Radcliffe Dean Traces Terrorism’s Complexities

When I reached the airport to fly home for Thanksgiving, I suddenly realized that I was about to go through security with “What Terrorists Want,” a book featuring a bold red and black cover with a bulls-eye in the center. As I took off my shoes, stripped off my jacket, and emptied my pockets, I rehearsed my explanation for the book, just in case I was selected for secondary screening—a reminder that, six years after Sept. 11, 2001, we still suffer from a heightened sense of vulnerability. One year after its initial publication, Radcliffe Instiute executive dean Lousie Richarson’s perspective on terrorism and nuanced advocacy of counter-terrorism efforts remains relevant.

Richardson crafts a thorough history of terrorism that provides an even-handed portrait of modern terror’s roots, and memories of a childhood in Ireland amidst family stories of British oppression imbue her conclusions with a unique authority. Despite its strong foundation, though, “What Terrorists Want” strays from its persuasive path and succumbs to a political blame-game once Richardson offers recommendations on how to combat terrorism today. Nevertheless, “What Terrorists Want” remains valuable because of its personalized yet scholarly contextualization of the seemingly unprecedented terrorist activity that has defined contemporary American politics.

The vocabulary of terrorism entered the American lexicon overnight, but while “fatwa,” “dirty bomb,” and “sleeper cell” appear regularly in public discussion, there is still little more than a superficial familiarity with terrorism. Richardson argues that it is impossible to effectively combat terrorism without awareness of the roots and goals of terrorist groups.

The first half of “What Terrorists Want” lays out a fascinating and illuminating history that takes the reader from the first-century Jewish struggle against the Romans to al Qaeda’s jihad against America. A picture of terrorism emerges that stretches from Indonesia to Germany and embraces both secular and religious causes. Perhaps the most profound facet of Richardson’s work is her documentation of the continuity of terrorism.

Despite the breadth of terrorist groups that Richardson examines, she is able to isolate terrorism as the preferred means for weak sub-state groups to challenge powerful geopolitical entities. Richardson argues that terrorists strive for revenge, renown, and reaction. Terrorists have long been unable to inflict large numbers of casualties, instead exacting their revenge by causing panic and fear. The most popular and effective terrorist technique is the suicide attack, which depends on the support of the community. Richardson demonstrates that by cutting off this community support, terrorist groups would lose their potency.

With this general understanding of global terrorism established, Richardson attempts to develop a counter-terrorism policy based on the successful actions of governments such as Britain and Peru. While her advice—to set measurable and specific goals, employ law enforcement instead of the military, and maximize international cooperation—is persuasive, it is hardly revolutionary.

As Richardson moves from the historical to the contemporary, she unfortunately begins to adopt the frustrated rhetoric that has characterized so much political “debate” in recent years. Rather than maintaining her exacting standards of analysis, Richardson begins to sacrifice her scholarly precision in her blanket indictment of the War on Terror.

Still, despite these shortcomings, “What Terrorists Want” is an insightful history of terrorism that offers a clear explanation of the motivations and goals of contemporary terrorists. Richardson provides a valuable context for the bombings and kidnappings that dominate the nightly news, ensuring that the actions of men like Osama bin Ladin appear more purposeful—though no less horrible.

It will always be difficult to view the intentional murder of innocent civilians as rational, but “What Terrorists Want” makes it possible to see terrorism as a chosen tactic for an asymmetrical battlefield. By viewing terrorism more objectively, Richardson gives hope that we can develop and implement a plan to overcome it.

—Staff writer Eric M. Sefton can be reached at esefton@fas.harvard.edu.