Organizing for Destruction: How Organizational Structure Affects Terrorist Group Behaviour

233 Pages·2012·9.39 MB·English

Organizing for Destruction: How Organizational
Structure Affects Terrorist Group Behaviour
by
Joshua Kilberg
A Thesis submitted to
the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research
in partial fulfilment of
the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
in
International Affairs
Norman Paterson School of International Affairs
Carleton University
Ottawa, Canada
© 2011
Joshua Kilberg
Library and Archives Bibliotheque et
Canada Archives Canada
Published Heritage Direction du
Branch Patrimoine de I'edition
395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington
Ottawa ON K1A0N4 Ottawa ON K1A 0N4
Canada Canada
Your file Votre reference
ISBN: 978-0-494-89313-5
Our file Notre reference
ISBN: 978-0-494-89313-5
NOTICE: AVIS:
The author has granted a non­ L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive
exclusive license allowing Library and permettant a la Bibliotheque et Archives
Archives Canada to reproduce, Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver,
publish, archive, preserve, conserve, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public
communicate to the public by par telecommunication ou par I'lnternet, preter,
telecommunication or on the Internet, distribuer et vendre des theses partout dans le
loan, distrbute and sell theses monde, a des fins commerciales ou autres, sur
worldwide, for commercial or non­ support microforme, papier, electronique et/ou
commercial purposes, in microform, autres formats.
paper, electronic and/or any other
formats.
The author retains copyright L'auteur conserve la propriete du droit d'auteur
ownership and moral rights in this et des droits moraux qui protege cette these. Ni
thesis. Neither the thesis nor la these ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci
substantial extracts from it may be ne doivent etre imprimes ou autrement
printed or otherwise reproduced reproduits sans son autorisation.
without the author's permission.
In compliance with the Canadian Conformement a la loi canadienne sur la
Privacy Act some supporting forms protection de la vie privee, quelques
may have been removed from this formulaires secondaires ont ete enleves de
thesis. cette these.
While these forms may be included Bien que ces formulaires aient inclus dans
in the document page count, their la pagination, il n'y aura aucun contenu
removal does not represent any loss manquant.
of content from the thesis.
Canada
Abstract
A terrorist group must strike a balance between efficiency and security. For licit
groups, organizational theory posits that efficiency is a primary goal. Unlike licit
groups, terrorist groups place a much higher value on security, often at the expense
of efficiency. There has been little systematic work on the affect of terrorist group
structure on a group's target selection and effectiveness. Using the Global Terrorism
Database, the 254 most prolific terrorist groups from 1970-2007 are coded as one
of four organizational structures: market, all-channel, hub-spoke and bureaucracy.
Environmental factors like political rights, civil liberties, polity durability and state
wealth all help shape a group's structure. Internal factors like hard target selection,
operational pace, ideology and stated goals also seem to help shape a group's struc­
ture. Target selection is influenced by structure in complex and unexpected ways;
highly decentralized market groups are just as likely as bureaucratic groups to select
hard targets. Results also suggest that loosely networked all-channel organizations
are the least likely to select sophisticated targets. Lethality per attack is used as a
simple measure of effectiveness. Bureaucratic groups are the most lethal structure.
In terms of ideology, right-wing and religious groups are the most lethal. Groups are
also more lethal in states with low political rights and civil liberties.
ii
For Jess.
iii
Summary
All terrorist groups face a challenge to balance their need for security with their need
for efficiency. But how do they achieve this balance? The answer to this question has
enormous implications for counter-terrorism strategy.
This study is the first time the effects of terrorist group organizational structure
has been investigated in detail. The evidence from examining the 254 most prolific
terrorist groups since 1970 indicates that structure plays an important and complex
role in shaping a terrorist group's behaviour.
In Chapter 2 a model is developed that explains the factors influencing a terrorist
group's structure. Environmental factors, such as operating in rich, free, durable
democratic states, push groups to adopt a decentralized structure. Internal factors
acting on a terrorist group suggest that narrow goals, willingness to attack hard
targets and high operational pace all push a group to adopt a centralized structure.
