| Summary: | The strategic model, which has been the dominant paradigm in terrorism studies, explains terrorist behavior through a rationalist lens in which terrorists are assumed to be political utility maximizers who embrace terrorism because it offers the best chance of achieving their strategic goals. Scholars have similarly used this paradigm to explain why terrorist groups choose to employ suicide tactics. There is consensus in extant literature that suicide operations have at
least three distinct tactical benefits for terrorist groups: They are more lethal than non-suicide attacks, they attract more media attention than non-suicide attacks, and they instill more fear and anxiety into the target population than non-suicide attacks. However, scholars have made these claims without robust empirical evidence or compelling theoretical arguments. This study seeks to critically assess these claims by assessing the tactical utility of suicide operations versus
non-suicide operations along these three criteria using a multi-modal approach, original data collection, and statistical analyses. It finds that such operations appear to present little to no advantages over non-suicide attacks, especially given the significant costs associated with them. The results of this research challenge the conventional wisdom of why terrorist organizations choose suicide tactics, and why the tactic has proliferated worldwide. Accordingly, further research must
explain what other benefits terrorist groups might derive from using suicide attacks, particularly from an internal organizational perspective.
|
|---|
