The abyss of counterterrorism

This chapter engages with contemporary counterterrorist practices and discusses cases in which state actors either deal with “terrorists” according to the prescriptions inherent in the symbolic and metaphoric systems used to frame them in the first place, or impersonate the monster prototype (entirely or in some of its components) in their counterterrorist strategies. It first presents the so-called Dahiya Doctrine as an example of how the framing of an enemy as the paradigmatic, cosmic adversary of a people could help a state (Israel) justify violations of the law of war. The following paragraphs discuss the performative construction of the War on Terror as the war of monsters against monsters, focusing first on the impersonation of monstrosity as part of the condoning of unconventional interrogation and detention methods, and then on the move toward de-humanized, (allegedly) surgically effective, and automatized weapon platforms and surveillance systems.

Monsters in the “jihadi revolutionary atmosphere”

This chapter continues with the analysis of the terrorist “actor” by highlighting how the establishment of a “revolutionary atmosphere” through the use of political violence has been a goal of several insurgent and “terrorist” groups in the Middle East, from the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) to al-Qaeda in Iraq to the Islamic State. First, it focuses on the reception of European left-wing “terrorism” and third-worldism in the Middle East, especially within the Palestinian nationalist movement. Then, it explains why, in the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq in 2003, several ideologues affiliated with al-Qaeda (including Abu Musab al-Suri) have recommended the use of brutal fighting techniques for establishing what al-Suri described as a “jihadi revolutionary atmosphere.” Finally, it considers the extent to which the impersonation of the prototype of monstrosity (either in its entirety or in its individual components) can help explain the modus operandi of the Islamic State.

Contemporary logomachies

This chapter continues with the line of argument presented in chapter 2 about the role of monster images in framing “terrorist” actors and about the recurrence of monster metaphors that not only convey their “otherness” but also, more forcefully, their resilience and unmanageability. The first paragraph presents the pseudo-scientific framing of anarchists in the late nineteenth century as half-human, half-feral uncontrollable brutes. The following section reviews the resort to religious and “cosmic war” imagery in framing “terrorist” groups as part of ethnonationalist conflicts, including the biblical “beasts” cited by Ian Paisley, the unmanageable yakku of Sinhalese folklore, and the resilient people of Amalek who fought the Israelites throughout most of their ancient history. The final paragraph introduces the concept of global jihad and discusses the reasons why Frankenstein’s monster and the hydra proved to be the most popular metaphors for describing both al-Qaeda and the Islamic State.

The Abominables

This chapter explores the use of monster metaphors in framing “terrorist” actors since the French Revolution. While acknowledging that these metaphors effectively present the “terrorist” as an abject “other,” it argues that the main purpose of the use of monster imagery in framing “terrorists” is to highlight their unmanageability, which may be instrumental in securing popular backing for specific types of rule-breaking behavior in counterterrorism. It presents these arguments while reviewing examples drawn from the origins of modern terrorism in the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. These include the gorgon Medusa, which appears for instance in relation to Robespierre’s “Reign of Terror,” and the many-headed hydra—one of the oldest metaphors for representing unruly behavior that proves unmanageable. It then introduces another type of unmanageable monster that would become particularly popular to frame terrorists—Frankenstein’s monster—and its use in the late nineteenth century to frame Irish nationalism.

Introduction

This chapter presents basic definitions, operational assumptions, and the key literature that form the basis for the analysis of “terrorists as monsters” in this book. It begins by discussing the concept of terrorism, drawing from speech-act theory but also arguing that linguistic conventions alone cannot explain the emotional appeal that can be associated with the use of monsters as political metaphors. It then elaborates on the role of culture in shaping the metaphorical use of monstrosity, before introducing and discussing in depth the concept of “archetypal metaphor”—which serves as the basis for explaining the different functions that monster metaphors play in framing and presenting performatively terrorist acts. The following sections then discuss the logic of “terrorizing” and the nature of terrorism as performance. The final part of the chapter summarizes the main themes and content of the book.

The monstrous enemy in the “terrorist” mind

This chapter focuses on how monster-like creatures may be used by “terrorist” groups to frame their own enemy. If monster-like creatures play a crucial role in the “cosmic war” narrative adopted by many “terrorist” groups, their main goal usually is not to present the enemy as an uncontrollable monster but rather “othering” it in order to cause the “social death of the victim,” which in turn helps them justify the resort to morally liminal behavior and cement their in-group cohesion. The examples discussed in this chapter span from the use of exterminatory rhetoric to frame the targets of terror bombing during World War II, the “buck” and Incubus symbolism in white supremacist terrorism, the metaphorical constructs chosen by left-wing groups in the 1970s, and the use of concept of “taghout” by Islamist movements.

Revolutionary monstrosity

This chapter engages with the idea of terrorists “acting” as monsters. In contrast to the view that the shocking and apparently beastly behavior of some “terrorist” actors has no rational justification, it suggests that the performative construction of terrorist acts by impersonating some of the components of the prototype of monstrosity can be seen (in most circumstances) as rational. In fact, it argues that this pattern of behavior has a long history in terrorism through the concept of “revolutionary terrorism.” This chapter traces the origin and evolution of this concept by discussing the idea of the “Propaganda of the Deed” and by presenting the stages through which, from Sergey Nechayev to Che Guevara and then on to the Red Brigades, the ideologues of the anarchist and left-wing guerrilla movements perfected the idea that “terrorists” and insurgents should act as cold, unpredictable, and emotionless “killing machines.”

Conclusion

In 1882, the assassination of Lord Frederick Cavendish and Thomas Burke, his Undersecretary, in Phoenix Park, Dublin, was presented in the British press as the action of an oversized, murderous, and uncontrollable Frankenstein’s monster. In the last phases of World War II, the Japanese people were portrayed in the United States as a swarm of mouse-toothed, pest–human hybrids that deserved to be exterminated. In cartoons published in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, a many-headed hydra representing “terrorist states” had one head—“Al-Qaida”—severed, while two newer snake-heads sprouted in its place and others, including those named “Hamas,” “Hezbollah,” and “al-Jihad,” lurked in the shadow waiting for their turn to strike Uncle Sam....