Understanding Radicalization, Suicide Bombers, and Terror Networks: A Strategic Lens

RP Framework Aspects

1. Radical Pathway (RP) framework, human nature / culture / ideology / situated individual personality - Which of the factors, in your view, are the most important to understand radicalization. Or all equally important? 2. What do you think about suicide bombers. Are they crazy? Are they mentally ill? 3. What is your view about the situationist or the dispositionist? 4. How do terrorists kill? How to move from a hater to a killer? What is the role of moral disengagement, linguistic dehumanization? 5. Using your strategic lens, which do you think will be the greatest threat, lone wolves or organized terror networks? 6. How do you think we should do to deal with religiously motivated terrorism? Hard or soft approach? What is your view? Looking for reasoned arguments, with your views. Use examples to illustrate arguments. 6 choose 2, 24hrs to do the exam. Each answer  Question structure. 1) RP framework aspects Depending on the circumstance of the individual, the importance of any factor is dependent on the school of thought an individual is arguing from. Situationists would argue that immediate social context would matter, but a dispositionist would argue on the prospect of human nature or situated individual personality. Also considering the many different stories of terrorists, no single aspect of the RP framework sufficiently accounts for the various terrorist profiles. Bali bomber brothers – despite similar upbringing, 1 decided to back out. Right wing / LTTE / Ashin Wirathu – lack of religious explanation. Lone wolves with online radicalization and FTFs – no cultural linkages. 2) Mental states of suicide bombers Crazy or mentally ill? Sure some can be seen as crazy, but the mentality is more akin to either acting out of hatred or as a suicide mission. “Dying to win” and “Bombing to win” (Robert Pape), bombers often choose targets and carry out an attack systematically. Rational thought and problem solving skills displayed, attempting to blend into the background during the attack. Tradecraft employed to outmaneuver surveillance and CT. Crazy because we fail to understand their motives or worldview. Online radicalization hits various types of groups, even radicalizing “young, intelligent” individuals. Statistically unlikely that those individuals are crazy as well. Perhaps having aspects of mental illness in having psychopathic/sociopathic traits, but its not unique to all terrorists. Doing evil things =/= mental illness, comparison to 1940s Germany and the holocaust + Milgram + Stanford prison experiment. (Anyone can be put in a scenario that results in their radicalization). Comparison to suicide units, fighting to the death is not new. Fighting to the death is the norm in war, and terrorists believe they are in one. Defending the in group against aggression validates the use of any means possible. Also considering against a state, the only logical way to fight is using asymmetrical approach. ISIS only lost after they tried to hold territory, centralization of forces led to higher casualty rates against a conventional foe like US/RU/YPG. Understanding terrorists and seeing from their view, strategic empathy and seeing how terror groups justify their actions in defence of their group. 3) Situationist or Dispositionist? (See 1). Relevancy of the RP framework is explaining the need for meso and macro explanations for Situationists. Dispositionists more on the micro level. Also, difficulty in explaining the situationist when looking at “well adjusted” terrorists coming from comfortable backgrounds. Neither 1 can adequately account for all terrorist casefiles. 4) Moving from a hater to a killer? Interesting in terms of moral disengagement and terrorist groups. Not everyone in a terror organization is a killer, some are financiers, planners, bomb-makers, etc. Moral disengagement first by non-kinetic, non-lethal tasks. Growing accustomed and then being accustomed to killing. Or they are willing to kill first before joining the organization? (Chicken and Egg problem). Did they join and get encouraged to kill, or were they inherent killers looking for a group to “justify” or empower them to kill. I.e. Radicalization pathways and situ/dispo argument. 5) Strategic lens, biggest threat. Threat matrix to be used. High/low frequency to high/low consequence. Lone wolves proven to be the hardest to solve, due to spontaneity. CT struggles with conventional groups, how then to handle lone wolves. Also despite organized terror groups being capable of procurement, lone wolves could eventually carry out a black swan. Sophisticated and technically advanced attack, with target selection and prep work being carried out with tradecraft, evading surveillance. Unlikely but precisely a black swan event. (I.e. Biosecurity). Argument can be made that radicalization is according to the ideology of larger groups. But splinter groups can be formed, or lone wolves inspiring attacks according to a vague ideology that is not unique to any particular terror group. 6) Dealing with terror, hard or soft approach? Combination. Different terrorists have different profiles. Some deeper than others, so apply according to the severity. Looking at the terror problem not unique to terrorism, need for psychology and careful listening to the motivations of terrorists. Some terrorists have merit in their arguments, despite the extremity in their arguments. Please use as much as the reading materials in the syllabus as the references.