ABSTRACT
The consequence of the rather narrow concentration on the supposed tactics of terrorism, gives rise to a second area of concern which is the extent to which research has dwelt on the control and prevention of political violence. To a degree this is understandable. For many people who live in environments afflicted by terrorism, howsoever defined, their sole experience of the problem is likely to be of its disruptive effects on everyday life. The immediate inclination is likely to want to be rid of the problem-not to engage in some contorted hypothetical discourse on the subject. Nevertheless, at an academic level, too much concentration on counter-responses to sub-state terrorism can make research narrowly policy prescriptive. The violent symptoms of political conflict certainly do have to be controlled by the responsible authorities charged with upholding the public good. While not denying the right of scholars or anyone else to have their say on how to tackle such matters, academics do have to tread carefully if they start to advocate detailed policy and if they are to remain true to their vocation. Part of the problem has been that much of the literature on terrorism published over the years has betrayed an over-emphasis on, and sometimes even an obsessive concern for, tactical counter-measures which leaves the analyst poorly placed to undertake the more considered long-term diagnosis of the crisis. Undue stress on counter-terrorist techniques can also lead to an equally obsessive search for a general theory of the causes of terrorism and political violence: the thinking being that if one discovers the ‘causes of terrorism’ then one will be that much more able to devise policies to eliminate the problem. Since all conflicts have very diverse origins, one is not going to obtain a very meaningful theory, only ones which are so nebulous, like ‘human nature is the cause of violence’ that they explain everything yet nothing at the same time.1
