What Carl Might Have Said About Terrorism: How Strategic Theory Can Enlighten an Essentially Contested Debate

TY - JOUR

T1 - What Carl Might Have Said About Terrorism

T2 - How Strategic Theory Can Enlighten an Essentially Contested Debate

AU - Smith, M.L.R.

AU - Jones, David Martin

PY - 2018

Y1 - 2018

N2 - Contemporary discussions about terrorism are subject to endless distortions that render the term of doubtful analytical utility. However, the application of strategic theory can rescue the word from concept stretching and the constant attempt to occlude a tactical practice with moral judgements, and thereby restore its explanatory value. By asking what Carl von Clausewitz would have made of all the fuss about terrorism, this study reveals a number of fallacies that frequently encumber both popular and academic discourse. In so doing, a Clausewitzian sense of scepticism suggests that the first and most important of all intellectual tasks is the attempt to use language carefully and to apply the principles of parsimony and falsifiability.

AB - Contemporary discussions about terrorism are subject to endless distortions that render the term of doubtful analytical utility. However, the application of strategic theory can rescue the word from concept stretching and the constant attempt to occlude a tactical practice with moral judgements, and thereby restore its explanatory value. By asking what Carl von Clausewitz would have made of all the fuss about terrorism, this study reveals a number of fallacies that frequently encumber both popular and academic discourse. In so doing, a Clausewitzian sense of scepticism suggests that the first and most important of all intellectual tasks is the attempt to use language carefully and to apply the principles of parsimony and falsifiability.

M3 - Article

VL - 6

SP - 30

EP - 35

JO - Infinity Journal

JF - Infinity Journal

IS - 2

ER -