IS vs. FARC: Territorial Control and Terror Attack Patterns

Introduction

One of the critical aspects of understanding terrorist activities is examining the relationship between the territorial control of insurgent groups and the geographic distribution of their attacks. This research explores this relationship by comparing two ideologically and geographically distinct groups: the Islamic State (IS) and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). IS is known for its jihadist ideology in the Middle East as well as its brutal tactics, while FARC has its roots in Marxist-Leninist ideology and has used guerrilla warfare against the Colombian government in South America. This comparative study explores how ideological differences influence the strategies of territorial control and the consequent patterns of terrorist attacks.

The primary research question guiding this study is: How does the territorial control of ideologically different insurgent groups, specifically IS and FARC, influence the geographic distribution of their terrorist attacks in conflict zones? This question helps in understanding the spatial strategies of these groups and may also contribute to a better understanding of counter-terrorism and peacekeeping efforts globally.

Ultimately, the significance of this research lies in its potential to contribute to the field's understanding of terrorist strategies. The comparison of IS and FARC shows how different ideologies — reflecting distinct beliefs and cultural frameworks — shape approaches to territorial control and the execution of terrorist activities. This understanding could help policymakers, military strategists, and humanitarian organizations in developing targeted interventions and preventive measures. This comparative analysis could also add to the academic discourse on terrorism by filling a gap in the literature where a direct comparison between jihadist and Marxist-Leninist insurgent groups in terms of territorial control and attack patterns is scarce (Castan Pinos & Radil, 2020).

Literature Review

Ash (2018) provides a critical analysis of how rebel groups, including those with jihadist ideologies, choose locations for their attacks, emphasizing the role of territorial control. In contrast, Carter et al. (2022) offer insights into the spatial patterns of separatist violence, which can be paralleled with FARC's tactics in Colombia.

Castan Pinos and Radil (2020) challenge the prevailing notion that terrorist groups are generally indifferent to territorial control and propose a new conceptual model to understand the importance of territory in terrorism. They introduce two key concepts: Sovereignty Claims over Territory (SCOT) and Effective Control of Territory (ECOT). SCOT refers to the ultimate territorial aims of a group, while ECOT relates to the group's actual ability to exert influence over a territory. By contrasting these dimensions, the authors develop archetypes of territorially motivated terrorism, arguing against the common discourse of non-territorial terrorism. They apply this model to analyze groups like the Islamic State, ETA, and FARC-EP, demonstrating that territory remains a central factor in their motivations.

De la Calle and Sánchez-Cuenca (2015) examine the relationship between territorial control and violent tactics, offering a perspective on the types of terrorism with regard to territorial aims and objectives. With respect to the operational methods of IS and FARC, their argument is that groups with territorial control engage more in direct warfare, while those without it resort to terrorism. This helps explain the guerrilla tactics of FARC and its evolution in strategy over time, especially as it lost and gained territorial control.

Elden (2012) provides a theoretical exploration of the relationship between terrorism, territory, and space through the concept of the "space of exception." His research explains how terrorist groups exploit the absence of territorial integrity and sovereignty in the geographic distribution of attacks. For example, when there is little sovereign power over a given space, terror training camps are more likely to emerge — a dynamic clearly evident in the Middle East with IS. Similarly, Cengiz et al. (2022) offer an in-depth analysis of IS's operational and strategic model and its influence on global terrorism trends, including controlling territory, spreading ideology, creating provincial branches in different regions, inspiring lone actors, and generating revenue.

Medina and Hepner (2013) provide an overview of the spatial aspects of international terrorism and the geographic distribution of attacks, mapping out the strategic considerations behind the choice of locations. Salehyan (2007) introduces the concept of transnational rebels, which is particularly relevant for understanding IS's operations that often cross national borders. This contrasts sharply with FARC's primarily localized operations within Colombia, providing a clear comparative angle.

Tollefsen and Buhaug (2015) discuss the role of geographic inaccessibility in insurgency, a factor that has profoundly influenced FARC's operations in the remote jungles of Colombia. In contrast, IS's operations in urban centers in Iraq and Syria present a different situation, where territorial control is more visible and strategically significant. Findley and Young (2012) address the conceptual challenges in distinguishing between terrorism and civil war, using a spatial and temporal analysis to clarify these distinctions. They describe a framework in which terrorism is likely to occur prior to civil war in Latin America and following civil war in other parts of the world — a distinction of particular interest in comparing FARC (geographically situated in Latin America) with IS (situated in the Middle East).

