When did terrorism actually work?

[Monk]

The subject line really says it. For almost two years I've been wondering how many times terrorism - the term is vague, I know - can actually be said to have accomplished actual things in developed or semi-developed areas (guerilla warfare in some obscure African nation doesn't interest me that much).

9-11 was huge and succesful in terms of casualties and fear promoting, but politically and long-term I reckon the masterminds didn't really get that much out of it. The nationalists in Palestine, Ireland, the Basque region etc. don't seem to be accomplishing their goals and the RAF and the Red Brigades never came close to socialist wonderland either.

So I'm calling on the Apolytoners with knowledge of military and/or political history to enlighten me if and when terrorism or pseudo-terrorism actually worked. I realize somebody might say something about the Middle East, but please don't get into a huge debate about Israeli-Palestinian affairs as there are a gazillion other threads for that purpose.

[C0ckney]

i would say (and i may get flamed for this) that it worked in ireland in 1916 and again in 1919-21.

[Saras]

Were Lithuanian Forest Brothers 1940-1941 and 1945-1972 terrorists, guerillas or a regular army of a defeated nation still fighting a war?

I guess they are terrorists for those hundreds Russian settlers that got killed, thus scaring the bejeezus of other settlers-to-be.

Of course the objective was full independence but that was achieved peacefully in 1990.

Summing up - they did not achieve their original objective but unknowingly created an environment where that objective was achieved 1-2 generations later.

[Monk]

Summing up - they did not achieve their original objective but unknowingly created an environment where that objective was achieved 1-2 generations later.

I understand that, and I realize my question is really way more complex than it looks at first sight. But the way you portray the situation in Lithuenia it doesn't seem like there was a clear line from the violent acts to your decleration of independence.

Basically, I guess the situation I'm looking for is where a violent, unlawful fraction either wins enough popular support or gets enough power to force the ruling powers to step down, grant some land or something like that. I figure that case could be made for the U.S back then but given the choice I'd prefer to learn something about events in recent times.

[FrustratedPoet]

violent, unlawful fraction either wins popular support or gets enough power to force the ruling powers to step down, grant some land or something like that.

Wouldn't things like the Revolutionary War, French Revolution, English Civil War etc etc fall under that category?

They would have been viewed as terrorism by the ruling group at the time.

[Saras]

Originally posted by Monk
I understand that, and I realize my question is really way more complex than it looks at first sight. But the way you portray the situation in Lithuenia it doesn't seem like there was a clear line from the violent acts to your decleration of independence.

No there isn't a direct line. But that was something off the top of my head that was closest to what you asked

[Whaleboy]

9/11 worked in terms of creating fear panic that has thus far never really gone away.. in nearly 2 years.

It created a political/social backlash that resulted in knee jerk wars, making it easier for OBL to justify a jihad. Thus far, its working. Ultimately of course it will fail, but as a short term means to that end it has been quite successful.

Terrorism does not work tactically. Its more of a mind game. If you consider success in terms of mere material/collateral/tactical damage, then its pathetic. If you mean in terms of morale, its about the most successful crime one can commit... and ultimately of course, it is a crime.

Still, lets not get into this... too many terrorist threads this week!

[Monk]

Poet - We must have cross-posted (see the last paragraph). I'm more interested in recent times because I think there can't have been much distinction between soldiers and civillian targets back in the days of my Viking ancestors. But really, I wouldn't know.

What I'm hoping is that somebody - right now, I'm sacrificing a goat to summon the spirits of MtG, Ramo, Chegitz and others - could come along and provide some basic information about, say, the Ireland thing that C0ckney is talking about, or something similar to that.

[Eli]

The first Intifada convinced Israel to enter the Oslo process. A Palestinian State was no longer a taboo.

[DAVOUT]

The recent Algerian case is interesting, although not yet settled. Wholesale assassination of civilians (200000) in strict application of terror principles without reaching the level of civil war.

[Dinner]

The Algeria "War" of independence was largely a terrorist war against the French. They succeeded in making the French leave a place they considered to be part of their country.

[uh Clem]

Mandated Palestine.

[Bereta_Eder]

Cyprus - expulsion of the Brits.

[Sava]

define terrorism...

if you are referring to the wanton murder of innocent civilians... it worked for the US in WW2... Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki

[CerberusIV]

The first point is that there are different applications of terrorism.

Terrorist actions for publicity or short term instability usually achieves some success, and some backlash and rejection of the perpertrators. The Palestinian terrorism since the early '70's is an example. It served to keep the Palestinian situation in the news but made the Palestinian cause unpopular in some quarters. The intifada is as much civil disobedience as terrorism and is making the cost of the occupied territories to Israel very high. Whether the cost is too high remains to be seen.

Terrorism as a means of advancing a political movement which has popular support is more successful if the movement behind it spreads. The French problems in Indo-China, culminating in conventional military defeat are an example of success in this type, the defeat of the communist terrorists in Malaya an example of failure.

The Easter Rising and the eventual establishment of the Irish Republic is part terrorism, part civil disobedience. It also serves as an example that terrorism and insurgency needs favourable external circumstances to succeed. Without WW1 and subsequent war weariness on the part of the British the outcome may well have been different.

Mandated Palestine is another example of external circumstances. Without widespread sympathy, particularly in the USA, for a Jewish homeland after the Holocaust the British could have severely restricted Jewish immigration and made things more difficult for the terror groups. The fact that the occupying power basically wanted out of the problem made it easier for the terrorists. Also the main objective for the Jewish terrorists was to encourage the arab population to flee, in which they were successful once it became clear the area was to become a battleground.

If the objective is simply fear and panic, and a backlash, then terrorism is usually successful, as with 9/11.

To bring about political change terrorism on its own isn't enough, it needs to be applied as a means to advance an organised political movement and to be carefully controlled. Examples are rare. Rhodesia is possibly one. Only where the cost of opposing the pressure for political change is too high can terrorism achieve "success".

The current problems in Iraq are an interesting test as to whether Western governments have learnt the lessons of the last 50 years about how terrorism succeeds or fails. They probably have but the correct responses take time to have effect.

Terrorism isn't new. Historical records of atrocities committed by groups opposed to the leaders and governments of the day go back several thousand years. It is something that is likely to be with us for a long time to come, regardless of how relatively successful or otherwise it actually is.