Principled and Pragmatic Counterterrorism

(Sidebar) Counterterrorism scholar Louise Richardson argues that democracies need not abandon their principles as they fight terrorism; for strategic reasons, they should cleave to them.

Louise Richardson

Louise Richardson | Stu Rosner

 

 

Return to main article:

Read more on Richardson’s alternative approach to containing terrorist threats.

If Americans want to contain terrorism, we must not abandon our democratic values, says Louise Richardson, the departing executive dean of the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study (she becomes principal of the University of St. Andrews, in Scotland, in January). There is a false belief, she has written in What Terrorists Want, that democratic societies, because of the “freedoms granted citizens” are “peculiarly vulnerable to terrorism” and that those freedoms “therefore must be curtailed.”

This is wrong on principle, she said in a recent interview, but also for pragmatic reasons. Like declaring war, it not only rewards “the adversary’s action by demonstrating its power,” it undermines one of the best counterterrorist strategies known, which is to separate terrorists from the communities in which they operate. Terrorists understand this, she says. A message from an al Qaeda leader to a deputy in Iraq, for example, urged him to end beheadings not because they were immoral or gruesome, but because they were undermining support in the Muslim community. Likewise, the treatment of prisoners at Guantánamo is “an ethical and moral travesty that undermines our claim that we believe in democracy, that we believe in individual rights, when we so clearly deny due process to hundreds of people,” Richardson says. “We’re in a competition, if you like, with the extremists for the support of these moderate populations, and we have been losing that battle.” By overreacting, “we can do ourselves far more harm than terrorists can ever do to us.” (For more on Richardson’s alternative approach to containing terrorist threats, see the Web Extra[extra], “Counterterrorism and Democracy.”)

Most popular

What Trump Means for John Roberts’s Legacy

Executive power is on the docket at the Supreme Court.

Explore More From Current Issue

Wadsworth House with green shutters and red brick chimneys, surrounded by trees and other buildings.

Wadsworth House Nears 300

The building is a microcosm of Harvard’s history—and the history of the United States.

An illustrative portrait of Justice Roberts in a black robe, resting his chin on his hand.

What Trump Means for John Roberts’s Legacy

Executive power is on the docket at the Supreme Court.

A diverse group of adults and children holding hands, standing on varying levels against a light blue background.

Why America’s Strategy For Reducing Racial Inequality Failed

Harvard professor Christina Cross debunks the myth of the two-parent Black family.