Written evidence submitted by Dr Nicholas
Beecroft BSc MBBS MRCPsych MBA, Psychiatrist and Director of Psyplomacy
WINNING THE WAR ON TERROR- PSYCHOLOGY AS A STRATEGIC
FRAMEWORK
The West is exposed to threats from a growing
number of terrorist groups and states who will sooner or later
be armed with weapons of mass destruction. We are presently braced
for a major Al Qaeda attack. Despite the best efforts of our security
forces, it is likely that we will remain vulnerable to a range
of potential enemies.
International Relations have been traditionally
understood through economics, geopolitics, sociology and law.i
These models are failing to provide comprehensive solutions to
emerging security problems. One way to fill this strategic gap
is to remember that behind the abstract concepts and theories
of international relations lie people. Psychology provides a framework
to assess and manage our relationships with other peoples. The
fundamental driver is the individual human whose emotions, cognitions,
and relationships determine their behaviours within groupii and
intergroup dynamicsiii.
Terrorists are people, just like us. So instead
of viewing our dealings with them as an open-ended "War of
Terror," it is far more usefully understood as the result
of a dysfunctional relationship between the Muslim world and the
West. This relationship can be improved and the underlying causes
of terrorism and "rogue" regimes can be reduced.
Keeping a clear head
When terrorists commit brutal acts against innocent
people, this creates very strong feelings in all concerned. After
the initial shock come fear, anxiety and anger. These feelings
may be unbearable but still have to be dealt with in order to
be able to function. Ideally, this is done through grief, expression
of feelings and mutual support followed by dialogue, rational
analysis and development of an effective strategy.
There are many possible pathological responses
that handicap effective action. A temptation is to blame others,
to rally around over-idealised leaders, to seek revenge, and to
stop talking to the people we don't like or understand. Fear can
drive us to behave in ways which generate further hatred and thus
create new terrorist recruits. Sometimes with conscious intent,
leaders may resort to one of many possible psychological defence
mechanisms. These include demonising the enemy—such as Osama
Bin Laden and the fundamentalists. One can scapegoat or stereotypeiv
another group as bad or mad. A cathartic aggressive act such as
a war, maybe in Iraq, can be used to dissipate tension and displace
energyv. Instead of falling into this trap, we need to keep a
clear head and open mind just when it is most difficult to do
so.
Them and us
Under threat, group emotions become intense
and can be irrational. A cohesive group under threat often becomes
more unified, support their leaders more and identify more strongly
with their own group as distinct from the enemyvi. They tend to
idealise their own leader. If a leader wishes to provoke and maintain
a conflict, this group dynamic can be very usefully exploited.
Bin Laden said, "These young men realized
that an Islamic government would never be established except by
the bomb and rifle. Islam does not coincide or make a truce with
unbelief, but rather confronts it." This statement is the
mirror image of George Bush's that, "you are either with
us or against us" and reference to "the axis of evil."
It gives people the comfort that things are very simple and clear.
When people are anxious and afraid, there is
a loss of tolerance for ambivalence, uncertainty and complexity
which makes simplistic and extreme positions more attractive leading
to polarisation. Those who share some of the views and identityvii
of the terrorists are forced to take sides.
Taking revenge is a natural impulse after an
attack, especially if it is felt to be undeserved or viciously
motivated. "Revenge is a dish best served cold." It
is also important to realise that pure revenge, actual or perceived,
is likely to strengthen the resolve of the enemy and increase
the support they receive. Some people felt that the attack on
Afghanistan was unconsciously motivated by displaced anger and
revenge.
Understand the enemy
We need to understand why we have been attacked
to prevent it from happening again. We need to win the hearts
and minds of those who may support, or become, terrorists. In
the past, this kind of approach was dismissed as naive idealism.
In the current security situation, it is simply rational self-interest.
To unlock more effective strategies we should
remember that terrorists are individuals and teams affected by
morale, motivation, leadership and teamwork, just like everyone
else. A powerful recipe for violence is to feel that one's identity,
well-being or existence is threatened; that one is not respected;
not listened to; exploited and that there is no hope that peaceful
means can improve the situation. This combination of feelings
makes people feel violent impulses and makes them more likely
to act violently or support those acting violently.
