To What Extent Is Military Force An Effective Response To Terrorism?

The aim of this title is to not only to define the extent of effectiveness of military force against terrorism, but also to understand whether it is an appropriate response, and if so, should it be justified in all cases – legally and or morally.  The impact and use of military force has many variables, actors and concepts, but in principle may only be sought to be enacted by legitimising its use either against non-state/home-grown or state-sponsored terrorism.  The use of force by nations against terrorists based in another country has long been debated.  The UN Charter (UNC) and its regime has been at odds with its policy, yet has sanctioned the use of force by justifying the extent to which states are able to respond under the policy of what has been termed “individual or collective self-defence” (UN Charter, 2016:12). Unilateral force against terrorists has increasingly been recognised as a “right of states”, a cumulative trend over the last three decades (Tams, 2009:359).  Conversely, the causal effect sees a trend of normalising the use of military force, whilst migrating from the doctrinally traditional use of self-defence.  Moreover, and worryingly, this may increase the risk of abuse.  The Security Council whilst recognising and supportive of interventionism policy against terrorism fails in the act of sanctioning its collective use, sometimes conflicting the views of the permanent members, causing policy stagnation. 

In order to answer the entire question fully, the following questions will guide the reader through the paper’s dialogue.  What is terrorism?  What is ‘military force’ and what should define its use – Legality or morality, or both?  How will the Future Operating Environment affect the use of military force?  – Game changer or not?  As von Clausewitz famously states, “war is politics pursued by other means” (von Clausewitz, 1832:45).  Behind this phrase, however, lies a complex mix of questions regarding military force and its use to achieve foreign policy goals. This paper will look at the use of military force in order to counter terrorist activity.  There is little or no accord among experts about the prominence of the use of force in past counter-terrorism campaigns.  Centred on “limited empirical investigation”, the use of police or judicial methods has been favoured over military might (Duyvesteyn, 2008:34).  Concerning the effectiveness of the use of force; there are few proposals that it may contribute to lessening terrorism.  Somewhat contradictory is the case; “the use of force makes things worse” (Duyvesteyn, 2008:34).

What is terrorism?  

The discussion on the use of military force against terrorism would be futile without first defining what is terrorism?  Scholars have struggled to come to a consensus on the definition of terrorism for decades, and there remains no significant unanimity.  “Some academics have provided definitions that span dense paragraphs referencing over a dozen traits, while others offer a minimalist definition of only a few words,”  (Schmid, 2004:2-3).  For the purpose of this paper, I will use the Oxford English Dictionary definition.  Terrorism – “The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.”  Strategically, terrorism follows a triumvirate method and development: target response, disorientation, and finally gaining legitimacy: 

1. Disorientation seeks to propagate within a population a general feeling of “insecurity and detract from the legitimacy of existing state structures, often through random acts of violence” that target the overall civilian general population.  (Neumann, P. R., Smith, M.L.R. 2008:33-39)

2. “Target response seeks to prompt” an excessively “harsh collective” retaliation from a government, in order to, and win international justice, or to fight political concessions aiming to radicalise the affected populace.  (Neumann, P. R., Smith, M.L.R. 2008:40-46)

3. “Gaining legitimacy is where the terrorist group seeks to transfer legitimacy from the government” through democratic social tension, or through progressive media such as the Internet, to its own cause through skilful influence [critical enactor to legitimacy] of the media.  At this stage, “ideology” becomes decisive.  (Neumann, P. R., Smith, M.L.R. 2008:46-53)

What is ‘military force’ and what should define its use – Legality or morality, or both?  

