Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
On Terrorism Experts
As those of you who follow my Twitter feed know, I have been drawn into a debate between Glenn Greenwald and Will McCants about whether or not one can be a "terrorism expert." Greenwald's position, as articulated on his blog:
I had a somewhat lengthy debate on Twitter last night about the Awlaki assassination with several people often identified as “Terrorism experts” — such as Will McCants and Aaron Zelin — and they and others (such as Andrew Exum and Robert Farley) objected rather vigorously when I said I found the entire concept of “Terrorism expert” to be invalid, as it is a honorific typically assigned due to ideology and interests served rather than actual expertise. This is exactly what I meant: in U.S. political and media discourse, Terrorism means little more than: that which America’s Enemies du Jour (generally Muslim Enemies) do to it, but not what America and its allies do to anyone. Terrorism is not a real concept in which one develops “expertise”; it is, and from its introduction into world affairs always has been, a term of propaganda designed to legitimize violence by some actors while delegitimizing very similar violence by others. See the interview I conducted a couple of years ago with Remi Brulin of NYU for more on that.
Annoyingly, Greenwald has a point in both his post and in his earlier tweets. The study of "terrorism" in the United States over the past decade has been shaped by the American experience on September 11th of 2001, and when Americans speak of terrorism in the popular discourse, as Greenwald noted in a tweet, the word is often short-hand for Islamist terrorism. Travel to the United Kingdom, by contrast, and a "terrorism expert" may have done his or her field work in Northern Ireland. Travel to Spain, and an expert may have done his or her work in the Basque country. Thomas Hegghammer has written more eloquently than I about the way in which the study of both terrorism and jihadi groups has evolved in the United States after 2001, and it's only natural that the study of terrorism will be distorted by the local experience of the country or region in which the research is conducted.
But before I get side-tracked, let me break my response to Greenwald into two arguments. First, let us very briefly review the state of the literature in the study of terrorism and coercive violence. Greenwald is correct that "terrorism" has a pejorative connotation in the popular discourse. In the scholarly literature, though, terrorism has always meant something along the lines of "the threat or use of physical coercion, primarily against noncombatants, especially civilians, to create fear in order to achieve various political objectives." (O'Neill, 2005) Greenwald makes it seem as if states are never mentioned as terrorist actors, but there is a lot of literature on the use of coercive violence by states and state terrorism. Off the top of my head, I'm thinking of Schelling (1966); Mitchell, Stohl, Carleton and Lopez (1986); Kalyvas (2006); and Biddle and Friedman (2008). (I'm sure readers of this blog can think of literally dozens more examples. Please do so in the comments section.)
The literature on terrorism and terrorist groups did not spring forth on September 12, 2001. Researchers at my alma mater and elsewhere had been writing about the phenomena of terrorism and groups who use terror tactics for decades. Sometimes these researchers were doing case studies on Islamist or Palestinian groups. Sometimes they were doing case studies on Irish (PIRA) or German (RAF) groups. And sometimes they were comparing and contrasting varied groups. Walter Laqueur originally published this book, for example,
Second, let me consider the case of my friend Will McCants, who Greenwald very much picked on in his Twitter feed along with Aaron Zelin (who I do not know well but who seems really smart in his own right). Greenwald is correct that the decade after the September 11th attacks created all kinds of incentives for self-proclaimed terrorism "experts" to rise to the fore, hawking their "expertise" and opinions on both the consulting market as well as in the mainstream media. Too often, this expertise has been ignorant or barely concealed Islamophobia. Ironically, though, one of the scholars who has done the most to condemn what he calls "CT hucksters" is Will McCants. Will is one of the more rigorously credentialed scholars studying violent Islamist extremist groups as well as being one of the most careful. Will fell into a study of terrorism after doing a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Studies at Princeton. He had no initial academic training in strategic studies or military affairs as far as I know, but his Arabic and understanding of the intellectual currents of political Islam made him ideal to work on al-Qaeda as a case study. And just like I started a dissertation on Hizballah with a background in Middle Eastern Studies and boned up on the theories related to small wars and insurgencies as I went along, so too did Will with respect to terrorism as a phenomenon. At the end of the day, Will is best described as an Arabist, perhaps, but if he is not a bona fide terrorism expert as well -- again, no scare quotes necessary this time -- I don't know who is.
What irked me most about Greenwald's tweets and post is that he is disparaging an entire class of very reputable scholars with the allegation that the only people taken seriously as terrorism experts in the United States are taken seriously because of some media gate-keeper's ideological bias -- and not because of their study of specific terrorist groups and a phenemenon that has a deep body of peer-reviewed literature dedicated to it. Greenwald is attempting to limit and discipline the discourse in his own way. He is signaling to his readers that no true expertise on terrorism as a phenomenon exists and that those who write about it are hopelessly ideologically compromised in principio. That strikes me as close-minded intellectual bullying.
If you're going to bully people, bully the bad guys. And if you're going to make blanket judgments about entire fields of study but are not yourself an expert in that field of study, have a little humility when you do so. After all, you don't see me telling Glenn Greenwald what's what about due process or Constitutional law, do you?
Can you just send me the name
Can you just send me the name of a few of the experts and how deep they go into This country's (USA) acts of terrorism. It helps to know that an expert is able to identify such things.
I wonder why American
I wonder why American terrorism experts tend to be experts in Islamic terrorism. Without a background in the subject, I note that the militia movement and other far-right groups seem to be considered terrorists by some of the books you've cited. Since there have been far-right terrorists in the US for longer, and they have conducted more violent actions within the United States, it seems as if American terrorist experts should be expert in the KKK, the anti-abortion movement and the militia movement.
