Terrorism can be traced back to Biblical times through World War I and World War II. For instance, in World War II, it was common for the Eastern Front, Americans and Japanese to execute the soldiers they had captured during the war. The move was to cultivate fear among their enemies. By then, it may have been called terrorism, but in present times it is simply referred to as murder. The phenomenon exhibits the nature of changing definitions of terrorism amid its evolution over time, through surveys conducted by Alex Schmid and Albert Jongman on different scholars dedicated to the subject of terrorism. Their discoveries connote that 83.5% of the scholar’s definitions mentioned violence, 65% mentioned political activities, and fear accounted for 47%, while a minute 6% accounted for the criminal aspect of the definition of terrorism.
As outlined from the surveys, it can be noted that a lot of the perceptions about terrorism has been based on the activity of violence. However, given the current evolution of the vice, it is apparent that the activity solely does not rely on the violence alone. Other aspects should be considered beyond the incidents of terror. The notion, therefore, calls for the exercise of redefining terrorism according to its evolved form in consideration to previous definitions but also, have the freedom to redefine terrorism from a whole new perspective. Redefinition does not have to rely on previous definitions as they may not apply to present evolved versions of terrorism. From the violence notion of terror, current aspects about the vice propose an in-depth focus on the criminality of terrorism. It is becoming evident that terrorism thrives in breaking set out rules and regulations such that governments can bear the full weight of the defiance being perpetrated with innocent casualties.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Governance is tasked with bestowing order in society through the laws of the land, as stipulated by representatives of the society. Terror factions aim to destabilize such systems and bring disorder to society to strong-arm governments into yielding to their ideals. It is the responsibility of governments to curtail pressures brought about by terrorism activities and restore order in society. Curtailing terrorism can only be successful for governments if they understand its definition. However, as simple as it may seem, terrorism has been seen to evolve with time, therefore, making it difficult for stakeholders to keep abreast of terrorism by not being able to define it. Western governments have greatly been influenced by getting the definition of terrorism wrong. This is purely because the debated meaning of terrorism is centered on theory. Governments have failed to move beyond the theoretical world towards a practical world. Therefore, simple semantics would trap and confuse governments to label political violence as terrorism. It has come to a time that underground factions, guerillas, and liberation movements should not be labeled as terrorism because a new definition confers terrorism as activities perpetrated on innocent civilians. Therefore, violence against government officials cannot simply qualify as terrorism as they may have had a role to play in the implications they receive (White, 2017).
Revolts against the government at their time of dominance could have been considered a new form of terrorism just as killing prisoners of war during World War II was. But the notion has since eluded the fact after terrorism has evolved into an entirely new monster. Instead of targeting government officials, it moves to attack innocent civilians who have no part in the ideals of the terror group or reason for their attack. Without redefinition of terrorism, it becomes difficult for stakeholders against the vice to act upon it without a basis of understanding. The predicament is what opened the United States (US) like the 9/11 attack. The US was caught off-guard and had to strive to adapt to the new norm. Terrorism needs constant redefinition to keep up with its evolving nature.
How terrorism is linked to the Department of Homeland Security
The September 11, 2001, Al Qaeda perpetrated terror attack was an eye-opener for the US. The attack poked holes in the US’s national security and brought to its attention the need to revise the definition of terrorism, among other measures. Even though terrorism was faced with several aggrandizements, America sought it fit to formulate a security contingent that would work with other security agencies and protect America from within. Therefore, in as much as the US advanced to foreign lands to seek out terror factions targeting the US and bring them to justice, it still felt the need to protect the nation from internal threats. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was then formulated to handle this task. However, even with the formulation of the DHS, it was still believed that the cells present in the homeland were still being controlled by external factions outside America. The belief could be what terrorism was defined by at that time – an external threat to US’s National Security.
The DHS is a security agency formulated to deter terrorism activities from within by integrating with other security agencies as well as other government non-security agencies in the sharing of information and intelligence. Information and intelligence vital to preserving national security. Their core mandate is to protect the homeland from threats. What is considered as a threat in terms of the DHS is anything that poses a threat to national threat. Terrorism is a major deterrence of national security and therefore qualifies as a threat. If the DHS is faced with the task of deterring terrorism, it should first be able to understand it. To do so is through defining what terror is. As such, the DHS duty is to redefine and keep up with the ever-changing versions of terrorism with a bid to understand and deter it.