Aid as a tool against insurgency is analyzed by Sexton (2016), who examines insurgency in contested and controlled territories. Sexton's work is particularly relevant for understanding how external interventions can influence the strategies of groups like FARC, which have experienced various degrees of territorial control and external support. His argument is also useful in framing the contrast between IS — which has relied more on self-funding and less on external state support — and FARC, which as a Marxist rebel group has been open to external funding networks. Along a similar thread, Staniland (2012) describes the interactions between states and insurgent groups and sheds light on the political dimensions of territorial control. His perspective emphasizes that politics is very much a part of the relationship between terrorism and territorial control. FARC's interactions with the Colombian government and local populations, as well as IS's establishment of a caliphate and its governance strategies, take on added significance in light of Staniland's (2012) findings.

Richter and Barrios Sabogal (2023) focus on the post-conflict scenario in Colombia, particularly the reintegration of former FARC-EP combatants. They highlight challenges in the peace process, noting that political dynamics at the national and local levels continue to impact the situation. The study uses concepts from Disarmament, Demobilization, and Reintegration (DDR) and rebel governance studies to understand these dynamics. The authors argue that the interaction patterns between local communities and ex-combatants help explain local-level peace process outcomes, categorizing post-war orders as either clustered or entrenched — a distinction useful for understanding where FARC-EP had established strong governance structures.

Salazar et al. (2019) examine the impact of FARC-EP's demobilization on violence in Tumaco, Colombia. Despite a national reduction in violence following the peace process, Tumaco experienced a surge in violence post-demobilization. Using a historical and socio-geographic perspective, the authors analyze the evolution of FARC and the drug economy in the region, illuminating the specific features of violence in the post-conflict context and the role of the drug trade.

Research specifically on IS can be found in Chandra (2020), who examines the relationship between illicit drug trafficking and the financing of terrorism. Chandra (2020) shows that a significant portion of organized crime revenue — estimated at around $650 billion annually — is generated from drug trafficking. This trade offers a lucrative opportunity for transnational terror groups like Al-Qaeda and IS, which are increasingly turning to illicit drug trade to fund their operations as traditional funding routes have come under intense surveillance and consequently dried up. The low investment and high profit nature of the drug trade makes it a sustainable source of funding. This perspective is also useful for understanding the financing of FARC, providing insight into the financial strategies of terrorist organizations and why countering terrorism financing is so difficult.

In contrast, Cengiz et al. (2022) give an in-depth analysis of the operational and strategic model of IS and its influence on global terrorism trends. They note that IS established a specific terrorism model in 2014 that has been influential in shaping the tactics of jihadist groups and drug cartels. This model includes controlling territory, spreading ideology, creating provincial branches in different regions, inspiring lone actors, and generating revenue. As with the studies by Chandra (2020) and Salazar et al. (2019), the relationship between terrorism, territory, and drug trafficking appears significant across both groups.

Comparative Framework and Conceptual Foundations

The conceptual foundation of this study rests on the understanding that territorial control is not merely physical dominion over a region but also encompasses ideological, geographical, political, and social dimensions. For IS, territorial control has been about establishing a caliphate and enforcing its interpretation of Sharia law, while for FARC, it has been about creating a space to promote its Marxist-Leninist ideology and challenge the Colombian state.

This study explores the concept of territoriality in insurgent strategies — the deliberate strategy of controlling space for political, military, or ideological purposes. For IS, this has meant the creation of a state-like entity with administrative structures, while for FARC, it has involved using territory as a base for guerrilla warfare and political mobilization.

The comparative framework developed in this study consists of the following key components:

1. Ideological Underpinnings: Understanding how the ideologies of IS and FARC shape their territorial strategies — that is, their cultural values and political beliefs.

2. Territorial Control Mechanisms: Examining the methods each group uses to establish and maintain control over territories.

3. Geographic Distribution of Attacks: Analyzing how territorial control influences the choice of locations for terrorist attacks.

4. Response to External Factors: Assessing how external interventions, state responses, and international dynamics influence the territorial strategies of each group.

This framework is applied to analyze the operational patterns of IS and FARC, yielding a comparative perspective on how different insurgent groups manage territorial control and conduct terrorist activities. The framework rests on several assumptions: that territorial control significantly influences insurgent strategies, that groups tend to adapt strategically following territorial losses, and that ideological motivations play a central role in shaping group strategies.

This framework helps to fill several gaps identified in the existing literature, including gaps related to the complexity of territorial control, strategic adaptation, and ideology. It provides an understanding of how territorial dynamics influence insurgent strategies and links changes in insurgent tactics directly to shifts in territorial control — a connection that is often not comprehensively analyzed in existing literature. By integrating the ideological motivations of insurgent groups, the framework provides a more complete understanding of their strategies. Its utility can be seen in applications ranging from case study analysis and comparative analysis to predictive modeling aimed at anticipating changes in insurgent strategies based on territorial dynamics.

