 |
Book Summary InformationAuthor: Bruce Hoffman Edition: Paperback Audio: English (Unknown); English (Original Language); English (Published) Published: 2006-05-30 ISBN: 0231126999 Number of pages: 456 Publisher: Columbia University Press
Book Reviews of Inside TerrorismBook Review: A good textbook on terrorism Summary: 5 Stars
Just for the record, I'm reviewing the 2006 edition of this book, so it is no longer as out of date as the previous edition. And it is a very interesting book. We learn definitions of terrorism, we see what terrorism is, how terrorists recruit, how many of them think, what some of them say, how they get publicity, how they take advantage of media opportunities ("Don't shoot, Abdul! We're not on prime time!"), and so on.
We also read about circumstances in which terrorists may decide that mass murder (involving huge numbers of deaths as opposed to spectacular but less deadly acts of terror) makes sense.
Can terrorist groups be defeated? Of course they can. Most of them do not last long. A few such groups do last for a while, especially if they get some support from one or more nations. But even these can be defeated.
Bruce Hoffman makes the point that while media coverage is essential for terrorists, the net effect of such coverage is mixed: audiences are eager to follow the exploits of terrorists, but much of the media coverage of terrorism is negative, and most of the audience is opposed to terrorism.
The author recommends patience and determination in the fight against terrorism. And I think that human civilization always has a chance against any terrorist foe. If not, the terrorists will, of course, destroy themselves along with the rest of us.
Terrorists often claim that their victory is inevitable. But it rarely is. After all, most terrorist goals are incredibly arbitrary. Without the use of violence, terrorists would rarely have any chance of even temporary success, and in the long run, they usually have no chance. Almost all terrorist groups are therefore at a big long-term disadvantage.
Still, I think we may be overlooking something here: what about those cases in which terrorism is not the first option of some greedy extremists? What about those rare cases in which it is a minor option of reasonable people?
For example, suppose some of us decided to try to accomplish some possibly dubious but possibly reasonable goal, such as the expansion of the Church of Latter Day Saints to 30 million members, or autonomy for Poles, Kurds or Tibetans. Would terrorism be our first choice? No. We would realize that our goals were not so arbitrary as to be impossible without violence. We'd be patient and slowly move towards success.
But now suppose that, with the Church of Latter Day Saints increasing in numbers, some nations, including the United States, decided on a controversial policy of genocide to get rid of all Mormons! Oops! Now what? Well, in that case, terrorism might well be one of several options for those trying to change such a strange and catastrophic policy. And in that case, with the goal of terrorism simply being to stop the genocide, the terrorist aims would be anything but arbitrary and dubious. I think it is always important to notice the difference between the wild actions of extremists and those of people who are merely trying to defend themselves. And I feel that many people, including some experts on terrorism, fail to emphasize this sufficiently. Even in this book, we see the author point out that in some cases (such as in South Africa), terrorism can help achieve goals. Hoffman does explain that in this case, the terrorist goals were very coherent and relatively reasonable, but he fails to emphasize the fact that without violence on either side, those goals were likely to be achieved! I think we also see a little confusion about the false similarities some people see in Jewish terrorism versus Arab terrorism. Much of the Jewish terror in the 1940s was indeed arbitrary, but at least it was in support of a goal (Jews getting human rights in the Levant) that was going to be achieved if neither side used any violence. Much of the Arab terror was also arbitrary, but it was in support of a very different goal, namely the permanent obliteration of human rights for Jews in the region. That goal had no chance of being achieved without violence. I think the author should have been clearer about such differences. After all, the former kind of terrorism has goals that are indeed likely to be achieved in the long run, and moreover, mere achievement of such goals is not much of a threat to society. The goals of the latter form of terrrorism have little chance of being achieved in the long run and constitute a great threat to everyone.
In spite of these minor complaints, I like this book very much. It is comprehensive and useful, and I recommend it.
Summary of Inside TerrorismBruce Hoffman's Inside Terrorism has remained a seminal work for understanding the historical evolution of terrorism and the terrorist mindset. In this revised edition of the classic text, Hoffman analyzes the new adversaries, motivations, and tactics of global terrorism that have emerged in recent years, focusing specifically on how al Qaeda has changed since 9/11; the reasons behind its resiliency, resonance, and longevity; and its successful use of the Internet and videotapes to build public support and gain new recruits. Hoffman broadens the discussion by evaluating the potential repercussions of the Iraqi insurgency, the use of suicide bombers, terrorist exploitation of new communications media, and the likelihood of a chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear terrorist strike. Closer to home, Hoffman reconsiders the Timothy McVeigh case and the threats posed by American Christian white supremacists and abortion opponents as well as those posed by militant environmentalists and animal rights activists. He argues that the attacks on the World Trade Center fundamentally transformed the West's view of the terrorist threat. More relevant and necessary than ever, Inside Terrorism continues to be the definitive work on the history and future of global terrorism. (9/1/2006) The word "terrorism" first became popular during the French Revolution, when the régime de la terreur was initially viewed as a positive political system that used fear to remind citizens of the necessity of virtue. The use of violence to "educate" people about ideological issues has continued, but it has taken on decidedly negative connotations--and has become predominantly, though not exclusively, a tactic deployed by those who do not have the powers of state at their disposal. Bruce Hoffman, the director of the Centre for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence, has written a clear summary of some of the major historical trends in international terrorism. He makes careful distinctions between the motivations that drive political (or ethno-nationalist) terrorism and religious terrorism, and he also shows why the rise of religious terrorism, coupled with the increased availability of weapons of mass destruction, may foretell an era of even greater violence. In the past, Hoffman argues, the main goal of the terrorist was not to kill, but to attract media attention to his cause in the hope of initiating reform. "For the religious terrorist," however, "violence is first and foremost a sacramental act or divine duty executed in direct response to some theological demand or imperative ... religious terrorists see themselves not as components of a system worth preserving but as 'outsiders,' seeking fundamental changes in the existing order." Hoffman does not "choose sides" in this framework, pointing to the bombings of the World Trade Center and Oklahoma City and to the sarin nerve gas attacks in Tokyo in order to demonstrate that fundamentalists of any religious denomination are capable of extreme acts of terrorism.
Terrorism Books
|
 |