What do you think?
Rate this book
Wat terroristen willen : de vijand begrijpen, de dreiging beteugelen
Louise Richardson doceert politicologie en rechten aan de Harvard Universiteit in de Verenigde Staten. Haar hele professionele leven houdt ze zich al bezig met de vraag: wat willen terroristen, wat zijn hun drijfveren, wat zijn oorzaak en gevolg? Sinds het midden van de jaren negentig doceert ze over dit onderwerp aan Harvard. Na de aanslagen van september 2001 kwam dit onderwerp in een brede publieke belangstelling. Deze vlot leesbare verhandeling bestaat uit twee delen. In deel 1 gaat de auteur in op de terroristen. Wat is terrorisme, terrorisme in het verleden, wat zijn de oorzaken, de motieven wraak, roem en actie en ten slotte de vraag: waarom doden terroristen zichzelf? In deel 2 richt Richardson zich op de terreurbestrijders. Wat is er na 11 september 2001 veranderd en wat niet, waarom de oorlog tegen het terrorisme volgens haar niet gewonnen kan worden en de vraag: wat staat ons dan wel te doen? Voor een ieder, die in deze thema's is geïnteresseerd, al dan niet uit professionele overwegingen, is dit boek een uitstekende inleiding over een veelbesproken onderwerp. Het boek is voorzien van een uitgebreide bibliografie en een duidelijke verklarende woordenlijst. Geen illustraties. Een prima inleiding over een actueel onderwerp voor een groot publiek.
(E. Westerhuis)
(E. Westerhuis)
351 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2006
51 people are currently reading
1489 people want to read
About the author
Louise Richardson
24 books5 followersLouise Richardson is executive dean of the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study, a senior lecturer in government at Harvard, and a lecturer on law at Harvard Law School. She lectures widely on terrorism and international security and has appeared on CNN, the BBC, PBS, NPR, and a host of other media outlets. Born in Ireland, she is now an American citizen and a resident of Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 39 reviews
May 28, 2016
I really wanted to like this book as it's difficult to find a more measured, social science approach to the study of terrorism that is not from a law enforcement "evil doers!" perspective. There were several things I appreciated about the book by Louise Richardson, a Harvard professor born in Ireland with a personal background influenced by the IRA--the way it rather directly answers questions the general audience has "where have terrorists come from" "what is terrorism" "Why do terrorists kill themselves," etc. It also doesn't lapse into ideological rambling. It does not pretend to be a compendium of every terrorist movement and is compact, nor does it rely on jargon. However, as compact and accessible as it is, it suffered from some exasperating editing problems that can make reading painful. There are constant redundancies...sometimes within the span of a few pages, Richardson will repeat exactly what she has stated previously. That's an editing issue that should have been resolved by the press. Also, because she throws in so many examples of terrorist groups often she repeats the identifying information about them or their leader, another example of redundancy. Especially in the last two chapters where she describes why the war on terror can't be won and what to do about it, you get the sense you've read a lot of what she's said already. I also don't know if she was served well by the tactic of mentioning many terrorists groups but then not going in depth into any of them, with the possible exception of Al Qaeda and the IRA. Her treatment of right-wing extremism was maddeningly superficial "Tim MCVeigh's action..appeared to be a one-off attack by a deranged extremist," when in fact right wing extremism has been a rising concern in the United States and law enforcement agencies see it as a central concern. She also completely leaves out and does not theorize issue-oriented terrorist groups like ALF or ELF. How do those fit into the picture.
In terms of substantive issues, I think a large failure of the book was that it felt unsatisfying in its very slick divorcing of the actions of a repressive and unethical government from the category of "terrorism" and slapping the label of "criminal"/ "Terrorist" on only substate actors with little power. By her own definition, "using violence of the threat of violence for a political purpose that includes the deliberate targeting of civilians," governmental actors *certainly* can and should be included. She talks about the IRA without mentioning the history of British imperialism/repression/crimes against the Irish, for instance. While certainly one has to keep analytical rigor, nevertheless her insistence of this a lack of engagement with tricky ethical issues (and glaring avoidance of the "Palestinian Question") does itself lead to a certain ideological interpretation of the world order.