A military is a force with authorisation to utilise deadly or lethal force and weapons in order to support the interests of its (or in some cases its allies’) nation state and its citizens.  The analysis of terrorist acts and state responses demonstrates that they have differing political effects, this however, in turn can call into question a conventional military counterterrorist response and its political utility. According to Martin van Creveld (1991:56) within the context of the current political climate, terrorism is “embryonic historical conditions are turning warfare out of the political jurisdiction” in which Clausewitz’s analysis originally theorised warfare’s extension of partisan activity based on state power. The use of military force in combating terrorism, or any other form of insurgency or warfare, must be for legitimate use of potentially lethal force in order to eradicate the subversion of a population by means of terror.  The General Security Council and UNC have the power to authorise that legitimacy, but it must be based on an unwavering fact – not the general consensus in the case of the Iraq War (2003).  Morally have we as Western states intervened at every juncture and where appropriate – definitively, no. Overall, the impact of military force on foreign soil is logistically and financially taxing, in order to utilise the moral argument the key to military force action would be consistency. Without action at every terrorism-based disturbance, whether for the case of prevention or countering, the argument for military utility is flawed.

How will the Future Operating Environment affect the use of military force?  – Game changer or not?  

The Future Operating Environment over the next 20 years will see the definitive exploitation of more complex ways of extremist state and non-state actors playing a significant role.  As the growth of weapons sophistication and their increasing proliferation develops, “a wider range of actors to access more sophisticated weapons”, while Western militaries that have in the past “enjoyed” a “technological advantage” “will continue to be reduced”, (DCDC, 2015:10).  What is the significance of this analysis?  In essence, a swing in the balance of power historically enjoyed by Western states will be inextricably linked to state and non-state actors not previously considered as adversaries, developing the capability through technological advances or proliferation.  The use of military force against such adversaries would both be difficult to justify and accomplish.  “Distinguishing between criminal and terrorist may become more difficult”, (DCDC: 2015:15).  A less volatile and earlier home-grown example of that within the United Kingdom (UK) has been the development of the UDA, UVF and certainly the perceived nationalist movement more overly acting as criminal gangs rather than terrorist organisations, since the signing of The Good Friday Agreement. 

Insurgency and counterinsurgency are two very complex forms of warfare. Within these two groups their actions primarily resort to violence and often take up arms to achieve their political objectives.  Insurgent and counterinsurgent groups tend to aim to replace existing governments, disrupt and redefine the status quo of that particular state or region, and finally they often seek to challenge an emerging state.  These developing ‘hybrid threats’ often exploit regular forces, such as a state’s military, in their weaknesses. These ‘hybrid groups’ utilise a complex mix of conventional weapons, guerrilla warfare tactics (irregular) and often-terrorist action. These actions are taken in order to achieve political aims that set them apart from any conventional or regular forces, which are used solely in a military or warfare capacity. Furthermore, the use of counterinsurgency is a form of warfare; remaining political as opposed to military in capacity it involves the people, while also involving the military and or government of that nation state. The strength of the ties between the people, government and the military often affects the campaign’s outcome. 

What can we conclude?  

It is unquestionably not that the use of military force is or should be a first resort.  To the contrary, it is and should always be the last resort of any government and referring to the loss of life as a cost, can have the effect of almost dehumanising those that have. The use of effective strategy should utilise a “multifaceted approach”, concerning all sectors, including “diplomatic, political, financial…intelligence and military” (Chivvis and Liepman, 2016:5). The United Kingdom government does not resort to the use of force, rather the opposite, and utilise the voting of the House of Commons to agree to intervention.  

But for all of that, military force has been employed many times and most of these times it has been successful.  There have been outright failures such as South Arabia, Aden and Mozambique, but the use of force remains a fundamental policy tool.

Secondly, the concept that the UK uses force unilaterally and without regard to the views of other nations is empirically wrong.  Of the cases reviewed here, a number were prosecuted under U.N. auspices, or with NATO, or with non-NATO allies, or in some cases all three.  United Kingdom actions in, the Gulf war, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq all enforced U.N. Security Council resolutions.  NATO has been deeply involved in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and the fight against ISIS.  

