Failure 1

View mindmap
  • Failure
    • Basic stats
      • maj of terrorist groups end this way and don't become notorious like Al Qaeda.
        • Eg/ Free Wales army
        • Scotland National Liberation Army
        • Japanese Red Army
      • Rapoport suggested that 92% of terrorist gorups don't make it past their first years
        • Phillips 2017 tested his claim and said its probs closer to 50%. but it can be assumed that they don't succeed in their objectives
    • What is Failure?
      • terrorism only succeeds when a state bungles out its response or when a group transitions to another form of violence
      • Research on terrorism overemphasises the role of the state and underemphasises the internal factors
        • Cronin 2009 identifies 2 reasons for failure
          • implosion
            • problems with generational transfer - are terrorist groups vulnerable when passing generations?
            • infighting between members - how unified are the groups
            • Loss of operational control - when leadership closes control
            • Amnesty acceptance/other exit pathways - States can help people who want out
          • marginalisation
            • The ideology becomes irrelevant - Marxism post Cold War
            • loss of contact with contituency - FARC and drugs
            • Targeting errors and Backlash
        • Weinberg 2011 argues that internal failure and loss of public support probably doesn't explain the end of many groups
    • Deradicalisation and disengagement (Horgan, 2008)
      • disengagement: the process of ceasing terrorist bet (Altier)
        • PUSH FACTORS - driving away
          • Unmet expectations
          • Disillusionment with strategy/actions of the group
          • Disillusionment with personnel
          • Difficulty adapting to clandestine lifestyle
          • Inability to cope with psychological effects f violence
          • loss of faith in ideology
          • Altiers Et  Al 2014 argues that simply listing push and pull factors is descriptive and underdeveloped, need to know the psychological processes.
            • Investment model
              • Rusbult Et Al, 1983
                • two components associated with involvent
                  • Satisfaction: How positively involvement in an entity is evaluated.
              • so those with high rewards (achievements and social bonds) and low costs ( little conflict in the group) from their role are likely to be highly satisfied.
              • WEAKNESS IS IT ONLY LOOKS AT ONE WINDOW AT A TIME = NOT DYNAMIC
            • Role Exit Model
              • Altier Et Al are sceptical of there being a set of stages, but they believe there are useful aspects of Ebaughs theory. how an individual goes about leaving a social role.
        • what makes disengagement more likely?
      • Deradicalisation: the elimination of ones belief in violent extremist ideology (Altier) 2014
        • Pull factors - Outside influences
          • competing loyalties
          • Positive interactions with moderates
          • employment/ educational demand or oppurtunitites
          • Desire to marry/ est a family or family demands
          • Financial incentives
          • amnesties
          • Altiers Et  Al 2014 argues that simply listing push and pull factors is descriptive and underdeveloped, need to know the psychological processes.
            • Investment model
              • Rusbult Et Al, 1983
                • two components associated with involvent
                  • Satisfaction: How positively involvement in an entity is evaluated.
              • so those with high rewards (achievements and social bonds) and low costs ( little conflict in the group) from their role are likely to be highly satisfied.
              • WEAKNESS IS IT ONLY LOOKS AT ONE WINDOW AT A TIME = NOT DYNAMIC
            • Role Exit Model
              • Altier Et Al are sceptical of there being a set of stages, but they believe there are useful aspects of Ebaughs theory. how an individual goes about leaving a social role.
        • what makes disengagement more likely?
      • not all people who become involved in terrorist groups are radicalised and not all who disengage or deradicalised
      • can someone even be deradicalised? what des this mean for the future of state responses
  • Commitment: Shaped by two variables: quality of alternatives (job, marriage) and the size of the investment (time, money etc)
    • it is assumed that individuals weigh their degree of satisfaction with alternatives and investments in deciding whether to stay or leave a group

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Government & Politics resources:

See all Government & Politics resources »See all Terrorism resources »