How Terrorists should commit violence and attacks and measure it based on what sovereign states have done as a form of justification, following the leader

Description of Assignments

Written Assignments: Prospectus and Final Paper

Prospectus is a pre-paper game plan for what you will do in the paper

Final paper: come up with your own Rule for Rebels and militant groups

Want to be clear about a couple things:

1. What is your rule?
1. What is the independent variable that is your rule? What you are saying is by doing this thing, it promotes success. Success is your dependent variable. What does that mean? Independent variable: What is it that militant groups ought to do? Dependent variable: because it achieves THIS. because it increases likelihood of THIS. What is your rule, and how is it that you define success?
2. What are your metrics of success? Increase government concessions, increase international attention, increase fear, increase membership size of the group, increase state sponsorship of terrorism, increase local support?
2. Make a persuasive argument to the reader
1. More than the assertion of your rule. Want to convince readers that your rule is valid. How do you convince the reader? Want to argue in a persuasive manner.
2. Use any kind of methodological approach that you think would be compelling such as: compare two case studies, one that employs rule and one that doesn’t, look at a single case that didn’t employ rule and then later did, compare three cases that did and three that didn’t, variation on independent variable, empirical strategies to show plausibility of your rule
3. You can invoke other literatures, if you do organization theory in sociology, different method approach but you aren’t asking for just trust but there are some actual grounds to think that the rule I am advancing has merit, not establishing empirical, more academic approach
4. Make sure you ground the rule, make a strong argument
3. How well do you engage with the course?
1. Relate it to things on the syllabus that we have read, can also explain how your rule is different from works that we have read (this author says this, etc. and my rule is different because I am saying this)
2. Disagreements, contrasting, comparisons, you can invoke other authors as a vehicle to explaining why what you are doing is important or different

Paying attention to how well you engage with the course to fashion your own argument. You can use first person, emphasis on clarity.

• Traditional thesis style – inverted triangle – does not work for this assignment
• Be VERY direct in your writing
• Don’t use throwaway writing
• Main contention needs to be evident almost immediately – shouldn’t be some kind of mystery, should not take long to get to the main point
• Be clear: what is your rule?

Over the course of the assignment:

• It won’t be clear where you end up at first
• Continue to tinker with it as if you knew from the start where you were going

For Prospectus:

• Chance for you to start thinking early about final paper and to see what you are thinking of doing
• Make sure you are specific enough to the extent possible
• The more specific and concrete your rule, the better
• You are not a reporter, you are arguing something
• How do you measure success, what is your methodology?
• “Hoping to find evidence of this or that to make argument” don’t need all the answers immediately, but show aht you will be trying to argue and what is it you are planning on doing to make that kind of argument in prospectus
• Talk about why your argument fits within the literature, did the readings get you to where you are?
• Think of it as a puzzle: show that you have engaged with the material and that your question comes from the material and you are trying to advance pre-existing landscape in a productive direction

Works Cited

• Don’t need it but may include in prospectus, works you are planning on using or engaging with
• Course gets you thinking of what your rule is, and then to substantiate your rule, you do outside research
• Exposed to all these different ideas, claims, theories, hoping you come up with a claim but then to substantiate it – that is you deep dive into a case

Additional Comments

• Can be specific in the sense where you restrict your rule to a certain kind of terrorist, such as a nationalist group
• Does not need to be compatible with other rules – if you were writing Rules for Rebels, what would your rule be?
• If there are disagreements, you can say “although this person says this, my rule is this” because it acknowledges you know your rule is different
• Think from the perspective of the militants – what is it they should be doing?
• Prospectus should be written, not just bullet points, but prose, you are hitting all the different points of:
• what the rule is
• how it will be reflected in deep ended variable
• how you measure success, maybe how it relates to some other things
• definitely include how you are going to advance the article and what you methodological approach is
• specific literature or books, case studies you plan on doing and how you plan to use them, the more detailed the better
• What best advances your argument? – certain cases conducive to that, certain cases are not
• The case selection is done in the service of your argument – you want it to be one that helps test your point and thesis, justify use of cases, what will you be looking for in cases to sell your rule

Technicals

• No specifics on citation style, will want to have a bibliography and for quotes or specific points, either use footnotes to include page numbers or a parenthetical citation, any established system is fine
• Works cited shows what works you are using, footnote or citations allow instant retrieval of that point on that page
• Have a title, page numbers, sections, headings, anything that lends clarity
• Don’t leave reader in state of confusion, give a roadmap as to what you are doing

I want to base my paper off this idea: What’s the Root Cause of Terrorism?

