INR4084 Discussion 6: Major attacks and group survival
Question # 49555 | Writing | 8 months ago |
---|
$4 |
---|
Discussion 6: Major attacks and group survival
When terrorist groups launch major attacks against civilians, they can often expect an overwhelming military response from the target state. For instance, the United States sent its military to invade Afghanistan in response to the 9/11 attacks. The invasion not only severely damaged Al-Qaeda, but also removed their Taliban sponsors from power in Afghanistan. Likewise, while Israel's disproportionate response in Gaza may not destroy Hamas completely, it will severely degrade the group and hamper their ability to function for the foreseeable future.
At the same time, one of the key assumptions of the organizational approach is that groups prioritize their own survival, often above all other priorities. Not only that, but they also seek to maintain a positive reputation among those they claim to represent. While many Palestinians share Hamas' goal of resistance against Israel, they also likely resent the group for provoking the Israeli invasion.
This raises the question of why groups would carry out such an attack, even while likely knowing that a debilitating response from the target state is likely. Why would groups put their survival in jeopardy by doing this? Is it simply a miscalculation? Perhaps groups rearrange their priorities under certain conditions. Or does this point to a weakness of the organizational approach?
_______________________________________
i will provide you two student post as well you have to reply them.
