Use this URL to cite or link to this record in EThOS: http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.552372
Title: How resisting democracies can defeat substate terrorism : formulating a theoretical framework for strategic coercion against nationalistic substate terrorist organizations
Author: Berger, Michael Andrew
Awarding Body: University of St Andrews
Current Institution: University of St Andrews
Date of Award: 2010
Availability of Full Text:
Access from EThOS:
Access from Institution:
Abstract:
The following dissertation develops a theoretical framework for guiding the strategy of democratic states in successfully countering the hostilities of nationalistic substate terrorist organizations (NSTOs), and effectively manipulating the terrorist group’s (and its supporting elements’) decision-making calculus. In particular, the theory of strategic coercion has been chosen as a basis for formulating this framework, based upon: 1) the invaluable guidance it offers in dynamically drawing upon all instruments of national power—economic, diplomatic, military, etc.—to accomplish politico-strategic objectives; and 2) the unique insights it provides into making strategic moves aimed at influencing the choices taken by an adversary. However, strategic coercion theory as it currently stands is inadequate for applications against substate terrorist organizations. As a quintessential cornerstone for prescriptive policy in strategic studies, such a looming deficiency vis-à-vis one the most important security threats of the modern age is unacceptable. The new theoretical framework established in this dissertation—entitled the Balance Theory of strategic coercion—addresses this deficiency. The Balance Theory stresses that three key coercive elements of strategic coercion are fundamentally important for successfully ending the hostilities posed by NSTOs, being: A) Isolation of external/international support; B) Denial; and C) Isolation of popular support. It posits that these three aspects of strategic coercion serve as the sine qua non for success in countering an NSTO’s campaign of violence and effectively manipulating its decision-making process. Implementation of these three elements, moreover, must be pursued in tandem, taking care so as not to sacrifice one aspect for the other. The Balance Theory is tested through the employment of case-study analysis. In pursuing this end, both cross-case and within-case analyses are performed, accompanied by the utilization of the methods of focused, structured comparison. The cases examined are those of: 1) The United Kingdom versus Republican NSTOs (1969-2007); and 2) Israel versus Palestinian NSTOs (1967-present). The dissertation concludes with an examination of how the Balance Theory may provide insights for the formulation of counter-terrorism strategy against Al Qaeda in the current "War on Terror".
Supervisor: Lang, Anthony F.; Boyle, Michael Sponsor: Not available
Qualification Name: Thesis (Ph.D.) Qualification Level: Doctoral
EThOS ID: uk.bl.ethos.552372  DOI: Not available
Keywords: Terrorism ; Terror ; Counter-terrorism ; Counter-terror ; Coercion ; Strategic coercion ; Counterterrorism ; Strategic studies ; Strategy ; Al Qaeda ; Al Qa'ida ; Substate threat ; Insurgency ; Counter-insurgency ; Coercive diplomacy ; Military coercion ; IRA ; Northern Ireland ; Palestinian Territories ; Israel ; Hamas ; Fatah ; Terrorists ; Insurgents ; War on terror ; Nationalistic terrorist organization ; Deterrence ; Grand strategy ; Popular support ; Policy ; Government policy ; National defense ; Defence ; United Kingdom ; American ; United States ; Democracies ; HV6431.B464 ; Terrorism ; Terrorism--Prevention--Government policy ; Terrorism--Prevention--Government policy--Great Britain ; Terrorism--Prevention--Government policy--Israel ; National security ; Civil defense ; Strategic culture ; Great Britain--Foreign relations--Ireland ; Israel--Foreign relations--Palestine
Share: