Introduction
The article “Why Terrorism Does Not Work,” written by Max Abrahm, explores the concept of terrorism as a tactic and dispels myths about its effectiveness. Based on the terrorist attacks on civilian targets, this essay seeks to evaluate Abrahm’s statistical analysis critically. It will also examine the three case studies that are discussed in the article: Israel’s response to the First Intifada, the US response to the September 11 terrorist attacks, and Russia’s response to the 1999 apartment bombings.
Statistical Analysis: Terrorist Groups, Objectives and Outcomes
Using a large dataset, Abrahm’s statistical analysis reveals a constant pattern in the strategic inefficiency of terrorism against civilians. After looking at several instances, the data shows that terrorist groups are less likely to succeed when civilians are their main objectives (Abrahms, 2022). For instance, terrorist attacks against civilian populations frequently lead to increased government countermeasures, increased public resilience, and worldwide censure. Thus, the statistical data supports Abrahm’s argument, highlighting the fact that focusing on non-civilian targets increases the chances that terrorists will succeed in their goals. This factual backing for the claim that civilian populations become the focal point weakens terrorism’s strategic effectiveness.
Agreement with Abrahm’s Opinions
Agreeing with Abrahm’s position is based on empirical evidence that shows targeting civilians in terrorist operations is strategically ineffective. The statistical analysis emphasizes that terrorist campaigns directed against civilians usually have a lower chance of success. The real-world ramifications of attacks on civilians go far beyond statistical patterns (Nacos, 2019). These types of actions frequently set off a social backlash that heightens public opposition and diminishes support for the terrorists’ goal. Moreover, the reality that when civilians are the target of a terrorist group, governments, and communities tend to band together to combat them highlights how unproductive such tactics are. The fact that the world community is denouncing these actions increases the strategic inefficiency and puts more pressure on those committing them.
Governments act decisively, enacting tighter security protocols and promoting a unified front in the fight against terrorism. The notion that attacking civilians is strategically useless and ultimately counterproductive to the cause of terrorism is strengthened by the widespread criticism of attacks on civilians, which demonstrates a shared commitment to ending terrorism. The correlation between statistical data, empirical results, and global reactions strengthens the argument that terrorism is strategically ineffective when the victims are primarily civilians.
Disagreement with Abrahm’s Opinions
In line with Abrahm’s viewpoint, it is critical to understand the subtle contextual factors influencing how effective terrorism is. Targeting civilians may be seen by some terrorist organizations as a way to sow panic, sabotage social cohesion, and compel governments into making concessions. However, these tactics’ long-term effects are apparent. When assaults on civilians occur, governments usually react by stepping up security, which promotes global cooperation against terrorism.
The people, strong in the face of misfortune, frequently band together to take down the offenders. Thus, even if terrorism might cause temporary disruption and anxiety, it cannot last forever because of better security, worldwide counterterrorism operations, and a cohesive social response. This supports Abrahm’s claim since it makes the strategic calculation of attacking people continuously unfavorable to achieve long-term triumph.
Case Studies
Russia’s Response to the 1999 Apartment Bombings
The 1999 Russian apartment bombings were a horrific chapter in the country’s history that initially filled people with shock and terror. However, the rapid and forceful response from the Russian government showed tenacity. The Russian people’s united front against terrorism was highlighted by the subsequent military action in Chechnya (Favarel-Garrigues, 2018). This swift move demonstrated the government’s resolve to combat terrorism and won the public’s broad support, demonstrating a shared resolve to confront and defeat the threat. The aftermath of the attacks underscores the nation’s ability to remain united against terrorism, showcasing the power of the state and the determination of its citizens.
The US Response to the September 11 Terrorist Attacks
A key event in contemporary history was the September 11 terrorist attacks, which sparked the worldwide War on Terror. As evidenced by the united front shown throughout the US military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq, the world community came together in support of the US. Although the attacks did not meet the terrorists’ objectives, they unintentionally made the international counterterrorism effort stronger (Alexander & Alexander, 2021). In addressing the complex problems presented by extremist ideologies, enhanced collaboration, intelligence sharing, and diplomatic efforts were fostered by the coordinated reaction, which demonstrated an international commitment to fighting terrorism and ultimately changed the face of global security.
Israel’s Response to the First Intifada
The way that Israel handled the First Intifada demonstrated how strategically ineffective terrorism is for attaining political goals. The violent revolt that targeted civilians did not result in positive outcomes for the Palestinian people (Naser-Najjab, 2020). Instead, it resulted in increased security, Israeli territorial gains, and a decline in global support for the Palestinian cause. The shift in perspective reflected an understanding that taking aim at civilians failed to achieve political objectives and came at a high cost. This strengthened the case that using such methods is unproductive and impedes rather than helps achieve strategic goals.
Conclusion
The study by Max Abrahm makes a strong case for why targeting civilians with terrorism is strategically ineffective. The case studies support that these strategies frequently negatively affect the groups using them. The evidence presented supports the notion that targeting civilians is a detrimental tactic over the long term, even though the effectiveness of terrorism may vary depending on the context.
References
Abrahms, M. (2022). Can Terrorism Be Rational? Contemporary Terrorism Studies, p. 201.
Alexander, Y., & Alexander, D. C. (2021). Terrorism and business: the impact of September 11, 2001. In Terrorism and Business: The Impact of September 11, 2001. Brill Nijhoff.
Favarel-Garrigues, G. (2018). State and the multilateralization of policing in post-Soviet Russia. In Criminology and Criminal Justice in Russia (pp. 56-73). Routledge.
Nacos, B. L. (2019). Terrorism and counterterrorism. Routledge.
Naser-Najjab, N. (2020). Palestinian leadership and the contemporary significance of the First Intifada. Race & Class, 62(2), 61-79.
write