Page Fortna: 'Do Terrorists Win?'
As the Islamic State continues its attacks in Iraq, Syria and now France, Columbia News asked professors from a number of disciplines to evaluate the threats posed by the group. Page Fortna, the Harold Brown Professor of U.S. Foreign and Security Policy, recently published an article with the provocative title, “Do Terrorists Win?” She is also chair of the Political Science Department.
Q. How do you define terrorism?
A. I defined it quite narrowly for the purposes of this project, which examined the use of terrorism by rebel groups in civil wars: deliberately indiscriminate attacks on civilians—such as bombing buses or marketplaces to kill random, innocent people, as opposed to people deemed collaborators with the other side. Most violence against civilians in civil war attacks specific people for a specific reason. Terrorism is different. What makes it so frightening is its random nature; anyone could be a victim. The attacks in Paris this past Friday, or those in Beirut on Thursday, were quintessential terrorism—the intended targets were ordinary people attending a concert or eating in a café.
Q. What do you mean by “terrorists don’t win?”
A. They don’t achieve the ultimate goals for which the group is fighting—such as secession or autonomy or changing government policy. They don’t win their wars outright, and they are much less likely to win concessions in a negotiated settlement. But to say that terrorism isn't effective is not to say it has no effects. It has a major effect in instilling fear in the civilian population. In my research I found it effective for organizational survival; groups use it to continue their fight. You end up with long, drawn-out conflicts that don’t get resolved. Terrorism is ineffective in terms of political change that rebel groups are ostensibly fighting for.
Q. What about ISIS, which has had some success in Iraq and Syria?
A. It’s too early to know if ISIS will win its war or achieve concessions at the bargaining table, but if history is a guide, it is unlikely. I would argue that whatever military success ISIS has had in Iraq and Syria has been despite its use of terrorism not because of it. Not everything ISIS does is terrorism by my definition. A lot of their attacks have been against military targets, and a lot of the horrific stuff they do targets people they consider collaborators. Although ISIS has shifted its strategy in recent days, to engage in transnational terrorism with attacks (assuming ISIS is in fact responsible, which we don’t know for sure yet) on the Russian plane leaving Sharm el-Sheikh, in Beirut, in Paris, my guess is that it is much more likely to backfire in the long run than to succeed.
Q. What are the lessons for policy makers?
A. It’s important not to fall into the trap of responding in kind, meeting indiscriminate violence with indiscriminate violence. Terror attacks makes groups seem more powerful and scarier than they are, but the ability to attack soft targets is not the same as the ability to win wars. Governments shouldn’t overestimate the military capabilities of groups using terrorism. I would hope the reactions to terrorist attacks are motivated by more than the emotions of fear and revenge. The most dangerous thing for the French government right now is to respond with policies that alienate Muslims in France even more than they already are in ways that would help ISIS to recruit.
Q. What about ISIS, which has had some success in Iraq and Syria?
A. It’s too early to know if ISIS will win its war or achieve concessions at the bargaining table, but if history is a guide, it is unlikely. I would argue that whatever military success ISIS has had in Iraq and Syria has been despite its use of terrorism not because of it. Not everything ISIS does is terrorism by my definition. A lot of their attacks have been against military targets, and a lot of the horrific stuff they do targets people they consider collaborators. Although ISIS has shifted its strategy in recent days, to engage in transnational terrorism with attacks (assuming ISIS is in fact responsible, which we don’t know for sure yet) on the Russian plane leaving Sharm el-Sheikh, in Beirut, in Paris, my guess is that it is much more likely to backfire in the long run than to succeed.
Q. What are the lessons for policy makers?
A. It’s important not to fall into the trap of responding in kind, meeting indiscriminate violence with indiscriminate violence. Terror attacks makes groups seem more powerful and scarier than they are, but the ability to attack soft targets is not the same as the ability to win wars. Governments shouldn’t overestimate the military capabilities of groups using terrorism. I would hope the reactions to terrorist attacks are motivated by more than the emotions of fear and revenge. The most dangerous thing for the French government right now is to respond with policies that alienate Muslims in France even more than they already are in ways that would help ISIS to recruit.