How Terrorism Ends: Understanding the Decline and Demise of Terrorist Campaigns

by Audrey Kurth Cronin

If looked at as a form of war, terrorists use irregular violence because they are unable or unwilling to meet a government on the battlefield.8 If looked at as a form of crime, terrorists circumvent the law by using political motivations to excuse their actions.9 From the state’s perspective, force offers a readily available rejoinder to both that is firmly under its control. Seams are easily ripped open. Trying to shift the violence to a form that is familiar and more advantageous is an understandable response; this is exactly what is happening when a government declares martial law or sends forth the troops. From a position of disadvantage, terrorist violence seeks to challenge the state on two levels: among its citizens, by creating doubt about the state’s ability to protect them from harm; and internationally, by undermining traditional notions of national sovereignty. Random, politically motivated attacks against noncombatants undermine the state’s credibility at home. Attacks abroad project an image of impotence and diminish state power, or so many leaders believe, and their perceptions enhance the strategic impact of the incidents themselves. Regardless of the strength of the state, terrorism may be perceived as a threat to its power and the national interest.