When discussing terrorism, we often focus on the individual—the leader, the mastermind, or the foot soldier—and how their mentality evolves into violent extremism. We wonder how factors like poverty, oppression, and a lack of education drive individuals toward terrorism, believing they have no other options. However, by concentrating solely on the personal dimension, we risk missing the broader, systemic issues that shape the context in which terrorism arises.

The root causes of terrorism cannot simply be reduced to individual grievances or psychological profiles. Rather, they are the culmination of complex, external pressures—political, social, and economic factors that push individuals and groups toward radical action. It’s essential to ask not just how people become terrorists, but how certain environments produce the conditions for terrorism to flourish.

One crucial mistake is assuming that terrorists are simply driven by irrational anger or revenge. We forget to recognize that their actions, while abhorrent, may be strategic, calculated, and often a reaction to state-sanctioned violence. Terrorism often mirrors the very violence enacted by powerful nations. How we define terrorism and frame premeditated violence plays a significant role in shaping our understanding of its causes and justifications.

The Hypocrisy of Violence

As a global powerhouse, the United States, along with other powerful nations, tends to perceive its use of violence as justified or necessary. Since 1945, the U.S. has maintained the most formidable military, and we often regard military action as legitimate when carried out by a sovereign state in defense of freedom, democracy, or national security. Violence is seen as a tool—a necessary evil to preserve order and stability. But what happens when non-sovereign groups adopt the same rationale? Why do we assume that only states have the right to use violence for political or ideological goals?

Violence, as a tool, is mercurial—shaped by the context and justification behind its use. States justify it as a means to peace, while non-state actors may see it as the only path to achieving their aims in the absence of power or political legitimacy. We ignore this dynamic at our peril.

In his article “Poverty, Political Freedom, and the Roots of Terrorism,” Alberto Abadie argues that states exhibiting intermediate levels of political freedom are particularly susceptible to terrorism. This phenomenon can be understood in the context of historical examples, such as the American Revolutionary War, where a climate of political tension and intermediate forms of state violence created an environment ripe for violence as a means of achieving political objectives. In this case, the struggle for independence not only justified the use of force but also transformed violence into a strategic tool for gaining power and influence. The lessons from this period highlight how a precarious balance of political freedom can lead to the normalization of violence, ultimately paving the way for both state and non-state actors to resort to terrorism as a method of achieving their ends.

Case Study: World War II and Justified Violence

Consider the U.S.’s entry into WWII after the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. The war was framed as a necessary defense against fascist regimes, part of a larger global struggle for freedom. The U.S. used massive military force, culminating in the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. These acts of violence were controversial, yet were widely justified as a means to end the war quickly and save lives in the long run.

If we examine this through the lens of terrorism, similar logic is often employed. If a terrorist is retaliating against an attack that killed their commander and civilians—including children—do they not see their actions as justified in the same way? While the U.S. sought retribution after Pearl Harbor, the same drive for revenge can motivate acts of terrorism.

Anarchist Doctrine and the Justification for Violence

This brings us to the Anarchist Doctrine—a manifesto or psychological framework that some terrorist groups adopt to justify their violent acts. Anarchism, particularly in its more radical forms, emphasizes rebellion against unjust authority and state oppression. Terrorists may find vindication in this doctrine, feeling that violence against the state or its symbols is a moral obligation in their struggle for liberation.