The United Kingdom often has firm practical reasons not to intercede in the affairs of other nations, but moral grounds are rarely among them. Further to, it is from the lack of action and non-intervention that the “responsibility to protect” doctrine was evolved (United Nations, 2015:14). It remains however, a priority to enact non-military action first. Agreed by U.N. members in 2005, including the United States, the U.N. World Summit Outcome Document outlines that all means should be employed first to address mass violence, such as genocide and other crimes against humanity.

Thirdly, there is much to be learned from our long-lasting conflicts, particularly Afghanistan and Iraq.  The duration of these wars should instruct us that remaking a nation in an image entirely foreign to its history is not easy.  It is far more feasible to rebuild nations (as with the Marshall Plan or certain disaster relief efforts) than it is to build them in the first place.  There is no reason to doubt that representative democracy is the best form of government or that freedom, toleration, and economic opportunity are good for all people.  But these cannot be achieved in a brief time frame.  The United Kingdom has kept military forces in Germany, Cyprus, and Falkland Islands for decades.  But these troops were not going out on nightly combat-support missions against armed insurgents.  Our experiences in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya should teach us there is no easy way to build from the outside stable, friendly governments, much less free and prosperous ones.  In this regard, we might ask ourselves just what we were hoping to accomplish in Afghanistan in the 15th year that we did not accomplish in the 14th.

To its credit, and consistent with the requirement, the House of Commons has authorised the three most extensive uses of force – the Gulf war, Afghanistan, and Iraq.  While it is unclear what might have happened had the House of Commons voted to oppose any of these wars?   

Technological developments are likely to exacerbate the Commons’ irresponsibility.  Increasing reliance on drones and other stand-off weapons offers government ways to fight wars with minimal casualties.  These are precisely the kinds of conflicts with which the House of Commons struggles, the most.  Meanwhile, the case of ISIS or Daesh remains before us.  This conflict will inevitably draw in additional United Kingdom forces not only in the air, but on the ground.  

Finally, judgments about the use of force should not assume that inaction is always cost-free.  Had George H.W. Bush and John Major not driven Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait, who can say what would have occurred?  Would Saddam have moved on the Saudi oil fields and cornered a vast share of Mid-east oil reserves?  The real world never remains static for very long and responsible policymakers must balance the likely costs of action against the likely costs of inaction, however well or little known.  Inaction is generally politically safer than action.  But to secure United Kingdom national interests, the use of military force is not always the worst option.  Sometimes it is the only option.

Featured Image: A joint special forces team moves together out of an Air Force CV-22 Osprey aircraft, Feb. 26, 2018, at Melrose Training Range, N.M., during Emerald Warrior, the largest joint and combined special operations exercise. Photo By: Air Force Senior Airman Clayton Cupit

References  

Bergner, J. (2016) “What Good Is Military Force?”  The Weekly Standard (Accessed: 13th April 2018) Available at: https://www.weeklystandard.com/ 

Chivvis, S. C and Liepman, M. A (2016) Authorities for Military Operations Against Terrorist Groups: The State of the Debate and Options for Congress. Published: RAND Corporation

Crenshaw, M. in Schmid, A. (2004) “Terrorism – The Definitional Problem,” Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 36 (2-3) note 74

Duyvesteyn, I. (2008) “Great expectations: the use of armed force to combat terrorism,” 328-351 (Accessed: 10th April 2018) Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/09592310802228666

MOD DCDC (2015) ‘‘Strategic Trends Programme: Future Operating Environment 2035’’ First Edition, 20

Neumann, P. R., Smith, M.L.R. (2008) “The Strategy of Terrorism: How it Works, and Why It Fails (London: Routledge), 32

Oxford English Dictionary (2018) (Accessed: 13th April 2018) Available at: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/terrorism

Tams, C. J. (2009) ‘‘The Use of Force against Terrorists,’’ European Journal of International Law, Volume 20, Issue 2, 359–397 (Accessed: 10th April 2018) Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chp031 

United Nations, (2016) United Nations Charter VII. Available at: http://www.un.org/en/sc/repertoire/actions.shtml (Accessed: 20th April 2018)

United Nation (2015) Responsibility to Protect Available at: http://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/about-responsibility-to-protect.html (Accessed: 13th April 2018)

Von Clausewitz, C. (1832) “On War”, 3

Van Creveld, M. L. (1991) “The Transformation of War”, First Edition, The Free Press

Zenko, M., Cohen, M.A. (2012) “Clear and Present Safety, Foreign Affairs, Volume 91, No 2, 83

25 Comments

  1. You completed a number of nice points there. I did a search on the theme and found most people will have the same opinion with your blog.