Unfortunately this book now feels completely outdated (it was published in 2007) as it doesn't have any references to the development of ISIS. I hope she updates.
In terms of substantive issues, I think a large failure of the book was that it felt unsatisfying in its very slick divorcing of the actions of a repressive and unethical government from the category of "terrorism" and slapping the label of "criminal"/ "Terrorist" on only substate actors with little power. By her own definition, "using violence of the threat of violence for a political purpose that includes the deliberate targeting of civilians," governmental actors *certainly* can and should be included. She talks about the IRA without mentioning the history of British imperialism/repression/crimes against the Irish, for instance. While certainly one has to keep analytical rigor, nevertheless her insistence of this a lack of engagement with tricky ethical issues (and glaring avoidance of the "Palestinian Question") does itself lead to a certain ideological interpretation of the world order.
Unfortunately this book now feels completely outdated (it was published in 2007) as it doesn't have any references to the development of ISIS. I hope she updates.
July 7, 2008
I was actually highly impressed with this book, and that's strong praise considering it's one that typically I would not seek out. I would have to say my understanding of terrorism has expanded by a factor of 5, thanks to this book, both from a psychological and a political perspective. I found it a thoughtful read, and noticed, in the wake of reading it, that much of the world's news makes even more sense to me. I wish I had better words to describe my reaction, but this type of book is so far outside my typical arena, thoughts fail me. If you have an opportunity to borrow a copy of this book, I'd highly recommend it to anyone wanting a better insight into how terrorists operate, why various nations struggle to contain them, and what we can do to limit the effectiveness of terrorism as a tactic.
December 24, 2018
هام جدا لمن يرغب بزيادة معرفته حول موضوع الإرهاب.لا يتوفر باللغة العربية. ع.ب
October 2, 2019
Growing up in the midst of the troubles in Ireland, Louise Richardson got to see first-hand how a culture might evolve to nurture ethnonational terrorism. Students learned a myth that transformed a few violent radical activists from 1916 into freedom martyrs, notwithstanding that their major direct accomplishment (per Richardson) had been primarily to seize a few government buildings in Dublin and take pot shots at the population. In keeping with her view that it was not the actions of armed radicals but an overwhelming British military response that did the lion's (and the unicorn's?) share of the damage of the Easter Rising, the events of the years that followed are widely credited as leading to Irish independence. Inspired by learning the discrepancy betweeen the ways the British and Irish viewed the same historical events, Richardson became obsessed with discovering what defines terrorism, what terrorists hope to achieve, and therefore what constitutes effective antiterrorist policy, all this forming the substance of this book.
Although there turn out to be some commonalities from group to group, the answers really vary on a case by case basis. Here it has to be noted that Richardson's work was published prior to Osama Bin Laden's assassination and is thus overdue for an update, yet remains pretty timely in surveying, cataloging, and distinguishing the great variety of terrorist movements around the world from the past 100 years. Sprinkling the same exemplars throughout the book (so, consider this more a 3 1/2 than 4-star book), the author flits around the world and throughout time for anecdotal evidence of her arguments, predominantly drawing from published and private interviews with members of Irish nationalist movements, al Qaeda, Shining Path (Peru), Tamil Tigers (Indonesia), and Chechnyen fighters (Russia). She might have had more to include, but bum luck scuttled a planned interfaith conference of religious zealots and academics: it seems that one or two antisemitic groups objected to the inclusion of Jews. Who could have foreseen that? It's probably just as well, anyway, considering that the event was scheduled to be held on September 11, 2001. Um... who could have foreseen that?
Per Richardson, a terrorist is (1) any person or substate group who (2) targets unspecified civilians (3) for political purposes (4) with violence or the threat of violence (5) to "send a message" (6) usually of a symbolic nature (7) to a third party audience. To a person, terrorist group affiliation tends to appeal to disaffected individuals alienated from the dominant culture who, following some critical exposure to/indoctrination by a traumatized group, are led to empathize with their privations and/or ideology. Whether they then become a leader or follower remains contingent on their personal means, charisma, and the existence or lack thereof of a preexisting structure. From this standpoint, an ethnonationalist group can remain a long-standing threat to the extent that they are able to harbor or cultivate the sympathies of the community around them (the IRA and Maoist Shining Path were good examples of this).
