An argument that terrorist groups need not be state-sponsored.
A research fellow at King’s College, University of London, Peter R. Neuman argues that terrorist groups are capable of existing without state support. It appears in the New York Times. (*)
According to the classically “realist” mindset, only states can pose a significant threat to the national security of other states, because lesser actors simply do not have the capacity, sophistication and resources to do so. Hence, if terrorists suddenly became effective in destabilizing countries like Italy, they couldn’t possibly have acted on their own. They must have had state sponsors, and it was only by tackling the state sponsors (in this case, the Soviet bloc), that you could root out the terrorists.
During the cold war, the paradigm of “state-sponsored terrorism” was useful, if not entirely correct. Most terrorists did receive help from states, and there were some links between disparate groups, although not to the extent that many in the United States believed. And some of the worst atrocities — like the 1983 attack on United States military headquarters in Beirut — were in fact carried out by groups that had been created by “rogue states” like Iran, Libya and Syria.
With the end of the cold war, however, things changed. While there was no longer a prime state sponsor for any “terror network,” there was also no longer any need for one. It became easy to travel from one country to another. Money could be collected and transferred around the globe. Cell phones and the Internet made it possible to maintain tight control of an elusive group that could move its “headquarters” across continents. In fact, by the end of the decade, it seemed as if the model of state-sponsored terrorism had effectively been reversed: Al Qaeda was now in charge of a state — Afghanistan under the Taliban — rather than vice versa.
The footer of the Times op-ed piece reads, “Peter R. Neumann [sic] is a research fellow in international terrorism at the Department of War Studies, King’s College London.” The Department has a presence online. (†)
We should clarify what is meant by “state-sponsored.” On the one hand, it could mean the provision of money, training, and materiel. That is apparently Neuman’s meaning. On the other hand, it could mean providing nothing more than safe harbor for terrorists. Under the Bush Doctrine, states that merely allow terrorist groups to exist on their territory are treated as states that provide money, training, and materiel to those terrorist groups.
Under Saddam, Iraq was providing safe harbor to terrorist groups, including Ansar al-Islam. Today analysts have concluded that Saddam’s regime did not otherwise aid Ansar al-Islam. Under the Bush Doctrine, however, Ansar’s uncontested presence in Iraq meant Saddam’s regime was as guilty of supporting the terrorist group as if it had been providing money, training, and materiel to it.
It is highly important to keep this argument separate from the argument that Saddam’s regime was providing money, training, and materiel to the terrorists that carried out 9/11. That separate argument is much more controversial, its evidence widely doubted.
April 4th, 2004 at 10:44
That old canard. Yawn. Ansar al Islam was a Kurdish group in an area of Iraq not controlled by Saddam. As if.
April 4th, 2004 at 17:25
The question of whether Saddam had influence or control over the territory where Ansar al-Islam existed prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom is of no relevance to this discussion.
If Saddam did have influence over the territory, and he allowed Ansar al-Islam to exist, that is the provision of safe harbor.
If on the other hand, there was area in Iraq not controlled by Saddam, but only by terrorists known as Ansar al-Islam, Saddam was still responsible for providing safe harbor to the terrorists known as Ansar al-Islam. Saddam was the sovereign authority of Iraq. If his sphere of influence had faded, resulting in chaos, anarchy, or lawlessness within Iraq, that was still Saddam’s responsibility to clean up. If such lawlessness transcended domestic crime and became global terrorism, that would naturally be of concern to the international community, including the United States.
In the latter case Saddam’s ineffectuality or incompetence in certain areas of Iraq would have led to those areas becoming in essence no-man’s land. That lack of political authority may have been exploited by certain terrorists a few days before 11 September 2001 when they announced the creation of Ansar-al Islam inside Iraq.
Saddam might not have intended to provide Ansar al-Islam with safe harbor. Regardless of what Saddam’s intentions were, however, Ansar al-Islam did in fact gain safe harbor in Iraq.
Hence, whichever way you look at it, Saddam did provide safe harbor to Ansar al-Islam.
April 17th, 2004 at 12:21
Hilarious. Now you’re attacking Saddam for not coming down hard enough on other political groupings. You’re a wonder.
By the way, the coalition is obviously doing a magnificent job of preventing “chaos, anarchy, or lawlessness within Iraq”. Thank God we invaded Iraq, so we can free all those Iraqi people from themselves.
April 17th, 2004 at 13:05
A suggestion that terrorists and innocent people ought to receive comparable treatment would be reprehensible.