What is the relevance, if any, of empathy and imagination for counterterrorism?
Counterterrorism can be described as ‘measures designed to combat or
prevent terrorism’ (Anon., 2020) so anything which assists in combatting or
preventing terrorism should be considered relevant for counterterrorism.
Empathy is thus relevant for counterterrorism, as it provides a way of
understanding what causes terrorist groups to do what they do, and therein,
allows those combatting terrorism to create a strategy, designed to prevent
those causes from re-emerging, and in doing so, stop those same anti-
sentiments resulting in terrible atrocities. Our imaginations are vital for being
empathetic, as it allows us to place ourselves in the situations of others, so we
can form a conception of their sensations. The imagination’s usefulness also
emerges when considering what US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
called ‘unknown unknowns’. When considering things we know that we don’t
know, we can by suitable means of research and questioning find out what we
don’t know. However, when we don’t know what we don’t know, the same
methodology cannot be used. Instead, we must use our imaginations to gain
an understanding of what the unknown may embody. For example, 9/11 may
be considered a ‘failure of imagination’, as US intelligence agencies didn’t
know that they didn’t know that Al-Qaeda could do what they did, the way they
did it (Russell, 2004). However, while imagination can be useful, we will see in
this essay that its capabilities in enlightening us about unknown unknowns are
limited and under certain circumstances detrimental.
Grand counterterrorism strategy has for very long neglected the stories of
terrorists. Instead, national security agencies have pumped billions of dollars
into fighting terrorists on a physical level, focussing mainly on limiting access
to weapons of mass destruction, attacking sponsors of state funded terrorism,
and standard surveillance, intelligence and reconnaissance measures. These
responses are short-term, whose effect will only last until another terrorist
group comes along with the same qualms as those before, but with better
funding and technology, and pose the same problems for counterterrorism
strategists as their predecessors did.
Humans are mental entities not governed by any strict laws, which makes
them complex particulars in Gorovitz and Macintyre’s sense. The explanation
of a free man’s actions comes from ‘appeal to his desires, habits, knowledge
and perceptions. Such accounts of intentional behaviour operate in a conceptual
framework removed from the direct reach of physical law’ (Davidson, 2001).
Thus, any counterterrorism strategy must make a determined effort to
understand this framework. Understanding the behaviour and motivations of an
individual terrorist requires getting into one’s head as a means of engaging with
his subjectivity; the best means to this end is empathy. Empathy requires one to
imagine themselves in the place of some other, and in doing so, allows one to
simulate the other’s psychological states, and if done successfully, will allow one
to gain an understanding of the other’s psychological disposition. Such an
understanding can have implications for government foreign policy, especially
for governments in the West. As Quassim Cassam notes, those in favour of the
American invasion and occupation of Iraq shouldn’t have been surprised with the
animosity that greeted their arrival, because if they had part-taken in other-
oriented perspective taking – where one imagines being someone else and
undergoes the other’s experiences - it would be clear how the invasion would
Counterterrorism can be described as ‘measures designed to combat or
prevent terrorism’ (Anon., 2020) so anything which assists in combatting or
preventing terrorism should be considered relevant for counterterrorism.
Empathy is thus relevant for counterterrorism, as it provides a way of
understanding what causes terrorist groups to do what they do, and therein,
allows those combatting terrorism to create a strategy, designed to prevent
those causes from re-emerging, and in doing so, stop those same anti-
sentiments resulting in terrible atrocities. Our imaginations are vital for being
empathetic, as it allows us to place ourselves in the situations of others, so we
can form a conception of their sensations. The imagination’s usefulness also
emerges when considering what US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
called ‘unknown unknowns’. When considering things we know that we don’t
know, we can by suitable means of research and questioning find out what we
don’t know. However, when we don’t know what we don’t know, the same
methodology cannot be used. Instead, we must use our imaginations to gain
an understanding of what the unknown may embody. For example, 9/11 may
be considered a ‘failure of imagination’, as US intelligence agencies didn’t
know that they didn’t know that Al-Qaeda could do what they did, the way they
did it (Russell, 2004). However, while imagination can be useful, we will see in
this essay that its capabilities in enlightening us about unknown unknowns are
limited and under certain circumstances detrimental.
Grand counterterrorism strategy has for very long neglected the stories of
terrorists. Instead, national security agencies have pumped billions of dollars
into fighting terrorists on a physical level, focussing mainly on limiting access
to weapons of mass destruction, attacking sponsors of state funded terrorism,
and standard surveillance, intelligence and reconnaissance measures. These
responses are short-term, whose effect will only last until another terrorist
group comes along with the same qualms as those before, but with better
funding and technology, and pose the same problems for counterterrorism
strategists as their predecessors did.
Humans are mental entities not governed by any strict laws, which makes
them complex particulars in Gorovitz and Macintyre’s sense. The explanation
of a free man’s actions comes from ‘appeal to his desires, habits, knowledge
and perceptions. Such accounts of intentional behaviour operate in a conceptual
framework removed from the direct reach of physical law’ (Davidson, 2001).
Thus, any counterterrorism strategy must make a determined effort to
understand this framework. Understanding the behaviour and motivations of an
individual terrorist requires getting into one’s head as a means of engaging with
his subjectivity; the best means to this end is empathy. Empathy requires one to
imagine themselves in the place of some other, and in doing so, allows one to
simulate the other’s psychological states, and if done successfully, will allow one
to gain an understanding of the other’s psychological disposition. Such an
understanding can have implications for government foreign policy, especially
for governments in the West. As Quassim Cassam notes, those in favour of the
American invasion and occupation of Iraq shouldn’t have been surprised with the
animosity that greeted their arrival, because if they had part-taken in other-
oriented perspective taking – where one imagines being someone else and
undergoes the other’s experiences - it would be clear how the invasion would
