DRA Special Issue September 11

[anna balint]

 From Michel Bauwen's Digital Revolution Alert
Special issue - dedicated to the implications of the September 11 events
20 September 2001


·       Networks, Netwar, and Information Age Terrorism
http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR989/MR989.chap3.pdf

David Ronfeldt and John Arquila of Rand Corporation examine the 
'information age' aspects of the new terrorist movements

·       Bruce Hoffman on the 'loosely networked' post-modern terrorists.
http://www.mipt.org/hoffman-ctb.html

Bruce Hoffman, author of Inside Terrorism, was one of the few experts who 
correctly predicted forms of terrorism that produced the September 11 
disaster, by focusing on the changing organisational structures.

" The absence of any existing, publicly identified central command 
authority is significant in that it may remove previous inhibitions on the 
terrorists' desire to inflict widespread, indiscriminate casualties. In 
some instances, individual networks therefore may have greater freedom and 
independence in tactical decisions than traditional terrorist cells of the 
past given the absence of some central command structure or actual 
functioning headquarters. Accordingly, this particular trend in terrorism 
may represent a very different and potentially far more lethal one than 
that posed by more familiar, traditional, terrorist adversaries."

·       How do they think: structures of geopolitical reasoning
http://home.t-online.de/home/Perspectus/index.htm

This is a marvellous  website dedicated to understanding conflicts by 
relating it to the modes of consciousness of the participants. Click on the 
essay on geopolitical reasoning which is the most relevant to current events.

Read the following extended quote, that reveals some of the richness of the 
approach, part of an as yet unfinished draft, on 'geopolitical worldviews 
in response to terrorism':

         " Geopolitical worldviews in the response to terrorism

The discussions in the media about the terror attack in the USA make 
painfully clear that the commentators and decision-makers make sense of the 
events in so different ways that meaningful communication is sometimes very 
difficult. However, the outcomes of these discussions are critically 
important to us all, because the reactions of the West to terrorism will 
have far-reaching consequences for the course of events in the global 
society during coming years. It is therefore very important to turn 
attention to the way people make sense of what has happened, in particular 
in terms of what different people think is the root of the problem. The 
diagnoses of the causes of terrorism determine what kind of actions people 
feel are called for. Listening to the reactions and comments, I think we 
can make out two broad groups of people with fundamentally different ways 
of perceiving political events. The first group are those who seek causes 
of events such as a terrorist attack in the characteristics of the 
perpetrators. For them, the world is made up of different individuals, 
groups and organisations and what these actors do is explained by what 
inherent qualities they have. Terrorists attack other people because they 
are destructive, fundamentalist, dangerous, evil, etc. According to this 
worldview there are (and will be) evil people in the world. The logical 
consequence of this perspective when faced with terrorist actions is to 
locate the terrorists and pacify them. This can be done by various means, 
such as to kill the leaders, lock them up in jails or behind blockades, 
destroy their organisations and deprive them of their resources, etc. The 
second group are those who tend to think about the world in terms of causes 
and contexts. People do not act in certain ways just because of their 
inherent qualities, but there are reasons for their behaviour. This way of 
looking at things opens up a whole world of understanding of causes and 
consequences and makes it crucially important to understand under what 
conditions people start to act destructively. People who perceive the world 
in terms of causes and consequences also realise that the way they act 
themselves have important consequences. Different ways of acting lead to 
different consequences, meaning it is important to adapt actions to desired 
outcomes. This may sound extremely trivial, but there are enough people, 
some in powerful positions, who seem to disregard considerations of causes 
and consequences when making decisions about how to handle difficult 
situations.
The first group, the surface reacters, lives in a world where the primary 
concern is to be prepared for the worst on the one hand, and to react to 
events on the other hand. Their world is one of uncertain probabilities, 
because their thinking is not oriented towards analysing cause-and-effect 
chains or the particular contexts that determine the likelihood of certain 
events. Because they perceive causes of political events only in terms of 
inherent qualities of the actors involved, they very easily get caught up 
in blaming. Problems are only understood in terms of culpability, not in 
terms of complex circumstances, processes and contexts. In the face of the 
recent terror attacks, they might say things like: "This is an attack 
against the free, open and democratic society by fanatical terrorists. We 
have a right and a duty to hunt down and punish the perpetrators." The big 
problem with this is not what it says, but what it doesn't say: that there 
are underlying reasons for what happens and that it is very important to 
consider causes and consequences in order to reach desirable outcomes. I am 
very, very concerned about the damage that can be created by 
decision-makers who act without considering wider causes and consequences. 
We sorely need people in responsible positions to work with questions like: 
Under what kind of circumstances do people become terrorists? How can we 
act in order to prevent that people want to join terrorist organisations?
I think it is very important that we who are accustomed to look for reasons 
and consequences take care not to get bogged down in discussions about 
guilt, not even in the form of blaming "the system" or past sins of the 
Western world. Debates about who is to blame are usually sterile in terms 
of finding constructive solutions to the problems we face. It is important 
to look closely into how Western powers have contributed to the negative 
aspects of the state of the contemporary world, but mainly because an 
awareness of our own role in creating this situation makes it impossible 
for us to reject responsibility for handling the problems the world society 
faces."