Contemporary Terrorism
February 8, 2011
Arms control and conflict resolution expert Jonathan Fine compares terrorism tactics, old and new
On September 11, 2001, Dr. Jonathan Fine watched the U.S. terrorism attacks from his television in Israel, surprised by what he called the “sound of silence on the radio.” There were no demands from the hijackers who crashed planes into the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon Building in DC, killing thousands.
Fine’s recent Harris School lecture, "Democracies and Counter Terrorism: Challenges and Objectives,” used this anecdote to discuss terrorism today and raise a question that has plagued counter-terrorism efforts for the past decade: How do you deal with groups that don't play by the rules?
The lecture, held Jan. 25, was co-hosted by the Jewish Public Policy Association and marked a stop on a Consulate General of Israel to the Midwest-sponsored speaking tour.
A native of Tel Aviv, Fine has worked as an adviser on arms control and conflict resolution in the Middle East and abroad. He is currently an academic adviser and research fellow at the International Institute for Counter Terrorism at the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya, Israel, and has taught courses on these issues in Europe, Mexico, Argentina, and several other countries.
In the conflict areas where he previously worked as a teacher and practitioner, violent actors—the IRA in Ireland, Marxist groups in South America—had political agendas and were willing to dialogue about them, he said. Contemporary terrorists are driven by more theological motivations and are less willing to compromise, he said.
Fine believes counter terrorism tactics must change accordingly. He pointed to the use of targeted killings of strategic leaders, which have increased under Obama, as a measure that—while imperfect—is more effective than previous diplomatic efforts.
But another problem persists: "Any decision made regarding counter-terrorism is, above all, a political decision," Fine said, "made by politicians.”
Fine was followed by brief commentary from Ethan Bueno de Mesquita, a professor at the Harris School. Bueno de Mesquita, a game theorist who researches political violence and studied in Israel, agreed with Fine that politics dominates counter terrorism decisions. The result, he said, is a deficiency of strategic thinking, as lawmakers often funnel funds to immediate measures—like airport security, for example—that seem like they are taking action but do little to deter terrorism in the long term.
But Bueno de Mesquita differed with Fine on the chasm between secular and religious violence, noting it "is not entirely clear." He referenced the new Al-Qaeda strategy of co-opting separatist movements as affiliates and said that while Al-Qaeda's leadership may be driven by a global religious vision, their disparate recruits in Morocco or Indonesia often have more local political agendas. And this may offer more opportunities for strategic counter-terrorism—diplomatically and militarily.
Bueno de Mesquita further disagreed with Fine’s broad categorization of international terrorist organizations. Hamas, the democratically elected party in Palestine, is "very different organization from Al-Qaeda," since it must maintain a secular authority and is not driven by an unyielding global agenda, but rather tethered to a local electorate, he said. As an example, he cited another Palestinian poll that found a majority of Hamas supporters overwhelmingly in favor of peace negotiations with Israel.
Both speakers conceded that counter terrorism must adjust to constant shifts in the mercurial Middle East. And the events that broke out in Egypt, the same day as the lecture, offered evidence that these shifts may always be uncertain.
-Mark Bergen
Contact Information
Communications Office
Phone: 773-702-7681