Chapter 3 examines the effect of structure on terrorist group's target selection. The
results, from a multinomial logistic regression are instructive. Contrary to the hy­
pothesis that centralization and capability are linked, the results indicate that market
groups, the most decentralized structure, are at least as capable, if not more so, as
centralized groups in attacking hardened targets such as police and military out­
posts. The other key finding from this chapter is that loose, all-channel networks are,
in many ways, the least effective, least threatening type of organization.
iv
A case study of the Basque separatist group Euzkadi Ta Askatasuna (ETA) reveals
that when a group changes its structure, it has a dramatic effect on the group's target
selection. Findings further suggest that decentralizing, from hub-spoke to all-channel
(a loose, networked structure), result in a decrease in sophisticated targeting. When
ETA decentralized its structure it became less likely to attack hardened targets and
more likely to attack easy targets; in effect, the group became less of a threat when
it became less centralized. ETA decentralizes in response to a heightened security
environment; the group sacrifices efficiency for security.
Chapter 4 looks at effectiveness. Lethality is a simple, policy-relevant measure for
effectiveness. The results indicate that bureaucratic groups are the most lethal type
of structure. In terms of ideology, religious and right-wing groups are more lethal
than left-wing and nationalist groups. If a group is state sponsored its lethality is
2.3 times higher. Groups are more lethal in states with low political rights and civil
liberties.
A1 Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) provides a good case study to illustrate what happens to
the effectiveness of a group when it is forced to change its organizational structure.
AQI serves as a reminder that effective counter-terrorism strategy often results in the
disruption and restructuring of a terrorist group, diminishing its lethality.
While this study raises more questions than it answers, the policy implications suggest
that pushing a group away from a centralized structure would help reduce a group's
lethality and overall output.
v
Table of Contents
Abstract ii
Summary iv
Table of Contents vi
List of Tables x
List of Figures xii
1 Introduction 1
1.0.1 What is terrorism? 3
1.1 Level of Analysis 5
1.1.1 Individual Level of Analysis 5
1.1.2 Societal Level of Analysis 7
1.1.3 Group Level of Analysis 8
1.2 Previous Research 10
1.2.1 Constraints on the group 10
1.2.2 Previous Research on the End of Terrorism 11
1.2.3 Measuring Terrorist Group Success 15
1.2.4 Previous research on structure IT
1.2.5 Previous research on terrorist group structure 25
vi
1.3 Dataset and methodology 30
1.3.1 Methods of coding for structure 31
1.3.2 Other coding parameters 38
1.3.3 Looking ahead 40
2 Explaining Terrorist Group Structures 41
2.1 Introduction and Motivation 41
2.1.1 Operating in secrecy 41
2.1.2 Forces acting on terrorist groups 44
2.1.3 Testing Hypotheses in the literature 45
2.2 Description of Data and Sample 48
2.2.1 External Factors 49
2.2.2 Internal Factors 53
2.3 Regression Analysis 56
2.4 Results 57
2.4.1 External Variables 57
2.4.2 Internal Variables 63
2.4.3 Diagnostics 67
2.5 Discussion 69
2.6 Conclusion 74
3 How Structure affects Group Targeting 76
3.1 Introduction and Motivation 76
3.2 Literature Review 77
3.2.1 Organizational Explanations 77
3.3 Categorizing targets 82
3.3.1 Coercive Target Selection 84
3.3.2 Attention-seeking Target Selection 86
vii
3.3.3 Infighting target selection 88
3.4 Results: Target Categories 90
3.4.1 Group Ideology 92
3.4.2 Calendar year, group age and peak size 96
3.4.3 GDP per capita and Freedom House 97
3.4.4 Organizational Structure 102
3.5 Diagnostics 108
3.6 Discussion Ill
3.7 Case Study: Euzkadi Ta Askatasuna (ETA) 115
3.7.1 Selection Criteria 115
3.7.2 Background 116
3.7.3 Command and Control 117
3.7.4 Targeting Preferences 119
3.7.5 Conclusion 123
4 Structure and Effectiveness 125
4.1 Introduction and Motivation 125
4.1.1 Lethality as a measure of effectiveness 126
4.1.2 Previous research on terrorist group learning 127
4.1.3 Previous Research on Terrorist Group Lethality 130
4.2 Data and Methodology 133
4.3 Estimating the Lethality of Attacks 136
4.3.1 Estimating lethality - Main Model 136
4.3.2 Diagnostics 141
4.3.3 Alternate Models: By Organizational Structure 143
4.3.4 Diagnostics 146
4.3.5 Alternate Models: Lethality of armed assaults versus bombings 147
viii
4.4 Discussion 150
4.5 Case Study: A1 Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) 157
4.5.1 Background 158
4.5.2 Command and Control 160
4.5.3 Attack Lethality 163
4.5.4 Conclusion 165
5 Conclusions and Implications for the Future 167
5.0.5 Implications for the Future 174
List of References 177
Appendix A 198
ix