Public policies on counter-terrorism need to be informed by research

With the recent series of attacks on the public transit system in London, together with similar events, you may be wondering what, if anything, can be done to protect our societies from the increasing threat of suicide terrorism. The answer to this question may lie in a growing body of knowledge produced by the social sciences.

The increased use of suicide bombers in terrorist attacks in recent years is a cause for particular concern. The method, timing, and location of these attacks seem to be chosen based upon their potential to produce maximum casualties and disruption of community life. To make matters worse, terrorists have undoubtedly set their sights upon acquiring the most dangerous and deadly weapons known to man. Despite increased awareness of the threat since 9-11, and a palpably heightened level of security, authorities seem largely incapable of preventing someone, willing to sacrifice his or her life for a cause, from carrying out a deadly attack against hapless civilians.

Following the London attacks, politicians could again be heard making emotional speeches vowing to defeat the terrorists, and policy makers could be seen scrambling to enact new laws intended to increase security. In the midst of these events, one can’t help wondering, however, to what degree those officials have fully grasped the nature of the problem. To what extent have they considered the most effective means of tackling it?

Politicians, for example, often portray suicide bombers, as evil, inhuman, mentally deranged public misfits. President Bush has proposed that supporters of terrorism “hate our freedoms.” Some have suggested that conditions of extreme poverty, illiteracy, and anarchy promote terrorism. It is assumed that policies to defeat terrorism proceed from such assumptions. Research on these issues, however, does not suggest that suicide attackers are necessarily crazier than the average person, nor are they particularly ignorant, poor, and uneducated as a group. Moreover, surveys consistently show that those who support suicide terrorism and bin Laden, nevertheless, value democracy and the freedoms that go with it.

There is a danger that well intentioned, yet poorly informed steps taken to combat terrorism might unintentionally exacerbate the problem by increasing extremist sentiment, or facilitate the recruitment of moderates by terrorist organizations. The war in Iraq, for example, was launched for the expressed purpose of reducing the risk that weapons of mass destruction developed by Saddam’s regime might fall into the hands of terrorist organizations. The invasion was obviously successful in toppling Saddam’s corrupt regime, and did lead to seemingly democratic elections. Nevertheless, the current situation with a growing military insurgency and increasing casualties is, to put it delicately, not looking good.

The open-ended occupation of Iraq by American troops is clearly an irritant to Islamic militants and Iraqi nationalists. The American CIA recently issued a report identifying post-invasion Iraq as a potent new training ground for extremists from around the world, providing them with practical experience in kidnappings, assassinations, car bombings, and other methods of urban warfare. The report warns that militants could later export these methods to other trouble spots around the world. It seems unlikely that those involved in planning the American-led invasion intended this result. Academics and other experts knowledgeable about Middle East politics, however, had predicted as much.

Another related concern is that poorly informed public policies intended to reinforce the fight against terrorism could unnecessarily erode the civil liberties of free nations. When government agencies are given greater power to collect surveillance information on its citizens, hold suspects under conditions in which their basic rights are denied, and use threatening and coercive methods to extract information from witnesses and suspects without due process, we are justified in being concerned that our most cherished values have been compromised.

Given the importance of implementing effective counter-terrorism measures and avoiding the unnecessary curtailment of individual liberties, one would hope that public policies would be informed by empirical research into the problem. One gets the impression, however, that public officials often respond to terrorism in a “knee-jerk” manner, or with an eye to public opinion, which itself may be misinformed on our current state of knowledge about terrorism.

Our understanding of terrorism has grown tremendously in recent years, thanks to numerous empirical investigations. An excellent example of this work is the interesting analysis and recommendations provided by anthropologist Scott Atran, “Mishandling Suicide Terrorism,” available for download at http://www.twq.com/04summer/docs/04summer_atran.pdf.

It is time for policy makers to become more informed by our current state of knowledge concerning the nature and causes of terrorism. I believe psychologists and other social scientists have an important role to play in this endeavor.