Terrorist infiltration through conflict migrationJon Nakapalau, CHSO, CPO

All civilizations throughout history have come to a point where they find that they are in conflict from within or without (or both) due to tensions which often create ideological rifts.

How they react to this conflict is instrumental in determining what actions will be taken to ensure the continued existence of the civilization and to what ends the actions taken to insure their continued existence will shape their future.

The Cronus paradox

Terrorism targeted powerful individuals in the past. Terrorist were trying to accomplish a kind of philosophical endophagy; by killing a

leader the state cannibalized the power that was held by the assassinated individual and caused the state to reexamine the

distributive allocation of power once controlled by the ancien régime. Terrorism was a focused act which sought to change the policy of a

government by elimination of the individual who was the manifestation of that policy.

Globalization will force us to look at the transitional nature of power which is beyond the control of any group of nations.

Because of perception we often fail to see the transitional nature of the different categories as there is convergence and change within society.

Yet it is the tension between such groups that often can be cited as one of the root causes that lead to terrorism.

The central question becomes one in which normative acts fit into a hegemonistic picture of what we define as democracy. Can there be a

democratic definition of what democracy is or is the definition defined by (and only by) the West?

This question will continue to be asked as new countries lend their definitional perspective to their aspirations. Only time will tell if we all agree on a given definition or if we will need to redefine the contextual nature of democracy.

The paradox that the US will continue to have to address around the world is how do you project strength and justice at the same time? How does the US address philosopher Thomas Pogge’s observation when he points out that

there is a difference between causing poverty and failing to reduce it.

There is a further distinction to be made when you fail to reduce poverty because the government you are working with does not feel the moral

obligation to do so.

The starting point of terrorism is not resistance on the part of one state against another state, but on the part of a (usually small) group that has decided to break away from the state. There is no question as to the power of resistance the state will bring to bear on this group. The question is will the group be able to fight the means and will of the state to destroy them.

Hence Mao’s apt analogy and the correlation between the movement and the support of the people:

“The guerilla must live amongst the people as the fish lives in the water.”

Terrorists/narco-guerrillas now use many tactics [transitional nature] to confuse the delineation between freedom fighter, soldier and political insurgent which increasingly becomes blurred; actors hiding behind a curtain were they can change costumes quickly.

Once behind this curtain the terrorists/narco-guerrillas understands that there will be another act in which to play another part.

Though this be madness, yet there is method in't.

Often when a rapid political shifts occurs there are areas and groups in a given geographic location that find they are no longer able to fit into a the wider society and contract into semi-autonomous groups who seek to self-govern small areas as a refuge to the change that is happening all around them. This often leads to violence and hatred that terrorists and organized

crime take advantage of.

When the method is madness, the mad get to make all the rules…

As we look to the future it is also important to look to the past. The nature of

conflict has changed little from the time our ancestors fought over hunting

grounds. Man is by nature territorial and will continue to be. This does not excuse

the fact that we must try to settle our differences before we opt for armed

conflict. What has changed is the way we define who we are in relation to our

perception of who “they” are.