Death for suicide bombers and fighters can mean
union with their god and brethren. It can thus seem to feel good.
For most westerners, it means loss of attachment to life, family
and friends. viii
Fundamentalism provides the believer with absolute
truth, simplicity, certainty, security and comfort. Unfortunately,
reality is complex and no such systems are accurate. It is hard
to argue with fundamentalist belief systems because they have
a simple, emotionally charged answer for everything and their
own fundamental reference points.
Terrorist's behaviour makes it difficult to
have dialogue, to be open and reasonable. Their behaviour and
the feelings of exasperation of those attacked can provoke a counter-terrorist
response which reinforces their belief system and wins them more
recruits.
Winning hearts and minds
Governments are used to taking into account
the positions and feelings of other governments. Even the mightiest
power, the US, has to work to gain the support of governments
of small countries, like Qatar, in order to achieve its aims.
The opinions of the populations of undemocratic
countries like Jordan or Saudi Arabia have traditionally carried
little weight. Western, especially US, foreign policy has tended
to focus on realpolitik amongst the leaders of those countries.
The widening availability of mass communication,
the Internet, air travel and of weapons of mass destruction is
shifting the balance of power towards the developing countries
and within them, towards their people. For those who value universal
democracy and human rights, this is a good thing.
September 11 and subsequent terrorist attacks
have made it very clear that the opinions of the general population,
individuals and subgroups in developing countries can have a direct
impact upon the physical, psychological and economic security
of even the most powerful country. A powerful military and intelligence
infrastructure is necessary but not sufficient to secure a country's
people.
Public diplomacy
From a Western viewpoint, priority should be
given to winning the hearts and minds of the Arab and Muslim public.
President Bush said he is not going to give each terrorist therapy
until they change their behaviour. The most committed terrorists
are probably not open to persuasion at this time. However, many
of their followers and potential followers may be. Indeed, even
the most determined terrorists can make peace and cooperate with
former enemies as numerous peace processes have shown. Thus at
every stage of the "War on Terror," it is essential
to communicate as effectively as possible with all parties.
The US and UK have woken up to this and have
allocated more resources to public diplomacy. The US set up a
radio station, Radio Sawa to broadcast in Arabic. The British
government has tried hard to influence the Arab media through
a more determined PR operation. The British Council has stepped
up a gear in its longstanding work to improve cultural relations
with other populations.
Improving communication and understanding
Communication requires the recipient to at least
listen, understand and process the message from the person sending
it. A message is more persuasive if it is perceived to be balanced
and come from a credible source. Recent BBC interviews with the
intended audience of the US Arabic Radio Sawa generally showed
that they enjoyed the music but were very sceptical about the
message. Many felt that communications from the US are not credible
as they disguise other motivations such as control of oilfields
or simply because it is seen as propaganda.
Many media interviews of people in the Middle
East and Europe have detected a strong perception that the foreign
policy of the US is inconsistent and hypocritical. The US tends
to justify its foreign policy in terms of morality and justice,
as opposed to pure self-interest. In these terms, US insistence
that Iraq must comply with UN resolutions is incongruent with
its lack of equal determination in the case of Israel. in the
eyes of most Arabs and many Europeans. This inconsistency makes
the US government case less credible and, in some, generates anger
and hostility.
Similarly, while most Arabs appeared to be horrified
by the murders on September 11, it angers many that the lives
of Palestinians or Iraqi's lost, in their view as a result of
US policy, are seen as less valuable than New Yorkers. This perceived
lack of respect for other people is a powerful motivator of violence.
We should support journalists as best we can
to give a true and independent picture of the world to both people
at home and abroad. The budget for the BBC world service is tiny
and there is huge potential for expansion in both radio and TV
for relatively low cost.
We can provide support to people within other
countries to help promote communication within and between countries,
especially in those where the governments attempt to control this.
Building trust and reputation
Actions speak louder than words. Reputations
are based more upon what people do rather than what they say.
