| Chapter 1: | The Challenge of Global Terrorism |
Given the enormous resources in blood and treasure that the United States has spent on the War on Terrorism, these questions have implications for U.S. foreign policy. Insofar as clashes between those who engage in global or transnational terrorism and those who seek to thwart this phenomenon represent an emerging form of conflict, these questions also have implications for conflict theory.
Competing Theories
Della Porta observes that scholars of collective action have long argued that when governments respond to oppositional violence with tactics that are “more tolerant, selective, and softer,” the likelihood of subsequent violence increases. On the other hand, when regimes carry out measures that are highly forceful, diffuse, and “harder,” challengers are expected to have difficulty mobilizing further action.19 Taken to the extreme, this means, in Ralph Peter’s (2004, p. 26) words: “There is no substitute for shedding the enemy’s blood.”
The benefits of such an approach, however, have not been conclusively demonstrated.20 Ethan Bueno de Mesquita points out that governments engage in forceful offensive measures (“crackdowns”) to prevent terrorist attacks in the future.21 But such measures can have mixed effects. They may decrease the ability of existing terrorists and their organizations to mount effective actions. However, they can also lead to displacement of attacks or substitution of new means of attacks.22 In addition, as Lichbach points out, offensive measures can drive a hard core further underground where they become more organized, dedicated, and deadly.23 Moreover, such “hard tactics,” if not highly selective, may be perceived as arbitrary and unjust, creating anger and frustration in a wider population.24