Does terrorism work? Does it lead to a charge is policy? Does it provoke a desired response? Does it effect public opinion? Does it lead people to take a path they might not otherwise have taken? Do actors gain an influence over political processes - a seat at the table - that they might not otherwise have had? Does it offer practitioners a path to self-realisation?
If we are concerned with rationality, the real question is not whether terrorism works, but whether it is perceived to work by those who practice it.
English (2019:14-16): To assess whether terrorism works, we need to ask:
- were better means of achieving the same ends available?
- does success in achieving stated objectives justify the means?
- Whom does terrorism work for?
- What is a reasonable timeline for assessing success?
- If we see the creation of new political structures, should we assess the creation as a success, or do we need to wait to see the impact of those structures?
- how do we account for different goals held by different people at different times?
- how do we prioritise different goals?
- how do we establish causation?
- how do we gain access to the necessary evidence to answer any of these questions?
English (2019:30): List of what could be considered metrics of success:
- “strategic victory, with the achievement of a central, primary goal or goals
- partial strategic victory, in which:
- one partially achieved one’s central, primary goal(s)
- one achieved or partially achieved one’s secondary (rather than central, primary) strategic goal(s)
- one determined the agenda, thereby preventing one’s opponents from securing victory
- tactical success, in terms of:
- operational successes
- the securing of interim concessions
- the acquisition of publicity
- the undermining of opponents
- the gaining or maintaining of control over a population
- organizational strengthening
- the inherent rewards for struggle as such, independent of central goals.”
English (2019:31): "terrorists might legitimately claim that their violence had worked if they had pursued 100 percent and, through their activities, brought about what they saw as a very important achievement of a 60 per cent political change in the right direction. Most human ambition an a large scale fulls short of full achievement of prior goals, so this possibility seems of high importance in any realistic and fair-minded assessment"
English (2019:35): "terrorist violence might also be judged to have worked tactically if it variously secures the undermining of one's opponents." This includes delegitimising the regime; making supporting it less attractive; destabilising the status quo; damaging the regime's credibility or reputation; demoralising the enemy; or provoking counter-productive responses.