Such groups can even win victory by eliciting state reaction (albeit a Pyrrhic victory in the case of the Shining Path). At page 185, Richardson observes, "The Argentine, Brazilian, and Chilean military governments of the late 1960s/early 1970s "eradicated insurgent terrorism… [but n]o government could practice such tactics and remain a democracy, since the rule of law is replaced by the rule of force." She cautions at page 179 that "the military is too blunt an instrument to be relied upon exclusively to counter terrorism effectively." In this she paraphrases Cypriot nationalist George Grivas at page 185, "Declaring a war on terrorism, and dispatching an army to fight it, is very much a case of using a tank to catch a field mouse" where a cat will do the job better.
What do terrorists seek? At this superficial metalevel, terrorists can be painted with a broad brush. Writ large, they all seem to want some combination of revenge, renown, and reaction. "There is no greater affront to terrorists than to be ignored," she states at page 198, advocating the adoption of a targeted, kidnap-and-trial policy, covert assassination, and counterpropaganda as means of containing the spread of terrorist cells and toxic ideologies. "By pursuing terrorists like the criminals they are..," she continues, "outside the limelight and with painstaking and necessarily covert action, one can undermine their effectiveness without raising profiles."
Note that a different set of strategies is implied for treating the leaders of religious movements. Kill or vanish them, and they are easily transformed into martyrs. Arrest and try them, and a state risks providing them a platform from which they might amplify their message. Best to isolate them to a remote hinterland that limits their access to recruits and the proliferation of their message. Fundamentalist religions themselves present signature challenges to national integrity absent the acceptance of the separation of church and state as an established norm. The major religions are transnational in scope, commit their adherents to extrinsic values granted divine influence (and so to be accepted without nuance or exception), and unify their membership beneath the standard of a transcendental force whose dictates are subject to the interpretation of wholly mortal leadership. Recruitment is inherent to monotheistic ideology: to the extent that monotheism in extremis demands commitment to a binary perception of "truth," proselytization is required by psychology. Self doubt is discomfiting to absolutists (cognitive dissonance); with only faith to fall back on, it's useful to have others onboard to validate your belief system.
If Richardson too frequently relies on the same historical examples, she nonetheless succeeds in painting a full canvas of violent, political, non-state actors. This is one of those books that drives a reader to despair, presenting a wicked, multifaceted problem that appears to lack an easy solution… or at least a comfortable one. Terrorists, believing themselves to be bereft of other means of effective protest, lash out under a pretense of justice. However, social stability (security, order) entails making justice the sole prerogative of the state. The resultant tragedy here is that no synthesis can ultimately come of such violent discourse. Terrorism begets only its own ultimate annihilation, ever to be reborn from seeds of disaffection sown in earth kept brackish by tears.
Although there turn out to be some commonalities from group to group, the answers really vary on a case by case basis. Here it has to be noted that Richardson's work was published prior to Osama Bin Laden's assassination and is thus overdue for an update, yet remains pretty timely in surveying, cataloging, and distinguishing the great variety of terrorist movements around the world from the past 100 years. Sprinkling the same exemplars throughout the book (so, consider this more a 3 1/2 than 4-star book), the author flits around the world and throughout time for anecdotal evidence of her arguments, predominantly drawing from published and private interviews with members of Irish nationalist movements, al Qaeda, Shining Path (Peru), Tamil Tigers (Indonesia), and Chechnyen fighters (Russia). She might have had more to include, but bum luck scuttled a planned interfaith conference of religious zealots and academics: it seems that one or two antisemitic groups objected to the inclusion of Jews. Who could have foreseen that? It's probably just as well, anyway, considering that the event was scheduled to be held on September 11, 2001. Um... who could have foreseen that?
Per Richardson, a terrorist is (1) any person or substate group who (2) targets unspecified civilians (3) for political purposes (4) with violence or the threat of violence (5) to "send a message" (6) usually of a symbolic nature (7) to a third party audience. To a person, terrorist group affiliation tends to appeal to disaffected individuals alienated from the dominant culture who, following some critical exposure to/indoctrination by a traumatized group, are led to empathize with their privations and/or ideology. Whether they then become a leader or follower remains contingent on their personal means, charisma, and the existence or lack thereof of a preexisting structure. From this standpoint, an ethnonationalist group can remain a long-standing threat to the extent that they are able to harbor or cultivate the sympathies of the community around them (the IRA and Maoist Shining Path were good examples of this).