Yet, despite a very small number of Islamic attacks within the US, the Islamic phenomenon is the more well-studied one. It seems like the British terrorism expert who specializes in Norther Ireland is a reasonable figure. The expert on Arab or Islamic politics within the US seems less so.
My concern with the
My concern with the "terrorism expert" label is that "terrorism" is really an underspecified description of a *tactic* that often gets substituted for type of social organization. In reality, the boundaries of terrorism's tactical definition are blurry. Further, the use of terrorist tactics doesn't preclude valuable comparison to organizations that don't use those tactics.
Dealing with the second problem first, you retweeted an assertion that "there are productive academic and policy comparisons between AQ, IRA and Red Army Faction". That's true, but there are also interesting and productive comparisons to be made between those groups and American street gangs. Or drug cartels. Or protection rackets, or ethnic insurgencies. Or states and companies. When I replied to that tweet with the cite to Tilly's "War Making and State Making as Organized Crime" (1985) I meant that "terrorism" is a much broader part of history than just ... well "terrorism". (Also: Olson (1971) Dictatorship, Democracy and Development.)
In order to really understand terrorism, we need to consider a handful of questions that move beyond just comparing terrorists to terrorists. Terrorist organizations are units in a system; we might gain insight into how they respond to competitive or opposition pressures or how they are molded by the structure of the societies in which they operate by looking to modeling about firms and advocacy groups (Susan Strange, Richard Friman, Peter Andreas and others do this in various ways). Terrorist organizations are systems onto themselves (Trager and Zagorcheva 2006), we can compare their organizational dynamics and internal politics to those of other violent (and even non-violent) groups if we are disciplined enough in connecting a specific empirical similarity to a behavioral outcome. Terrorists are people, reacting to opportunities and constraints within society. Lessons from criminology, sociology and psychology may all apply.
Similarly, violence is a tactic to affect change. A wide variety of groups use it in various ways to achieve social goals. I'd go further into this idea, but I've already written a blog-length comment.
In other words, scholars and policy wonks that end up having (hard-earned and real) expertise in comparing groups on the basis of their use of terrorist tactics often came by that expertise in pursuit of some other knowledge. Calling people "terrorism experts" because that's what they often study is fine, but the label is symptomatic of a creeping parochialism that seeks to cordon off "terrorism" from a constellation of other social phenomena that would more productively considered as smooth variation in behavior. I know that this is quite a different criticism than Greenwald's, but I think understanding of civil violence can only be enhanced by describing "terrorism experts" instead as experts in a continuum of phenomena that includes terrorist tactics.
Considering the context of
Considering the context of greenwalds position seems more geared against the talking-head-terror-expert as opposed to the generally quieter academic and practitioner class of experts, I am inclined to agree in this context. Also while the field was not of course born on 9/12/2001 it's focus was definitely narrowed. While Kalyvas and Downes and other identify acts of terror performed by states (first poster, check Downes for examples of scholars identifying use of terror by the US) the scholarly focus has definitely been reduced for the most part to non-state actors violently coercing noncombatant populations. Whether or not this is a good or bad thing, I don't know, but the phrase oppression or some synonym seem to have replaced terror in most discussions of state prosecuted terror. I think Greenwald was really taking aim at the "terror experts" in the sense that the non-academic/practitioner community sees more on a regular basis. He probably should have qualified his statement with his definition of the terrorism in which one cannot be an expert.
Also sorry for any typos that may exist. Typing from a phone at a bar.
One of the things about Glenn
One of the things about Glenn argument its basically to point out that the "terrorist" experts doesn’t acknowledge all terrorist activities as such, but only if they are made by some groups.
Perhaps it's a failure of
Perhaps it's a failure of language or vocabulary (in terms of custom, sense, and usage). I hear "terrorism expert" and, sorry, I think of an apologist of official tactics who probably demonizes opponents. It's pretty much automatic for me at this point. I say this because time and again, when I read or see in the media 'terrorism experts' they tend to toe an administration line, decry the evil hail of bullets of our enemies in Whereveristan while praising our own righteous hail of bullets all in the same breath. I'm tempted to call it a failure of the modern info-tainment channels who seek to hype and divide; those for whom calling wholly biased commentators is regular fare. But in doing so, they ruin any image in my head of impartiality or professionalism, to the point that calling oneself a "terrorism expert" is, to me, like taking a predictably jingoistic side in that old freedom-fighter v terrorist joke and then tacking it on one's name as post-nominal credentials for the camera. Again I'm not saying what is, I'm describing perception here.
When a younger USA experienced indiscriminate horrific crime (politically and racially motivated bombings, mass murders, etc) it was dealt with by law enforcement agencies and perhaps because of this it seems to be more often described merely as 'bombings, 'mass murder', and less often in breathless "terrorism" terms. At least that's my impression and recollection from reading history. Yes, calling it terrorism might be adequate in that people are being terrorized, but the word is so easily and habitually misused by people staking out ideological territory that I can't imagine why anyone in their right professional mind would even want to be called a "terrorism expert".
@ those asking about experts
@ those asking about experts focused on terrorism in America, be it the anti-federalist militias, KKK, or Black Panthers, check out Christopher Hewitt's book "Understanding Terrorism in America." He currently teaches at Georgetown's Security Studies Program with Bruce Hoffman and Daniel Byman, who btw wrote a book specifically on State-sponsored terrorism, "Deadly Connections: States that Sponsor Terrorism."
@ Perhaps it's a failure
@ Perhaps it's a failure of...
You are largely right, the only reason Greenwald has a (somewhat valid) point is due to the fact that the scholar-practitioner definition of terrorism is not the vernacular terrorism. While the public views terrorism as anything bad done to us, the scholar-practitioner model is more specific and actually more useful. People involved in the issue or at least closely following it do not award the title as expediently as does cable news (both Fox and CNN) in order to boost the creds of whoever they could schedule.
