THE TERRORIST SOCIAL NETWORK

A common misconception of terrorist networks is that they are solely violent in nature. Many terrorist networks have developed complex and sophisticated systems that provide important social services to their supporters.

These terrorist social networks thrive in the vacuum created by a failed state. A good example of this is Hamas (who may be serving as a model for al-Sadr in Iraq). Since its founding in 1987, Hamas has proven to be a well run counterweight to Yassar Arafat's corrupt Palestinian National Authority (which, in many ways is the Palestinian state). Hamas runs the following services (a more detailed outline of the Hamas structure is available here):

1) An extensive education network
2) Distribution of food to the poor
3) Youth camps and sports
4) Ederly care
5) Funding of scholarships and business development
6) Religious services
7) Public safety
8) Health care

This network of social services provides Hamas with multiple benefits. These include:

1) Popular support that shelters the organization.
2) A plentiful supply of recruits for its terrorist mission.
3) Sources of external funding through charity organizations that support their social mission (much of which can be redirected to the terrorist mission) and funding through a small number of profitable businesses.

The rise of terrorist social services indicates that the loose networks that power terrorist military organizations can also replicate the social responsibilities of nation-states. As a challenger to the nation-state system, this capability speaks volumes.

This leads me to think that there is a generalized ("business") model that can be derived for fully developed terrorist organizations operating in failed states. However, any model developed must accomodate the decentralized decision making process used to make Hamas survivable. I will work on this and post.

Comments

[MattJ]

Excellent post. This is an important aspect of how Hamas works. Too little attention is paid to this aspect.

Thanks for casting more light on this topic.

-- MattJ

[Richard Tallent]

In a country with a rich social network like the US, similar observations could be made about gangs and organized crime:

- They give troubled youth a sense of belonging
- They provide protection to their members
- They create jobs through illegal activity
- They preserve the cultural identity of their community by preventing businesses or residents of different backgrounds from moving in.
- They provide after-school activities
- They educate their young members on the evils of other organizations and the ruling government

True, Hamas does "step up" more than your average inner-city gang, but, like you mentioned, their need for community support (to appear "legitimate" so they can further their cause) is much higher, and the lack of social services offers them that opportunity.

But let us not forget that their mission is nothing less than the complete destruction of the state of Israel (all of it, not just the West Bank) and the return of all of Palestine to their control. Hitler (oops! Godwin's Law invoked) and Hussein both had hospitals and schools (and legit sovreignty to boot), we wouldn't exactly call them humanitarians.

[rob]

I wonder if it would be helpful then, to find a new label to describe groups like Hamas. Calling these groups 'terrorist networks' creates one mental image of the enemy that isn't necessarily helpful in determining ways to neutralize them.

[John Robb]

The name "terrorist" is a problem. The reason is that non-state groups represent a more of a multiplexed threat to the nation-state system than is commonly understood. Terrorist just doesn't sum it up (although it does correctly evoke the proper level of caution).

It is important to understand this aspect of terrorist networks. It offers many inisghts into how they may be disrupted but it doesn't play into "Red Menace" type thinking.

[johnc]

What "terrorist" evokes is the apocalyptic vision which requires a totalitarian plan, which in turn requires terrorism - in the literal sense of trying to terrorize or frighten people - to play out the vision. That fits Hamas, Hizballah, bin Laden, Falluja and al Sadr. It also fits the GIS et al in Algeria. Interestingly, it also fits the unpolitical rebel movements in Angola, Mozambique and most recently in Sierra Leone and Liberia. It fits the sporadic, unorganized, superstitious Islamist outbreaks in northern Nigeria.

There seems to be a kernel of desperation there which generates the apocalyptic story. As soon as it hits the media, Western groupies "respect" it, which starts the legitimation of it.

Paul Berman's Terror and Liberalism addresses this in some depth with regard to the mainstream Sunni Islamism that spawned al Qaeda.

[Alan]

'terrorist' is getting to be a word without content. At least one meaning has to be 'future president who has not yet been elected'. Nelson Mandela was once called a terrorist (By Cheney among others). The first president in each African nation was (almost without exception) a terrorist until independence was granted.

When the WoT was first launched it applied to terrorist groups with global reach and that was in response to the demand by Arab states that various Palestinian groups not be included in the WoT's ambit. That caveat seems to have faded with time.

We are undoubtedly at war with a particular global terrorist network by calling it by a clearer name would, just possibly, lead to clarity of thought in opposing it.

