO.

There's a difference between 'terrorism' of that sort and blowing up a car bomb in the middle of a crowded marketplace. The Russian terrorism was really direct action; in Rudolf Rocker's words, 'every method of immediate warfare by the workers against their economic and political oppressors.' Bombings against civilians are not direct action against economic and political oppressors; they are a more modern tactic, and do not claim the same lineage or justification.

True, thought the quote you provide seems to be aimed more at those who overthrew Nicholas II (1917) than those who killed Alexander II.

I do, however, think that modern terror groups may claim the same heritage, though certainly not the same justification.

As I said before, I don't neccessarily disagree with the conclusion, but the premesis is flawed.

Terrorism's tactics therefore, have less to do with a particular ideology, and more to do with the impossibility of actually defeating a modern military in open combat - in essence, open combat against a modern military is suicide.

Questions, comments?

Arguably, this kind of thing - atrocities commited against the civilian population - have been going on for at least 2,000 year. The Sicarii spring to mind. As I recollect they even went so far as to destroy the food supply of jerusalem to encourage the people to fight against Rome.

The exact methods change, but the asshattery stays the same.