That any given
That any given researcher/scholar/strategist is or isn't an expert on terrorism is one thing - but to say that no such concept exists is another. While agree with the writer that what passes for analysis and /or expertise is often just propaganda, I would refer the author to a study conducted by the RAND Corporation on the subject of terrorism.
The study first defines terrorism very explicitly then goes on to examine the actions and stated objectives of over 100 terrorist movements from the anarchist groups in Europe in the early 1900s till the present day.
Finally, the report tries to answer the question if any of these were successful in achieving their goals.
No one is 100% free of bias. No one can claim 100% objectivity, but I believe this particular report at least attempts to examine the issue differently from the spin doctors we are usually accosted with on CNN or Al Jazeera.
It seems to me that the OP
It seems to me that the OP demonstrates exactly what Greenwald complains about - that the so-called "terrorism expert" is in reality an expert in studying groups designated by our governments as "terrorist groups". In a rational world, an academic studying Hezbollah, for example, would be called... an expert on Hezbollah. A group that has, on rare occasions, used terrorism as a tactic, and, on much more numerous occasions, has employed tactics of assyumetric warfare against purely military targets (US marines, the IDF etc.). An academic studying the IRA would - one hopes - be an expert on Irish struggles against the UK, a complicated mix of some acts that can be called terrorism, clear self defence against Protestant militant groups and the British Army, political and economic struggle. And so forth. Experts like this could only become "terrorism experts" in two ways: either by concentrating on merely the terrorist actions engaged in by the groups they study - in which case they would engage in the worst, ahistorical, non-contextual excuse for history or political science one can imagine; or, due to the classification as "terrorism" of anything and everything done by our official enemies.
On the other hand, there might be a person studying terrorism as a tactic. But then it is simply inconceivable that such a person would not spend most of their time studying the by far largest purveyors of terror, that is, our own governments. Unless of course the expert in question has recognized which side his bread is buttered on.
Finally, there could be a person who studies the tactics and strategies used by (a) resistance or national liberation organizations and/or (b) small groups dedicated to violent direct action. But it is then again hard to understand why such a person would call themselves a "terrorism expert", unless they have decided it will provide them with a professional advantage (funding, exposure) to do so.
In conclusion, I have a very hard time trusting anyone who self-identifies as "terrorism expert", as opposed to an expert in a larger issue that, as one object of study, includes certain acts of terrorism.
Abu M Martha Crenshaw is not
Abu M
Martha Crenshaw is not only a terrorism expert, but also hails from the South.
And perhaps Greenwald could start by first reading - and then dismissing - Gordon McCormick's Annual Review of Political Science article on terrorism?
I think there is actually a Berkeley sociology graduate student doing doctoral work on the *community* of terrorism experts. Perhaps s/he could be persuaded to provide an opinion?
ADTS
Prof. Adrian Guelke at QUB,
Prof. Adrian Guelke at QUB, NI
In a tweet earlier today, I mentioned Adrian Guelke's 2008 article in Critical Studies on Terrorism, "Great whites, paedophiles and terrorists: the need for critical thinking in a new age of fear." Guelke's article, which was one of my first introductions to the great debate over terrorism's definition, is good for multiple reasons:
1. It provides the long history of the differing definitions of terrorism, dating back to the French Revolution.
2. It is comparative, both of multiple groups and of multiple established definitions.
3. It pushes back against fear mongering or excited views.
While many terrorism researchers have never met a terrorist, Guelke has bone fide academic credentials, and has the distinction of surviving a South African-inspired assassination attempt in which the anti-apartheid South Africans falsely convinced that UDA that he was an IRA supporter; Guelke was shot in his sleep, but a jammed gun saved his life.
There's lots of good people to read on terrorism, but Guelke certainly has a unique perspective that's worth checking out.
You define terrorism as "the
You define terrorism as "the threat or use of physical coercion, primarily against noncombatants, especially civilians, to create fear in order to achieve various political objectives." So a "terrorism expert" is an expert on war? Organized crime? Terror as defined is a major part of both of these things (ever hear of a war where the civilians weren't scared?) but I never hear them brought up by "terrorism experts". Are terrorism experts experts on the conduct of the CIA? I sure hope they are, because by your definition, its one of the most prolific, if not THE most prolific terrorist groups. Are they experts on the various domestic secret police forces used by the uncountable tyrannical governments of the last 100 years? Surely you can't be an expert on terrorism as defined without a case study from the likes of Stalin or Pinnochet. I'm almost positive that they were using coercion and force primarily against their noncombatant civilian population to create fear and achieve political objectives.
It seems to me that Greenwald is completely correct. The tactic we call terrorism must either be defined so that it is extremely broad, almost to the point of encompassing all violence and coercion against civilians. This is exactly what you have done. The threat or use of violence against civilians always instills fear and "political objectives" is a broad term that encompasses almost all human action by groups or individuals within a societal structure. The alternative is to narrow this definition somehow, which will always compromise the meaning in some politically loaded way.
The first definition is useless. It is far to broad. The second definition is also useless, it needs qualification.
There are plenty of "experts"
There are plenty of "experts" who know what it is profitable in the U.S. to know: Islamist terrorism. But plenty of real experts, or experts on terrorism in general, exist. Todd Sandler, Bruce Hoffman, Dan Byman, Walter Laqueur, etc.
