Has Terrorism Ever Succeeded In It's Aim ?

[dhruvdahiya]

Today we see terror all around, playing havoc with peace and human lives.What i want to know is, Has terrorism succeeded in achieving the aim for which it was undertaken ? Can it ever acheive it's ambition. I feel that it can not as anything to succeed it has to have an humane approach. My request to learned members for useful comments please.

[raj2rif]

Dear Dhruv,

You have raised a genuine and honest question. What is terrorism in first place? It has two meanings. For the one who are actually resorting to it call it revolution and are heros of their community. For the state against which the terror acts are directed call it terrorism. If that be the definition, then your perception for its success would be dependent based on the side that you take.

Any thing succeeds if it has a genuine cause. Now whether a cause is genuine or not, itself is a difficult question to answer and again varies as per the perception of the person judging it. If, one has a genuine cause, then it will succeed. If it does not have a genuine cause then it will not. The problem is that you need a dedicated people to fight for your rights and demands. The soldiers will fight better if they have a cause to fight for. Probably American Soldiers did not have a cause to fight for in Vietnam and hence the failure. In Iraq they thought that their freedom was attacked and hence the presence of cause and thus the rapid success. They are still in Iraq and still not in control is totally a different matter. Urban insurgency is more difficult to fight than rural insurgency.

In Kashmir, the terrain is best suited for insurgency. But yet it is not successful, because Kashmiris actually have no cause to fight for. If some thing is wrong in that state, their own people who had been governing them since independence are to be blamed for it. The same was the case in Punjab.

Many nations have resorted to terrorism as an extention of war by other means. It costs them little and effects on the target state are much more than the actual war. The reason is simple, it affects the common man's daily routine, and freedom. It is a good topic to discuss, I am sure more members will contribute.

I hope I am able to give a little on the subject.

[ravichaud]

What an outstanding question. The answer lies in the means and the ends. A terrorist uses some sort of instrument (typically violence) with the intention of causing panic, disorder, or "terror" within an organized society, to achieve some end, usually ideological or political in nature.

Most terrorists find that the MEANS of achieving some level of "terror" is an achievable goal without spending a great deal of resources (a bit of powder in an envelope mailed off to a government body is relatively cost effective). If this is your definition, we can easily show a long list of examples in history where terrorism has achieved its goal of inciting "terror." Lots of examples here:

Air Travel Chaos after 911
Anthrax scares
Reduction in Travel
the list goes on and on...

The ENDS, however, may make things a little more complicated for the terrorists. If you measure success on whether or not the terrorists achieve their intended end (attaining concessions, release of political prisoners, destruction of a political body, economic collapse, demoralization of a society, gaining publicity, etc.), the results may be hit or miss:

80's U.S. Arms for Hostage Scandal (Partisan forces funded for release of hostages)
70's Israeli Hijacking Incident (All hostages were killed)
911 Airline Crash in Pennsylvania (aircraft missed it's intended target)
1986 Bombing of a German Discotech
Afghan Mujahadin rebellion after USSR invasion of Afghanistan

So from incident to incident, I'll leave it up to you to decide....have the terrorists won?

Here's my vote:

1) Yes they do achieve some level of terror in virtually every act
2) In the end, they typically fall short of their overall goal (mostly due to sympathy lost in their brutal tactics

Blue skys!
Ravi