Such groups can even win victory by eliciting state reaction (albeit a Pyrrhic victory in the case of the Shining Path). At page 185, Richardson observes, "The Argentine, Brazilian, and Chilean military governments of the late 1960s/early 1970s "eradicated insurgent terrorism… [but n]o government could practice such tactics and remain a democracy, since the rule of law is replaced by the rule of force." She cautions at page 179 that "the military is too blunt an instrument to be relied upon exclusively to counter terrorism effectively." In this she paraphrases Cypriot nationalist George Grivas at page 185, "Declaring a war on terrorism, and dispatching an army to fight it, is very much a case of using a tank to catch a field mouse" where a cat will do the job better.
What do terrorists seek? At this superficial metalevel, terrorists can be painted with a broad brush. Writ large, they all seem to want some combination of revenge, renown, and reaction. "There is no greater affront to terrorists than to be ignored," she states at page 198, advocating the adoption of a targeted, kidnap-and-trial policy, covert assassination, and counterpropaganda as means of containing the spread of terrorist cells and toxic ideologies. "By pursuing terrorists like the criminals they are..," she continues, "outside the limelight and with painstaking and necessarily covert action, one can undermine their effectiveness without raising profiles."
Note that a different set of strategies is implied for treating the leaders of religious movements. Kill or vanish them, and they are easily transformed into martyrs. Arrest and try them, and a state risks providing them a platform from which they might amplify their message. Best to isolate them to a remote hinterland that limits their access to recruits and the proliferation of their message. Fundamentalist religions themselves present signature challenges to national integrity absent the acceptance of the separation of church and state as an established norm. The major religions are transnational in scope, commit their adherents to extrinsic values granted divine influence (and so to be accepted without nuance or exception), and unify their membership beneath the standard of a transcendental force whose dictates are subject to the interpretation of wholly mortal leadership. Recruitment is inherent to monotheistic ideology: to the extent that monotheism in extremis demands commitment to a binary perception of "truth," proselytization is required by psychology. Self doubt is discomfiting to absolutists (cognitive dissonance); with only faith to fall back on, it's useful to have others onboard to validate your belief system.
If Richardson too frequently relies on the same historical examples, she nonetheless succeeds in painting a full canvas of violent, political, non-state actors. This is one of those books that drives a reader to despair, presenting a wicked, multifaceted problem that appears to lack an easy solution… or at least a comfortable one. Terrorists, believing themselves to be bereft of other means of effective protest, lash out under a pretense of justice. However, social stability (security, order) entails making justice the sole prerogative of the state. The resultant tragedy here is that no synthesis can ultimately come of such violent discourse. Terrorism begets only its own ultimate annihilation, ever to be reborn from seeds of disaffection sown in earth kept brackish by tears.
November 9, 2023
I really enjoyed this book. Richardson does an excellent job analyzing all aspects of terrorism. She makes some very interesting and thought provoking points, but she does it in a way that tells a story. I recommend!!
January 30, 2015
It took me a while to get through this book, mainly because of the high information density. Just over 300 pages but highly compact and very informative. Filled with numerous examples of terrorism in the past, this book appealed to me when the Charlie Hebdo incident occured in Paris. On the same day the twelve people got killed by terrorist, there probably died more people in car accidents in Paris alone... And yet these deaths cause so much more anger, fear and revolt.
Richardson describes clearly what the motives of terrorists are, how they operate and also how to counter them. It's not rocket science, really. Yet somehow, people just don't understand and get carried away by -very understandable but disfunctional- emotions. The case of 9/11 is being highlighted quite elaborately, especially the reaction and mistakes made afterwards. The main lesson though, is that terrorism is of all times and is here to stay. It's just a matter of dealing with it appropriately and wisely.
In my opinion, this book gives the best overview on the universal term terrorism so far. It's a base work which is recommended for everyone interested in terrorism but also for people who just want to understand what is happening in the world these days. Information brings understanding, understanding brings wisdom, wisdom defeats fear...