While your responses are
While your responses are valid in the points that they contend with, Greenwald's major beef is you and your intellectual cohort's inability to deal with American state terror in all its forms. Even to address it at all. Ever. Anywhere. That failure continues here in your response to him. While you do lean heavily here on you and Will being Near East intellectuals first, that does not mean that you can't as a thinker deal with the ideas he is trying to get you to discuss. Glenn is by no means a diplomat but he's also not entirely wrong here either. I would really appreciate it if you tried at all to get past his abrasiveness and think past your bias. Cheers! : )
Your post only makes
Your post only makes Greenwald seem more correct. You state "Travel to the United Kingdom, by contrast, and a "terrorism expert" may have done his or her field work in Northern Ireland." Thanks for buttressing Greenwald's point: namely, that the "terrorists" are always the ones depicted constantly in the media as evil, in this case Northern Ireland. You don't say this person may be an expert on the English terrorism and occupation of Northern Ireland. No, the "expert" would note that as just and good. It's the evil IRA who are the "terrorists" in the United Kingdom because .... well .... because the media and all their "terrorism experts" say so!
Seriously, this is why collegiate profs and PhDs don't impress. They're just so indoctrinated and subservient to convention and corporate influence that they're caricatures, hiding behind credentials and self-appointed "expertise".
(And yes, I know you said "field work in Northern Ireland" - not that the IRA were the only terrorists. A more honest statement would have been "field work in Northern Ireland studying the terrorist acts committed by both the British and Irish". But you didn't.)
(Lots of scary quotes! I must be a terrorist!)
So if terrorism is propaganda
So if terrorism is propaganda based on point of view or political objective and subjective entirely on actions being either demonized or endorsed, everyone is a terrorist. I think there is a kernel of truth in his argument, but that only extends so far as the fact opinions of who is in fact a terrorist will be different based on whether the act of terror is directed at or directed by whomever is being asked. There's no way to go beyond that definition because it's circular logic. In and of itself it's a tactic to diminish the value of opposing the use of terror as a tactic.
Clearly, it's possible to be an expert in the tactics used in terrorism. It's possible to be an expert in understanding what the goal is and how they intend to reach it. It can be from a insurgency standpoint, from an ngo, or from a state itself. Using the same logic, we shouldn't have experts in any field - physics, medicine, law, etc.
Either his bar is too high, or he just doesn't understand the distinction between what constitutes an 'expert'..
Google is not being
Google is not being especially helpful in determining his current institutional affiliation. But Kevin A. O'Brien was at RAND at some point (and may still be there now; it's not clear to me). I read a few of his articles on apartheid South Africa and the ANC/MK, and enjoyed them greatly.
ADTS
Dr. Exum, You cite the
Dr. Exum,
You cite the definition of terrorism as "the threat or use of physical coercion, primarily against noncombatants, especially civilians, to create fear in order to achieve various political objectives." Surely, the use of the bomb at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as the fire-bombing of Japanese cities, in World War II, fit this definition. These acts of "physical coercion" were not on military installations and were quite obviously "primarily against noncombatants." And these acts were undertaken not to gain tactical military advantage but precisely "to create fear in order to achieve various political objectives." I assume that you agree with this characterization? So would you consider individuals who have closely studied these acts and their impact on the war to be terrorism experts? If you do not, that would seem to make Greenwald's point; if you do, then it's odd that neither you nor anyone else has mentioned any such experts.
Exum they let you educate
Exum they let you educate people? This is confusion not education. The string above is like trying to jerk-off with boxing gloves on.
Terrorism is not rocket science. The real question is what is your motive for the need to pigeon-hole terrorism.
Why?
BTW I know people that have done counter-terrorism since the 70's that was before it was given a label. No one had a problem knowing who to shoot first. The business was more cottage industry then. Now it is really big business and the money is rolling.
Ten years and trillions of dollars to re-write Webster for something that is a fraction of the world's population. You would think people would have something more important to do.
I think your commenters have
I think your commenters have explained Glenn Greenwald's position admirably --- the problem is that terrorism is a general tactic, but most of the research is in "terrorism by enemies of the state". Even that's not so much of a problem -- if it was explicitly stated as "the threat or use of physical coercion, primarily against noncombatants, especially civilians, to create fear in order to achieve various political objectives by the losers (non-state actors, state actors who've lost the war, previous regimes)."
But why isn't that fully specified? Because then it would be obvious that research into terrorism has a propagandistic function, even when it is scholarly. That it is research into the use of a tactic by folks who don't give grants!
All fields of research have "clients" --- none are pure intellectual curiosity, but require funding by groups with interests in the results. This is a general problem for any kind of sociological or historical research --- that the requirement of funding means that, to some extent, you're clientele are propagandists. That is different from hard-scientific research, say, where you can openly say what the goal of the research is, who is the client (military, or pharmaceutical companies, or environmentalists), or legal research (the profession of lawyers).
Glenn's problem isn't being wrong here --- it's that he doesn't go far enough. He's a lawyer, not a philosopher, and this is much deeper than the competence of lawyers.
Everything Abu Muqawama has
Everything Abu Muqawama has written above is valid and true. As a graduate student in International Affairs, I am quite familiar with "terrorism" studies, students and scholars. From my experience, much of the conflation of terrorism broadly defined into Islamist terrorism which Muqawama rightly reports occurs in the media, also occurs in academic circles. One of the worst instances of this happening was when I was teaching assistant for courses on International Relations. Not only do professors tend to relate terrorism to Islamist varieties, but the textbooks do as well. Furthermore, as an undergraduate, taking International Relations courses, I can clearly recall our textbook explicitly precluding state terrorism from the official definition (as "nonstate actor" was included) because it produced a debate in class on the subject which the professor then sided with the text.
Of course, what I have related is merely anecdotal evidence and does not represent every person who studies the topic. But, on the whole, I find Greenwald's points to be accurate and reflecting of the casual nature with which many discuss and distort such a serious topic. And because those who are guilty of misconstruing the notion certainly echo the propaganda of the state, they are paraded about and touted as "experts". Calling attention to this, as Greenwald does, is very much needed and should be welcomed by the "real" terrorism scholarship community.
