Postmodernism and its validity for intelligence studies

Counterterrorism - Postmodernism

Validity of Postmodernism and other Schools of Thought to Counterterrorism and Intelligence

The study of counter-terrorism is laden with different perspectives and schools of thought, especially because it deals with the development and planning of strategies intended to counter potential threats or attacks to a specific group or geographic area. In the study of counter-terrorism, one must be able to know and understand two or more sides of a conflict, regardless if it's ongoing or not. For analysts studying counter-terrorism or gathering intelligence, knowing all sides of the "story" makes for good planning, although understanding all sides does not necessarily mean one must believe one side over the other. Counter-terrorism is inevitably biased and would always be in the favor or interest of the group planning and implementing the strategies.

In understanding the different sides of a story, there are also several schools of thought that have been and are still being used to justify or rationalize terrorism and counter-terrorism. It is possible that one group committing what is considered a "terrorist" act might subsist to a different ideology than its target or subject of the threat or attack. On the same vein, the target of a terrorist attack would have a different ideology, almost always opposite of what are considered "terrorists" believe in. In fact, this scenario is not uncommon, and is actually illustrated by the potential threat that specific countries in the Middle East (mainly Muslim countries) poses against the U.S., which is considered the bastion of democracy and freedom. The 'oppressive' nature of U.S. leadership in international political and economic arena has always led to its dominance in the world, until other groups or governments with different ideologies decided to end the U.S.' oppression of other countries through a "terrorist attack," of which the September 11 bombings is an example.

One of the schools of thought wherein counter-terrorism is considered valid is critical theory. In critical theory, the prevailing school of thought is that in society, there has always been a class struggle, wherein the 'many oppressed' are ruled by the 'few oppressors.' The few oppressors, or the bourgeoisie, have economic and political control of the oppressed or proletariat class. It is posited that the only way that this class struggle will be resolved is through a revolution, which would abolish all forms of politico-economic classification in the society. It is in this aspect of revolution that terrorism and counter-terrorism is reflected. The act of terrorism is considered the 'revolution' committed by the oppressed, by those who do not dominate and are at the periphery of international politics and economics. Counter-terrorism, meanwhile, is the "oppressor's response" to the threat of a revolution (terrorist threat/attack) that seeks threaten its stronghold in international politics. Both beliefs of the terrorists and counter-terrorists are validated by the critical theory. It can be said, then, that even in the 21st century, specific principles of the critical theory still holds true and are still reflected in the current political events and movements in the world.

Even the school of thought that sprung after the modernist period, postmodernism, is considered valid when discussing the study and issue of counter-terrorism. Postmodernism does not look at the world as black and white or a dichotomy of oppressor and the oppressed. Instead, it posits that there exists different versions of the truth, and this ideology actually shies away from identifying a 'universal truth' that will determine all realities of the world. Postmodernism embraces the principle of pluralism because of its acceptance of different truths based on different groups of people and their lived experiences. Thus, in studying counter-terrorism using the postmodernist perspective, it could be that counter-terrorist planners would consider the ideology of another group that poses a potential threat to them. This understanding and acceptance that the other group's version of the truth or what they believe as right could then be used to elevate the strategy to actually consider that more than just perpetrators, the 'so-called terrorists' are merely actors trying to maintain their stronghold in their own societies and beliefs. Counter-terrorism planning can then be developed to achieve a neutral stance or limit the counter-attack against specific individuals and groups only.