    Like

  2. Hey there! I’m at work browsing your blog from my new iphone 4! Just wanted to say I love reading through your blog and look forward to all your posts! Carry on the excellent work!

    Like

  3. After looking over a handful of the articles on your blog, I truly like your technique of writing a blog. I saved as a favorite it to my bookmark website list and will be checking back soon. Please visit my web site as well and tell me what you think.

    Like

  4. Howdy would you mind letting me know which web host you’re working with? I’ve loaded your blog in 3 different web browsers and I must say this blog loads a lot quicker then most. Can you recommend a good web hosting provider at a reasonable price? Thanks, I appreciate it!

    Like

  5. Thanks for your write-up on this web site. From my own experience, occasionally softening right up a photograph may well provide the wedding photographer with a little an artistic flare. More often than not however, that soft blur isn’t what exactly you had under consideration and can frequently spoil a normally good snapshot, especially if you consider enlarging that.

    Like

  6. Thanks for your write-up. One other thing is individual states have their unique laws that will affect house owners, which makes it very difficult for the legislature to come up with the latest set of recommendations concerning foreclosed on homeowners. The problem is that every state has legislation that may have interaction regarding foreclosure insurance plans unfavorably.

    Like

  7. Hey there, I discovered your weblog using MSN. That is an extremely smartly written article. I’ll be sure to bookmark it and come back to read extra of your helpful information. Thank you for the post. I will certainly come back.

    Like

  8. Hi, I do think this is an excellent web site. I stumbledupon it 😉 I will return once again since I saved as a favorite it. Money and freedom is the best way to change, may you be rich and continue to help other people.

    Like

  9. Can I simply say what aid to search out someone who actually knows what they’re talking about on the internet? You definitely find out how to carry an issue to light and make it important. More individuals must learn this and understand this aspect of the story. I can’t believe you’re no more widespread since you undoubtedly have the gift.

    Like

  10. Hmm is anyone else having problems with the images on this blog loading? I’m trying to figure out if its a problem on my end or if it’s the blog. Any responses would be greatly appreciated.

    Like

  11. Oh my goodness! Impressive article dude! Thanks, However I am going through troubles with your RSS. I don’t understand the reason why I am unable to join it. Is there anyone else getting identical RSS problems? Anyone that knows the solution will you kindly respond? Thanks!!

    Like

  12. I’m not sure exactly why but this website is loading incredibly slow for me. Is anyone else having this problem or is it a issue on my end? I’ll check back later and see if the problem still exists.

    Like

  13. A fascinating dialogue is value comment. I feel that it’s best to write extra on this matter, it won’t be a taboo topic, but generally, individuals are not enough to talk on such topics. To the next. Cheers

    Like

  14. This is decently explained and practical, kudos. I enjoy the way you explain points without waffling on. It’s great insight and I deem you worth sharing.

    Like

  15. I don’t even know how I ended up here, but I thought this post was good. I don’t know who you are but certainly, you are going to a famous blogger if you are not already 😉 Cheers!

    Like

  16. Thanks for this excellent article. One more thing to mention is that most digital cameras are available equipped with the zoom lens so that more or less of the scene to be included by simply “zooming” in and out. These kinds of changes in focus length are usually reflected in the viewfinder and on the huge display screen at the back of your camera.

    Like

  17. Hello there! I could have sworn I’ve been to this website before, but after reading through some of the posts, I realized it’s new to me. Anyways, I’m definitely delighted I found it again, and I’ll be bookmarking and checking back frequently!

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s