Let's assume that there is
Let's assume that there is something which fits the description "terrorism expert"
Let's assume that the kind of work they have done satisfies those (with whom I agree) who say that the subjects of the study are those designated by those in power.
Let's assume that they have started their studies from the broader culture/society/politics/etc.
Let's assume that their work passes academic rigor.
NONE of them are the ones who are called on to edify us in the main stream media.
I think that's one of the things Mr. Greenwald was saying.
They might as well not exist.
I agree that Mr. Greenwald uncharacteristically stated his point in an absolutist way and may have thus opened himself up to the criticism.
I'd like to thank all of the commenters here. Reading what they have said has made the whole issue a lot clearer to me.
Terrorism is an umbrella
Terrorism is an umbrella term...I don't mean to be at all snarky or dismissive but we're just rehashing the same old point. Namely that victors in a war, or those with the most power or biggest voice, get to write the narrative of what happened and usually discount their own actions while demonizing the enemy, e.g. WW2, IRA, Basques/ETA, etc.
Just as we could debate what "expert on terror" means, or even what "terrorism" is defined as and who it includes, we could have the same debate around people who are experts on...genocide, irregular warfare, civil war/secession...war in general. The comments here elucidate a more nuanced discussion of what terrorism is, but this isn't a discussion that is going to happen in the media much less on twitter.
Yes, it would be more appropriate to say "Dr. XYZ is an expert on random acts of physical coercion to achieve political ends pursued by extremist Muslims calling themselves Al Qaeda," but Expert on Terrorism is a shorter and easier way to say this. We generalize and use shorthand all the time and I see terrorism as an *umbrella term*, not shorthand and not just propaganda, so I think it covers a lot of expertise. And yes, people can develop expertise in terrorism. When someone's described as an Expert on Terrorism, I may take it with a grain of salt and want to know exactly what they've studied, but it doesn't discount their expertise and obviously context is key.
Dr. Exum et. al. are probably the people most likely to appreciate Greenwald's points and who can discuss the nuances of what "terrorism" means. But this isn't a conversation that the broader American public wants to or is going to have.
Pardon? Where did Greenwald
Pardon? Where did Greenwald "pick on" McCants?
He disagrees with him on an issue. He argued with him on an issue. The way you gather the wagons around your friend only reinforces the perception that the prime directive of academic communities is to blindly attack anyone who disagrees with a member of the pack.
You quote the scholarly
You quote the scholarly definition of terrorism as "the threat or use of physical coercion, primarily against noncombatants, especially civilians, to create fear in order to achieve various political objectives." (O'Neill, 2005) The US government literally engages in this form of terrorism on a daily basis. Where are the "terrorism experts" devoted to the study of US state sponsored terrorism?
I have no problem with GG's
I have no problem with GG's characterization of "terrorism experts" - the one's that make it through the Media filter are as useful to me as the Economists and "financial experts" that pass the "serious people" Media filter.
Long Live Cokie Roberts, she ages like a fine whine!
apart from the obvious ones
apart from the obvious ones (hiroshima, nagasaki) let's not forget the firebombing of dresden and our various covert operations in central/south america. any "terrorism expert" who is unwilling to admit that the u.s. has and most probably continues to be a state sponsor of terrorism is no expert in my mind. they're a shill, selling an agenda.
"Comment by christian h. on
"Comment by christian h. on March 27, 2012 - 10:40pm"
This was the best comment, by far. If terrorism is indeed a strategy, one cannot be an expert in it, unless it's also possible to be a "diplomacy expert" or a "war expert" or a "fighting expert".
Indeed, a PhD makes one an expert in a very specific subject at a very specific time. Being an expert in Deobandi-inspired Pashtun militias does not make one an expert in terrorism, it makes you an expert in a specific group of people and what they do, believe in, and so on.
Let's not act as if we're smarter than we actually are.
"If you're going to bully
"If you're going to bully people, bully the bad guys." I think this really says all that need be said about the content and intent of Exum's expertise.
Police officers in a heavily
Police officers in a heavily Jewish town, Newton, MA take trips to Israel to learn how to fight terrorism. In their midst is a Jewish sadistic psychopath who terrorized all of his female patients with psychological, physical and sexual assaults. All assaults are witnessed by others in the tribe, doctors, who do nothing to stop the felony assaults, also a felony. A whistleblower is, well, terrorized by other Jews, many of whom live in Newton.
No experts in terrorism come forward.
I have yet to hear an honest
I have yet to hear an honest attempt to address what I read as GG's central point: that the term "terrorism" --as used in most political systems--has no meaning other than an Orwellian one (i.e. being a label that powerful countries attach to the violent acts of their enemies). The definition AM suggested could never be honestly applied without implicating the U.S. and its allies, so of course it isn't applied within our political system.
It sounds like a copout when I here anyone try to separate "popluar discourse" from "scholarly literature," as if they were somehow parts of separate political realities. Failing to honestly deal with GG's main point is more damning to the CT community/industry/academy than his criticism of its experts.
Call me when you, or one of
Call me when you, or one of your "expert" friends, allows that many US actions over the last 10 years and continuing to this day, fit common definitions or signatures of terrorism.
Call me when you, or one of
Call me when you, or one of your "expert" friends, allows that many US actions over the last 10 years and continuing to this day, fit common definitions or signatures of terrorism.
Was Greenwald really
Was Greenwald really complaining about folks who study the people and circumstances surrounding acts of terrorism, or was he criticizing the co-opting of the term for marketing purposes and the pseudo-academics branded as experts for the facilitation of "identifying our enemies as terrorists" branding exercises?