So there is a limit to what PR management can achieve. With mass
communication, people worldwide see how each country behaves on
a global scale and experiences the effect of that behaviour locally.
It is vital to consider the long term impact
of behaviour. ix To gain the respect of people, countries need
to act consistently, honestly and sincerely.x The tradition in
international relations has been far from that. It is in our long
term interests to be liked, respected, trusted as well as to be
strong.
Perceived double standards
If one tried to manage the relationship between
friends and family by acting solely in self-interest and justifying
it in other terms, it would quickly cause problems. Increasingly,
this is true of international relations.
The argument that the possession of weapons
of mass destruction by Saddam Hussein justifies disarmament by
force and regime change may or may not be valid. However, if it
is true for him, why not for North Korea, China, Israel, India
or Pakistan? Certainly, it leads many to disbelieve the genuineness
of the motivations behind the policy on Iraq.
Another major flaw in the policy of the West
in the eyes of the developing world is the perceived double standards
on freedom and democracy. There is a compartmentalisation between
what standards and morality are considered appropriate for us,
people like us and others. This is linked to identity and cultural
relativism.
If democracy, security, prosperity and freedom
are good for the West, why are they not good for Arabs? There
have been several traditional justifications for this. The moral
argument is that it is not for the West to interfere in internal
affairs of others. The cultural relativist argument is that Arabs
and Arab culture is different and that it is their natural choice
to have absolute monarchies and one party states. The developmental
argument is that Arab cultures are not yet ready for democracy
and that it is not for the West to hurry them along. These arguments
are weakened by the inconsistency in their application globally.
Thus the cynic is free to conclude that the
real reason for Western support for the regimes in the Middle
East is simply about maintaining control over resources and trade.
Tackling resentments
Israel always tops the list of Arab grievances
against the West. I don't want to comment on the rights and wrongs
of this complex situation. There is no doubt that Arabs feel very
intensely that an injustice has been done and continues to be
done to the Palestinian people. They feel angry and powerless
and this is a powerful motivator for violence and hatred. Until
justice is done and seen to be done, there will be no resolution
of this problem.
We ought to try to facilitate dialogue and a
just solution. It is important to ensure that the intended audience
is aware of our efforts and believes them to be genuine and sincerely
motivated.
Israel and the West are certainly responsible
for genuine grievances for Arab peoples. However, the intensity
of this bad feeling is hugely magnified by the lack of freedom
within those countries. The US, Israel and the West in general
provides a convenient scapegoat for the anger, frustration and
energy away from the many grievances that Arab peoples have against
their own governments. When they cannot freely criticise their
own governments or address issues of direct relevance to themselves,
Israel and the West provide safe targets for expression of pent
up emotions.
If we are to stop being the scapegoat for their
internal problems and the victim of subsequent terrorism, we need
to support those in Islamic countries who seek to promote free
expression, democracy and a free media. This would redirect a
lot of this frustration back where it belongs—at the doors
of their own governments and give those people the power so solve
their own problems.
Axis of Freedom
Hundreds of thousands of Arabs attempt to migrate
to the US, Europe and Australia every year. It seems likely that
they want a share of the relative freedom, security and opportunity
available there. Given the ongoing power shifts in the world,
it would be wise for Western governments to be seen to align themselves
with these aspirations and at the very least, not be perceived
to stand in their way by being seen to support so many undemocratic
regimes.
In practical terms, this help can come in many
ways. We can provide resources to NGOs in other countries which
promote democratic values. They need money, materials, protection,
asylum, facilities and moral leadership. Liberal students in Teheran,
for example, would be helped with money, video cameras, internet
access, satellite phones, computers, asylum and moral support.
Promoting mutual interests
There are many NGOs from the West promoting
better education, health, freedoms, human rights, justice and
environments for other peoples. Where this results in reducing
the causes of conflict and hatred and improving our relationships
they should be promoted, protected and supported. xi
Defining the War
Defining who is fighting who is essential to
devising a strategy and executing it with support. Tony Blair,
among others, tried hard in the aftermath of September 11 to insist
that this was not a clash of civilisations, or religions, countries
or races but was a conflict between decent, peaceful people and
terrorists. The challenge is to make this both true and believable
for the non-Western audience.
