Terrorist groups worldwide all have different backgrounds and histories, but what they share in common is how they use violence to achieve their goals. New research finds that government responses in the form of verbal threats might have unintended consequences.
The study analyzed connections between verbal and military attacks by governments and terrorist attacks on militaries and civilians. The analysis found that while governments most often respond to terrorist attacks with verbal threats, those threats provoke additional terrorist attacks against civilians. The study, published in PNAS Nexus, is the first of its kind to model these dynamics.
“When we see increased verbal attacks by governments on these extremist groups, the groups respond by increasing their attacks on civilians,” said Brandon Kinne, a professor of political science in the College of Letters and Science at UC Davis and the study’s lead author. “So as a result of verbal actions by governments, you get actual humanitarian consequences.”
The broader implications of counterterrorism strategies
The study, with co-authors from the University of Southern Mississippi and the University of Arizona, modeled the relationship between government actions and actions taken by the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). ISIS was a major threat in the Middle East between 2013 and 2020.
The data covers the years 2014 to 2020 and come from the Integrated Crisis Early Warning System (ICEWS). ICEWS data provides detailed, machine-coded information from global news sources. The team used this data to model relationships and time lags between government and terrorist attacks and responses.
As the researchers expected, verbal threats from governments followed terrorist attacks on civilians, but it also returned an unexpected result. Governments’ verbal threats also provoke attacks, and the majority of those attacks are against civilians.
“It's easier for them to attack civilians than it is for them to attack military targets, but it also demonstrates their willingness to really hurt civilian populations so that they will be taken seriously as a credible organization,” said Nahrain Bet Younadam, a postdoctoral research associate at the University of Arizona and a co-author on the study.
After government threats, terrorist attacks on civilians continued for an average of two weeks but peaked two days after. At that two-day mark, about three verbal attacks from governments leads to one additional attack against civilians. By comparison, 10 military attacks by governments resulted in one extra attack against civilians. Between 2013 and 2016, every ISIS attack killed six people on average.
“There's a kind of an assumption that words don't hurt, that it's all cheap talk, it doesn't matter and a lot of governments seem to use that as just a way of like looking like they care about an issue and rather than dealing with it directly,” said Kinney. “What we find is that verbal conflict appears to be uniquely powerful in triggering violence toward civilians.”
Why do verbal attacks on terrorist groups increase civilian violence?
Kinne said these dynamics are consistent with the idea that a government’s verbal attacks create a credibility gap that terrorist organizations fill with violence. Attacks against civilians are a means to show they are serious about achieving their goals.
“Attacks against civilians are all about these groups trying to look credible when they make demands against governments,” said Kinne. “Even in their publications, these groups will sometimes quote foreign leaders after an attack and say maybe they're finally starting to realize they should take us seriously.”
For the study’s qualitative research, Bet Younadam read and analyzed the ISIS publication Dabiq, which ran monthly for about two years. She found that the publication systematically and comprehensively reported statements against ISIS not only from national and foreign governments but also from think tanks and other organizations.
One of the clearest examples of connecting statements against ISIS and a civilian attack came in 2016, when Iraqi government leadership made a public comment that the terrorist organization was being defeated. ISIS responded with an attack on a public market, killing hundreds, then printed in Dabiq that the attack was in response to the government’s statement.
“With the use of technology and kind of like this online platform to communicate to a bigger audience, I think that this type of communication by terrorist organizations may become more common practice moving forward,” said Bet Younadam.
Kinne said that governments are in a bind when it comes to responding. On the one hand, accountability to voters puts pressure on government leaders to take action. On the other hand, military action puts soldiers’ lives at risk. This study on its own does not suggest a better course of action.
“The only safe inference that you can get out of this study is that using verbal threats to show you care about an attack might have unexpected consequences,” said Kinne.
YOU MAY ALSO LIKE THESE STORIES
Political Polarization is Not Unique to the U.S., but its Causes Are
Hostility for people in opposing political parties in the U.S. has been increasing for decades. Research in political science is at the frontier of more detailed measures of polarization that show what drives those feelings. This research provides insight on what might change the course of the nation.
Preserving Human Rights Archives in Peru: UC Davis Leads New Digitization Project to Safeguard an Endangered History
Historian Charles Walker was awarded a $100,000 grant to digitize archives from three major human rights organizations in Peru. With this funding from the UCLA Library’s Modern Endangered Archives Program, this project will preserve documents that chart a history of human rights in the country.