Why Terrorism Doesn't Work

Wired has up a fascinating article that explains why in most cases terrorism does not achieve the ends it seeks, and oftentimes winds up causing the opposite of what the terrorist desires.

People tend to infer the motives -- and also the disposition -- of someone who performs an action based on the effects of his actions, and not on external or situational factors. If you see someone violently hitting someone else, you assume it's because he wanted to -- and is a violent person -- and not because he's play-acting... Countries believe that their civilian populations are attacked not because the terrorist group is protesting unfavorable external conditions such as territorial occupation or poverty. Rather, target countries infer the short-term consequences of terrorism -- the deaths of innocent civilians, mass fear, loss of confidence in the government to offer protection, economic contraction, and the inevitable erosion of civil liberties -- (are) the objects of the terrorist groups. In short, target countries view the negative consequences of terrorist attacks on their societies and political systems as evidence that the terrorists want them destroyed. Target countries are understandably skeptical that making concessions will placate terrorist groups believed to be motivated by these maximalist objectives.

Of course, Al Qaeda and the like are unlikely to take the advice of Western scientists and studies, so things are unlikely to change. But perhaps this will influence the next generation of Islamic thinkers to find a different model to change the world... and maybe this time it can be Christ or Gandhi who learned you can change the world without committing violence.