The Future of Terrorism John L. Petersen
In the short term, at least, the future for terrorism is good. For a number of reasons, the developed world should be keeping an eye over its shoulder in the coming years. You can make this case by starting with the understanding that people kill other people for a reason. It makes sense to them. It is logical from their perspective. Generally speaking, they are not insane. We live in a world that is still laced with old animosities, current inequities, and distorted values; and seen from those perspectives it sometimes (obviously) seems to make sense to use terror as a means to reaching ends. There is not room here to fully deal with all of the issues and implications associated with various groups in different locales (some of which, I’m sure, have pretty compelling reasons to be wanting to change the status quo). But if we back away from the immediacy of the situation and try to see it in broad terms of the past and the future it strikes me that this is not just the latest manifestation of an age-old struggle – although it certainly is that. What we are seeing is a major transition between eras that has huge implications for the future of humanity. This world is different because the context and the fundamentals are different. Globally, we are living through an increase in population and change in other arenas that are exponential – growing at rates never before seen in human history. In very real terms this is a systems problem – different parts of the system are rapidly shifting at the same time and in the process the behavior of the whole system will necessarily change. Poverty and religious differences continue as they have in the past, operating within economic and governmental systems that largely have no fundamental incentives built into them for ultimately eliminating, let alone dealing effectively in the short term with the basic problems. The structure and even philosophy are the product of the past – a time when all of this change was not in place. But we are now living in a time when the rich are getting richer faster than any time in history, when extraordinary population increases are producing multitudes of poor people who have access to television – and unlike only 50 years ago, are aware of how we in the developed world live. This rapidly growing technology is an amplifier of the economic and theological differences that people feel and these perspectives are likely to only become more acute in the coming decade as the have/have-not divide broadens. It appears that this environment will become even more volatile in the near future as weapons of mass destruction become available to those groups that want to use them. In what was certainly a considered (and probably informed) comment U.S. Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld has already suggested that it is inevitable that terrorist groups will acquire nuclear weapons. In May of this year investor Warren Buffett also said, "Fear may recede with time, but the danger won't -- the war against terrorism can never be won. We're going to have something in the way of a major nuclear event in this country. It will happen. Whether it will happen in 10 years or 10 minutes, or 50 years... it's virtually a certainty.”
So what we have is an old problem in a new context that is dramatically different because of population and technology – communications technology and weapons technology. The most effective response to the terrorism problem requires a two-front strategy that has short-term and long-term components: dealing with the current terrorists and dealing with the fundamentals that produce and encourage terrorism. Most all of the governmental effort is focused on the short-term problem and not the long-term one so it is reasonable to presume that if the fundamentals that encourage terrorism are not addressed in a significant way the problem will continue and grow. In the same way that technology is enabling the terrorists, the developed world is turning to technology as a principle defense against future destructive individuals and groups. As has now become clear, not only had analysts developed scenarios that included the possibility of aircraft being flown into the World Trade Center towers, but also individual pieces of the puzzle were known before the fact at different places within the FBI and other U.S. federal agencies. These pieces of the solution were neither connected together to form a significant pattern of behavior that could be responded to, nor was there interest in this possibility at higher levels within the bureaucracy. The response has been to develop major rapidly growing new initiatives in the defense and intelligence arenas to remedy the “connecting-the-dots” problem. If the pieces of the solution are out there, how are they identified and related to each other in a way that provides enough substance to be actionable? Very sophisticated knowledge-generation tools are now being developed that almost certainly will produce a revolution in government knowledge and intelligence acquisition that will also spill over into the commercial arena in the coming years. But, as has already been suggested, that is not likely to be enough. We (those of us with the intellectual capabilities and resources to make a difference) need to assault the underlying system that produces this behavior. New proactive approaches and incentives are required that are based on the understanding that this is a global system and we all share responsibility for its well-being. We need to systematically learn how to think about the future. Most governments do not do scenarios about potential paths to the future and longterm implications of present-day events. It would not be surprising, for example, to find out that nowhere in the U.S. government has anyone plotted out the potential five-year implications to a nuclear war between India and Pakistan. We need new approaches to affecting geopolitical change. European critics of the U.S. say that the only options offered for dealing with local problems is bombing and economic sanctions. There are new and better alternatives, like non-violent conflict methods, that have been very successful in the past and need to be encouraged and supported. There has to be more that we can do than just ship arms and train foreign militaries and police departments. The U.S. cannot walk away from (or choose not to involve themselves in) major global problems – regardless where they are in the world. We are the most influential world player. We have a responsibility to be involved. Numerous studies have shown that the best long-term approach to some of the most intractable problems the world faces is to increase education in lesserdeveloped countries, particularly of girls. When they become mothers, educated
girls raise their families differently, they value education, they have different values and goals. They also have fewer children. It is a very fundamental way to change whole systems. Terrorism is unconventional warfare. There are no fronts, no armies, no battlefields. The solutions therefore will not come from militaries, which are largely designed for fighting other armed forces. The solutions will come from new approaches that address the whole person, not just the political and economic components. This is about individual people, their values and aspirations – and cultures, some of which have not changed much over centuries. Different people and groups will require different approaches – one size will not fit all. The new solutions will be complex and sophisticated and necessarily not look like the past. But if we are going to safely make it through this extraordinary, historical transition, we must not do the old things – we must invent new ones.
John L. Petersen (johnp@arlingtoninstitue.org) is the founder and president of The Arlington Institute (www.arlingtoninstitute.org), a Washington, DC-area research institute that specializes in thinking about global futures. He is the author of Out of the Blue:Wild Cards and Other Big Future Surprises and numerous other articles.