Understanding and Responding to Terrorism

Terrorism is a symptom of persistent social problems. It seeks to express resistance and create change by means of out-sized aggression. It uses “blind criminal violence” to motivate others to include the terrorist in their calculus of choices and behavior – or weaken themselves by reacting poorly.

Terrorism is usually a form of communication that is meant to produce powerful emotional responses. Whatever motivates any given terrorist, we are obliged to notice their act. Certainly, understanding terrorists’ motives is vital to designing an appropriate counter-terrorism response. Terrorism is not a single-issue problem and does not have a single-tactic solution.

Several years ago, I had the opportunity to discuss terrorism with James Hippensteel, a professor of history in North Carolina. He startled me with an observation that I remember as: “Terrorism is the last resort of the desperate and impotent to gain recognition of their grievances and prosecute their struggle against a superior and overwhelming power.” Dr. Hippensteel was careful to point out that he was not arguing that the use of terrorism was defensible but that, like smoke from a fire, it should be recognized as an indicator of an underlying unresolved issue.

Initially, I thought this “last desperate resort” observation on terrorism only applied to those who were oppressed and disenfranchised. These might include peoples experiencing genocide, slavery or subjugation. I thought of these as fundamentally sympathetic people, deserving empathy and active intercession. There are certainly many whose lives feel so hopeless that it becomes easier to choose to die than continue to struggle. And, why not die with honor, believing your death has meaning?

Eventually, it occurred to me that terrorism is also used by those who are very isolated and inflexible such as primitive tribes, authoritarian religions, and the politically indoctrinated. I thought of these people as deserving careful nurturing while they are encouraged to learn how to relate to their neighbors with greater maturity.

Later, I recognized that terrorists include some who simply seek to gain some advantage and have no compunctions about hurting others to get what they want. I think of these as sociopaths, deserving contempt and active prosecution to prevent their continuing aggression.

Finally, just when I was self-satisfied with my analysis and deconstruction, I realized that most terrorists fall under more than one of these categories. The world’s problems are complicated and any effort to resolve them requires well-informed, nuanced, manifold, dynamic and flexible responses.

Topics included below:

• Terrorism Motives and Objectives
• Counterterrorism Tactics — Methods and Options
• Strategic Responses to Terrorism
• Summary

Essay: Proactive vs. Reactive – Part 2: Business and political tactics vs. strategy

Information and comments on the essay:

Proactive vs. Reactive – Part 2: Business and political tactics vs. strategy

From the book: Chum for Thought: Throwing Ideas into Dangerous Waters by David Satterlee

Find out more, including where to buy books and ebooks

Read or download this essay as a PDF file at: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4eNv8KtePyKUVBnVnd3NW9wR28/edit?usp=sharing

#Proactive vs. #Reactive – Part 2: #Business and #political #tactics vs. #strategy

Read by the author:

Chum For Thought:
Throwing Ideas into Dangerous Waters

Proactive vs. Reactive – Part 2
Business and political tactics vs. strategy

Last week, I talked about how good it was when individuals approached their lives proactively rather than reactively. You often can’t enter an open door of opportunity if you’re not already prepared. However, in groups, too much general proactivity can be disruptive. In stable groups, harmony and respect for traditions can be comfortable and help to bind members together.

In business, an employee is often tempted (or required) to be reactive. They may be content to do what they are told – simply doing their job and then coming back tomorrow and doing the same job in the same way. That is not bad in itself. When the job doesn’t change and the rules are well-known, the same responses in the same recurring circumstances keep things going smoothly. 

People who like predictability, and like for things to remain as they were before, can be happy doing this kind of work, especially if they are part of a team and able to share social connections.

I’m not just talking about low-wage or low-skill jobs. A professional is, by definition, expected to be a highly-trained practitioner of a narrow specialty. In fact, you can expect that the more training they get, the narrower their specialty. They go to school and learn a great deal about a field such as architecture or law. And, having mastered the accepted standards of their specialty, they