What Terrorists Want: Understanding the Enemy, Containing the Threat

by Louise Richardson

Book Overview

"This is at the top of my list for best books on terrorism."
-Jessica Stern, author of Terror in the Name of God: Why Religious Militants Kill

How can the most powerful country in the world feel so threatened by an enemy infinitely weaker than we are? How can loving parents and otherwise responsible citizens join terrorist movements? How can anyone possibly believe that the cause of Islam can be advanced by murdering passengers on...

• Format: Paperback
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0812975448
• ISBN13: 9780812975444
• Release Date: November 2007
• Publisher: Random House Publishing Group
• Length: 336 Pages
• Weight: 0.04 lbs.
• Dimensions: 0.8" x 5.5" x 8.2"

Customer Reviews

Barack and Every Member of Congress Should Read this Book

This book untangled all of my chaotic little pieces of knowledge about terrorists, and put them back together in a coherent framework. Her explanation of the formal definition of terrorism makes the definition a powerful tool. And the final chapter of the book in which she offers her prescriptions for dealing with terrorists makes complete sense. I hope that every world leader reads this book.

America needs to heed this advice

An excellent book by someone who has studied terrorism since long before 9/11. Starting with a deep understanding of how terrorist groups form and why people join them, she works her way to advice on crafting policy (For example, rather than determining whether a given policy is hard on terrorism or soft on terrorism, she recommends asking "Is it effective? And at what cost?") culminating with a list of six "rules for combatting terrorism". A must read for anyone who wants to advocate for change!

what could be more important than this?

This is an outstanding, extremely thoughtful discussion of terrorism, past, present and future AND of effective ways to combat it. It should be required reading for anyone in government working on the problem, especially those at the top (i.e. Bush Administration) and important reading for the rest of us. As the author says, the critical question is not WHO is tough or soft on terrorism, but what is EFFECTIVE against terrorism, and she thoroughly answers that question. Great job, Louise Richardson!

An excellent primer on the nature of terrorism

The author has produced a text that would be ideal for an undergraduate study of terrorism. She clearly defines what she views as terrorism, (although others may not agree with her view) then systematically and effectively explains how terrorists are drawn to their cause, and what they are trying to achieve by their actions. She then suggests how governments can respond more effectively to the terrorist threat. Throughout, the writing style is clear, the examples effective, and the author's knowledge of the topic very comprehensive. She presents a compelling and convincing case for her recommendations using examples from numerous terrorist conflicts. Having grown up in Northern Ireland and witnessed human cruelty exercised in the name of a "cause", I find it hard to comprehend how anyone can turn to terrorism. Yet this book helps explain why that course is chosen by some without in any way justifying that action. In additon, it describes those conditions in a society that may help foster terrorists and terrorism. Unlike other reviewers I do not view the omission of criticism of specific US administration individuals as a fault with the book. In the context of this book that seems to me to be the right approach. However, the excellent analysis of terrorists that it contains will make it crystal-clear to readers that combatting terrorists worldwide is a completely separate effort to the military engagement in Iraq. They are not now, and have never been, related in reality - only in the minds of those responsible. Combatting terrorism is a long-term effort primarily comprising international, political, social, law enforcement, judicial, and intelligence elements with only a limited military component. In addition, it requires us to think about what we mean when we use the words "victory" and "defeat", as these are not always as clear as we might like when discussing situations involving terrorism. That leads me to the one area of the work that did not sit comfortably with me. The author states that certain repressive, totalitarian governments of Latin America did manage to "defeat" (my quotes) terrorists but at an unacceptably high cost to their societies. I understand this assertion, but it does not sit well with me as I wonder, who suffered? was it those who actually carried out terrorist acts? or did they escape while others were punished? If we send terrorists underground and punish many innocents among a few terrorists is that "victory"? Anyway, my personal discomfort aside, the author is clearly more knowledgeable than me in this area and justifies all her statements throughout the book. Overall then, I would recommend this book to anyone who wishes a clear, concise text that defines terrorism, that explains why terrorists do what they do, and how governments and societies can resist.

Everything Bush-Cheney Refused to Listen To...

This is without question one of a handful of books that must be read by anyone who is serious about neutralizing terrorism as a tactic, avoiding the incitement of more terrorism, and acting professionally and morally around the globe. Sadly, that does not include the neo-conservatives who substitute dogma for reality, and war profiteering for peacemaking. Unlike Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism by Professor Robert Pape, which I highly recommend as a complement to this book, the author here has written a definitive history, a rational appreciation, and ends with six specific recommendations, each of which has been gleefully and ignorantly violated by the current Administration, which now declares Bin Laden to be "irrelevant" and continues to cover up the fact that Rumsfeld authorized the Pakistanis to fly 3000 Al Qaeda out of Tora Bora, and Rumsfeld refused to order a Ranger battalion in to capture Bin Laden during the four days that CIA has "eyes on" and tracked him to the border (see my reviews of Jawbreaker: The Attack on Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda: A Personal Account by the CIA's Key Field Commander and First In: An Insider's Account of How the CIA Spearheaded the War on Terror in Afghanistan). While the author gets very high marks for putting together the most current, most in-depth, and most professional review of the subject, there is little here that is new to those of us who have been focused on revolution, instability, and the TACTIC of terrorism for the past 30 years. Terrorism is a law enforcement issue, in the context of a comprehensive stabilization and reconstruction program that--as the author recommends--isolates the terrorists from complicit communities. See also Rage of the Random Actor: Disarming Catastrophic Acts And Restoring Lives by Dan Korem for the home-grown "postal" or "Columbine" counter-part to the more altruistically-motivate terrorists. Our own summary of terrorism, which is threat number nine out of ten identified by the High-Level Threat Panel of the United Nations, reads as follows: "The 'war on terror' must fail because it is a self-defeating slogan. To make war on a tactic -- a raid, a breakout, an asymmetric attack on civilians, the use of chemical weapons -- makes no sense. These tactics have worked well throughout history and will continue to. `Terrorist" tactics were used by Americans against the British in the 1770's, by the Israelis against the British, by Algerians against the French. Progress is only possible if the problem is clearly defined ... as global militant Islam. It may be political correctness that prevents that definition, or it may be that there is a genuine misunderstanding of the problem. Once confronted, the origins of global militant Islam are largely well-defined and, with sufficient cooperation by a range of nations, is a relatively simple problem to treat." The author could not have written a more compelling indictment of Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Rice. They a