September 24, 2013
Rarely have four days demonstrated the horrendous and unpredictable nature of terrorism so blatantly. Nigeria’s capital Abuja was hit by attacks that left eight people dead while the attacks in the Borno region left 87 people dead; Iraq was hit by more bombings in its civil war; Nairobi shopping mall Westgate was attacked by an Al Shabaab commando unit that left at the time of this post 69 dead and over 200 injured, excluding the victims of the ongoing hostage crisis the attack resulted in; finally, a Taliban-related group attacked a church in Peshawar on Sunday following mass that resulted in 75 dead and numerous other casualties.
These tragic events allow us to reflect on terrorism and its nature, well beyond the ever consuming and increasingly pointless debate over etymology. It allows us to understand that terrorism is about inflicting terror, either on a population, on a government or on a specific group. That terrorism is both a tactic and means to an end. And that above all, terrorism is a war of symbols, because when it is not based on means, terrorism becomes based on perception and interpretation, which is the most disturbing and unpredictable element of the phenomenon.
The terrorism that occurs in Iraq is one that is based on available means and occurs within the context of a civil war. In this case, we are talking about terrorism as a tactic, as a weapon to counter-punch, which is why we see multiple sides employing terrorism. This is also why it is present in Syria and Libya among other places.
But the attacks in Nigeria, Kenya and Pakistan are another story. They are part of a perceived war that turns civilians into fighters, and “enables” them to become victims. The attacks perpetrated by Boko Haram, Al Shabaab and the other extremist groups are part of a struggle for power brought about not by need, but by the lust for power. Within these parameters, they interpret their ambitions as a war, where the enemy is highly subjective, prone to frequently changing criteria. The only possibility then becomes to inflict terror, as a demonstration of power and based on a logic of revenge and justice.
While it would be easy to simply condemn and dismiss these attacks in terms of sanity and “Good vs Evil” rhetoric – as is too often the case since 9/11 – reality shows us otherwise. Let us take the example of the ongoing attack in Nairobi’s Westgate shopping mall, which is reminiscent of the attack that occurred in Mumbai in 2009. Al Shabaab’s attack occurred as a children’s event was taking place, resulting in the death of numerous children. This element would confirm the idea of a lack of morals among the terrorists, which is often described as part of a “new” form of terrorism. However, the strategic value of the mall superseded the moral factor because Westgate mall is the main shopping centre for foreigners and the Kenyan elite, and as the number of high-profile victims indicates, the attack was a huge success.
This was a high value target from Al Shabaab’s perspective, and such an assessment triggers the depersonalisation mechanism that objectifies a victim for a murderer, thereby enabling the assailants to carry out their mission. As the Somalia-based group justified, this was an act of revenge, and Kenyans were meant to suffer greatly. While we rightly condemn the attack for its horror, the attackers’ interpretation of it is that it is morally justified.
The same thing can be said of the attacks in Abuja late last week. These assaults by Boko Haram occurred in areas that the Nigerian elite call home, providing a strategic value of the area and a logic that the targets have more value than the collateral damage.
I mentioned above the element of depersonalisation, which I like to describe in the context of terrorism as the process of symbolization. This process was in full swing in Peshawar when the Christians were attacked after attending mass. Considering that only 2% of Pakistan’s population adheres to Christianity, it is hard to describe them as threat. Yet they were the victims of a brutal attack, which is part of a wave of sectarian violence. The perception of the “non-believer” as the infidel, combined with jihadist rhetoric, enables the terrorists to perceive their “enemy” as a source of evil that needs to be purged. Therefore, the church-goers were not simply civilians or even human beings, but an enemy which had to be eliminated.
This symbolic value also played a huge role in the attack in Nairobi. I mentioned above that the Al Shabaab operation in the mall was, according to the group’s Twitter statements, an act of revenge. But it goes beyond that, as the attack is allegedly a symbolic statement part of an internal power struggle in the group, a move made to impress militants and consolidate the presence at the top of Ahmed Abdi Godane, the group’s leader since June. Within this logic, the victims of the attacks were seen as nothing more than tools necessary for a show of strength. It is also quite possible that the ownership of the mall played a symbolic role in the attack as it is partly Israeli-owned and many Israelis were among the shoppers, which would explain why a detachment of Israel’s counter-terrorism unit was deployed so rapidly on-site.
Terrorism is an extremely complex phenomenon that entails numerous variables, most of them that cannot be countered with weapons or technology. As the sad events in Kenya remind us, limiting its impact requires vigilance, awareness and an acute understanding of these variables. Above all, countering terrorism requires that we understand the big picture in which it thrives, that it is rooted in symbolism and that threats must be taken seriously.
If we wish to prevent, or at the very least limit the deadly impact of such attacks, our counter-terrorism policies and actions must take all the variables into account and show the ability to adapt. Drones and armies have little effect when the strengths and weaknesses of the enemy are not properly understood. Twelve years after Al Qaida’s attack on New York turned terrorism into the main security threat, we still struggle to properly assess the danger and develop adapted solutions. Until we do, weeks like this one will continue to occur, and tragedies like the one in Nairobi, and in Mumbai before that, will still make headlines.