But where did these ideas come from? Terrorists often learn their tactics not only from other militants but from state violence itself. The powerful states that engage in wars, bombings, and covert operations to maintain global dominance inadvertently teach militants how to fight back. Sovereign nations legitimize their acts of violence under the banner of self-defense or humanitarian intervention, but the line between “just war” and terrorism blurs when examined closely.

The Cycles and Waves of Terrorism

Terrorist groups refine their methods by studying past conflicts, both their own and those of others. The 9/11 attacks, for example, were not entirely novel; each tactic had historical precedence. Terrorist organizations learn from each other’s histories, evolving through waves of terrorism, improving and adapting their strategies to respond to changing circumstances. The violent playbook is not unique to non-state actors—it is a reflection of power dynamics in a world where violence often begets more violence.

The media plays a crucial role in defining and shaping public perceptions of terrorism, influencing not only our understanding of the term but also who gets labeled as a terrorist. We must question whether this label is applied consistently or used selectively to serve the interests of powerful nations and their sovereign agendas. As noted in the article, such framing is often politically motivated and determined by those who control the media. This selective labeling distorts public understanding, portraying some groups as terrorists while others engaging in similar violent acts are framed as freedom fighters. This disparity legitimizes existing power dynamics and reinforces narratives that justify state violence under the guise of sovereignty.

Furthermore, inconsistent media portrayals contribute to the root causes of terrorism by creating uncertainty about potential threats and how violence may manifest. This ambiguity fosters fear and mistrust, establishing an environment conducive to radicalization and perpetuating a cycle of violence. By critically examining how terrorism is represented in the media, we can better understand its implications for global conflict, the use of violence, and the assertion of state sovereignty.

A Self-Perpetuating Cycle?

The argument can be made that the root cause of terrorism is not simply individual desperation but the global system’s reliance on violence to achieve its aims. When powerful nations repeatedly use force to secure their interests, they unintentionally set the stage for non-state actors to follow suit. Terrorism becomes a distorted reflection of state violence—a reaction to the structures that deny certain groups political or economic power.

The lesson here is not to excuse terrorism, but to critically examine how state actions, particularly violent interventions, contribute to the conditions that breed terrorism. To effectively combat terrorism, we must confront the contradictions in our own use of violence. If we assume violence is a tool reserved only for legitimate states, we are ignoring the lessons of history—both terrorists and states justify their actions in strikingly similar ways.

In the paper, find a group to use as an example, develop a metric to follow/measure success with, and use Max Abrahms Rules for Rebels as a guide line. if this idea overlaps with anything in his book use it to your advatage or work off of it but elaborate more.

Here are some in-class notes ot work off of as well, refer to the readings we discuss as well:

Root causes of terrorism discussion: Help them by building government, build economy, job opportunities

Challenging poverty doesn’t work, bush and clinton

Isn’t a direct link between terrorists and poverty

Bin laden was rich

Everyday terrorist profile – better educated than rest of population

Middle-upper class recruits, easily blend in former requirements

Lots of research done prior to rise of isis

“Rather die fighting for isis than starve to death” isis pays well

What are the root causes of terrorism?

What are we looking for? Ideally pin it down to one common factor between all terrorists to make it easier to prevent

In reality there’s a cocktail of cause and psychological factors, no direct thing to combat and people don’t want to accept that

Two ways to think about it:

1. Terorism is equifinal phenomenon in sense that there’s no one cause or factor that leads to terrorism
1. Cancer – no one cause, hard to eliminate, chemicals, genetics
2. Highly contingent phenomenon, not just one variable in isolation, some variable interacting with another variable, very particular scope conditions for the variable to have a meaningful effect

What’s the root cause? Overly ambitious to try to find some variable that is deterministic (we see presence of this there, so person will become a terrorist)

Goal of research isn’t that ambitious, it is to find some factor in which significantly elevates the odds that someone turns to terrorism → probabilistic

Not everyone has an equal chance of becoming a terrorist, not randomly distributed in population

Some are more likely given __, finding the risk factor

Crenshaw points out that could be useful from academic perspective in finding some factor that elevates the odds