Terrorism as defined by the DHS
The DHS acknowledges that terrorism is all the attributes suggested in Alex and Albert’s findings only to add that the bearers of such attributes are innocent civilians who play no role to deserve the consequences (White, 2017). The DHS has come to fathom that terror is not only from external factions but also from within. The discovery has led the department to understand that terrorism, at least that that causes a threat, is defined in two ways; Terror that is influenced and facilitated by external factions and terror that emanates from individual independent actors commonly referred to as domestic terrorism.
After 9/11, external terrorism was defined as attacks on the homeland due to the ideals of external perpetrators such as Al Qaeda. They believed that the western world had interfered in their school of thought and culture by supporting some of the leaders in the Middle East and conferring them with the responsibility of democracy. That nature of terrorism would have been challenged if the targets of such an act were government officials say those in congress. However, the victims of such attacks are civilians, thus qualifying the ills as terrorism.
Domestic terrorism is, however, quite different from external terrorism. These are the act of terrors perpetrated on innocent civilians. The terrorism has no form of a link to external factions or their ideals. It may be perpetrated by a group or individual with ideals they feel infringed by the government or other groups. Domestic terrorism was is believed to have been understood after the DHS redefined terrorism concerning its activities in the homeland. Therefore, dealing with this form of terrorism can be credited to DHS’s understanding of the terror after redefining it. Going by this definition, it clearly can be seen that domestic terrorism poses a threat to national security in two aspects; not being noted as it grows beyond controllable levels and the direct impact it has towards national security. The former can only be capped with understanding through the redefinition of the vice. Domestic terrorism, having originated from the homeland decrees that pressure is taken away from externally focused security agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Stakeholders left to actively challenge domestic terrorism are the DHS, Law Enforcement (LE), and the Department of Justice (DOJ), among others. LE and the DOJ incline towards the notion that Domestic terrorism may have existed before, but because of a lack of an understanding, it was brushed off and taken as a normal crime such as arson and homicide. With the help of the DHS, redefinition has assisted America to understand how issues such as civil disorders and white supremacism have morphed into a contingent of terror (Purpura & Boal, 2017). Civil disorders traditionally have been directed towards governments, sometimes evolving to violence between the protestors and LE, who act on behalf of the government. School and Florida club mass shootings were directed upon innocent students and revelers, respectively. Although the ideals of the perpetrators may not have been clear, innocent citizens died and scores injured. Initial behaviors would have played a role in curtailing the form of terrorism despite them being thought in terms of crimes against society. Hypothetically, if such behaviors were flagged as terror-like, DHS may have had a better chance of stopping the attacks. The current mass protests against George Floyd’s killing is directed towards the US government for not take action against white supremacy. However, the protests have led to mass looting for the states affected. The looting is an attack on innocent citizens and is a crime that poses a risk to national security. Therefore, civil disobedience can be considered as terrorism. White supremacy is also a form of terror.
The DHS, FBI, and DOJ have testified before different committees on the Hill about white supremacism and domestic terrorism. The DHS later went forward to formulate a detailed framework representing its first strategic acknowledgment of the significance of white supremacist and its terror threat (Purpura & Boal, 2017).
Evolution of Terrorism.
The notion that terrorism has evolved is not new. Terrorism in the past is not what it is today. As stated earlier, terror was seen differently during the 2 nd World War. Terror has then morphed into an external organization subjecting violence and fear to a targeted political system whose stakeholders, such as diplomats, were the main targets. Later on, it was discovered that terrorism could emanate from domestic sources. The evolution of terrorism brings about the need for a redefinition of comprehension and countermeasures.
To counter terrorism, governments and agencies have devised different measures that are effective in deterring terrorism. Such a measure includes counter-terrorism embedded in laws and policies. However, countermeasures play a larger role in the evolution of terrorism. Terrorists continue to feel the urge to perpetrate violence, sometimes just to affirm that they are still available and relevant to their course. Due to changing counter-terrorism measures by security actors like the DHS, terrorism has changed from skyjackings and kidnappings and barricading missions to assassinations of diplomatic personnel then, to violence. The phenomenon brings to understanding the rationality of terrorists ( Gaibulloev et al., 2011).
