Trends in Terror
A lot has been said on the subject of terrorism, but surprisingly little about it's future. What impact will terrorism have on this century? Let me paint a grim scenario to get some discussion going...
Terrorism can be an extremely effective strategy for those whose interests lie in escalation and chaos, for those who see no other ways to influence their children’s futures. Although not many a cause will be served by terror, some are. Currently, what I will call "Al Qaida terrorism" (more on that later), is the absolute focus of attention. I believe the coming decades will see proponents of different causes increasingly adopt this strategy.
Especially the radical "green" movement is increasingly likely to turn to terror. Why? Because it is extremely effective. I await the emergence of "Kyoto terrorism", targeting oil production, chemical industries and other polluters. The terror threat in Iraq an Saudi Arabia (among others) is already sending oil prices to the roof. A few targeted attacks on North sea oil fields, Dutch gas and Russian pipelines would do more to achieving CO2 emission reduction than any international treaty ever will. While Eco-terrorism at the moment focuses on harassing pelt-farmers and destroying GM crops, I consider it very likely it will scale up quite a bit.
But let me turn to the main focus of the current terrorism debate, Al Qaida, Islamic terrorism, whatever you call it. Those who employ terrorism to further the goal of a grand Islamic state. I fear that after the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq we will see an exponential increase in Islamic terrorism. Why would I say that? Have the US not dispersed the terrorist training camps in Afghanistan, killing and capturing a lot of terrorists in the process, and did they not rid Iraq of the evil Saddam, who funded Palestinian suicide bombers (and didn't have "ties to Al Qaida", whatever that may be)? They sure did. Was this worth alienating almost every Muslim on the planet and a significant part of non-Muslims as well? Perhaps.
But since then a lot has happened. The Taliban have made a comeback in Afghanistan, as has opium production. The terrorists can be expected to earn a significant share of Afghanistan’s multi billion opium trade. And the "disseminated" terrorists, what have they done? some have hid for a while and are now back in Afghanistan, others have moved to other areas in the region, hiding or establishing new camps. Yet others have made their way to Iraq, the Philippines and who knows where, starting there own little terror groups as they arrived or hooking up with existing radicals. American mishandling of the Iraqi war then acted as a recruitment poster for these newly setup terror cells.
Turning to Iraq, not only is it now a perfect training ground for terrorists, a huge quantity of weapons (small arms, RPG’s) have been "lost". These present a significant threat in the hands of terrorists. A few guys with RPG’s can have quite an effect on civilian air traffic, as can some guys with sniper rifles on a civilian population (remember the Washington sniper?). But the future looks even worse. Iraq is set on a course to become a "failed state" after the US eventually pulls out. A scenario like the fate of Afghanistan after the Russian pullout is increasingly likely. But Afghanistan’s opium pales in the face of Iraqi oil.
Speaking of oil, the attacks in Saudi Arabia signal a new fase in the struggle between progressive, corrupt and conservative in the Saudi monarchy. The extreme Islamic fundamentalists like Al Qaida are being forced to either fight or fade by an increasingly strong handed government approach towards them. Unsurprisingly they fight. Now I have no intention to call the outcome of this struggle, perhaps it will lead to a significant decline of terrorist funding from the Saudis, perhaps not... What recent terror attacks on oil related targets in Saudi Arabia and Iraq have shown is how effective terrorism can be. A major strike on Saudi oil installations will send oil prices through the roof, significantly hitting us Westerners were it hurts, our wallets. Terror has also proven effective to them on other fronts, like bogging down the mightiest army in the world somewhere off in a desert. I'd say their morale is high...
Adding it all up, we have more effective recruitment by widely dispersed terrorists with high morale and access to more money and weapons. Exponential growth.
On the upside, I believe this growth to be temporary, perhaps I'll go into that later... If you're looking for futhr reading on the issue, try some of the sources I commented on earlier on this blog.
Keywords: Terrorism,4GW
The Washingto post has a piece on oil-targetting terrorism here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn..
rikkert () (URL) - 28 09 04
Just a quick comment,
The problem I have lately with the sickening abundance of articles on terrorism (not this piece ofcourse, because the writer seems to be well informed) is the ease by which Al Qaida is considered to be a specific group. Why? There is no terrorist group calling themselves Al Qaida and receiving direct orders from Osama. Rather most experts agree that there are loose cells of muslim fundamentalists that blow stuff up. No grand hierarchy or whatever. But perhaps it is uncomprehencible for most to lack a clear target to hate and to combat.
Kim () - 10 10 04
Hi Kim,
I totally agree with your comment. “Al Qaida” nowadays seems to denote muslim fundamentalist terrorists in general. I have no problem with this abbreviation, as long as we remember it to be something different from the relatively small group of people surrounding Osama b. L. that went by this name in the past and is thought to be responsible for some terrorist attacks. This group is probably not even active and significant anymore, so the term “Al Qaida” can be considered free for reappropriation :)
rikkert () (URL) - 10 10 04
No trackbacks:
Trackback link:
Posted by in Dreaming @ 26 09 04 | three comments / No trackbacks
