Force of Words: The Logic of Terrorist Threats (Columbia University Press, forthcoming in Spring 2020)
Abstract
This book is a detailed study of the role of threats in terrorists’ coercive campaigns. Threats and violence are the two halves of terrorists’ tool kit: terrorists carry out violence to lend credibility to their future coercive threats; threats force the opponent to give up political concessions. Most terrorism literature focuses on the violent half of terrorists’ tool kit, but threats are how terrorists translate physical power into political results. Threats also exert a mediating effect on violence. They shift the pattern of damage, drawing security forces in, inducing civilian evacuations, and disrupting economic life. Terrorists use threats to tailor the harm from each attack so that their desired political message is sent.
The book develops a speech/kinetic action model of terrorism, in which threats and violence jointly determine the physical and political consequences of each attack. The theory distinguishes four categories of threats. Warnings and hoaxes (respectively true and false) threaten immediate violence. These are tactical threats, integrated as part of the attack. They disrupt the economy, increase or decrease bloodshed, and interfere with security forces’ operations. Pledges and bluffs (respectively true and false) threaten violence prospectively. These are coercive threats, meant to intimidate civilians, aggrandize the terrorist group, and build credibility for political bargaining with the state. A single threat may serve several functions, sending different messages to different audiences. For example, if mass casualties would intimidate the government but alienate civilians, terrorists issue warnings, allowing civilians to escape as property and infrastructure are destroyed. These points are substantiated by interview-based case studies of the Irish Republican Army (IRA), Euskadi Ta Askatasuna (ETA), the Tamil Tigers, Shining Path, and the Túpac Amaru Revolutionary Movement (MRTA) – as well as secondary-source case studies of the Afghan Taliban, Boko Haram, and the Islamic State. The book’s practical implications are sharpened with an analysis of 12,000 bombings and bomb threats. The analysis shows the conditions that promote truthful threats. Terrorists issue truthful threats when the state is a democracy and terrorists depend on civilian support. These conditions increase terrorists’ legitimacy concerns, forcing them to adopt predictable, reduced-casualty tactics. We can discern credible threats based on the observable political incentives of militants. In the absence of these incentives, most threats can be ignored.
Abstract
This book is a detailed study of the role of threats in terrorists’ coercive campaigns. Threats and violence are the two halves of terrorists’ tool kit: terrorists carry out violence to lend credibility to their future coercive threats; threats force the opponent to give up political concessions. Most terrorism literature focuses on the violent half of terrorists’ tool kit, but threats are how terrorists translate physical power into political results. Threats also exert a mediating effect on violence. They shift the pattern of damage, drawing security forces in, inducing civilian evacuations, and disrupting economic life. Terrorists use threats to tailor the harm from each attack so that their desired political message is sent.
The book develops a speech/kinetic action model of terrorism, in which threats and violence jointly determine the physical and political consequences of each attack. The theory distinguishes four categories of threats. Warnings and hoaxes (respectively true and false) threaten immediate violence. These are tactical threats, integrated as part of the attack. They disrupt the economy, increase or decrease bloodshed, and interfere with security forces’ operations. Pledges and bluffs (respectively true and false) threaten violence prospectively. These are coercive threats, meant to intimidate civilians, aggrandize the terrorist group, and build credibility for political bargaining with the state. A single threat may serve several functions, sending different messages to different audiences. For example, if mass casualties would intimidate the government but alienate civilians, terrorists issue warnings, allowing civilians to escape as property and infrastructure are destroyed. These points are substantiated by interview-based case studies of the Irish Republican Army (IRA), Euskadi Ta Askatasuna (ETA), the Tamil Tigers, Shining Path, and the Túpac Amaru Revolutionary Movement (MRTA) – as well as secondary-source case studies of the Afghan Taliban, Boko Haram, and the Islamic State. The book’s practical implications are sharpened with an analysis of 12,000 bombings and bomb threats. The analysis shows the conditions that promote truthful threats. Terrorists issue truthful threats when the state is a democracy and terrorists depend on civilian support. These conditions increase terrorists’ legitimacy concerns, forcing them to adopt predictable, reduced-casualty tactics. We can discern credible threats based on the observable political incentives of militants. In the absence of these incentives, most threats can be ignored.