[Andrea]

Why does rob call Hamas 'the enemy'? Hamas is a resistence movement against violent occupation. We may object to their means, and I am the first one to, but the Palestinians just want their land and their water back, pretty legitimate demands.
This column seems to have fallen to the propaganda double-speak of Bush & Co. In Iraq there is terror from organised criminals and terror from the American occupation army, which has killed at least 10000 civilians.
Wouldn't you Americans also revolt if a foreign power was occupying your country, with the purpose of exploiting your resources?

[John Robb]

To be more precise, terrorism is a method of warfare. A terrorist is a person that uses that method of warfare. However, it does break down as a term with meaning when applied to larger organizations that have social functions. If you define these groups only by their method of warfare, you miss much of what is going on (which limits your policy options).

The term also runs into problems if group attacks infrastructure/property only in an attempt to minimize collatoral deaths/injuries (like PETA and Earth First). A better term for this group's method of warfare is sabotage.

[johnc]

The "ism" in "terrorism" is an important key for dealing with organizations that make killing people a point of principle.

Like noxious weeds, they may put down roots in untended ground by distributing food and providing social services where lack of governance has caused the economy to cease to function. But the fruit they bear are their defining characteristic, and their fruit are "strange" to quote Billie Holiday.

This is not to say that terrorism cannot be combated through good governance; of course it has to be. But if we miss the point about their apocalyptic story leading inexorably to terrorism - to killing as many people as possible and the more innocent the better - we miss the key point about terrorism.

[Michael Bernstein]

On Terror vs. Sabotage:

There are still shades of grey in the distinction, for example the practice of spiking trees to sabotage logging operations can (and has) resulted in humans being harmed.

On the 'cover' that non-military operations provide:

There are several venerable examples of this. Most of the Marxist revolutionary parties attempted to provide rudimentary social services and organizational infrastructure, and in fact usually didn't have much of a military operation going at all (instead co-opting the existing military). And the IRA has long split responsibilities between the military and political wings of the organization.

[johnc]

Yes. Not everyone who uses violence is a terrorist. Not even everybody who kills people to get there way is a terrorist.

Terrorists purposely kill people who are just going about their business because that terrorizes people. That is terrorism. Attacking soldiers (or any armed combatants) or even attacking political leaders is not terrorism. That is warfare or political violence. It is accompanied by - hopefully led by - a political project.

Take Hamas for example. Hamas was founded with the objective of eliminating Israel, a totalitarian goal which made terrorism its only weapon - there's no political plan. al Qaeda has never put forward a political project. The latest groups identifying with it hardly say anything at all publicly (and for all we know they haven't even said what little we think they've said). al Sadr first came to our attention last year by hacking to death a fellow imam in a mosque.

[Bill Seitz]

Sounds like a busines model: Hamas-ter.

[John Robb]

Bill, that is exactly it. Al Sadr basically said that he wanted to open up a Hamas and Hezbollah franchise in Iraq. Experts were perplexed (what does this mean?). The answer is that he was adopting their social/military business model.

[Dan August]

Good and evil is perfectly able to co-exist. And they will probably exert influence on eachother.
It is often assumed that evil will corrupt good. But sometimes it works the other way around too.
Maybe the social welfare programme of Hamas will some day - in years time - overshadow the terrorist/violent activities and make them obsolete.
Maybe we are witnessing the first baby steps of nation building made by the Palestinian people itself and not instituted by the UN or some other power.
Maybe I'm just too naïve, but I vaguely remember what ANC was before and now is in South Africa.
Thought anyone?

[Fred]

what the hell are you all talking about , you must be americans geesh
just because you help out someone's country your not a terrorist, they call it that way because the party that is hit isnt happy with it, now americans are called terrorist(with reason) because they kill innocent iraques
this is lame , if i kick a police officer i am a criminal , if he does the same to me, he's not
if iraq fights usa they are terrorists.. if usa fights iraq we are not .. hmm something not right here
if cia help colombians to move drugs into usa because usa needs it to boost their economy(and yes this is true), then what are they? , good people ofcourse because they help the usa economy
you know why usa wanted a hand in afghanistan?.. you guessed it.. there drugs that usa needs to help their economy next to its strategical position
if iran was attacking USA wouldnt do a thing to prevent it, why? because its not in USA's economic interest, iraq is because of their oil and thats the "ONLY" reason why they attacked iraq.. to keep it in hands, and thats the only reason why usa does not interfere in other warts.. because there's nothing in usa's interest
By the way CIA trained osama bin laden and gave him and saddam hussein billions of money and weapons, NO WHO IS THE TERRORIST? .... right!