The challenge is to remain engaged in relations
with that decent majority and to improve the quality of the relationship
to maximise the chance of cooperation and peace and to minimise
support for Al Quaeda.
If we are to fight a war, it needs to be a war
of ideas and values which are not specific to any country, religion
or race. The best starting place is to genuinely stand for relations
between people based upon respect, trust, mutual understanding
and cooperation. Most people would say that we try to do that
already. However, the challenge is not just to think it and say
it, but to genuinely do it and be seen to do it.
CONCLUSIONS
Our security is increasingly dependent upon
building healthy relationships with other peoples through a sustained
effort to facilitate dialogue, with as much emphasis on listening
and empathy, as on force, persuasion and manipulation. We will
need to have alliances and networks of states, groups and individuals
who share the core values of freedom, democracy and human rights.
We need to "win the hearts and minds" of people the
world over.
We need to take a consistent approach to our
international behaviour to build mutual trust, respect, understanding
and cooperation. We must be determined to defend and promote our
core values, but also open to change our behaviour where other's
grievances are valid. Where possible, we should try to resolve
disputes, address frustrations and resentments and to remove the
causes of humiliation and injustice where possible. People everywhere
seek security, prosperity, freedom and purpose just as do those
in the West.
While these aims would always have been the
expressed intention of the West, now it really is urgently in
our rational self-interest.
(i) Fifty Key Thinkers in International Relations,
Martin Griffiths, Routledge, 1999
(ii) Bion WR Experiences in Groups. 1998
Routledge
(iii) Intergroup Relations, Marilynn Brewer
& Norman Miller, Open University Press, Buckingliam, 1996
(iv) Introduction to Social Psychology, Hewstone,
Stroebe, Codol, Stephenson, 1989, Blackwell.
(v) The Psychology of War, Lawrence Le Shan,
Helios Press, New York, Second Edition, 2002
(vi) Groups: theory and experience, Napier
& Gershenfeld, 6th ed, Houghton & Muffin, New York, 1999
(vii) Personal Identity, National Identity
and International Relations, William Bloom, Cambridge Studies
in International Relations: 9, Cambridge University Press, 1990
(viii) Terrorism and War—the unconscious
dynamics of political violence, Edited by C Covington, P
(ix) Williams, J Arundale and J Knox, Karnac,
London 2002
(ix) Political Psychology and Foreign Policy,
Eric Singer, Valerie Hudson (Editor) Westview Press. Hardcover—June
1992
(x) Working with Emotional Intelligence,
Daniel Goleman, Bloomsbury 1998.
(xi) After the Terror, Ted Honderitch, 2002
WINNING HEARTS
AND MINDS
Iraq and the Arab World
The influence of domestic public opinion on international
relations
Up to and including the First World War, it
was possible for governments to conduct diplomacy and declare
war on behalf of their people with minimal consultation.
Increasingly since then, governments with a
substantial foreign policy have become used to the need to inform,
consult and manage their increasingly sophisticated and assertive
domestic constituencies. The US applied the lessons learned from
Vietnam to the Gulf war. Even the Chinese government has to respond
to some degree to internal public opinion on matters such as Taiwan
and the Spy Plane incident. It would be naive to suggest that
foreign policy is fully democratised, but it is moving slowly
in that direction.
The influence of foreign public opinion on international
relations
Governments are used to taking into account
the positions and feelings of other governments. Even the mightiest
power, the US, has to work to gain the support of governments
of very small countries like Bahrain and Qatar in order to achieve
its aims.
However, little attention has been paid to what
the people's of other countries think, except to the degree that
it influences their governments. Thus the opinion of people in
democracies has carried some weight. For example, the strong anti-war
feeling of the German people made Chancellor Schroeder come out
against war with Iraq in the recent elections, in spite of the
clear damage that that may do to relations with the US. US public
diplomacy in Germany is thus vital to gain the government's support
where desired.
