POS 160 Week 7 Notes 16
POS 160 Week 7 Notes 16 POS160
Popular in Global Politics
verified elite notetaker
Popular in Political Science
This 4 page Class Notes was uploaded by Alexandra Notetaker on Saturday October 1, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to POS160 at Arizona State University taught by Dr. Reed M. Wood in Fall 2016. Since its upload, it has received 7 views. For similar materials see Global Politics in Political Science at Arizona State University.
Reviews for POS 160 Week 7 Notes 16
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 10/01/16
POS160 TERRORISM ComplicatedDefinition Departmentofstate: Premeditated,politicallymotivatedviolence perpetratedagainstnoncombatanttargetsby subnationalgroupsor clandestine agents DepartmentofDefense: The unlawfuluseofviolence orthreat ofviolence toinstillfear& coerce gov’tandsociety. Terrorismisoften motivatedbyreligious,political,or other ideologicalbeliefsand committedin thepursuitofgoalsthat areusuallypolitical. FBI: Unlawfuluseofforce/violence againstpersons or propertytointimidate or coerce agov’t, thecivilian population,or anysegmentthereof,in furtherance orpoliticalor social objectives WhatisTerrorism? Premeditation Politically motivated Non-combatanttargets Perpetratorsare non-stateactors *Distinction between terror & “guerrilla”tactics State& State-sponsoredviolence Stateviolence:againstnon-combatants Mostegregiousformsofterror Masskilling,genocide,grossviolationsofHR Changing in Understanding ofTerror—Thru History Terror haschangedover time FrenchRevolution (late 1700s):Gov’tactionsdesignedtoensure orderandcrushcounter revolutionaries Late 1800s:“Propagandaofdeed”targetedassassinationsbysmallrevolutionarygroups 1930s:stateterrorism; massintimidation/killing; FascistGermany&Italy;CommunistUSSR 1990s:Narco-terror & crime/politicalviolence overlap Post2001:“Waron Terror”; terror in abstract; focuson radicalIslamterror NOTE:whatwe think ofas“terrorism”&whowe viewas“terrorists”changesbasedon context. Political Role in Terrorism One state’sterroristisanother’sfreedomfighter Causesofterror Similartocivilwar Grievances(poverty& inequality) Lack politicalopportunity Gov’trepression Motivesfor Terror Terrorismisastrategyofwar Allterroristsareinsurgents; butallinsurgentsare notterrorists Goalofterrorismisnottosimplykill Terrorisusedstrategicallytoachieve politicalgoals “Rational”Violence Media& policymakerspaintterrorismasirrational,evil “madmen” Difficulttounderstanddepravity&violence Morallyawful Hardtoexplain whypeople become terrorists Yet terror groupstypicallyactstrategically—notcrazy Terrorhelpsachieve goals Instrumental LogicofTerrorism Terrorhasaruthlesslogic Premeditated Calculated Usedin differentcontext in differentgroups Religioncan playacentralrole Religionnotnecessary Manysecularterroristgroups Strategyisrationaltotheextentthat itisusedtoachieve goals *Note:Rationaldoesnotequalexcusable CentralQuestion:Whatmakesterrorseemlikeausefulstrategy? Terrorisintendedtoachieve avarietyofstrategicgoals Gain recognition (propaganda) Discreditgov’t Enforce obedience Provoke violence Buildmorale/group control Compensatefor weakness Impose costson gov’t Assumptions Terroristsare politicalextremists Maybe religious,ethic,notional,ideological,etc. Extremismhelpsexplain bargaining failuresandchoice oftargets These groupsare politicallyandmilitarilyweakrelative totheir demands Generallysmallnetwork ofradicals Majorityofpopulation doesnotshare beliefs Hardfor extremisttoconvince others Demandsexceedrelative bargaining position Explaining Terror Weak positionsleadtoextremeandviolent tactics Terrorismisextremeformsofasymmetricalwarfare Avoiddirectmilitaryconfrontation Theywouldbe beaten badly Attack “soft”targetsinstead Often referredtoas“weapon oftheweak” Bargaining Terroristsuse violence toimprove bargaining position Attacksseektoimpose costson target: Gov’t Civilian audience *NOTE:victimsareNOTtarget Increasingcoststotargetsimprovesextremistbargaining position. StrategiesofTerror: 3genericactors: Terrororganization Targetstate Population 4 strategiesofviolence Coercion Provocation Spoiling Outbidding CoerciveBargaining Attacksmaynotimpose direct/indirectcostson gov’t Directcosts: Instability,infrastructuredamage,economicloss,etc. Gov’tappearsineffectual& weak IndirectCosts: Pressuresgov’t tomeet extremistdemands Strategymosteffective againstdemocracies Provocation Terroristsmayattack tosimplyprovokearesponse fromthetarget gov’t Terroristsattack a“soft”target Gov’trespondwith misappropriatedforce Response radicalizesmoderates Sympathy& support for terrorists Assupportexpands,terroristsbargaining position improves Terroristsdemandsmorelikelytobe met Violentcounterinsurgencytacticsseldomwork. Spoiling Terroristsmayattempt tosabotagepotentialpeace Gov’toftennegotiatewith moderate factions Attacksbyradicalfactions jeopardizepeacedeals Moreextremefactionsattack because theyopposedeal Dealnotgoodenough Moderatessellout Radicalscutoutofnegotiations Regimewillnotsee moderatesascredible bargainingpartnersifradicalattack Cannotcontrol Peacecollapses Considerhumanv.PLO(PLA)in peace dealswith Israel Core problemisquestion ofhow muchcontrolmoderatorshave. Outbidding Terroristsmayalsoattacktarget toincreasesupport withinthe home population When 2or more terroristgroupscompete,theytrytooutbideachother: The group hopestodemonstrate itsdevotion andcapacity Itistherealdeal Possiblyeffective when significantproportion ofthetarget population supports violence Targetaudience distinctfromtarget population (victims) Morecommon in ethnic& religiousconflicts Israel/Palestine; IRAN.Ireland
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'