Richardson describes clearly what the motives of terrorists are, how they operate and also how to counter them. It's not rocket science, really. Yet somehow, people just don't understand and get carried away by -very understandable but disfunctional- emotions. The case of 9/11 is being highlighted quite elaborately, especially the reaction and mistakes made afterwards. The main lesson though, is that terrorism is of all times and is here to stay. It's just a matter of dealing with it appropriately and wisely.
In my opinion, this book gives the best overview on the universal term terrorism so far. It's a base work which is recommended for everyone interested in terrorism but also for people who just want to understand what is happening in the world these days. Information brings understanding, understanding brings wisdom, wisdom defeats fear...
May 15, 2020
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
December 15, 2025
This book stands out for its clarity, restraint, and refusal to sensationalise. Richardson approaches terrorism with a scholar’s discipline and a diplomat’s pragmatism, seeking to explain not how terrorists think, but what strategic objectives they pursue.
Her central argument is deceptively simple: terrorists want revenge, renown, and reaction.
This tripartite framework provides a powerful lens through which to analyse diverse terrorist movements. Revenge addresses perceived grievances, renown seeks visibility and legitimacy, and reaction aims to provoke overreach by states.
Richardson shows how these objectives interact, reinforcing cycles of violence that benefit terrorist groups even when their political goals remain unattained.
One of the book’s greatest strengths is its accessibility. Richardson writes with elegance and precision, making complex ideas intelligible without dilution.
Her use of historical examples is judicious, supporting arguments rather than overwhelming them. She consistently resists the temptation to moralise, trusting analysis to do its work.
Richardson is particularly insightful on counterterrorism. She argues that excessive military responses often serve terrorist objectives by validating narratives of oppression and radicalising new recruits.
Instead, she advocates for strategies that minimise publicity, uphold the rule of law, and address underlying political grievances without conceding to violence.
Importantly, Richardson does not deny the role of ideology or religion, but she places them within strategic contexts.
Terrorists, in her account, are not driven by madness or theology alone, but by calculated efforts to influence audiences and states.
What Terrorists Want succeeds because it combines moral seriousness with analytical calm. It neither excuses terrorism nor reduces it to caricature.
For readers seeking a lucid, humane, and strategically grounded understanding of terrorism, Richardson’s book is one of the most persuasive works available.
Recommended.
Her central argument is deceptively simple: terrorists want revenge, renown, and reaction.
This tripartite framework provides a powerful lens through which to analyse diverse terrorist movements. Revenge addresses perceived grievances, renown seeks visibility and legitimacy, and reaction aims to provoke overreach by states.
Richardson shows how these objectives interact, reinforcing cycles of violence that benefit terrorist groups even when their political goals remain unattained.
One of the book’s greatest strengths is its accessibility. Richardson writes with elegance and precision, making complex ideas intelligible without dilution.
Her use of historical examples is judicious, supporting arguments rather than overwhelming them. She consistently resists the temptation to moralise, trusting analysis to do its work.
Richardson is particularly insightful on counterterrorism. She argues that excessive military responses often serve terrorist objectives by validating narratives of oppression and radicalising new recruits.
Instead, she advocates for strategies that minimise publicity, uphold the rule of law, and address underlying political grievances without conceding to violence.
Importantly, Richardson does not deny the role of ideology or religion, but she places them within strategic contexts.
Terrorists, in her account, are not driven by madness or theology alone, but by calculated efforts to influence audiences and states.
What Terrorists Want succeeds because it combines moral seriousness with analytical calm. It neither excuses terrorism nor reduces it to caricature.
For readers seeking a lucid, humane, and strategically grounded understanding of terrorism, Richardson’s book is one of the most persuasive works available.
Recommended.
October 11, 2018
This is a excellent book about the sociology of terrorism that goes deep in the underlying causes for a person to embrace a extreme ideology and join a terrorist organization. Best part is the impartiality of this book, that analyses all extreme ideologues and its terrorist organizations. Very good book that unfortunately predicted the failure of the War on terror and existence of AL-Qaida after Osama bin Laden's death.
June 21, 2020
Why the hell did I read this? It astounds me that what she says isn’t just common sense, but obviously it’s not or we wouldn’t have a GWOT.
