What Terrorists Want

What an unusual treat it is to see one of my law school professors reviewing a book written by one of my college professors. In her weekly column for the Los Angeles Times, Rosa Brooks (who taught me Human Rights Law and has since moved from UVA to Georgetown) positively raves about What Terrorists Want, written by Louise Richardson (who was chair of the Government department at Harvard and taught an excellent class on, what else, terrorism):

Drawing on interviews and primary source materials from dozens of such movements, Richardson reminds us that despite the awfulness of their acts, most terrorists are neither "insane" nor even unusually cruel. On the contrary, their acts are rationally calculated, and most terrorists believe themselves to be altruistic and noble, Davids fighting Goliaths.

This is a simple insight with profound implications for counter-terrorism policy. The rhetoric of "evil" prevents us from understanding how terrorists think and alienates those who may be torn between sympathy for the political aims of such movements and disapproval of terrorism as a tactic.

And these are precisely the people Richardson says we can least afford to alienate. Although terrorist movements thrive when they are based in what she calls "complicit communities," they fizzle out when they lose community support. Thus, understanding the grievances of those drawn to terrorism is crucial to designing effective policies to halt its spread.

By refusing to consider that terrorists may have any legitimate grievances, the Bush administration has radicalized moderates throughout the Islamic world and has wasted opportunities to deprive terrorists of the community support so critical to their survival. From the war in Iraq to the abuse of detainees, U.S. anti-terror tactics have backfired, driving more and more recruits into the arms of Al Qaeda.

As is often the case with liberal critiques of the Bush administration, Richardson's book is probably stronger on theory than on policy, but that does not mean she is wrong. It does mean that there is further work to be done to get from her perspective to that of a policymaker.

What I can say for certain is that her class (which I took pre-9/11), with its historical emphasis on such terrorist groups as Shining Path, the Red Brigades, the IRA, and even the African National Congress, gave a much better lens with which to view the current terrorist activities of al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and other extremists. I'm sure her book estalishes the same point, which makes clear that terrorism is not new, al-Qaeda is not particularly special, and there is a lot that history can teach us about what terrorists want, and how we can prevent them from achieving their goals through violent means.