Are the terrorism
campaigns currently emerging the huge paradigm shift that
many people are suggesting?
Just as the
war on drugs blurred the edges between warfare and law enforcement,
the war on terror is set to do much the same. With the increased
weaponry and the plight phrased as a war on terror, it is
easy to see this as a conventional war.
However, whereas
regular warfare usually wages for the control of land or
politics, the landscape that terrorism seeks to take control
of is the human mind.
With all the
clips of terrorist training camps and with the US set to
launch on a global tour of military retribution, mopping
up all outstanding Anti-American annoyances, it can be easy
to see it all as a regular war.
However, as
the September 11th Hijackers demonstrated, terrorism does
not need the latest laser guided hardware to achieve its
aims.
Terrorism is
about generating terror. That is its aim, to terrify a mass
of people until they cease in whatever captivity or mindset
it was that gave rise to the terrorists in the first place.
Terrorism has
only altered its methods because its 'target audience' has
shifted its attitudes towards it. Just as advertising has
shifted in response to consumer attitudes, so terrorism
has shifted in order to 'meet the needs' of its consumers.
At the dawn of television advertising, as long as you had
a trustworthy chap telling you that brand X tasted damn
fine, then most people would take it as read that brand
X was one of the damned finest tastes around.
Then, as people
slowly came round to the fact that X incorporated were bound
to claim that their brand was damn fine the advertising
world responded with lifestyle marketing. Now brand X not
only tasted damn fine, it got you a damn fine house, a damn
fine wife and a damn fine life that was, heck, just damn
fine. Then came the science and statistical research ads
and now, with cynicism reaching new heights, most adverts
barely mention the product or anything beneficial and just
plump for, "look, out products great but if we promise not
to ram it down your throat and just make you smile, would
you please maybe consider buying some?"
Just as marketing
boils down to money in the bank, so the aims of terrorism
are simply to generate terror. In the terrorist's mind,
the people who actually die during an attack are as much
the weapons as the explosives of a bomb itself. Those unfortunate
enough to lose their lives in an attack cannot be terrorised,
but their deaths, splashed across the front pages, ignite
fear into the wider populace.
The government's
task is to convince the public that the threat is minimal
and that they are on the verge of eradicating the perpetrators.
This involves a very careful balance of displayed security.
Without a heavy troop presence, people wonder if they are
safe. With a heavy presence, people are continually reminded
of the looming threat.
The way that
the public has learnt to deal with this threat is through
intra-personal negotiation to define areas as safe and unsafe.
As terrorists attack large 'significant' targets, the public
minimalise the threat to themselves by dwelling upon the
fact that as long as they do not live near or work near
any significant buildings, then they should remain out of
harm's way. And, with the war analogy being played to the
full, the significant targets of today will quickly be viewed
as military targets. In order to reinvigorate the terror
factor, random and seemingly insignificant civilian areas
will become the norm.
We negotiate
our fear down to an 'acceptable risk,' one small enough
to put from our minds and ignore. This strategy of negotiation
within ourselves not only helps us to cope but also lessens
the power of terrorism by reducing the number of victims.
Increasingly, terrorists will have to target civilians in
order to keep their campaigns of terrorism terrifying. In
order for the terrorists to reinvigorate the concept of
terror in a public that has learnt to define target areas
and live with the continuous threat, they will have to redefine
what is seen as a potential target.
When the 'Real'
IRA blew up a car bomb in Omagh, they tipped off the police
to a fake bomb near the courthouse, causing the authorities
to evacuate everyone to the other end of the town. The real
bomb was at this end of town and the results were horrific.
Having packed the bomb with nails, they packed people around
the bomb.
The major factor
currently holding this transition in check is the terrorists
own pride. Obviously a certain logic persists in targeting
high profile areas in order to strike a moralistic blow
against the opposition and achieve the maximum media coverage.
There must
also exist a trophy mentality to destroying high profile
buildings, a desire to be known as the terrorist who destroyed
x.
But we've seen
celebrity criminals before, dapper Mafia boss John Gotti,
chatting with reporters and appearing on magazine covers
just as frequently as appearing in court. but notoriety
comes at a heavy price. Just as the scale of genius eventually
tips over into madness, so eventually becoming so renowned
that they achieve that mythical 'get at all costs' status.
Terrorists
in the future will realise that the continuous targeting
of trophies lessens the terror payload of their attack as
most people don't live and work in such trophies.
The recent
spate of anthrax cases in the US post provides a valuable
case study into how terrorist vanity can weaken the devastation
of an attack. According to the latest FBI profile, the attacker
was a loner in the US, jumping on the September 11th bandwagon,
but the lesson remains the same.
The notes within
the packages actually declaring the contents to be anthrax
served no purpose other than to guarantee verifiable media
attention.
Remove the
note and put in six sachets of brand name talcum powder,
with one of them having 'split' in transit and you have
a different scenario. Addressed to one of the female staff
rather than the senator himself and phrased as a free set
of samples to be compared, we now see the anthrax being
handed around the office and deliberately rubbed into people's
skin.
This same scenario
could easily translate to the shopping mall, with talcum
powder test samples being swapped.
Imagine the
fear that would still be ongoing if the September the 11th
terrorists had dropped the planes onto areas of residential
housing, rather than the national trophies they selected.
The death toll might have been less, the media shock at
an attack on such loved monuments would have been lost,
but there would have been no chance for the general public
to barricade themselves behind the comfort of 'I don't live
or work anywhere significant, so I'll be safe.' Most people
live in houses.
It doesn't
take a genius to think these things through and bin Laden
is no school dunce. The anthrax attacks were more than likely
a loner and his desire to see his handiwork gloriously displayed
in the media prevented the death toll reaching its full
potential.
A lot of media
speculation took place about whether the anthrax had been
'weaponsied' (made into a potent air-borne variant), the
journalists eager to prove how many Tom Clancy novels they
had at home. These Anthrax attacks by a lone nut just as
the media were speculating about it happening demonstrates
another weaponisation taking place Ñ weaponisation of the
mind.
The person
responsible for the attacks was not any regular member of
the public, they had the means, motive and opportunity to
kill innocent strangers indiscriminately, and yet it was
only after the media predicted that there would be an Anthrax
attack that they decided to oblige this invitation by unleashing
it.
The potential
terrorist, hearing the prophecies of anthrax doom on the
television, realises that they can be the first such attack.
Not a lame copycat attempt, the first. Thinking through
the media attention they will get, already at fever pitch
without any such attack occurring. In that instance, the
mind is weaponsied. Potential terrorist become kinetic.
It is not only
the terrorists' minds that become weaponised. In order to
reinvigorate the fear, they seek to weaponise the thinking
of the general public. Simple power cuts are no longer simple
power cuts and a panicking public seek verification that
this is not the opening salvo of Al Qaeda's latest push.
In the past
a plane crash would be just a plane crash and accepted as
such. The chances of a terrorist attack would only be mentioned
if there was strong evidence that the incident was suspicious.
Now, when a plane crashes, one of the first sentences uttered
by newsreaders is whether or not terrorism has been ruled
out in the investigation. Our news has been weaponised.
In the future
we will learn once again to live with this threat through
simple statistics. 'My house might be a potential target,
but the chances of my block being selected is highly remote.'
The terrorists,
in turn, will follow up with an increased number of attacks
or maybe pull some strange new strategy from left of field
that will splash shock and awe across the front page. When
that occurs, not even the Antarctic may be a safe hiding
place.
