Professor Jon Cole is part of the Tactical Decision Making Research Group at the University of Liverpool’s Department of Psychological Sciences.
“Yet again the UK’s involvement in overseas conflicts will be perceived as the cause of a terrorist attack. The perpetrators of yesterday’s attack in Woolwich were recorded making statements about the retribution they were seeking for what has happened elsewhere. Before we rush to judgment about the ‘blowback’ effect of UK foreign Policy it is important to understand the basis of this narrative.
“Killing people is not easy”
“Killing people is not easy despite the huge amount of media that portray killing giving the opposite impression. The most famous study of killing by ordinary people was conducted by the US Army during WWII. In this study it was found that very few combat soldiers actually fired their weapons at the enemy despite the lethal threat posed by the enemy. During combat the rest of the soldiers were doing other things.
“This research resulted in an overhaul of military training so that by the time of the Vietnam War virtually all combat personnel were using their weapons in firefights. Our research into human conflict has indicated that there are several ‘killing enabling factors’ that reduce the apparently innate reluctance to kill in the majority of people.
“The attackers themselves have provided us with the most important factor, which is justification. Killing has to be legitimate and the legitimacy of conflict is extremely important to combatants. In this case, the narrative of a defensive Jihad to defend the Ummah is the employment of the standard justification for Islamist terror attacks.
“To the killers the killing makes sense as part of a global struggle in which they believe themselves to be soldiers. The choice of another soldier as a target only supports this justification. A common criticism of bombings is that the majority of the victims are illegitimate targets.
“It is noteworthy that there were two attackers as diffusion of responsibility is also very important in killing. The US Army study found that crew served weapons were the ones that were more likely to be used against the enemy as the presence of others appeared to make the individual less responsible for the consequences.
“Again the narrative of the attackers suggests this mechanism at work through the use of the oft quoted ‘an eye for an eye’ principle. In this sense, it is our responsibility as much as it is theirs.
“Probably the most important driver of the attack was martyrdom. For some the allure of achieving more in death than they ever would in life is overwhelming. The 24 hour news agenda has obliged them by transmitting footage of the attack. It is not surprising that they wanted the attack filmed and for witnesses to report what they said on social media and other outlets.
“Propaganda by the deed”
“The fact that they waited for the police to arrive is also not surprising. For them being killed by the Police would ensure that they became shaheed so they no doubt caused a ‘provoked shooting’ or ‘suicide by cop’ incident.
“Attacks on off duty soldiers have been planned in the past and will no doubt be planned in the future. For example, Abu Mansha was convicted in 2006 for plotting to kill a British soldier who had been decorated for bravery in Iraq, after reading media stories about his exploits. As terrorism is considered ‘propaganda by the deed’ the oxygen of publicity will no doubt keep this a live issue for some time to come.”
