Political violence is an ongoing worldwide issue that generates the majority of humanities combat and bloodshed today. An abundance of different organizations across the world partake in violence for countless number of reasons all influenced by different motivations and goals. The strategies and plans a group undergoes can significantly impact organizations participating in political violence, how they fight and in turn their success. Political violence can be seen numerous amount of ways from terrorism to rioting to civil war. Varying based on the number of actors participating in the violence and the goal sought to achieve. A group’s ideology acts as a crucial component on the way they fight. This is seen in the major differences in motives, tactics and ideas of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).
In todays society terrorism is a major tactic used by organizations to promote violence. The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, ISIS, is one of the most notable organizations that promote terrorism as a means to attempt to create their own religious caliphate across Iraq, Syria and other parts of the Middle East. Using religion as a main ideology and purpose to their means of fighting. In the academic journal, ‘‘Audience and Message: Assessing Terrorist WMD Potential.’’ By, Daniel Gressang, the author states that to religious terrorists, “violence is a sacramental act or divine duty, executed in direct response to some theological demand or imperative and justified by scripture. Religion therefore functions as a legitimizing force, specifically sanctioning wide-scale violence against an almost open-ended category of opponents . . .” (1999, VII). ISIS members are not only motivated by the Islamic religion, but believe committing acts of violence are acceptable if it allows for successfully spreading the religion. Members of the group also believe that is their holy duty to execute the ideals and because of that they fight with passion and hate to anyone who does not agree with their religious beliefs. Each member has a personal vindication, which in turn justifies his fighting actions. The results of a regression model created by Scott Long and Jeremy Freese in 2003 show that “organizations that seek to impress a supernatural audience tend to kill more”. History has shown that religion is a key ideology to impact fighting. Because ISIS is a terrorist organization the fundamental tactical roots are to use violence and intimidation, especially against civilians. Spreading fear is a notable objective of terrorism and this directly correlates with the acts of violence they commit and the way they go about fighting. The group has made a name for themselves by executing innocent lives and making it accessible to the public to see. Using social media to promote their propaganda and display the barbaric acts of violence they commit (beheadings, chemical bombs, torture, etc…) to those who don’t adhere to their beliefs. Their violence is not strategic or instrumental. Destruction is an end in itself, rather than them trying to find a means to an end. In February of 2018, CNN reported that ISIS had committed 143 terror attacks in approximately 29 different countries, which led to roughly 2,043 causalities. Aimed at creating a global organization, ISIS attempts to either conduct or inspire attacks across the entire planet. This is irregular than conventional warfare. They aren’t motivated to fight armed forces in an offensive manner. Although many nations have taken up arms against ISIS, their success is not based off of battlefield military combat. They feed over media publication and inciting fear into civilians. Grading their success by the amount of damage they are able to inflict and casualties they are able to cause and the more broadcasting they are able to achieve across the press. They have shown it is easy for them to recruit, with the youth motivated to join the radical extremist movement. Feeding young recruits with propaganda and messages of giving them a better world. Since ISIS is a terrorist organization, their success is based on a multitude of different factors. For example when they claim responsibility over a terrorist act across Europe, they do so as means to show the capabilities of the group and promote in efforts to recruit more members for their ultimate objective of building a religious caliphate in the Middle East. Garnering support by Islamic supporters and inciting fear into civilian critics is a crucial aspect to their success.
Political violence is not just fixed groups with a terrorist ideology. Tactically another mode of fighting for these factions is through guerilla warfare. The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) was a people led army who were involved in a civil war against the Columbian National Government for over fifty years. The beliefs of FARC predominantly span from Communism and Marxism. A leftist group born with the intentions of redistributing wealth across Columbia and to represent the lower class. Although it began as armed revolutionary during the Columbia Civil War, its ideals and beliefs became increasingly criminal through history, losing sight in its initial political objectives. FARC was created out of guerilla forces to oppose the consolidation of the Conservative and Liberals across Columbia who banned up in the 1960’s to reign power over the nation. To go about this, the “Peoples Army” believed fighting and committing violence were necessary obligations towards peace. Promoting violence against the government by any means. In August 2017, the official disarmament of the rebel army was completed following a peace deal, which led to the group becoming a constituted political party in Columbia. During their decades of armed conflict, the FARC found means of funding its army through criminal outlets, predominately in the drug trade. According to Insight Crime, the Revolutionary Army generated over 580 million dollars annually through direct involvement in drug trafficking. The “Peoples Army” targeted economic aspects across the nation to use as leverage against the government. Taking control of substantial amounts of regions across the nation and acting as the primary government especially in the Amazon region, forcing the inhabitants to rely on the FARC rather than the Columbia government itself. According to the Council on Hemispherical Affairs, “It has become extremely difficult for the Colombian government to assert its leverage in some of these remote places on a government-to-government basis because the locals here have developed a working alliance with the FARC” (COHA). Having control of regions of the nation showed inabilities of the Columbian government to fully govern. Insinuating the need for change and an effectiveness of the FARC ideology. The army understood they risk of fighting attrition warfare, avoiding a traditional military conflict and instead sought out guerilla tactics. Using “hit and run” tactics through ambushes, raids and other small combatant needed attacks on the Columbian military. Although these minor attacks only spawn minimal progress in the overall direction of the political conflict, the collection takes a toll on the nations economy and military. The FARC also targeted military and government officials and often performed kidnappings and assassination as a means for extortion as well as a means to make political reforms. Pressuring the government to reform to their desires or they would force the causality of valued officials. These tactics forced the government to opening up and consider their beliefs and ideologies.
Not every terrorist organization has shown as much success as ISIS. “Of the 395 clearly identified terrorists organizations operating throughout the world from 1998 to 2005, only 68 have killed 10 or more people during that period” (MIPT 2006). Most terrorist organizations are not as active as ISIS, which influences the disparity between them and many other radical groups. Also because ISIS is backed by a religious ideology, groups who partake in terrorist acts in a non-religious manner often are seen not to be as violent. Their recruitment would be far less enticing as well, for those recruits who join the cause in support of the religious ideology. Furthermore because ISIS remains hostile in the Middle East, there is more of a media presence on their actions. The Middle East remains a crucial region for international relations and the desire for the United States to have access to natural resources in the area, forces them to combat the arising conflict. If ISIS were based out of a more remote region with less significance, the media publication and opposition would decline, resulting in far less success.
The original intentions of the FARC were purposeful and represented a positive economic change across the country, but as history showed itself the FARC would sway away from it’s leftist ideology and become increasingly criminal through time. Because all of the evidence around the success of the FARC is based solely in Columbia, it is hard to say the longstanding fight would have worked in different regions of the world. The Columbian conflict is one of the most prolonged civil wars of mankind. It could be argued that the success of the FARC would not be the same had they not got invested into the drug trade. Generating over 500 million dollars annually from illegal drug trafficking, the FARC would have no funds without partaking in that illicit behavior. It could be argued that the FARC slowly became more of a terrorist organization over time and steered away from fighting the civil war cause fronted as the “Peoples Army”. Researching more into political reforms that supported the FARC and occurred in Columbia and correlating those with attacks or violent occurring’s by the FARC would help to prove or disprove the success of their barbarity more.
A group’s ideology acts as a crucial component on the way they fight. This is seen in the major differences in motives, tactics and ideas of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). The famous English Philosopher Thomas Hobbs, regarded violence as a rational means to achieve such political goals as territory, safety, and glory. The use of violence by both ISIS and the FARC were and are a means to them attempting to claim success over political differences. Although their ideologies and overall motives greatly are greatly different, both saw success over the last decade using fighting to promote their ideology.