This report focuses on the phenomenon of terrorism instrumentalization by the state, arguing the need for policy reform within the Intelligence community.
The report starts with a generalizable definition of terrorism and its causes. It underlines the impossibility of any strategic coexistence between state and terrorism in world affairs based on concrete evidence from contemporary events. It concludes with critical policy recommendations for the intelligence community.
Table of Contents
1. Executive Summary
2. Background Information
3. Problem Statement and Importance
4. Perspectives and Solutions
5. Recommendations
6. References
Objectives and Topics
This white paper examines the phenomenon of the instrumentalization of terrorism by states, specifically analyzing the catastrophic long-term consequences of such policies. The central research objective is to advocate for institutional policy reform within the intelligence community by demonstrating the impossibility of successfully controlling terrorist proxies over time.
- Theoretical definitions of terrorism and its causes.
- Case analysis of Operation Cyclone and its geopolitical fallout.
- The divergence of interests between states and terrorist organizations.
- Policy alternatives to state-sponsored extremism.
- Strategic recommendations for intelligence community conduct.
Excerpt from the Book
Problem Statement and Importance
Although there are numerous examples of state instrumentalization of terrorism, this paper focuses on Operation Cyclone thanks to the available and documentable state implication in the instrumentalization of terrorism, in addition to the proven disastrous consequences of such an implication. Operation Cyclone was one of America’s most expensive and longest covert operations. The USA spent over $20 billion training and arming the Afghan Mujahedeen (radical Islamist groups) among which was Al Qaeda that claimed responsibility for the 911 attacks. Back then, these terrorist groups were considered holy warriors against the communist in what scholars described as the American Jihad (Parenti 2001, 32). The volunteers –or the Jihadists supported by the USA- were recruited by Al Qaeda from eight Arab countries and were managed by Bin Laden (Roy 2002). Radicalism scholars state that many leaders of Jihadi organizations became refugees with Bin Laden such as Al Zawahiri, Azzam, Abu Zubeida, AL Zawahiri, and Omar Abdurrahman. They assert that many Arab volunteers returned from Afghanistan to their country of origin (where they were usually referred to as “Afghans”) to establish radical Islamic organizations (..). The Jihadists would turn against the West during the 1st gulf war (Ibid). Albeit true that the USA succeeded in using the Jihadists to push communism out of Afghanistan, the outcome has proven to be worse than if Afghanistan joined the USSR. At the time when the communist block could not attack the soil of the USA or its allies, terrorism hit relentlessly the United States’ soil in the 9-11 tragedy, not to mention attacks on American diplomatic interests around the world such as the USA embassy bombing in Kenya, in which Al Zawahiri played a major role (FBI n.d.).
Summary of Chapters
Executive Summary: Provides an overview of the paper's intent to highlight the risks of states instrumentalizing terrorism and proposes necessary policy reforms.
Background Information: Defines terrorism through the lens of Martha Crenshaw and establishes why lone-actor scenarios are excluded from the scope of this research.
Problem Statement and Importance: Utilizes the historical lens of Operation Cyclone to demonstrate the dangerous, long-term consequences of CIA-backed covert operations.
Perspectives and Solutions: Argues that states cannot maintain control over terrorist proxies and suggests shifting strategies toward traditional diplomacy and economic sanctions.
Recommendations: Offers specific policy changes, including strict bans on the recruitment of terrorist organizations and a strategic focus on humanitarian and democratic nation-building.
References: Lists the academic, government, and policy sources utilized to build the case against the instrumentalization of terrorism.
Keywords
Instrumentalization of terrorism, Intelligence community, Operation Cyclone, Jihadists, Foreign policy, National security, State proxy, Counter-terrorism, Radical Islam, Political instability, Covert operations, Geopolitics, Democracy, Diplomacy, Strategic failure.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental focus of this white paper?
The paper focuses on the phenomenon of states using, or "instrumentalizing," terrorist groups to achieve geopolitical goals, arguing that this strategy is intrinsically flawed and ultimately dangerous.
What are the central themes discussed in the report?
Central themes include the asymmetry between state and terrorist interests, the historical failure of covert proxy wars, the erosion of government legitimacy, and the need for ethical guidelines in intelligence practices.
What is the primary aim of this research?
The primary aim is to call for policy reform within the intelligence community, suggesting that the risks of enabling terrorist proxies far outweigh any short-term tactical advantages.
Which scientific methodology is primarily employed?
The work utilizes a qualitative, historical-case study approach, focusing on existing academic literature and documentation from past conflicts to draw policy conclusions.
What topics receive most attention in the main body?
The main body examines the causal relationship between government-backed extremist groups (specifically in the case of Operation Cyclone) and the inevitable "blowback" that follows, such as the 9/11 attacks.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
The work is defined by terms such as instrumentalization of terrorism, intelligence reform, covert operations, geopolitical blowback, and state policy.
How does the author define the relationship between states and terrorist proxies?
The author argues that there is an "idiosyncratic asymmetry" that makes it impossible to impose standard game rules or engagement theories on terrorist organizations, leading to a loss of control for the sponsoring state.
What specific evidence does the author provide to show the failure of these strategies?
The author cites the American experience in Afghanistan, noting that after 20 years of military intervention, the situation resulted in the withdrawal of the USA and the return of the Taliban, a result deemed highly unfavorable for Western interests.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Yasser Harrak Srifi (Autor:in), 2022, The Instrumentalization of Terrorism. Recommendations for the Intelligence Community, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/1318822