From policy perspective, could be meaningless

Could be that there is significantly greater chance of becoming a terrorist, doesn’t mean the likelihood is large at all

Could be the difference say smoking increases change of mortality, but three minutes of your life

Statistically significant by not substantively meaningful

Trying to find something meaningful, something that has counterterrorism value

Countermeasures would outweigh the benefits in terms of terrorist reduction

Want to be mindful of lots of things, not just reducing terrorism

Despite studies, findings have been disappointing

There is a relationship between concepts of origins of terrorism and root causes, and ideas of how to combat it

One could join for one reason, but the solution is another

If you wear to look up root causes of terrorism, you would be directed to loads of empirical studies on poverty and education

Empiricists aside, what would be the possible causal explanation of why poverty is thought to be a producer of terrorism?

Arguments:

• Poverty areas have higher crime rates
• What is terrorism and how does it relate and change in environments
• Poverty is correlated with certain kinds of crime, where does terrorism fit in that picture
• Way to make a living, the wealthier someone gets, the less they are to accept a risk
• Terrorism is risky behavior for everyone, even the perpetrators
• The poorer people get, the more likely to get them to do something risky like terrorism
• Illicit trade of weapons
• Areas that are poorer are generally more unregulated
• What causes war = civil wars have so many confounds, how do you disentail one from another
• Even regression wouldnt necessary be a solution if variables overlap so much
• Terrorism might work a similar way theoretically
• Poverty can be upsetting – someone or something (system, government) causes this poverty
• Destitution can easily breed resentment and anger, motivating people to use violence may be used instrumentally as a form of revenge or expression
• Additional nuance: someone might not be that poor but looks at media and sees people relatively wealthier, source or resentment or as an amplifier
• One could actually not be poor but could see people in the opposite scenario and that would piss them off, sense of empathy or sense of unfairness
• Concept of what creates
• Idea of poor people have uneducated tendencies and being poor
• Education, sufficient education levels tend to do more radical things and cannot differentiate
• Operationalizing poverty and education – measures to test for, employment, salary, net worth, size of economy
• Take into account nature of the education
• State of nature – nasty brutish and short

Question: Alternatives to causes of terrorism and multi party political systems can brew conflict, case of Bosnia and Herzegovina ethnic groups, why hasn’t there been more terrorist activity coming out of Bosnia when it has the prerequisites and conditions?

Identifying the causes of terrorism,m not a perfect model of where it will occur, many ethnic conflicts has resulted in terrorism, there will be niche cases, counter examples don’t discredit these cases

Not looking at just those that become terrorists but those who do not

Not as predictive as you might think

Maybe people are tired of war in Bosnia?

Question: Causal explanations for the opposite: why one might expect richer people to turn to terrorism?

Recruiting wealthy and higher education because they think they are more capable to execute more complicated tasks

Not all attacks are of equal value or sophistication

Higher quality ones might require higher quality terrorist in ability to execute operations

Access to broader range of radical ideas that more impoverished may not see

Idea that you have the ability to worry about errorism ideas when you don’t have to worry about the stability of your family

Is terrorism selfish behavior? Altruistically, it’s supposed to benefit some community you care about, furthest along political goals for betterment of people you care about

People struggling financially are more inward looking

Those financially secure may have more time to think outwardly

Having the means to do it, all you need is the spark, versus impoverished having the ideals but not the means

Thoughts about how wealth or poverty could have differential effects on different types of potential terrorists:

• Isis waging insurgency in iraq and syria to overturn governments, but also a transnational terrorist group committing acts all over the world and attracting foreign fights – unprecedented group
• Scholars hypothesized that levels are different between locals who partake in insurgency who tend to be poor compared to foreign fighters who travel form places like london
• Where can we find correlation between which terrorist might be richer or poorer?
• Expect leaders to be more weather, people who are on the ground as poorer
• Head tends to be older, more educated, richer, have more combat experience
• Nationalist v.s right wing, left wing, etc.
• Leaders might be ideological, soldiers might be more concerned with camaraderie or money