(That John Bolton is in the news right now, again, makes me want to hit stuff with a sledgehammer.)
Nice framework but I don’t really feel like I learned anything important.
(That John Bolton is in the news right now, again, makes me want to hit stuff with a sledgehammer.)
Nice framework but I don’t really feel like I learned anything important.
September 3, 2020
There are lots of implicit political stances taken throughout the book that I didn’t agree with. The author also treats the notion of violence and politics without very much nuance at all. Still it’s a well-written and interesting read. It offers sound advice if you’re like, part of the government of a big country or something
December 19, 2019
So much detail. The government should actually read this and follow the recommendations. Netflix I think is coming out with a movie 'The Report', this book covers it in detail about the effectiveness or ineffective techniques of TORTURE!
July 29, 2017
Richardson makes her case with incisive clarity and wit, that we cannot expect to be successful in containing terrorism until we understand it.
February 27, 2019
Changed how I view a lot of things. I was too young to remember 9/11 or the immediate response so the part of the book that tackles just how incredibly inept it was was very interesting to me.
July 8, 2024
• Gelezen voor Radicale Verlossing.
October 7, 2016
Terrorists are not what we think they are. My book is called What Terrorists Want, by Louise Richardson, and it is about terrorists goal and their viewpoints. It talks about how they don’t think like us and don’t feel guilty after murdering innocent people. They actually think of themselves as the victim and they are just fighting for their own justice. I personally found this book very interesting and I learned a lot about terrorist’s motives and why they do what they do. It did get boring at times, but for the most part, it was very educational.
The prominent theme i have identified within this book, is that terrorists are not normal people, but they are also not all psychopaths either. The author supports this theme by giving concrete examples of tests and experiments that have been done. A study was done and very few terrorists were actually proven to be crazy or psychopaths. Many of them just have way different beliefs and sees the world differently. This theme provides a good education on different people and lets you understand people differently. It also does bring awareness to terrorism around the globe as it is a huge threat today.
During my time reading this book, I really enjoyed the passion that the author shows for this subject. This topic is definitely no joke and the author really shows it in the book by showing strong evidence to all of her ideas. As a reader, this book affected me by allowing me to realize how different people can be. It showed me that not everybody has the same views on life or the world. I would recommend this book to just about anyone on the more mature side. It is a very cool book and teaches readers about some of the problems in our world.
The prominent theme i have identified within this book, is that terrorists are not normal people, but they are also not all psychopaths either. The author supports this theme by giving concrete examples of tests and experiments that have been done. A study was done and very few terrorists were actually proven to be crazy or psychopaths. Many of them just have way different beliefs and sees the world differently. This theme provides a good education on different people and lets you understand people differently. It also does bring awareness to terrorism around the globe as it is a huge threat today.
During my time reading this book, I really enjoyed the passion that the author shows for this subject. This topic is definitely no joke and the author really shows it in the book by showing strong evidence to all of her ideas. As a reader, this book affected me by allowing me to realize how different people can be. It showed me that not everybody has the same views on life or the world. I would recommend this book to just about anyone on the more mature side. It is a very cool book and teaches readers about some of the problems in our world.
April 23, 2015
Exceptional book! I was impressed by the academic approach to a very volatile topic of which few people are truly informed. This book provides a historical perspective tied to the "why" of our contemporary experiences. Richardson provides a rare approach to this subject by asking the reader to consider terrorism through an array of lenses. By asking readers to place themselves in the shoes of those we are so often told are "pure evil" allows one a chance to see that "they" are humans too and are often trying to gain attention for an issue they feel strongly about. The author is also very clear that this does not make terrorism appropriate. While the tactics are often askew of social mores and the terroristic approach is seldom considered constructive or effective, we may want to adjust our response. This book provided a perspective seldom considered, especially within the U.S. The problem, as clarified throughout this book, is that "our" approach, nationalistically, is not working either. This book, while tedious (scholarly and written in the tone of a college lecture) at times, was a worthwhile read if one is trying to understand this subject better. As the author teaches within and throughout this book, terrorism was not born on 9/11/01 and the US is certainly not the first nation to experience such tragedy. Terrorism will not go away and our nation will likely fall victim to it again. Richardson provides some good ideas for engaging our international partners and mitigating the effects of what terrorist - minded individuals are trying to influence. This book should be required reading among many military leadership courses and all emergency management professions.
