To a bystander, a terrorist attack may seem an indiscriminate act of violence, timed solely to inflict maximum damage on its victims.
But the timing of such attacks is strategic, involving a series of tradeoffs to strike vulnerable targets while preserving the group's reputation, according to research by Binghamton University Professor of Political Science Seden Akcinaroglu and doctoral candidate Yusuf Evirgen. Published in the journal Conflict Management and Peace Science, their article "Ripe moments for terror attacks: Opportunity benefits-reputation tradeoff" explores this dynamic.
"Reputation is crucial for terrorist groups because it affects their ability to gain public support, attract recruits, and negotiate with governments," Evirgen and Akcinaroglu explained. "A negative reputation can alienate potential supporters and invite harsher counterterrorism measures."
For terrorists, the purpose of violence goes beyond just instilling fear. Terrorist groups engage in violence to achieve strategic goals, such as undermining government legitimacy, achieving policy changes through coercion, and demonstrating the group's resolve, Akcinaroglu and Evirgen said. Violence can also communicate strength to rivals, supporters or potential recruits.
"The choice of timing and target often conveys a specific message about the group's objectives," they explained.
On the other hand, indiscriminate violence can harm a group's reputation, particularly when it results in civilian casualties that alienate the larger public. Terrorist groups will sometimes avoid claiming responsibility for particularly brutal attacks to avoid this backlash, they said.
What differentiates indiscriminate and deliberate violence is targeting; while the former affects random people, the latter focuses on perceived enemies, such as government officials or military targets.
Humanitarian, security and financial crises
Acts of violence often occur during periods of crisis when state resources are stretched thin. But not all crises are created equal.
Akcinaroglu and Evirgen analyze three types of crises in connection with terrorist attacks: security crises, which involve war or the threat of war; financial crises, such as recessions or economic downturns; and humanitarian crises, such as natural disasters.
While security or financial crises represent targets of opportunity, terrorists are less likely to strike during humanitarian crises, they found; the shared human suffering during humanitarian crises creates an environment in which violence is particularly condemned. In these situations, terrorist groups will often participate in relief efforts to improve their public image. Examples include the PKK after the 1999 earthquake in Izmit, Turkey, and the Free Aceh Movement in Indonesia following a 2005 tsunami.
In humanitarian crises, tensions across ethnic and social divides are subsumed by a larger compassion. Security and financial crises, on the other hand, exacerbate these divides, eroding empathy as groups compete for resources or political power.
For terrorist groups, financial crises provide the best opportunity to strike.
Threats of war can trigger a "rally around the flag" effect, boosting the perception of government legitimacy and reducing support for terrorist groups, although persistent ethnic or political divisions can still provide them with an opening.
"There is also evidence that some governments may exaggerate or manufacture security threats to unify the population and justify repressive measures," Akcinaroglu and Evirgen said.
Economic downturns, on the other hand, can weaken state legitimacy and public trust. Reforms intended to address the crisis often lead to mass layoffs, the collapse of social safety nets and widespread bankruptcies, which deepen divisions in society.
Terrorist groups can exploit the fragmented public response at little reputational cost. The researchers point to the Indonesian financial crisis of 1997 to 1998, which not only destabilized that country's economy, but fueled widespread violence against ethnic Chinese.
"Understanding these patterns can help policymakers anticipate and mitigate attacks more effectively," the researchers said. "The research also challenges the notion that terrorists act purely opportunistically-reputation matters, and their decisions reflect careful cost-benefit calculations."
