Terror of the talk: a new framework for countering terrorism within the institutionalisation of the terrorism industry

Abstract

The “terrorism industry” that has been constructed by the war on terror has become institutionalised in the past decade, contributing in part to a significant increase in the overall public perception of terrorism and a dilution in meaning of the term “terrorist.” A linear regression analysis of the relationship of poll data collected from American citizens and frequency and lethality of terrorist attacks shows that this increased awareness has occurred despite the fact that terrorist attacks on American soil have decreased over the past decade. Considering the often-stated purpose of terrorists is to inspire fear, a central goal of the industry and the government should be to diminish these effects. However, the frequent and offhand use of the term “terrorist” fails to contextualise and counter the varied dispositions and motivations of terrorists and other non-state actors. To reduce public worry while working within the boundaries of the institutionalised terrorism industry, the study of terrorism should be conducted, and counterterrorist policies designed, using a new interdisciplinary framework that would allow the terrorism industry and the government to move beyond the binary designation of “terrorist” and “non-terrorist” to a greater spectrum of classification, from terrorists and violent non-state actors, to guerrillas, insurgents or criminals. A more nuanced framework could reduce public fear of terrorism and increase the effectiveness of counterterrorist policies.

Keywords:

• terrorism industry
• Manichean binary framework
• spectrum of classification

Acknowledgements

The author thanks Mr Michael Loadenthal for his invaluable assistance in writing and editing this article, Elizabeth Kelly and Sven Beer for their assistance in formatting the linear regression analysis, and the anonymous reviewers for their suggestions and critiques. The author also thanks the START and Gallup, Inc. for the use of their data to conduct these analyses.

Notes

1. The majority of these casualties were a result of the Fort Hood shooting in Texas on 5 November 2009.

2. A Google Ngram analysis from 1990 to 2008 of the terms “terrorist,” “terrorism” and “war on terror” proves a huge spike in the use of these terms in English-language books and articles after 2001, with a peak in term popularity in 2007. An Ngram analysis of news headlines analysing the same terms uses a different time frame, 2004–2014, but also shows a consistently high level in term usage at varying times throughout that period.

3. The START is one such institution that seeks to study terrorism from an interdisciplinary nature, applying methods of study from both the field of terrorism studies and the field of criminological studies.

4. Google Ngram study (see endnote 2).

5. E.g. ITERATE, RAND.

6. Polls conducted between 1995 and 1998 asked respondents if they were worried they would be a victim of a terrorist attack “similar to the Oklahoma City bombing.”

7. The GTD has not yet published data from 2013. For the purpose of the analysis, the Gallup poll data from April 2013 were discounted.

8. In nearly every case, the polls were taken over a period of three days. In these cases, I recorded the attacks and casualties starting from one month prior to the beginning of the poll and ended on the last day the poll was taken. Often the period was one month and three days.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Annie S. Kennelly

Annie S. Kennelly is in her final year pursuing a Bachelor of Science in International Politics in the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University. She previously worked as a general associate on the GTD at the START in College Park, MD.