motives on its own. Its fundamental issue, it could be argued, is the inherent belief within terrorist activity that its use can and will affect the change being sought. This is where the military approach, like policing policies, can be said to be inadequate. It is built upon a notion of providing a reactive policy to terrorist attacks, and providing some form of deterrence to any potential terrorist actors. What military measures fail to do is seeking to understand and address the factors that breed terrorist sentiment, and sympathy for it. Andrew Heywood describes this as attacking the “manifestations of terrorism” rather than the underlying causes. 105 The war model, then, fails to appreciate the long-term nature of combatting terrorism. It seeks a short-term victory as a means of defeating the foundations of terrorism as a strategy. The Afghanistan war and the emergence and re-emergence of terrorist groups in the region can be seen as evidence of this failure. The need to recognise and implement long-term strategies within counterterrorism policies has already been noted by groups such as the Brookings Institution. 106 Therefore, we can now acknowledge and concede both the benefits and failures of military policies within counterterrorism. It is important to appreciate the fact that much of the justification behind the war model relies upon the viability of the notion that contemporary terrorism presents a fundamental transformation from previous iterations. 105 Andrew Heywood, Global Politics , 2nd edn (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014) p. 306. 106 Daniel Benjamin, Strategic Counterterrorism (Washington D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 2008), <https://www.brookings.edu/wp- content/uploads/2016/06/10_terrorism_benjamin.pdf> [accessed 2 December 2016] (pp. 1–17), p. 3.
39
Made with FlippingBook HTML5