Talking about terror: Counterterrorist campaigns and the logic of representation

Abstract

Counterterrorist state forces and terrorist insurgents compete to control not only territory and populations but language.The success of counterterrorism, therefore, hinges crucially on representational practices. Defeating terrorism in the long run requires both undermining the legitimacy of political violence and its purveyors and opening space for the pursuit of a less violent but still legitimate politics, and these are fundamentally rhetorical projects. Yet the literature has not shed much light on either the range of conceivable counterterrorist representational strategies or on states’ particular representational choices.This article presents and illustrates a typology of counterterrorist representational strategies. It argues that state leaders should ideally delegitimize the extremists’ means while politicizing some of their aspirations. Leaders often do not pursue this rhetorical path, however, due to the constraints imposed by existing understandings of terrorist organizations and especially by foundational discourses. These arguments are explored empirically through studies of the Indian, Spanish, and Turkish counterterrorist campaigns. The article concludes by extending the framework to clarify why the militarized rhetoric of the so-called ‘War on Terror’ is counterproductive.

Differentiating Act from Ideology: Evidence from Messages For and Against Violent Extremism

“…Although the prevalence of this “opposites” conceptualization may stem from the need to run controlled experiments, it is a view not confined to experimental research. In the domain of ideological violence, political commentaries center on the need to win “hearts and minds” by delegitimizing political violence and the actors who pursue it (Chowdhury & Krebs, 2010; Halafoff & Wright‐Neville, 2009). For example, in his analysis of the ideological struggle between Al‐Qaeda and Western governments, Payne (2009) found that the Al‐Qaeda narrative is characterized by the concepts of Islamic utopia, an us‐versus‐them dichotomy, and jihad as a just response.…”

The ‘dark’ side of normative argumentation – The case of counterterrorism policy

“…As the risk of new terrorist attacks is seemingly hanging over the international society like the sword of Damocles, governments feel immense political pressure to find, often under time constraints, new and adequate policy solutions. Moreover, terrorism is essentially a communicative and symbolic enterprise, it is, as Jenkins (1975: 16) put it, ‘open-air theater’, in quest of gaining the attention of large audiences (Chowdhury and Krebs 2010: 133). Counterterrorism measures, in turn, are often intended to respond to this symbolism by carrying out immediate, strict and visible action intended to signal resolve to the public and the terrorists.…”

“…Some theories and research strands provide useful building blocks and links, among them the literature on the breach of taboos (Daase 2003 ;Rosert and Schirmbeck 2007 ), norm contestation (e.g. Wiener 2004 ;Liese 2009 ), also fi rst works on norm regress (McKeown 2009 ), critical terrorism studies (Krebs and Jackson 2007 ;Chowdhury and Krebs 2010 ) and, not least, securitization theory (Buzan et al 1998 ).…”

Public Good Theory and the ‘Added Value’ of the EU’s Counterterrorism Policy

“…It allows for further cooperation, but scrutinises EU initiatives according to a strict logic of consequences. Even though symbolic actions and communication remain crucial to the fight against terrorism (Chowdhury and Krebs 2010), functionalist analytical frameworks are, therefore, increasingly pertinent.…”