September 2, 2010
"What Terrorists Want" provides a valuable academic perspective on the history and anatomy of terrorism as a social, political and military phenomenon. Relatively free of ideological posturing, Louise Richardson's analysis cites examples of terrorists movements from the middle ages through the Iraq War, across a variety of religious (and secular) traditions, and draws thereby a host of salient conclusions about the prominent motivations behind terrorist action. Along the way, she handily refutes the most common (and durable) misconceptions about terrorism generally; i.e., that it is a symptom of psychological disfunction, religious indoctrination, or the verities of disaffection, poverty or naïveté.
The latter part of the book tends to get sidetracked by the political issues and controversies of the Iraq War and the policies of George W. Bush. As the first edition was published in 2006, this is perhaps excusable to some degree, but it tends to diminish the timelessness of her central points. (It can be reasonably argued that U.S. foreign policy is subject to a cornucopia of non-counterterrorism-related influences, and any serious critique of same should at least make an attempt to acknowledge this.) The essential correctness, however, of her central thesis about terrorism is well able to withstand scrutiny. In the final analysis, Richardson gives a clear, focused and infuriating account of why terrorism is adopted as a tactic of psychological warfare and how the inability or unwillingness to acknowledge its underlying social mechanics threatens us all.
The latter part of the book tends to get sidetracked by the political issues and controversies of the Iraq War and the policies of George W. Bush. As the first edition was published in 2006, this is perhaps excusable to some degree, but it tends to diminish the timelessness of her central points. (It can be reasonably argued that U.S. foreign policy is subject to a cornucopia of non-counterterrorism-related influences, and any serious critique of same should at least make an attempt to acknowledge this.) The essential correctness, however, of her central thesis about terrorism is well able to withstand scrutiny. In the final analysis, Richardson gives a clear, focused and infuriating account of why terrorism is adopted as a tactic of psychological warfare and how the inability or unwillingness to acknowledge its underlying social mechanics threatens us all.
November 27, 2021
In What Terrorists Want, Irish political scientist Louise Richardson sets out to do elucidate just that: define terrorism, illuminate the motives and methods of terrorists, identify who tends to join such organizations, and how they can be effectively combatted. The latter half of the book also discusses the 9/11 attacks and what changed (and what didn't) along with the greater War on Terror that has ensued since.
Richardson's thesis on terrorism is an intellectual treasure, developing a lucid and nuanced picture of terrorism as a socio-political phenomenon that is rare to come by. I especially appreciated that she provided so much attention to terror groups of all sorts, from religious to secular, ancient to modern, temporal goals to transformational, and nationalist to ideological. Throughout her career, Richardson has known and interviewed many terrorists; their testimony regarding their experiences and motivations complicates the stark, Manichean concept of terrorism that is inundated in the minds of many. Moreover, her assessment of the War on Terror and its fallacious foundations provides a compelling and comprehensive argument that reveals an unwillingness for collective reflection and a fatal misunderstanding of terrorism and its practitioners on account of the US government and advocates for its response to the events of September 11th.
Highly recommended for anyone trying to understand how the US hasn't won the war against a tactic of political violence.
Richardson's thesis on terrorism is an intellectual treasure, developing a lucid and nuanced picture of terrorism as a socio-political phenomenon that is rare to come by. I especially appreciated that she provided so much attention to terror groups of all sorts, from religious to secular, ancient to modern, temporal goals to transformational, and nationalist to ideological. Throughout her career, Richardson has known and interviewed many terrorists; their testimony regarding their experiences and motivations complicates the stark, Manichean concept of terrorism that is inundated in the minds of many. Moreover, her assessment of the War on Terror and its fallacious foundations provides a compelling and comprehensive argument that reveals an unwillingness for collective reflection and a fatal misunderstanding of terrorism and its practitioners on account of the US government and advocates for its response to the events of September 11th.
Highly recommended for anyone trying to understand how the US hasn't won the war against a tactic of political violence.
