Europe and the Middle East are facing the biggest challenge from terrorism. Devastating attacks in Brussels are the latest phase of the war on Europe declared by the so-called Islamic State. Saudi Arabia is at present at the very heart of the global strategic power balance. Political sectarianism and terrorism sweeping through several neighbouring countries poses a grave challenge to the Kingdom.
The initial premise is that even though the seeds of terrorism and political sectarianism are still relatively embryonic in Saudi Arabia, they have been planted and are beginning to take hold. Sectarianism and terrorism can be considered two sides of the same coin; one cannot be tackled without the other. They are so interrelated and intertwined that merely attempting to determine which comes first is almost impossible. If it is accepted that terrorism is metastatic, the similarity in their apparent manifestations only adds to the confusion as to which can be seen as benign and which as malignant.
It can be argued that, although sectarianism and terrorism might not pose an immediate danger to the security of the Saudi Kingdom in the short term, the likelihood of Saudi Arabia being affected in the longer term depends on how much support the IS can secure in and around the Gulf. The interconnectedness of political Islamist, jihadist and IS movements in the region is likely to impact the stability of the GCC states, as will the ability of foreign players to run and manage these forces.
Identifying members of terrorist organisations and preventing them from carrying out successful attacks is a core component of any anti-terrorism effort. If terrorist profiling is wisely applied, it would be an irresistibly attractive method for countering terrorist attacks as it would maximise the efficiency of prophylactic resource allocation, increasing the likelihood of the interception of a terrorist attack. By analysing the personal histories of terrorists, a terrorist personality can be discovered that signposts individuals willing to commit terrorist acts, or otherwise engage in acts that would endanger national security.
Terrorists are generally not delinquents or recluses, but thrive in an atmosphere of interdependence. Instead, they belong to a close-knit ethnic community and are supported by loving families. Unlike lone wolves, the terrorist group relies on ‘mutual commitment and trust’ and ‘the cooperation between groups’, as demonstrated by the group of terrorists involved in the recent Paris and Brussels bombing attacks. This makes them radically inconsistent with the psychopathic personality.
Terrorists are ‘disturbingly normal people’. It is now generally accepted that as opposed to serial killers, pyromaniacs and rapists, the terrorist mind follows rational decision-making and attends to a coherent political philosophy that facilitates the use of violence as a tool of strategic and communicative value. The motives of terrorists are inherently socio-political, relating to a group philosophy rather than individual psychology. From this perspective, terrorism is a manifestation of political militancy, albeit in an intentionally audacious form, and the rationality of its actions should not be considered in isolation from their purposes.
The task of profiling the terrorist has been a long and drawn-out process that has seen a revival of interest in the post-9/11 era. Unlike racial and gender discrimination, psychological profiling is widely accepted in both the study of criminology and as a method within law enforcement operations. There have been multiple attempts to transfer its apparent success from the criminal environment to the context of terrorism. Implicit in this approach is the belief in a causal connection between abnormal psychopathological behaviour and terroristic tendencies.
The argument for psychological profiling in the context of terrorism also falls short in its claim that a terrorist personality or personalities exist. Although some scholars argue that with more primary data, psychological profiling will be substantiated as a successful measure, the current evidence concludes that no causal progression from mental illness to terroristic intention occurs.
Psychological profiling is further stifled by the apparent normalcy and sociability of many terrorists. Ethno-nationalists in particular, are intertwined into an interdependent close-knit community which requires high levels of trust and mutual commitment, far from the notions of psychosis or other pathological disorders.
Psychological profiles that incorporate subtler but ubiquitous personality traits, such as aggression and thrill-seeking do not provide enough specificity to be of any practical application to the countering of terrorism. On the other hand, socioeconomic profiles do display some merit in specific temporal and geographic contexts, but are soon invalidated due to the fluidity of the political environment and the evolving terrorist-counterterrorist dichotomy. Due to the need of a considerable amount of biographical data and the lack of longevity or generalisability, such profiles have limited practical use in combating emerging terrorist threats. Socioeconomic profiles succeed in demonstrating one thing – the multiplicity and complexity of the phenomenon of terrorism.
To succinctly answer the titular question “Will it ever be possible to profile the terrorist?”, it can be argued that the usage of one-dimensional measurements to profile the terrorist is a futile endeavour and is likely to remain so in light of the current research. It may be argued that a successful terrorist profile can be created by amalgamating several unsuccessful one-dimensional assessments into a multi-dimensional profile. This is clearly a recipe for compounding failure because with each additional dimension added, the profile’s scope becomes more and more extraneous to the diverse nature of the modern international terrorist.
As an alternative to profiling the terrorist, a more lucrative venture may be to transcend the individual by profiling terrorism as a process within a complex system .This perspective is particularly pertinent today in order to profile terrorism as an increasingly globalized phenomenon.