On the other hand, the opinions of the populations
in less democratic countries like Jordan or undemocratic countries
like Saudi Arabia have traditionally carried little weight. Western,
especially US, foreign policy has continued to focus on realpolitik
amongst the leaders of those countries.
The balance of power is shifting towards the populations
of developing countries
The widening availability of mass communication,
the Internet, air travel and of weapons of mass destruction is,
in some cases, shifting the balance of power towards the developing
countries and within them, towards their people. For those who
value universal democracy and human rights, this is a good thing.
However, 11 September and subsequent attacks
have made it very clear that the opinions of the general population,
individuals and subgroups in developing countries can have a direct
impact upon the physical, psychological and economic security
of even the most powerful country. A powerful military and intelligence
infrastructure is necessary but not sufficient to secure a country's
people.
The need to win hearts and minds
From a Western point of view, priority should
be given to winning the hearts and minds of the Arab and Muslim
public.
The US and UK have woken up to this and have
allocated more resources to public diplomacy. The US set up a
radio station, Radio Sawa to broadcast in Arabic. The British
government has tried hard to influence the Arab media through
a more determined PR operation. The British Council has stepped
up a gear in its longstanding work to improve cultural relations
with other populations.
There still appears to be an implicit assumption
that managing the media, which treads the fine line between PR
and propaganda, will be enough to placate the masses. There is
evidence that this is not enough.
Persuasive communication
Communication requires the recipient to at least
listen, understand and process the message from the person sending
it. A message is more persuasive if it is perceived to be balanced
(both pros and cons) and come from a credible source. Recent BBC
interviews with the intended audience of the US Arabic Radio Sawa
generally showed that they enjoyed the music but were very sceptical
about the message. Many felt that communications from the US are
not credible as they disguise other motivations such as control
of oilfields and simply because it is seen as propaganda.
Many media interviews of people in the Middle
East and Europe have detected a strong perception that the foreign
policy of the US is inconsistent and hypocritical. The US tends
to justify its foreign policy in terms of morality and justice,
as opposed to pure self-interest. In these terms, US insistence
that Iraq must comply with UN resolutions is incongruent with
its lack of equal determination in the case of Israel, in the
eyes of most Arabs and many Europeans. This inconsistency makes
the US government case less credible and, in some, generates anger
and hostility.
Similarly, while most Arabs appeared to be horrified
by the murders on September 11, it angers many that the lives
of Palestinians or Iraqi's lost, in their view as a result of
US policy, are seen as less valuable than New Yorkers. This perceived
lack of respect for other people is a powerful motivator of violence.
Perception of motivation
The argument that the possession of weapons
of mass destruction by Saddam Hussein justifies disarmament by
force and regime change may or may not be valid. However, if it
is true for him, why not for North Korea, China, Israel, India
or Pakistan? Those countries may wonder if they are next on the
list. Certainly, it leads many to disbelieve the genuineness of
the motivations behind the policy on Iraq.
It is possible that a lot of the emotional energy
in the current pressure on Iraq is displaced fear, desire for
revenge, need to do something, to control as a displacement from
the anxiety generated by fear, powerlessness etc as a result of
September 11.
Perceived double standards and self-interest
Another major flaw in the policy of the West
in the eyes of the developing world is the perceived double standards
on freedom and democracy. There is a compartmentalisation between
what standards and morality are considered appropriate for "us"
and "people like us" and "others." This is
linked to identity and cultural relativism.
If democracy, security, prosperity and freedom
are good for the US, why are they not good for Arabs? There have
been several traditional justifications for this. The moral argument
is that it is not for the US to interfere in internal affairs
of others. The cultural relativist argument is that Arabs and
Arab culture is different and that it is their natural choice
to have absolute monarchies and one party states. The developmental
argument is that Arab cultures are not yet ready for democracy
and that it is not for the West to hurry them along. These arguments
are weakened by the inconsistency in their application globally.
Thus the cynic is free to conclude that the
real reason for Western support for the regimes in the Middle
East is simply about maintaining control over resources and trade.
