This research explores the causes and consequences of domestic terrorism and government counter-measures. Domestic terrorism refers to home-grown political violence against non-combatants by non-state actors who wish to generate fear in a larger audience in order to achieve political objectives. Though domestic terrorism consists of about 91% of all terrorism events (for the period of 1998-2006), few systematic empirical studies of this phenomenon populate the terrorism literature. The core purpose of the project is to evaluate the consequences of government countermeasures on the frequency and lethality of domestic terrorist attacks. The project draws on the contentious politics and transnational terrorism literatures to apply and develop theories about the timing and effects of dissident leaders' different tactical choices (e.g., bombings v. armed attacks) and target selections (e.g., state targets or civilian targets; attack marketplaces or rail stations) over the course of a political struggle. The study then subjects the implied hypotheses to rigorous empirical testing. Preliminary findings suggest that empirical data are consistent with the theoretical expectations that certain types of policies impose different costs on dissident movements causing leaders to substitute costly tactics for less costly tactics.
This research is the first to systematically examine the frequency and severity of domestic terrorism incidents across multiple countries. It is also the first set of statistical studies to examine the interrelationships among domestic terrorist tactics and an array of other non-terrorist, non-violent, and facilitative tactics. Finally, it is the first set of systematic empirical studies to examine the effects of government tactics, policies, and strategies on domestic terrorist tactics and strategies. Previous studies mostly concerned themselves with (1) transnational terrorism and/or (2) studied political violence or terrorism, as opposed to both within the same theoretical and empirical framework. Those that did study terrorist and non-terrorist acts within the same model ignored that terrorism ? attacking civilians ? might be different than other forms of political violence, like guerrilla ambushes on military personnel. One of the main goals of this research is to analyze whether or not these distinctions can and should be made. Are their different causal processes that lead some groups to employ terrorist methods to achieve their goals and others not to use terrorist methods to achieve their goals? Until now, previous research on domestic terrorism and political violence has been impeded by a lack of systematic data for empirical testing of propositions about the choice and timing of government and dissident tactics, including terrorist tactics, over the course of a contentious struggle. By collecting information on domestic terrorism, non-terrorism, violent, non-violent, and cooperative events committed by a multiplicity of actors, government countermeasures in 17 South and Southeast Asian countries, recent data produced from Project Civil Strife (PCS) is able to overcome these limitations. Using these data, different models identify trends and variation in different domestic terrorist tactics among an array of other violent (but not terrorist), non-violent, and cooperative tactics. The statistical models are then used to forecast patterns and trends for different countries in South and Southeast Asia.
The project makes contributions in both the academic and policy arenas ranging from improved academic understanding of government and dissident leaders' tactical decisions in domestic conflict to informing the efforts of practitioners involved in confronting domestic challenges. At the present time, the academic community has little to offer in the way of practical advice to governments fighting domestic terrorism. This project has implications for how to constrain and limit domestic terrorism around the world and particularly in South and Southeast Asia.