Terrorism is more so an ideology more than the people perpetrating it. It can be assumed that terrorists are a symptom of the root ideology they conform to. Their MO is to optimize objectives subject to one or more constraints. So, whatever the countermeasures stakeholders come up with, terrorists’ objectives will always be to counter those countermeasures. They will keep on coming until they are successful, especially if the stakeholders are not proactive in redefining the meaning of terrorism. In the quest for redefinition, there has to be some sort of evaluation of the threat of terrorism and its impact on national security or the basic unit of society. Assessing the threat could bring to light the need to redefine terrorism in the factor that is identified after evaluation. Assessing the threat has also changed from the outright prevention of the act itself to prevention from the cause of terrorism. The quest for redefinition highlights the need for assessment and research.
Impact of Research Methods and Techniques
Research is a fundamental aspect of the redefinition of terrorism. It is only through research that it is possible to track the different defini0tionof of terrorism since its inception. It is difficult to redefine terrorism if the literature on the subject does not exist. Redefinition has to be based upon a logic of an existing definition. Therefore, if terrorism was nonexistent, then redefinition is not viable. Research also has in its realm developed and evolved. The research methods of past decades may be limited to the process of redefinition and new evolved methods capable in the assistance of terrorism redefinition. Research forms the basis to which terrorism is redefined.
The evolution of research methods and techniques has created the need for an in-depth analysis of issues, especially those facing society. In many of the literature that Schmid and Albert went through to try and redefine terrorism, they found that the information was superficial. The phenomenon can be attributed to the fact that research methods and techniques were somewhat ineffective (Estrada & Khan, 2020).
Therefore, it is okay to assume that terrorism based on general and descriptive research work cannot bear effective understanding and solutions towards terrorism. For previous research to be rendered ineffective, the notion can solicit panic, however unwarranted. There is no need for panic as research is built upon data collected. The data is raw and not construed by the vividness of analysis applied in research methods decades before using evolved research methods and techniques; historical data can be applied to aid redefinition. The application would revolutionize how institutions define terrorism and comprehension towards better solutions against it.
Policing and Terrorism
Domestic terrorism is a contingent of terrorism that involves policing in modern societies. Policing is the act of enforcing the law to ensure a society abides by it. Without law, society lacks order and will threaten its existence, thus affecting national security. Policing is practiced by LE. As such, they have a better understanding of the communities they police. They are capable of identifying violent individuals and groups in a community. LE and the DOJ can give information on how many times a perpetrator has been arrested or whether they pose a risk to society as defined by terrorism (Davis, 2011). Their ability gives them an upper hand in identifying terrorism trends when guided with a definition from the DHS. It is efficient and effective for LE to offer DHS intelligence than the DHS directly sourcing for the same intelligence. Terrorism definitions and redefinitions impact policing from a technical know-how perspective. Knowing what terrorism is will enable LE to distinguish terror from crime.
Conclusion
Constant redefinition of terrorism is vital to finding the correct solutions. However, without the application of modern research and technology alongside the stewardship of grassroots LE, the DHS cannot be effective in achieving its mandate. Therefore, governments or countries should foster the redefinition of the vice to offer themselves with a better comprehension of the vice. It is only through comprehension that better solutions can emerge.
References
White, J. R. (2017). Terrorism and homeland security . Cengage Learning.
Purpura, P. P., & Boal, J. (2017). Terrorism and homeland security: an introduction with applications . Butterworth-Heinemann.
Gaibulloev, K., Sandler, T., & Santifort, C. (2011). Assessing the Evolving Threat of Terrorism. Global Policy , 3 (2), 135–144. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1758-5899.2011.00142.x
Estrada, M. A. R., & Khan, A. (2020). The Evolution and Perspectives of the Terrorism Academic Research. SSRN Electronic Journal . https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3522390
Davis, L. M. (2011). Long-term effects of law enforcement’s post-9/11 focus on counter-terrorism and homeland security . RAND.