Hundreds of thousands of Arabs attempt to migrate
to the US, Europe and Australia every year. It seems likely that
they want a share of the relative freedom, prosperity and opportunity
available there. Given the ongoing power shifts in the world,
it would be wise for Western governments to be seen to align themselves
with these aspirations and at the very least, not be perceived
to stand in their way.
Coalition building
To achieve its aims in Iraq and on the War on
Terror, the US needs the support, participation and at least the
acquiescence of other countries. Those countries must make the
decision as to which side, if any, to support. This decision depends
upon the perception of ones' interests, the alternatives, the
expectation of risks, costs and benefits, allegiance, attachment,
identity and mass group dynamics.
Iran and Saudi Arabia have much more to gain
by regime change and disarmament in Iraq than the US. But why
should they risk becoming a target and take on other costs-financial,
military, political and cultural by openly supporting the US?
It would be much easier for them to sit back and let the US bear
all the costs and risks.
Why should Germany, France, Russia and China
support the US position? They may lose out if the regime changes
to one installed or favourable to the US. They stand to gain by
opposing action if the regime stays the same. Whatever happens,
they reduce their risks and costs by avoiding getting involved.
WINNING THE
WAR ON
TERROR
Terrorists could attack "anyone, anywhere,
any time"
There has been an increase in global terrorism
recently. A US marine was killed by militants in Kuwait. A French
oil tanker was attacked near Yemen. Over 200 people were killed
in the bombing of the tourist district in Kuta, Bali. It is likely
that there will be more attacks. The Prime Ministers of both the
UK and Australia said that terrorists could attack "anyone,
anywhere, any time." Many leaders are openly speculating
about the risk that a terrorist group will access and deploy a
weapon of mass destruction. Clearly, there is an urgent need to
reduce this risk.
Maintaining clarity and effectiveness in the face
of terror, fear and anger
When terrorists commit brutal acts against innocent
people, this creates very strong feelings in all concerned.
After the initial shock come fear, anxiety and
anger. These feelings may be unbearable but still have to be dealt
with in order to be able to function. Ideally, this is done through
grief, expression of feelings and mutual support followed by dialogue,
rational analysis and development of an effective strategy.
Unfortunately, there are many possible pathological
responses that are a handicap to effective action.
People may stop listening to and communicating
with their adversaries. This may not matter if you can destroy
your enemy with acceptable costs to yourself.
Them and us
Group feelings become quite intense and can
be irrational. A cohesive group under threat, as epitomised by
Londoners during the WW2 Blitz, often become more unified, support
their leaders more and identify more strongly with their own group
as distinct from the enemy. They tend to idealise their own leader.
If you wish to provoke and maintain a conflict, this can be very
useful. Milosovic was the master of this tactic in the Balkan
Wars.
Defining who is fighting who is essential to
devising a strategy and executing it with support. Tony Blair,
among others, tried hard in the aftermath of September lfhto insist
that this was not a clash of civilisations, or religions, countries
or races but was a conflict between decent, peaceful people and
terrorists. The challenge is to make this both true and believable
for the non-Western audience.
There is often a loss of tolerance for ambivalent
or moderate positions leading to polarisation such as "you're
either with us or against us." Those who share some of the
views and identity of the "terrorists" are forced to
take sides. With six billion people mixed up into thousands of
identities, groups and sub-groups, this can be counterproductive
and not very persuasive. Some Americans asked, "Why do they
hate us so much?" Many people, even in Western Europe, felt
that the US in some way deserved and had brought upon themselves
the September 11 attacks. For someone who has been injured, bereft
or who feels threatened, this may seem to be an intolerable position,
but they will need to understand why they have been attacked to
prevent it from happening again.
Taking revenge is a natural impulse after an
attack, especially if it is felt to be undeserved or viciously
motivated. "Revenge is a dish best served cold." It
is also important to realise that pure revenge, actual or perceived,
is likely to strengthen the resolve of the enemy and increase
the support they receive. Some people felt that the attack on
Afghanistan was displaced anger and revenge. If this was not the
case, more work is needed to persuade the Muslim world of this.
