America’s sense of security was shattered by the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. This has culminated in ostentatious ‘war on terrorism’ which, to all intents and purposes, has been misconstrued. This paper explores the historical antecedents of terrorism and the attempts at quelling it. It views the unfolding trend of the use of force to ‘eliminate’ terrorism as faulty. The paper believes that until the basic psychology and motivations of terrorists are understood and some of their reasonable grievances addressed, rather than stemming the tide, current approaches will exacerbate the incident of global terrorism. The paper concludes by recommending inter alia: that policy and attitudinal change rather than military bravado, will reduce the ugly incident of terrorism.

It is obvious that since September 11, 2001, no issue has generated more public interest than terrorism. Equally incontestable is the fact that today’s international terrorism has assumed organizational forms and means of operating that are historically new. The shadowy entities labeled ‘al-Qaeda’ are different from earlier terrorist movements in the extremism of their aims and in the far-flung, coordinated and ruthless character of their operations. No less novel is the contemporary US and international campaign against international terrorism. However, despite all the unprecedented aspects of this conflict, there are dangers in neglecting the history of terrorism and counterterrorism. These dangers include the repetition of mistakes made in earlier eras.1 President George W Bush won the 2004-US presidential election partly on the basis of a clear line on terrorism. Despite its strengths and electoral appeal, the US doctrine on the ‘war on terror’, it can be argued, is vulnerable to the criticism that it takes too little account of the history of the subject.

Although the use of terrorism extends far back in history, recent decades have seen a rise in the practice for several reasons. One is the overwhelming advantage in weapons that governments usually have over dissident groups. Because many governments are armed with aircraft and other high-tech weapons that are unavailable to opposition forces, it has often become nearly suicidal for armed dissidents to use conventional tactics. Second, terrorists’ targets are now more readily available than in the past: people are more concentrated in urban areas and even in large buildings; there are countless airline flights; and more and more people travel abroad. Third, the mass availability of instant visual news through television and satellite communications makes it easy for terrorists to gain an audience.2 This is important because terrorism is not usually directed at its victims as such, rather it is intended to frighten others. Fourth, technology has led to the creation of increasingly lethal weapons that terrorists can use to kill and injure a large number of people. These technological ‘advances’ include biological, chemical, nuclear, and radiological weapons. Terrorist attacks are relatively regular events. In 2000, there were 423 international terrorist attacks—those that were carried out across national borders—and many other incidents of domestic terrorism. However, through this time, Americans worried little about terrorism. For example, in a survey conducted in 1999 that asked Americans to name two or three top foreign policy concerns, only 12% of the respondents mentioned terrorism as a worry,3 until the myth of America’s invincibility was demystified and her sense of security shattered in September 11, 2001.

International Relations Journal, Military Option, Challenge of Global, Terrorism, A Successful Failure, Defining Terrorism, Red Shirts, Theoretical Errors, Fundamental Attribution, Factors of Poverty and Illiteracy.