November 11, 2015
This book is a wonderfully clear-headed, sensible account of what motivates terrorists, how they operate, and what does and does not work in combating them. Richardson is an academic but this book is not difficult to read. In fact, her academic background makes her the perfect person to address this subject - she seemingly has no interest in American partisan politics and doesn't waste pages criticizing the political left or right. She gets straight to the heart of the matter and stays there.
In order to explore the necessary themes, Richardson employs countless examples of terrorism spanning hundreds of years by nationalist, ideological, and religious groups. These are very interesting and I found myself constantly setting the book aside to look up more info about the groups, people, and incidents cited.
Readers looking for a simple solution may not be satisfied with this book. But as Richardson points out, H.L. Mencken said that "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." The book was published in 2006 and therefore does not address new terrorist movements such as ISIS; yet this hardly matters. The point of the book is to give the reader proper background and perspective which enable us to contextualize what we see in the news. In this, it certainly succeeds
In order to explore the necessary themes, Richardson employs countless examples of terrorism spanning hundreds of years by nationalist, ideological, and religious groups. These are very interesting and I found myself constantly setting the book aside to look up more info about the groups, people, and incidents cited.
Readers looking for a simple solution may not be satisfied with this book. But as Richardson points out, H.L. Mencken said that "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." The book was published in 2006 and therefore does not address new terrorist movements such as ISIS; yet this hardly matters. The point of the book is to give the reader proper background and perspective which enable us to contextualize what we see in the news. In this, it certainly succeeds
January 25, 2013
A very comprehensive book, which shows terrorism in all its basic forms. It's a really good primer for everyone who wants to know more about terrorism than the media and government officials offer. The author was born in Northern Ireland, a background which she uses strikingly and convincingly to approach terrorists as being more human than the 'madman' image that is usually drawn. On the other hand, she has the courage to consider groups that usually have drawn sympathy from the Western world, such as the ANC, terrorists for the sake of discussion.
Although the author remains relatively neutral, and it's a book that is very insightful for anyone, it should be noted that it is book primarily written for a U.S. public (the author currently resides in the U.S.).
Although the author remains relatively neutral, and it's a book that is very insightful for anyone, it should be noted that it is book primarily written for a U.S. public (the author currently resides in the U.S.).
January 31, 2008
This amazingly brief compendium of what we know about terrorists and terrorism ends with a to my mind very accurate critique of U.S. policies and actions to address terrorism since September 2001 and then a set of six rules and suggestions to more effectively handle terrorism. Dr. Richardson writes in a fluent style, has been researching and analyzing terrorism for a long time, and is clear about her biases. Highly recommended.
June 9, 2009
A very well crafted discussion on the root causes of terrorism (well the causes that makes an organisation choose the tactic of terrorism). Part I covers the causes using a variety of historical examples and Part II is, as the subtitle says, how to contain the threat. This second part may prove unpalatable to those raised on Die Hard films.
Now to get key individuals in politics and the military to read this.
Now to get key individuals in politics and the military to read this.
June 19, 2010
Small readable paperback that does a really good job of explaining what terrorism is, its historical development, and who terrorists actually tend to be (and its not who you think most of the time). Was assigned it by a professor who who was in the Israeli Army and currently works for the department of Homeland defense when he's not teaching.
April 17, 2011
If I thought it would do any good, I would say that every member of U.S. defense personnel, every policymaker, and every voter should read this book. It's extremely well-researched and organized, and represents a healthy dose of common sense into this arena. If you care about our country's policies on international relations, terrorism, and security, then read this and take heart.
March 20, 2010
Terrific compendium view of the enemy freedom faces -- by a writer who grew up praying to the martyrs of Ireland's Easter uprising. Richardson catches all the duality and multifaceted aspects of modern war on terror. And she is a lovely writer.
Read
July 29, 2011This is a fantastic summary of how other societies have effectively managed their terrorist threats based on a realistic understanding terrorist motivations, methods, and support systems. Needless to say, we've been a disaster to date.
December 24, 2016
Well balanced, well-measured discussion about terrorism around the globe and throughout history. Recommend to anyone interested in terrorism. Written before ISIS, before the end of Bin Laden, but still incredibly relevant.
June 7, 2007
Still early on, but a lucid investigation thus far. Not for the Giuliani crowd.
December 17, 2007
I would recommend the last three chapters of this book. The rest was a bit dry and difficult to read.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 39 reviews