Motivation for terror
A powerful recipe for violence is to feel that
one's identity, well-being or existence is threatened; that one
is not respected; not listened to; exploited and that there is
no hope that peaceful means can improve the situation. This combination
of feelings makes people feel violent impulses and makes them
more likely to act violently or support those acting violently.
This doesn't make it right, but it gives a clue as to how to tackle
the causes.
Displacing the anger onto a scapegoat and the
need to "do something"
The motivations for the pressure being put on
Iraq by the US and UK are complex. Part of the conscious or unconscious
motivation may be the displacement of anger against a frustrating
invisible enemy onto a visible, accessible one. Part of it may
also be the defensive need to do something to get a sense of control
or progress.
Fundamentally, we are dealing with the relations
between individuals and groups of people
The intense fear caused by the threat and the
difficulty and complexity of the challenge to reduce it can make
it hard to think and see clearly. One way to bring clarity is
to remember that, fundamentally, we are dealing with the relations
between individuals and groups of people. We probably take this
for granted, but by grounding ourselves in this basic reality,
we can unlock more effective strategies.
It is vital to win the hearts and minds
In many conflicts over the years, people have
come to realise that it is vital to win the hearts and minds of
the populations as a whole. Terrorists do not exist in a vacuum.
They need a supply of new recruits, finance, and logistical and
other support.
Everyone has the potential to be a terrorist or
a peaceful citizen, Communicate with your enemy, your friends
and those in between, Respect and understand your enemy
As President Bush said, he is not going to give
each terrorist therapy, until they change their behaviour. The
most committed terrorists are probably not open to persuasion
at this time. However, many of their followers and potential followers
may be. Indeed, even the most determined terrorists can make peace
and cooperate with former enemies as numerous peace processes
have shown. Nelson Mandela was once a terrorist. Thus at every
stage of the "War on Terror," it is essential to communicate
as effectively as possible with all parties.
Terrorists are not robots on automatic pilot.
While they are not the average person, it seems unlikely that
they are all evil psychopaths bent on the destruction of others
without regard for themselves or others. They are individuals
and teams who are affected by morale, motivation, determination,
leadership, teamwork etc just like anyone else.
Thus it is vital to communicate with them, ideally
face to face or in private channels, like the IRA, or at least
through the media.
It is necessary to listen to them. The labels
of "mad," "fanatic," or "evil" serve
to make it harder to understand who they are, their aims, strategy
and motivation and thus how to respond effectively.
So how does this psychological discussion bear
upon the practicalities of the War on Terror? Isn't the current
portfolio of strategies adequate?
Existing Strategies for The War on Terror
There are many active strategies for "The
War on Terror." The US and allies successfully removed the
Taliban from power and restricted the freedom of Al Quaeda in
Afghanistan. Law enforcement agencies have uncovered some conspiracies
in Morocco and Singapore. Public vigilance allegedly prevented
the destruction of a transatlantic flight by the "shoe bomber."
Increase intelligence activity has, at least, led to the arrest
of some individuals and provided modest early warnings of attacks.
Diplomatic efforts have improved the sharing of information and
cooperation between allies and between adversaries such as the
US and Iran. There is the opportunity to increase the opportunities
and hope for the poor and disempowered. There are efforts to improve
communication with the Arab populations through the media. There
are even radical discussions of promoting freedom, democracy and
openness to the populations of Muslim countries. In some quarters,
there has been a rethinking of their position on the situation
of the Palestinian people.
A psychologically sophisticated strategy can
help win the War on Terror. More effective listening, understanding
and empathy can improve clarity of analysis. It will enable us
to detect and address some of the causes of troubled relations
between the West and the Muslim World. It can help us understand
the motivations and strategy of the terrorists and their supporters.
It can inform the battle for hearts and minds through public diplomacy
in the media and other channels. It can enable leaders to choose
the right language, symbols, values and arguments to win the war
of words.
Psyplomacy is inviting experts from around the
world in psychology, psychiatry and psychotherapy to help put
this analysis and strategy together.
Please visit the Psyplomacy Forum and Articles
section to explore this further.
Dr Nicholas Beecroft BSc, MBBS, MRC Psych MBA
11 March 2005
| 