Terrorist lumper vs. Terrorist splitter

• lumper = broader definition of terrorism that is inclusive with other kinds of violence
• Splitter = defines more narrowly and has different expectations of origins
• Useful to think broadly about it and how it relates
• Defining more narrowly helps determine where it falls in criminality

Crime most similar to terrorism is hate crimes

• Something important in common
• Three actors involved:
• Perpetrator of the crime
• Immediate target
• Some additional audience
• Supporting stronger sentencing for hate crimes, more victims, more fear
• Other crimes are essentially didactic, only need two people, theft for example, doesn’t matter if someone is paying attention
• Where does terrorism fall in relation to other kinds of crime
• Helps answer root causes question

Widespread idea that poverty as main cause of terrorism doesn’t have much empirical support

• Some think the opposite
• Major policy initiatives predicated on incorrect assumptions that people are elevated on poverty and that is how we reduce the threat
• Money squandered

Predominant finding: poverty does not actually cause terrorism as the root cause

Always be skeptical about science

Where should the U.S. direct its money?

Come up with a different root cause that could be an alternative that is arguably actionable by a government with a sufficient investment?

• Foreign meddling or political interference (when to engage when to not engage)
• Lack of social trust and social divisions, fear of losing community, us vs. them (could also be civilians or people wanting outside involvement in their country) if trying to change the leader, accidentally opening doors for a new group or mentality
• Lack of infrastructure or central government, political structure instability
• Finding the middle ground between oppressive government and lack of structure

How to frame where a government can limit the actions or act?

Solution:

• protecting sovereignty, no military bases, no aggressive interference
• Communication amongst party to facilitate whether anything is needed
• Maybe letting things or leadership ride itself out, not interfering when you don’t need to

• Marginalization promoting terrorism, social solidarity, providing community outreach assimilation and nonviolent outlets for civic engagement
• Why is there less radicalization in the US than in europe, US is better at assimilation than European countries

• Monitoring of online activity
• Political freedom, implications of how free of speech should people have or do people have
• Is too much free speech dangerous? Is too little also dangerous?

Use these readings: Abadie, Alberto. “Poverty, political freedom, and the roots of terrorism.” American
Economic Review 96, no. 2 (2006): 50-56.
https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w10859/w10859.pdf
• Does Poverty Cause Terrorism? (nber.org Piazza, James A. “Rooted in poverty?: Terrorism, poor economic development, and social
cleavages 1.” Terrorism and Political Violence 18, no. 1 (2006): 159-177.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/095465590944578?casa_token=1n74ppg_
dCgAAAAA:S-sHiN5PJvtAfh3VVaTHpN-
yphyVc6EbZlZ9i4npu5iu1f1aV6gQkJarOosCZgFmDINVTI4SXKfYPw
• Berrebi, Claude. “Evidence about the link between education, poverty and terrorism among
Palestinians.” Peace economics, peace science and public policy 13, no. 1 (2007): 18-53.4https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/36053272/2007-Berrebi-PEPS-Terr-Pov-Edu-
libre.pdf?1419546867=&response-content-
disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DEvidence_about_the_Link_Between_Educatio.pdf
&Expires=1724182011&Signature=SbG5nqIhs0WiHl182RFOvgxgfc9DAm9tET7aeJ6w
3xE9pyygDBmWbc3snrWuDdhbzAEB0vXmT2jhTynn1SReXlm0Phor1RrJ2nIaf8J8OQ
Tn-
rAexfSbT7AiXlnEtNatin~NX3GmjJ6iDyH3k~4la42ShIOoCnoppWpCyoMJqiMwe2hIM
9wtHIX6Gycsl-vS891c6zfe779vpJRNvhe~Bj0INOPhjkL1gV-
YcjSO2HQyLAT41yTvrM6fhE~3q0AuqTaLzyQJTlFOlo1PdJPyF-
sBMQvc5NyIizXzA4qS8lao9oMxCfF1JKqUA3yud-
9I~4pwt0mW09MclHGbntEyDg__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA