What's the use of terrorism? (as a military tactic)

[no_name]

You're confusing terrorism with a war by proxy. The Mujhaideen could not have ever fought the USSR in a conventional war with or without US weapons. Besides they are more an insurgency than a terrorist group.

I think he is talking about the point you made about assymetrical response as something exclusively used by weaker powers, when in the afghan example it was US who used them.

Although it is quite debatable whether US or USSR was stronger at that time.

 

[no_name]

Sorry wait it was the afghans that fought them, US just funds them.

If it was between US and USSR it would be a conventional/nuclear war, at least at the start, then losing side will shift to assymetric warfare.

 

[SMC]

You're confusing terrorism with a war by proxy. The Mujhaideen could not have ever fought the USSR in a conventional war with or without US weapons. Besides they are more an insurgency than a terrorist group.

War through proxy vs terrorism are almost interchangeable words these days. Those proxies are freedom fighters for one man and terrorists for another man.

If a state was to fund an insurgency publicly without a very very good reason, it'd almost certainly be declared a terrorist state.

I don't think any state funds terrorism (i.e. terrorism in its classical sense) exclusively. That is, funds only the killing of innocent people and only that. There is nothing to be gained in killing innocents. What they fund is insurgencies/"freedom fighters" as a strategic or tactical move. Those insurgents/"freedom fighters" may end up causing terrorism themselves.

What I think the poster is trying to ask is the use of insurgency as a military tactic, not terrorism.

And that is what I answered there.

The difference between US/USSR was not big enough to call US a weaker state. And India funded insurgency in eastern Pakistan despite being stronger.

Another advantage of an insurgency vs conventional war is the following. With an insurgency, there's usually not as many people dead as with conventional war. So there will be a fraction of global outcry and pressure to stop the insurgency as compared to the pressure to stop the war.

Biggest advantage I think is that your enemy will probably not fight you and will be pre-occupied with your proxies. It's cost effective, more politically effective.

 

[su-47]

The main aim of using terrorism as a military tactic is to undermine the will of the enemy. The professional military of a country has limitations with regards to rules of engagement, that a terrorist organisation does not. terrorists can be used to hit the enemy where it really hurts i.e their civilians.

but more importantly, terrorists or proxies can also be used to bog down a strong enemy and waste the enemy's resources. Look at whats happening to USA in Iraq and Afghanistan, Indian Army in Kashmir etc. Its just a very cost-effective method of making the enemy waste resources, and at times, the will to fight.

 

[TorontoNoctis]

In current times, terror as a military tactic is not very effective.

On the contrary I think terrorism is extremely effective as a military tactic in modern times.

Modern Western democracies measure military staying power by casualties. If you can inflict even single digits of casualties on them a day, you will force them to pull out.

So the fact remains why Osama Bin Laden or his lieutenants didn't hire 200 suicide bombers like what hapened in 24 and start a string of suicide attacks all across America against schools and other soft targets. And the only conclusion is that the terrorist threat is overrated, that Al Qaeda is regionally confined and in fact that terrorists are idiots and both tactically and strategically inept. Of course it doesn't take much to realize that when you realize the 9/11 hijackers didn't even know they were going to be suiciders and Bin Laden laughed at them.

 

[Old School]

We need to understand the core philosophy of terrorism which goes back to the earliest days of the civilization.
Julius Caesar (100-44 BC) once said ,"There is no fate worse than being continuously under guard, for it means you are always afraid." This is truly the very notion of terrorism.

When we look at the ancient Chinese I Ching, 51. Chên ( 8th century BC), it says ,

"When a man has learned within his heart what fear and trembling mean,
he is safeguarded against any terror produced by outside influences. Let the
thunder roll and spread terror a hundred miles around: he remains so
composed and reverent in spirit that the sacrificial rite is not interrupted.
This is the spirit that must animate leaders and rulers of men-a profound
inner seriousness from which all terrors glance off harmlessly."

 

[TorontoNoctis]

Anyway what is clear is that terror is useless when used against a civilian population in hopes it will break their will to fight.

For many reasons -- the military is the last to starve and the last to feel fear. Civilians will never revolt against the military and when they do it will fail utterly. They are more likely to rally around their leader in a time of war.

What terror can be useful for is against the ruling elite. Kim Jong Il is not an idiot and he certainly doesn't want war or he would have started it in the 80's when he had a massive advantage in manpower and a semi-realistic chance of winning. So rather than use terror on civilians use it on the elite, not by bombing them since your chances of actually getting them are slim (and you need them still in power to control their minions). Instead conduct military exercises, weapons tests, and heavy rhetoric. That is the kind of terror which is useful.

 

[gambit]

Get this straight...

Terrorism is NOT a valid military tactic. Asymmetric warfare between armies do not involve 'terror' tactics. Asymmetric warfare between armies target each other's weaknesses and those are valid military tactics.

In order to 'terrorize' someone you need certain conditions and states. A 'civilian' is someone who is usually unarmed and not an authorized agent of the state. His state of mind is that of one who does not expected to be attacked. A civilian, therefore, is someone who is least capable of defending himself.

You cannot 'terrorize' or frighten someone into submission if the person is capable of responding in kind to threats. That make the person a soldier and usually he is armed or has access to arms. A soldier is also a sworn and appointed agent of the state.

On the other hand, you can label someone a 'terrorist' if he is NOT an agent of any state and conduct violence against others, even if against armed soldiers. This goes back to conditions and states because only soldiers are allowed to kill other soldiers.

 

[CardSharp]

Get this straight...

Terrorism is NOT a valid military tactic. Asymmetric warfare between armies do not involve 'terror' tactics. Asymmetric warfare between armies target each other's weaknesses and those are valid military tactics.

In order to 'terrorize' someone you need certain conditions and states. A 'civilian' is someone who is usually unarmed and not an authorized agent of the state. His state of mind is that of one who does not expected to be attacked. A civilian, therefore, is someone who is least capable of defending himself.

You cannot 'terrorize' or frighten someone into submission if the person is capable of responding in kind to threats. That make the person a soldier and usually he is armed or has access to arms. A soldier is also a sworn and appointed agent of the state.

On the other hand, you can label someone a 'terrorist' if he is NOT an agent of any state and conduct violence against others, even if against armed soldiers. This goes back to conditions and states because only soldiers are allowed to kill other soldiers.

It blends and there's no clear line. How do you classify Iraq, where you have an insurgency that can shoot it out (Fallujah), plant IEDs, and conduct suicide bombings against civilians or police.

 

[Old School]

Insurgency is a technical military term but terrorism is a political/civil one. According to Gen. Petraeus :

"The terrorist and guerilla tactics common to insurgency have been among the most common approaches to warfare . Any combatant prefers a quick, cheap, overwhelming victory over a long, bloody, protracted struggle. But to succeed against superior resources and technology,weaker actors have had to adapt."

"Today, outside actors are often transnational organizations motivated by ideologies based on extremist religious or ethnic beliefs. These organizations exploit the unstable internal conditions plaguing failed and failing states. Such outside involvement,however, does not change one fact: the long-term objective for all sides remains acceptance of the legitimacy of one side’s claim to political power by the people of the state or region."

And finally , "Counterinsurgency is not just thinking man’s warfare—it is the graduate level of war." as described by a Special Forces Officer in Iraq, 2005

 

[TorontoNoctis]

Get this straight...

Terrorism is NOT a valid military tactic. Asymmetric warfare between armies do not involve 'terror' tactics. Asymmetric warfare between armies target each other's weaknesses and those are valid military tactics.

In order to 'terrorize' someone you need certain conditions and states. A 'civilian' is someone who is usually unarmed and not an authorized agent of the state. His state of mind is that of one who does not expected to be attacked. A civilian, therefore, is someone who is least capable of defending himself.

You cannot 'terrorize' or frighten someone into submission if the person is capable of responding in kind to threats. That make the person a soldier and usually he is armed or has access to arms. A soldier is also a sworn and appointed agent of the state.

On the other hand, you can label someone a 'terrorist' if he is NOT an agent of any state and conduct violence against others, even if against armed soldiers. This goes back to conditions and states because only soldiers are allowed to kill other soldiers.

This is a very revisionist post 9/11 type of morality. First the US has used and continues to use terror. Not talking about conspiracy theories but real units like psyops. In WWII, carpet bombing Dresden and Nazi Germany and nuclear bombs were obviously terror. They were designed to break the enemy's will to fight. You can argue their military merits all you want but even the US military admits that such actions were to destroy the enemy's will to fight and not purely economic or military. To deny this is to revise history to suit your own preconceptions against terror. And of course you can always make the argument that certain terrorist tactics are economic in nature. For example, Bin Laden thought destroying the Twin Towers would damage America's economy irrevocably. And of course Al Qaeda did have a state -- Afghanistan. The whole pretext of invading Afghanistan was Al Qaeda and the Taliban were one and the same.

The entire point of asymmetrical warfare is stealth. So this whole garbage about wearing military uniforms is just an excuse so the US military can treat those without uniforms differently than those with. First, a uniform can be as simple as an armband. Volkssturm and Hitler Youth used armbands and early Revolutionary War militia didn't have standardized uniforms. There is absolutely nothing in the rules of war which says the uniform must be worn on the outside, and indeed spies often wore their uniforms underneath their clothes. And of course American special forces like Delta Force do not wear always wear uniforms.

I see very little practical difference between camouflage and stealth versus wearing no uniform. Now suppose somewhere in the near future, full body suits which completely bend light around the user exist. All of a sudden, your uniform definition of legal combatant is garbage since spec ops will definitely use this. An invisibility suit or cloaking device is just like a terrorist wearing no uniform. It is not science fiction and work is already being done to this end.

Your whole view on what makes and what doesn't make a soldier is revisionist, ignores contradictory evidence and is frankly ignorant. What makes it worse is you say soldiers not wearing visible uniforms but only targeting other soldiers and not civilians are using an illegal tactic. Soldiers are a legitimate target anywhere and everywhere, and if you don't like it perhaps you should push for peace or negotiation instead of praying for set piece battles which clearly favors Americans.

In the end whether you like it or not the only real difference between legitimate terror and illegitimate terror is the two word dirty phrase military junkies like to attach to bleeding hearts and hope never to mention -- human rights. Any other definition is self-invented to prefer a certain type of fighting or certain treaty.

 

[Xerox]

Is this right that one mans terrorist is anothers Hero?
Dont know why but Afghan Mujahideen in Soviet era,Kashmiri Mujahideen,Bask and IRA is coming to my mind.What were they for their countrymen and what for the others?Do we have our own definition for terrorrism?

 

[tomp]

The main aim of using terrorism as a military tactic is to undermine the will of the enemy. The professional military of a country has limitations with regards to rules of engagement, that a terrorist organisation does not. terrorists can be used to hit the enemy where it really hurts i.e their civilians.

but more importantly, terrorists or proxies can also be used to bog down a strong enemy and waste the enemy's resources. Look at whats happening to USA in Iraq and Afghanistan, Indian Army in Kashmir etc. Its just a very cost-effective method of making the enemy waste resources, and at times, the will to fight.

I had never looked at it that way before. Silly me.

 

[jeypore]

Think about it this way

Before 9/11 the USA had no Department of homeland security responsible for stopping terrorists.

The Department of homeland securities budget is 43.6 billion a year and it was created after 9/11 in order to prevent incidents like 9/11 from repeating.

Add in the revenue lost from 3,000 lives, the world trade center itself only costs 1.5 billion.

The terrorists hate the USA, they know that their lives are worth pennies their goal is to hit the USA hard in the wallet.

And what the western government cannot do is FIGHT BACK, because they don't really know where the terrorists are located.

You are going in the right direction interms of US, but what about your illegitimate section on Northwestern section also, does China feel the same of not locating them also!!!!!!!

 

[Patriot]

In Military terms it would be called insurgency unless you're directly ordering the insurgents (In case of Vietnam US instructed it's Army to use Agent Orange on Fields which directly affected Vietnamese Civilians..)to attack Civilians instead of Military Targets.Few Successful Insurgencies are USSR Supporter Of Viet Cong which Defeated America and US Support of Mujhaideen during 80's which defeated Soviet Union.US also supported Contras in Nicaragua Now Insurgents don't need much money they just need weapons and food where as Military costs a lot of money to run so insurgents bleeds the military.Neither US or America lost war in Vietnam/Afghanistan in military terms.IRA also succeeded in a sense that British Government negotiated with them.