Terrorism Soft and Hard, Big and Small
International News / Peace News
Date: Feb 18, 2007 - 10:55 AM . Terrorism Soft and Hard, Big and Small
www.PEJ.org
In the lexicon of the mass media, as Karim so clearly points out in The Islamic Peril: Media and Global Violence, “terrorism” is a term linked not simply to violent acts but more specifically to, “individuals and states which challenge the current configurations of power in the international system with violence” (Karim, 28).
The Collins Dictionary (1979) defines “terrorism” more generally as, “the act of terrorizing; systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goal.”
Using Collins’ apolitical definition it is clear that terrorism is a strategy employed not just by small networks of political terrorists but also by large states engaged in the “war on terror” such as the USA, Israel, Canada and Russia. In fact, in modern warfare, as many as nine out of ten injured and killed are civilians (Brown, 2007, citing Dr. Gino Strada). In October 2004, the highly-respected UK medical journal The Lancet reported that:
We think that about 100,000 excess deaths, or more, have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most violent deaths.
The “war on terror” is state terrorism.
Small-scale and state terrorism alike employ characteristics of both soft and hard power. Joseph Nye defines soft power in this way: “when one country gets other countries to want what it wants… in contrast with the hard or command power of ordering others to do what it wants” (Unit Notes, 2-2). Soft power is the power of persuasion and hard power is military coercion.
In the case of small networks of terrorists the most prevalent feature of terrorism is its powerful propaganda effect that can effect soft power political change. Many examples of this strategy can be found in the current conflict in Iraq, such as the many hostages held and prominently displayed on network TV to successfully apply pressure to nations to withdraw forces and extract other concessions; or the daily bombings claimed by various factions and often highlighted, unedited, for a global audience on the world wide web – both for the shock effect on the western public and also for the inspirational effect on those who may lean towards violent responses to the longstanding Israeli-western hard power military domination of the Middle East.
A few highly militant terrorist actions also have features of hard power – such as the attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, which killed 2,602 people (Wikipedia, 2007), injured thousands more, and caused very significant financial and psychological damage to the United States and its allies.
The “war on terror” waged by nation states, such as the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, are more focussed on traditional hard power where brute military might is the predominant method of political control.
However it has long been recognized that no war can be won without winning the “hearts and minds” of the conquered people. Even the strongest military powers expend a great deal of effort and resources on propaganda – from leaflets and development aid, to photo ops and control of radio and television stations. While Canada bombs the countryside and kills civilians, Afghanistan is its top recipient of development aid. Soft power propaganda is an integral part of the “war on terror”.
For a very long time there has been a mix of soft power and hard power in warfare. Hitler’s Nazi regime is widely considered the first modern state whose soft power propaganda techniques succeeded in enlisting most of a nation in his “final solution” of Jewish extermination and world domination through hard power military conquest. As early as 1832, military strategist von Clausewitz famously described war as, “a mere continuation of policy by other means” (On War), showing the linkage.
The soft power of information, persuasion and propaganda is a key element in exercising power. Today, with global media including instant satellite and easily-accessed Internet broadcasting, soft power has become even more critical to projecting power.
In today’s age of assymetrical warfare characterized by network-organized terrorism versus old-fashioned hierarchical national military machines, the soft power of persuasion, combined with the hard power of violence, continue to be used together by those parties, large and small, that wish to impose their values on the public.
International News / Peace News
Date: Feb 18, 2007 - 10:55 AM . Terrorism Soft and Hard, Big and Small
“A prince ought, above all things, always to endeavour in every action to gain for himself the reputation of being a great and remarkable man.” -- Nicolo Machiavelli in The Prince (1515)
PEJ News - Al Rycroft - American academic Joseph S. Nye Jr. (2004) argues that the global balance of power has shifted, and continues to shift, from hard, military power, to soft, information power. The criticality of soft power is evident when examined in the context of mass society, mass media, the globally-networked Information Age, and modern terrorism. www.PEJ.org
In the lexicon of the mass media, as Karim so clearly points out in The Islamic Peril: Media and Global Violence, “terrorism” is a term linked not simply to violent acts but more specifically to, “individuals and states which challenge the current configurations of power in the international system with violence” (Karim, 28).
The Collins Dictionary (1979) defines “terrorism” more generally as, “the act of terrorizing; systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goal.”
Using Collins’ apolitical definition it is clear that terrorism is a strategy employed not just by small networks of political terrorists but also by large states engaged in the “war on terror” such as the USA, Israel, Canada and Russia. In fact, in modern warfare, as many as nine out of ten injured and killed are civilians (Brown, 2007, citing Dr. Gino Strada). In October 2004, the highly-respected UK medical journal The Lancet reported that:
We think that about 100,000 excess deaths, or more, have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most violent deaths.
The “war on terror” is state terrorism.
Small-scale and state terrorism alike employ characteristics of both soft and hard power. Joseph Nye defines soft power in this way: “when one country gets other countries to want what it wants… in contrast with the hard or command power of ordering others to do what it wants” (Unit Notes, 2-2). Soft power is the power of persuasion and hard power is military coercion.
In the case of small networks of terrorists the most prevalent feature of terrorism is its powerful propaganda effect that can effect soft power political change. Many examples of this strategy can be found in the current conflict in Iraq, such as the many hostages held and prominently displayed on network TV to successfully apply pressure to nations to withdraw forces and extract other concessions; or the daily bombings claimed by various factions and often highlighted, unedited, for a global audience on the world wide web – both for the shock effect on the western public and also for the inspirational effect on those who may lean towards violent responses to the longstanding Israeli-western hard power military domination of the Middle East.
A few highly militant terrorist actions also have features of hard power – such as the attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, which killed 2,602 people (Wikipedia, 2007), injured thousands more, and caused very significant financial and psychological damage to the United States and its allies.
The “war on terror” waged by nation states, such as the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, are more focussed on traditional hard power where brute military might is the predominant method of political control.
However it has long been recognized that no war can be won without winning the “hearts and minds” of the conquered people. Even the strongest military powers expend a great deal of effort and resources on propaganda – from leaflets and development aid, to photo ops and control of radio and television stations. While Canada bombs the countryside and kills civilians, Afghanistan is its top recipient of development aid. Soft power propaganda is an integral part of the “war on terror”.
For a very long time there has been a mix of soft power and hard power in warfare. Hitler’s Nazi regime is widely considered the first modern state whose soft power propaganda techniques succeeded in enlisting most of a nation in his “final solution” of Jewish extermination and world domination through hard power military conquest. As early as 1832, military strategist von Clausewitz famously described war as, “a mere continuation of policy by other means” (On War), showing the linkage.
The soft power of information, persuasion and propaganda is a key element in exercising power. Today, with global media including instant satellite and easily-accessed Internet broadcasting, soft power has become even more critical to projecting power.
In today’s age of assymetrical warfare characterized by network-organized terrorism versus old-fashioned hierarchical national military machines, the soft power of persuasion, combined with the hard power of violence, continue to be used together by those parties, large and small, that wish to impose their values on the public.