Conclusion and Future Research

The new theoretical framework developed in this study offers an approach to understanding the relationship between territorial control and the geographic distribution of terrorist attacks. The comparison of IS and FARC shows how different insurgent groups utilize territory in their strategies and what the resultant patterns of violence look like. The framework emphasizes the importance of considering the specific historical, political, and social contexts in which insurgent groups operate. The study also demonstrates the dynamic nature of territorial control and its impact on insurgent activities — showing how changes in territorial control can lead to shifts in the nature, frequency, and location of terrorist attacks. By examining two ideologically and operationally distinct groups, the framework demonstrates the value of comparative analysis in conflict studies, providing a broader perspective on insurgent strategies and counter-terrorism efforts.

One key limitation is that the framework does not incorporate the role of the drug trade in terrorism financing, which is a factor that may significantly impact insurgent operations. The framework also primarily focuses on territorial control, potentially overlooking other influential factors such as international support, ideological appeal, and technological advancements.

Future research could address these limitations by incorporating a wider range of data sources, including classified intelligence and on-the-ground reports. Studies could also expand the comparative analysis to include more insurgent groups, offering a more diverse and comprehensive understanding of insurgent strategies. Integrating quantitative methods with qualitative analysis could further enhance the robustness of the findings.

Developing new theoretical approaches to understand complex phenomena in conflict studies is crucial for advancing knowledge and enhancing policy and intervention strategies. The framework presented in this study contributes to this goal by offering a structured approach to analyzing the interplay between territorial control and terrorist activities. It not only aids in understanding current insurgent strategies but also provides a foundation for predicting future trends in insurgency and terrorism.

Ash, K. (2018). "The War Will Come to Your Street": Explaining geographic variation in terrorism by rebel groups. International Interactions, 44(3), 411–436.

Carter, D. B., Kaplan, M. L., & Schultz, K. A. (2022). The geography of separatist violence. International Studies Quarterly, 66(3), sqac030.

Castan Pinos, J., & Radil, S. M. (2020). The territorial contours of terrorism: A conceptual model of territory for non-state violence. Terrorism and Political Violence, 32(5), 1027–1046.

Chandra, Y. (2020). Illicit drug trafficking and financing of terrorism. Journal of Defence Studies, 14(1–2), 69–91.

De la Calle, L., & Sánchez-Cuenca, I. (2015). How armed groups fight: Territorial control and violent tactics. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 38(10), 795–813.

Elden, S. (2007). Terror and territory. Antipode, 39(5), 821–845.

Findley, M. G., & Young, J. K. (2012). Terrorism and civil war: A spatial and temporal approach to a conceptual problem. Perspectives on Politics, 10(2), 285–305.

Gonzalez, C., & Alzate, M. C. (2022). The role of international actors in the negotiation process between the Colombian government and the FARC-EP: A necessary and controlled participation. Estudos Internacionais: Revista de Relações Internacionais da PUC Minas, 10(2), 59–77.

Jones, S. G., Dobbins, J., Byman, D., Chivvis, C. S., Connable, B., Martini, J., & Chandler, N. (2017). Rolling back the Islamic State. RAND Corporation.

Medina, R. M., & Hepner, G. F. (2013). The geography of international terrorism: An introduction to spaces and places of violent non-state groups. CRC Press.

Richter, S., & Barrios Sabogal, L. C. (2023). Dynamics of peace or legacy of rebel governance? Patterns of cooperation between FARC ex-combatants and conflict-affected communities in Colombia. Small Wars & Insurgencies, 34(1), 165–194.

Salazar, L. G. S., Wolff, J., & Camelo, F. E. (2019). Towards violent peace? Territorial dynamics of violence in Tumaco (Colombia) before and after the demobilization of the FARC-EP. Conflict, Security & Development, 19(5), 497–520.

Salehyan, I. (2007). Transnational rebels: Neighboring states as sanctuary for rebel groups. World Politics, 59(2), 217–242.

Sexton, R. (2016). Aid as a tool against insurgency: Evidence from contested and controlled territory in Afghanistan. American Political Science Review, 110(4), 731–749.

Staniland, P. (2012). States, insurgents, and wartime political orders. Perspectives on Politics, 10(2), 243–264.

Tollefsen, A. F., & Buhaug, H. (2015). Insurgency and inaccessibility. International Studies Review, 17(1), 6–25.