I don't think anyone can be taken seriously as an expert on terrorism if they do not recognize that many US actions are designed to inspire terror in the places and amongst the people where they happen. Drone strikes are an excellent example of this, especially when attributed to the orders of a man who has declared it his rightful and legal duty to assassinate anyone anywhere at anytime in the all too vague and over-reaching name of the War on Terror.
Reading through the comments
Reading through the comments above and the initial post by Greenwald, you'd get the sense that people with PhDs who write about terrorism have never realized that:
1) states use the term to demonize their enemies and those enemies may have legitimate grievances
2) states, including the United States, have deliberately killed innocent civilians to create fear in order to advance the states' political goals (ie the dominant definition of terrorism)
3) the scholarly definition of terrorism often differs from the state's
4) the scholarly definition differs from scholar to scholar based on their assumptions and the phenomenon they're trying to capture (in other words, standard social science practice)
5) militant non-state groups that target civilians for political purposes can be written about using other nomenclature and analytical frameworks
6) there's an obvious overlap between groups that target civilians for money and those that do so for for political reasons
7) scholarly analyses of terrorism can be used and abused by states and the objectivity of scholars (such as it is) can be compromised by working with the state
8) the media fetishizes scholars who write about terrorist groups currently hostile to the state and some of those scholars love the attention, which can compromise their objectivity
Why haven't scholars realized these things? Because they're mindless tools with no care for innocent people.
i love my country, the USA.
i love my country, the USA. i really do. lucky to be born and raised here. but that doesn't mean i'm blind, or stupid, or jingoistic, or easily gulled. so...when anyone pretends that being an expert in an amorphous noun like "terrorism", i have to call b.s.
as has been ably pointed out above, my country (again, which i love) engages in more acts of depraved civilian killing than anyone else on earth. if needs be, we could scoreboard, oh, i don't know, hezbollah, or the IRA, against the US gov't, or the russian gov't, or the turkish gov't, and it wouldn't be close. governments kill lots more civilians. but that's not what matters.
though concepts are often amorphous, words have meanings. terrorism has the word 'terror' right in there. you can't miss it. first six letters! and if the real measure here is (and it certainly should be) "amount of terror created" i'm going to go ahead and say that civilians in many countries around the world are FAR more terrified of their governments than some group of guys inc. again, not really a close call.
none of this is hard to fathom UNLESS you are a so-called "terrorism" expert, in which case it magically becomes impossible to notice (insert now cliched-because-it-is-so-true upton sinclair you can't convince a man... quote). so really abu, and will, and whomever, what we are saying to you is: your job is fake. it's propaganda masquerading as scholarship. and the right recourse is to follow the advice that stan gives to the QVC salesman at the end of the last south park episode.
oh i don't know will, my
oh i don't know will, my father philip green, a fine scholar and academic of long standing, was quite able to, in writing, do all of those things. understand context, and his place in the universe, and so on. but it didn't help his career much, and didn't get him on the tv, and the size of his book advances were rather small in comparison to say a steven emerson, a third tier writer and thinker who got all of those things.
see, insofar as there is a terrorism expertise in academia, it is either useless (speaks only to itself) or poorly represented publicly in that most people with brains seem to see it as an exercise in power worshipping propaganda.
but, you know, money is important, so do keep that "scholarship" up! checks tend to be written by those in power, and they like their idiots useful.
To Will McCants at 2:07: You
To Will McCants at 2:07:
You do, I am sure, know many PhD's who haven't examined half the ideas contained in the above comments. You know that PhD doesn't automatically confer genuine scholarship. And it most certainly doesn't confer, in any place, more than average "care for innocent people".
These commenters took the time to read and then write intelligent responses. If the PhD's you are defending were actually making themselves clear about these ideas in any kind of public forum, I suspect it would be noticed. I am not sure whether it is because PhDs are too closeted, or because there are few PhDs who have the capability for clarity, or because there are few PhDs worth the name, or because the academic field has itself become closed down so that open scholarship doesn't see the light of day. You might have a better position from which to evaluate.
But I know this certainly: when a bunch of people make thoughtful comments, snark closes useful intellectual discussion. Is that what you really want? Because after all, ideas and their ramifications are much more important than the personal ego of one amongst many.
To Patricia at 3:04: Where
To Patricia at 3:04:
Where are these snarkless posts? I missed them. What I saw instead were a lot of nasty comments about the motives, intelligence, and politics of scholars who study terrorism.
patricia, will doesn't care
patricia, will doesn't care to engage with his lessers.
it is what it is. if you are snarky, your ideas are a priori meritless and serious scholars need not debate you. nice dodge will, sorry your debate skills aren't up to snuff or whatever the real problem is.
there is one scholar who has got at the root causes of "causing terror" (more useful locution in my humble) over the last 50 years. he's been able to do so without fear because he was tenured in a different department (linguistics) at a serious place (MIT). and he just seems to call it as he sees it, no kowtowing to anyone. but he never gets on the tv pretty much at all. and he's not "serious" in the way abu or will or so on are, because his critique STARTS at state actors, so no meetings with important people in DC for him. because that's what it's like here in the real world.
chomsky is his name.
best
snarky rob
Dr. McCants, I certainly
Dr. McCants,
I certainly wouldn't camp myself with the hysterical "what about the USA?!?" comments, but you have to admit that a conceptual wedge has been driven between terrorism and related behaviors. I'm not making this argument on the normative grounds that it keeps people from viewing the evil actions of governments as "terrorism"; the sheer number of comments about "terrorist America" here tends to undermine that position. I'm making the argument on the grounds that terrorism literature suffers from a dearth of cross-pollination from studies of other phenomena that could introduce important theoretical insight. Academic parochialism hurts our understanding of violence.
Clearly, lots of scholars recognize this problem *and* acknowledge all of your points. It's a common theme in my classes to lament on the lack of communication between a wide variety of related social science fields and sub-fields. But there are perverse incentives that prevent academics and practitioners of CT alike from taking a more catholic approach. Where are the studies comparing groups that employ terrorist tactics to those that don't? Where is the body of literature that recognizes your points and then leverages them to better understand violence? Frank discussions with CT academics tend to show that these approaches show great promise, but they receive little attention in flagship journals or discussions in the media.
If we ever hope to cultivate an understanding of the place terrorist tactics occupy in a wider social landscape, some number of "terrorism experts" will have to start viewing themselves as experts in a particular culture or in a broader social dynamic that implicates terror tactics. That will be hard; "terrorism experts" are marketable these days. One can certainly disagree with Greenwald and still offer criticism on the structure of terrorism studies. Both you and Dr. Exum are aware of these challenges. How should we address them?
If you're sick of seeing people act as though sophisticated academics don't understand basic politics, consider addressing these concerns. What can be done to raise the profile of scholarship that breaks down barriers between terrorist groups and other types of social organization? If you don't think we should, why not?
Will McCant at 3:13PM: Ach,
Will McCant at 3:13PM:
Ach, your response it to point the finger? That doesn't help.
People have made some legitimate points, with and without snark. Your comment was to slather them all with a broad brush of snark and nothing else.
It is to you I am writing, hoping that you will realize that there is value in some of these comments for your chosen field, the field of words and ideas and their ramifications in/for the world.
It is useful to occasionally examine motives, intelligence, and scholarship. Yours, mine, others. We humans tend to go awry. Humility and integrity are required. Without them, ideas will go awry.
Some of these comments, and their ramifications, are an opportunity for you and Abu. It would be sad if you don't take it.
John 3:26, Thomas
John 3:26,
Thomas Hegghammer's Jihad in Saudi Arabia is state of the art. Judge the field on that book's merits. As for studies on the relationship b/n terrorism studies and power, there's a whole journal devoted to the issue: Critical Studies on Terrorism.
"Where are these snarkless
"Where are these snarkless posts? I missed them. What I saw instead were a lot of nasty comments about the motives, intelligence, and politics of scholars who study terrorism."
Well, I'm glad I took the time to type what I thought was a fair post about *perception* where I didn't attack you or anyone these circling wagons are defending. Thank you for educating me that in actuality I am a nasty man writing snarky posts claiming to know your inner motives and politics. Yes sir, you have won this conversation and converted me from my previous neutrality to a more pronounced position.
Hooray for extremism and devision.
To add to Will McCants'
To add to Will McCants' reference to Thomas Hegghammer, consider works like Bruce Hoffman's Inside Terrorism (which, as Exum pointed out, was originally published 1999 and updated in 2006) or Richard English's Terrorism: How to Respond. Multiple scholars have studied both the tactic of terrorism as it has been applied by multiple groups, and have attempted to make some sense of comparison between them - including state-sponsored terrorism.
It is perhaps unfortunate that academic studies rarely make the front pages or the nightly news unless they are "sexy," or that media pundits draw upon well-known names rather than the more obscure true experts of their fields. However, it is erroneous to assume that graduate studies as a whole do not consider cross-cultural ideas in the study of terrorism. For example, British universities like Queen's University, Belfast (mentioned previously in reference to Adrian Guelke), Aberystwyth, Exeter, and St. Andrews (off the top of my head) all offer courses in both terrorism AND related fields (ethnic conflict, war, gender, society, media, etc.), often intentionally mixing faculty throughout their modules so that students get a broad range of both teaching styles and opinions.
It is perhaps generally true that one cannot be a "terrorism expert" because of academic specialization, in the same sense that a banker specializes in only one area of finance or an attorney in one area of law. However, that one can be a "terrorism expert" in the sense that one has studied multiple groups, tactics, motivations, areas, etc. -- or even focused on one with the ability to draw some level of comparison to others -- is unquestionable.
Are there any terrorism experts who are authorities on every facet of every group, country, motive, tactic, etc. - of every part of terrorism? Of course not, any more than there are experts on every group, country, motive, tactic, etc. of international business. Are there experts - McCants and Zelin included - who can offer useful, authoritative discourse in the discussion of terrorism, and who should be considered experts because of their years of study? Absolutely.
What makes someone an
What makes someone an 'expert'?
The use of the word’s interesting.
Having read Matthew Syed's 'Bounce: The Myth of Talent and the Power of Practice: How Champions are Made', I wonder if there's actually any difference between an 'expert' and a 'champion'?
Syed puts forward the theory that if you've spent 10 000 hours in a particular field, you can be a champion i.e. an expert, as far as I'm concerned.
With this in mind, I grew up with far more than 10 000 hours experience of terrorism, from both those that were categorized as 'terrorists' and the equally lethal 'state' terrorists in The Troubles of Northern Ireland.
Among the many things I learned are the following:
It's always those that are left behind that suffer the most and at the end, when the so called 'peace' comes along, it's the terrorists who seem to get to rule.
Just look at who's governing Northern Ireland now: the DUP and Sinn Fein.
While it's well known that Sinn Fein was the political arm of the IRA, the history of the DUP, as articulated by Paisley, was a potent force in promoting unreasoning resentment and reaction against a particular segment of society that was a contributory factor in the rise of loyalist paramilitaries.
Apart from Northern Ireland, though, those that were formerly referred to as ‘terrorists’ in the twentieth century, have ended up ruling in, amongst others, Israel, South Africa and the Republic of Ireland.
Terrorism itself comes from a lack of understanding and tolerance towards others, grievances that are felt or perceived, manipulation from those that have a vested interest in continuing the violence and probably most important of all, fear that invariably comes from ignorance.
As we’re all the same race, perhaps it’s too much to ask that those who either are terrorists, or about to become terrorists, consider their fellow human beings before their actions cause the following to be asked:
“IS THERE LIFE BEFORE DEATH?”
Poor Will, is it getting to
Poor Will, is it getting to you that public opinion appears (from these comments at least) not to find your field credible? I, for one, am truly inspired by the comments posted here. It demonstrates to me at least that there some critical thinkers out there who aren't fooled by the dominant discourse which you and your pals clearly think has some merit because you have made a career of it.
Put simply, Greenwald and the comments here have challenged you to in some distinguish yourselves from the endless babble we hear from NYT, FOX, NBC, etc, etc. Yet all we hear is that the literature is nuanced (you don't say!) and that scholars have differing interpretations (shocking). Please tell us what your views are. For example:
How about explaining how you "fell into" studying "violent Muslim extremism"? Seems timely, considering the massive demand for such people after 9/11.
What makes so-called Muslim extremism unique (and therefore more interesting) from other kinds, in your opinion?
If you are so cognizant of the potentially biasing role the state can play in scholarship, can you point me to some things you've written on this?
You see, it seems pretty disingenuous to talk about how you aren't culpable of using the same cliches and stereotypes used by the media when all we see on your website is GLOBAL JIHAD, al-CIAduh, Islam, Muslims... And when we read on you twitter feed:
"If terrorism scholars primarily examined state terrorism they would just be adding to fields already covered by thousands of scholars." -Brilliant (dont study X, its already been studied!)
"“State terrorism” is a morally valid concept, but not a useful one, because there are already many concepts that cover state crimes…" (when did the point shift from you ignoring those crimes to semantics?)
2 POINTS WHICH ARE EXACTLY WHAT MOST CRITICISMS HERE ARE ABOUT IN THE FIRST PLACE.
We are fully aware that "terrorism experts" are too busy, serious and objective to be concerned with state terrorism, and therefore, its perfectly alright to ignore/downplay/make excuses for it. And so we thought we would let you know it.
Will and Yemen, Thanks for
Will and Yemen,
Thanks for the input. I have read selected articles Critical Studies on Terrorism (as well as others, like the Journal of Conflict Resolution). I look forward to digging deeper into this!
But consider ethnic conflict. Snyder's "From Voting to Violence" (to use a Columbia example for Exum) examines the role of regime transition in fomenting violence over institutional control. It's about ethnic conflict, but has implications for the study of terrorist tactics and beyond. "War economy" work by folks like Mats Berdal and William Reno did the same by challenging the preconception that conflict is not an exploitable equilibrium. This lesson has wide application.
Sweeping considerations of variation in economic indicators across time and society (Robert Bates, Prosperity and Violence) in terms of resource endowment (Michael Ross) the evolution of criminal rent-seekers into governments (Tilly; Capital, Coercion and European States) and instrumental shifts in identity (Charles Taylor, Will Kymlica) as controlling violent outcomes. These people knew specific cases very well, but they leveraged that knowledge to provide insight into deep mechanisms that weave our social fabric and drive our humanity. These authors and works are classics across a variety of fields despite firm grounding in specific cases. It's not surprising that they aren't identified as "case experts", but as historians, sociologists and philosophers.
My read of terrorism literature is shallow so far; it's the classics like Crenshaw and Pape and Abrahms. I think a lot of what's written is really great and insightful. Drawing from area studies, rational choice, game theory and psychology has created some powerful arguments that echo beyond the examination terrorist tactics. What I really WANT to see, though, (and maybe it's in the reading list you provided) is a terrorism expert finally use their insight to build a theory about socialization and interaction. For terrorism expertise as a discipline to mature in the way our study of other social phenomena has, I need to see it drawn more firmly into our picture of human interests and interactions.
Hopefully this explains why courses that include discussion of terrorism, ethnic violence, etc., are great, but sort of miss the point of my concern. The comparison to law is interesting. When I practiced corporate litigation, it didn't matter if I knew the rules of criminal evidence. That expertise meant nothing to the instrumental goals of my clients. I am not and could not deny that there are terrorism experts in that fashion. My concern, though, as I set out in my first comment to this article, is that the label "terrorism expert" as it's being used implies that we want IR PhDs to study terrorism so they can provide instrumental counter-insurgency advice. That's a very valuable thing to provide, but I don't want terrorism studies to become cordoned off from a broader family of social theory. From my beginner's academic vantage point, it appears that scholarship on terrorism is becoming more inward-facing and that this is happening in part because respecting existing academic and policy trends provides rewards to the individual to the detriment of the discipline. What happens on the news networks is one thing, but its creeping into academic discourse.
Wow that was long. I imagine none of you will want to wade through the ramblings of a novice IR nerd, but it sure helped me clarify my own thoughts. Cheers!
Cameron, The question "what
Cameron,
The question "what makes X unique" is a little unfair. You could criticize any think-tanker or academic on the specific scope of their study; if they tackle a particular atrocity we can always ask why they ignore others.
People like Will can't explain how they are distinct from talking heads, but that isn't because there's no difference. Dostoyevsky couldn't explain how his work is better than Twilight. You either see it or you don't. The best stuff that people like Will and Andrew write, the stuff that earns their talking-head moments a bit of gravitas, makes their reasoning and assumptions explicit. (It also shows that they have some expertise in the cultures and dynamics they're discussing.)
Knowledge and transparency are important in the debate of complex ideas. Work that opens its reasoning up to scrutiny is distinct from punditry. If you disagree that terror experts do that, or disagree that these things are valuable, there isn't a way to articulate a rebuttal.
Add your comment