The 2011 civil war in Syria attracted thousands of fighters from at least seventy countries to join the Islamic State. Al-Shabaab carried out large-scale attacks on civilian targets in Uganda and Kenya as retribution for the deployment of peacekeeping forces in Somalia. In this report, Martha Crenshaw considers the extent to which civil war and foreign military intervention function as a rationale for transnational terrorism, and how understanding the connections between terrorism, civil war, and weak governance can help the United States and its allies mount an appropriate response.

Two men walk through a heavily damaged neighborhood in Raqqa, Syria, on April 4, 2019, more than a year after the city’s liberation from the Islamic State. (Ivor Prickett/New York Times)
Two men walk through a heavily damaged neighborhood in Raqqa, Syria, on April 4, 2019, more than a year after the city’s liberation from the Islamic State. (Ivor Prickett/New York Times)

Summary

Transnational terrorism poses a threat to all countries but is of immediate concern to the U.S. government. After key losses of territory by insurgents and the subsequent withdrawal of U.S. troops, forces of the self-styled Islamic State have regrouped in Iraq and are developing safe havens in war-torn Syria, accompanied by the stepped-up use of social media for recruiting and propaganda purposes.

The response of the United States and its key security partners should be coordinated not only across governments but across the agencies of a specific state. The U.S. response, for example, should entail policy coordination of defense agencies, humanitarian aid provision, the development of effective communications strategies, a well-thought-out plan for the use of force, if needed, and advance planning of postconflict stabilization strategies.

Mounting an appropriate response requires first understanding the complex interlinkages among civil war, transnational terrorism, and weak governance. Conflicts in Mali, Chechnya, Syria, and other fragile states disrupted by civil war and facing actions from global terrorist networks suggest the different ways in which these factors may interact and the different paths to a solution, including bi- or trilateral negotiations that include extremist groups at the negotiations table. However, governments supporting weak states need not wait for critical events entailing loss of life to occur before offering multidimensional assistance.

Recognizing the conditions under which extremist threats emerge allows governments to take defensive and mitigating measures before a crisis takes shape. Patience and adopting a long view of regional developments greatly aid in assessing and responding to global jihadist threats; governments should not overpromise results or exaggerate threats.

About the Report

Drawing on an extensive review of the recent literature, this report considers the extent to which civil war and military interventions by foreign powers function as drivers of and rationales for transnational terrorism. The research was supported by the Policy, Learning, and Strategy Center at the United States Institute of Peace.

About the Author

Martha Crenshaw is senior fellow emerita at the Center for International Security and Cooperation, Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, Stanford University, and professor emerita of government at Wesleyan University in Connecticut. Explaining Terrorism, a collection of her essays on the causes, processes, and consequences of terrorism, was published in 2011. She is the author (with Gary LaFree) of Countering Terrorism (2017).

Related Publications

What Is Indigenous Foreign Policy? Lessons from Australia and New Zealand

What Is Indigenous Foreign Policy? Lessons from Australia and New Zealand

Thursday, May 26, 2022

By: Nicole Cochran;  Brian Harding

In early May, the Solomon Islands — the second largest recipient of Australian aid — signed a security agreement with China, raising concerns about the potential for the creation of a Chinese military base a short distance from Australia’s shores. Coming mere weeks before Australian elections, this announcement was widely seen by Australians as a failure of their foreign policy and helped turn national security into a high priority for the elections.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Global PolicyMediation, Negotiation & Dialogue

Putin’s War Backfires as Finland, Sweden Seek to Join NATO

Putin’s War Backfires as Finland, Sweden Seek to Join NATO

Thursday, May 26, 2022

By: Wess Mitchell, Ph.D.

Only three months into Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine, the geopolitical ripple effects are being felt across the European continent. Motivated by Moscow’s aggression, Finland and Sweden have applied to join NATO, ending decades of both states’ respective non-aligned status. Finnish and Swedish NATO accession would boost the capabilities and defensibility of the alliance. Their joining NATO is a rebuke of Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has bristled over the alliance’s post-Cold War expansion and used it as a pretext for his Ukraine incursion.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Global Policy

Biden’s Asia Trip Seeks to Revitalize Alliances, Focus on China

Biden’s Asia Trip Seeks to Revitalize Alliances, Focus on China

Wednesday, May 25, 2022

By: Frank Aum;  Mirna Galic;  Rachel Vandenbrink

President Biden made his first trip to East Asia beginning late last week, visiting South Korea and Japan, where he participated in a leader’s summit of the so-called Quad, which includes Australia, Japan and India. The president’s visit is part of a flurry of Asia-focused diplomatic initiatives in recent weeks including the U.S.-ASEAN summit, the U.S.-India 2+2 Ministerial Dialogue and an upcoming speech from Secretary of State Blinken, which is expected to lay out the contours of the administration’s China Policy.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Global Policy

Beyond the Summit of the Americas: Resetting U.S. Policy in Latin America

Beyond the Summit of the Americas: Resetting U.S. Policy in Latin America

Wednesday, May 25, 2022

By: Ambassador P. Michael McKinley (ret.)

Despite the Biden administration’s efforts to outline a new, positive vision for engagement with Latin America and the Caribbean, old fault lines are likely to come into play at the upcoming Summit of the Americas, which kicks off in Los Angeles on June 6. Both U.S. domestic politics and governments in the hemisphere with a more skeptical view of Washington and its intentions contribute to these tensions. A new U.S. perspective is required — one that takes into greater account the region’s diversity, priorities and political complexity. Without such a shift, the perception and reality of declining U.S. influence is only likely to deepen.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Global Policy

View All Publications