Top 10 Terrorist Acts on American Soil
Top 10 List
Terrorism is not new. Although it has been used since the beginning of recorded history, it is still relatively hard to define. Terrorism has been described variously as both a tactic and strategy; a crime and a holy duty; a justified reaction to oppression and an inexcusable abomination. Obviously,it all depends on whose point of view is being represented. Terrorism has often been an effective tactic for the weaker side in a conflict. As an asymmetric form of conflict, it confers coercive power with many of the advantages of military force at a fraction of the cost. Due to the secretive nature and small size of terrorist organizations, they often offer opponents no clear organization to defend against or to deter.
The United States Department of Defense defines terrorism as “the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.” Within this definition, there are three key elements—violence, fear, and intimidation—and each element produces terror in its victims. The FBI uses this: ”Terrorism is the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” The U.S. Department of State defines terrorism to be ”premeditated politically-motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience”. There again is not cohesive definition.
Outside the United States Government, there are even greater variations in what features of terrorism are emphasized in definitions. The United Nations produced the following definition of terrorism in 1992; ”An anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby – in contrast to assassination – the direct targets of violence are not the main targets.” The most commonly accepted academic definition starts with the U.N. definition quoted above, and adds two sentences totaling another 77 words on the end; containing such verbose concepts as “message generators” and “violence based communication processes”. Less specific and considerably less verbose, the British Government definition of terrorism from 1974 is ”…the use of violence for political ends, and includes any use of violence for the purpose of putting the public, or any section of the public, in fear.”
All in all, terrorism can be seen as a criminal act that influences an audience beyond the intended victim. The strategy of terrorists is to commit acts of violence that draws the attention of the people, the local government, and the world to their cause. The terrorists plan their attack to obtain a paramount publicity, choosing targets that symbolize what they oppose. The effectiveness of the terrorist act lies not in the act itself, but in the public’s or government’s reaction to the act. For example, in 1972 at the Munich Olympics, the Black September Organization killed 11 Israelis. The Israelis were the immediate victims. But the true target was the estimated 1 billion people watching the televised event.
As you know, in 1993, al Qaeda tried to blow up the World Trade Center. They just failed on that occasion. And we, the United States, had been the victim of terrorist attacks by al Qaeda on more than a handful of occasions in the 1990s. What happened on 9/11 that is so important is that they proved beyond a doubt that they were not the gang that couldn’t shoot straight, which is what we thought was the case before 9/11. When we realized just how competent and dangerous they were, we then began to hypothesize what might happen if they got ahold of weapons of mass destruction, and particularly, if they got ahold of nuclear weapons. So the terrorism problem has been with us for awhile, and most IR theorists have spent some time thinking about it. But what has changed over the past year is the magnitude of the threat. We understand that we’re up against a much more formidable and much more dangerous adversary than we thought was the case throughout the 1990s. So that’s point number one.
Point number two is the question of what does a Realist theory of international politics have to say about terrorists? The answer is not a whole heck of a lot. Realism, as I said before, is really all about the relations among states, especially among great powers. In fact, al Qaeda is not a state, it’s a non-state actor, which is sometimes called a transnational actor. My theory and virtually all Realist theories don’t have much to say about transnational actors. However, there is no question that terrorism is a phenomenon that will play itself out in the context of the international system. So it will be played out in the state arena, and, therefore, all of the Realist logic about state behavior will have a significant effect on how the war on terrorism is fought. So Realism and terrorism are inextricably linked, although I do think that Realism does not have much to say about the causes of terrorism.
That is why we turn to another source ton understand terrorism.
Since 11 September 2001, there were many papers being written by scholars who apply game theory to the study of terrorism. Game theory is an appropriate tool for studying terrorism for six reasons. First, game theory examines really well the strategic interactions between terrorists and a targeted government, where actions are interdependent and, thus, cannot be analyzed as though one side is passive. Second, strategic interactions among rational actors, who are trying to act according to how they think their counterparts will act and react, characterize the interface among terrorists (e.g., between hard-liners and moderates) or among alternative targets (e.g., among targeted governments, each of which is taking protective measures). Third, in terrorist situations, each side issues threats and promises to gain a strategic advantage. Fourth, terrorists and governments abide by the underlying rationality assumption of game theory, where a player maximizes a goal subject to constraints. Empirical support for terrorists’ rationality is given credence by their predictable responses to changes in their constraints – e.g., the installation of metal detectors in January 1973 led to an immediate 2 substitution away from skyjackings into kidnapping. Fifth, game-theoretic notions of bargaining are applicable to hostage negotiations and terrorist campaign-induced negotiations over demands. Sixth, uncertainty and learning in a strategic environment are relevant to all aspects of terrorism, in which the terrorists or government or both are not completely informed. Game Theory is the best international relations literature to turn to when trying to understand terrorism.
Keeping Game Theory in mind, this top 10 article takes a look at 10 terrorists acts on American soil. It is ranked based on number of fatalities/injuries and the strength of the terrorist act itself. Top 10 list is writing this article in commemoration of the tragic events of the Boston Marathon in April of 2013.
1. September 11, 2001
Fatalities: 2,993; Injuries: 8,900
Any Top 10 List about Terrorism should begin with the September 11, 2001 attack as it was the largest of its kind on American soil. Initiated by an extremist organization named Al Qaeda, and its powerful leader Osama bin Laden, the attack led to America’s entrance War On Terror.
The attacks themselves were coordinated affairs: 19 members of Al Qaeda managed to hijack four airliners believing they were doing so for Jihad. Two of these planes were crashed into New York City’s World Trade Center. A third plane was crushed into the Pentagon in Washington DC. The fourth plane, which is believed to have been headed for targets in Washington DC as well, crashed into a field in Summerset County, Pennsylvania, after passengers attempted to regain control of the plane from the hijackers.
The damage was horrific. Both World Trade Center towers were demolished – crashing to the ground within less than 2 hours of impact. The Pentagon was heavily damaged as well. 9/11 is the most lethal attack carried out against the US, and continues to have ramifications in the nation’s foreign and domestic policies.
Following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, feelings of uncertainty immediately ensued regarding national security as fear loomed of possible future attacks. At the same time, feelings of uncertainty resounded regarding exactly what impact these attacks would have on the economies of both the United States and the global community. Such uncertainty was warranted given that the United States was already in the midst of a recession.
In addition to striking at the heart of the entity that symbolizes US military capability (the Pentagon), the attacks also struck an important economic symbol (the World Trade Center complex), resulting in a four-day hiatus of Wall Street trade activities. An attempt to predict the impact of these events on the economy resulted in the formation of basically three camps of forecasters. One set of forecasters—which consisted of an insignificant few—projected the economy would worsen, causing a deepening in the recession and a loss of U.S. economic hegemonic power. A second camp of forecasters—and the majority of forecasters—believed that, beyond New York’s economy, the attacks would not alter the country’s economic direction in which it was already headed. In essence, barring another attack, the recession would continue. A third camp of forecasters projected benefits to result from the attacks in the form of an increase in spending on security and technology development needed to adjust to globalization and all that comes with it.
Continue Reading
Related Posts:
