S2839032
Terrorism and Counterterrorism: Governing a Wicked Problem
Crisis and Security Management
Midterm Paper
03/03/2024
, Focus of this metric
The chosen focus for this metric is successfully perpetrated terrorist attacks on United States
soil between 1980 and 2020. Over the years, the United States has had its fair share of
terrorist attacks, ranging from the infamous 9/11 to mass shootings and bombings. Despite
being at the forefront of the fight against terrorism, especially with its participation in the War
on Terror, the United States has not managed to eliminate terrorism on its home soil, and one
can even notice that there has been an increase in successful terrorist attacks in the past few
years (START, 2022). With the US in such a prominent role in the field of counterterrorism, it
is therefore relevant to look at how the US can, first and foremost, battle terrorism
successfully on its own land.
Defining counterterrorism success
Scholars have continuously illustrated the importance of public support for the success of
both violent non-state actors and the authorities opposing them (Silke, 2000). Rather than in a
regular interstate war where there are multiple populations, in an irregular war, authorities
and non-state actors battle for the same public support. For terrorist organisations, this entails
a group of both active and passive supporters of their cause, whereas for fighting authorities,
successful counterterrorism programs require a high degree of public trust in said authorities
(Duyvesteyn & Schuurman, 2019).
Studies have even suggested that it is the public support rather than the type of
counterterrorism measures that determine its success (Duyvesteyn & Schuurman, 2019). To
succeed, states should, thus, consider implementing measures that maintain or increase public
support and trust, especially in a democratic state (De Mesquita, 2005). One of the indicators
of public support is the perceived legitimacy of the political actors and institutions.
Additionally, excessive and indiscriminate use of force by the authorities likely results in a
drop in popular support and delegitimises the forces tasked to fight terrorism (Kalyvas, 2006;
Parker, 2007; Silke, 2005, as cited in Duyvesteyn & Schuurman, 2019). Concluding, state
actors need a large base of popular support and trust to prevail in counterterrorism efforts,
whereas pervasive hostility might lead to increased terrorist incidents.
Specifically in the United States, counterinsurgency has shifted from an
enemy-centric approach to a population-centric approach (Petraeus & Amos, 2006). It can be
argued that such an approach should, then, also be utilised in a counterterrorism metric
concerning American soil.
1
Terrorism and Counterterrorism: Governing a Wicked Problem
Crisis and Security Management
Midterm Paper
03/03/2024
, Focus of this metric
The chosen focus for this metric is successfully perpetrated terrorist attacks on United States
soil between 1980 and 2020. Over the years, the United States has had its fair share of
terrorist attacks, ranging from the infamous 9/11 to mass shootings and bombings. Despite
being at the forefront of the fight against terrorism, especially with its participation in the War
on Terror, the United States has not managed to eliminate terrorism on its home soil, and one
can even notice that there has been an increase in successful terrorist attacks in the past few
years (START, 2022). With the US in such a prominent role in the field of counterterrorism, it
is therefore relevant to look at how the US can, first and foremost, battle terrorism
successfully on its own land.
Defining counterterrorism success
Scholars have continuously illustrated the importance of public support for the success of
both violent non-state actors and the authorities opposing them (Silke, 2000). Rather than in a
regular interstate war where there are multiple populations, in an irregular war, authorities
and non-state actors battle for the same public support. For terrorist organisations, this entails
a group of both active and passive supporters of their cause, whereas for fighting authorities,
successful counterterrorism programs require a high degree of public trust in said authorities
(Duyvesteyn & Schuurman, 2019).
Studies have even suggested that it is the public support rather than the type of
counterterrorism measures that determine its success (Duyvesteyn & Schuurman, 2019). To
succeed, states should, thus, consider implementing measures that maintain or increase public
support and trust, especially in a democratic state (De Mesquita, 2005). One of the indicators
of public support is the perceived legitimacy of the political actors and institutions.
Additionally, excessive and indiscriminate use of force by the authorities likely results in a
drop in popular support and delegitimises the forces tasked to fight terrorism (Kalyvas, 2006;
Parker, 2007; Silke, 2005, as cited in Duyvesteyn & Schuurman, 2019). Concluding, state
actors need a large base of popular support and trust to prevail in counterterrorism efforts,
whereas pervasive hostility might lead to increased terrorist incidents.
Specifically in the United States, counterinsurgency has shifted from an
enemy-centric approach to a population-centric approach (Petraeus & Amos, 2006). It can be
argued that such an approach should, then, also be utilised in a counterterrorism metric
concerning American soil.
1
