Teröristle Mücadelede Mantık-Caydırıcılık İkilemi

Öz

Terör örgütleri faaliyet gösterdikleri zaman ve mekan içerisinde değişiklik gösterse de, terörizmin devlet ve insan güvenliğine olan tehlikesi devam etmektedir. Siyasi çıkarları gereği birbirinden farklı terör ve terörizm tanımı yapan devletler, mücadele ettikleri terör örgütleri ve benimsedikleri terörizmle mücadele yöntemleri bakımından da birbiri ile farklılaşmaktadır. Politik hedeflerine ulaşmak amacı ile terörizmi stratejik bir araç olarak benimseyen terör örgütleri, içinde bulundukları mücadele koşulları, ideolojik altyapıları, toplumdan ve diğer devletlerden almış oldukları destek itibarı ile taktik ve tekniklerinde farklılıklar göstermektedir. Mantıklı birer aktör olarak ele alındığında terör örgütleri, gerçekleştirmeyi planladıkları eylemler sonucunda elde edecekleri göreceli kayıpların, elde edecekleri göreceli kazançtan fazla olduğuna yönelik maliyet hesaplaması yaptığı durumlarda bu eylemi gerçekleştirmeyi doğru görmemiş, kolluk kuvvetlerinin almış olduğu aktif ve pasif önlemler bu caydırıcılığa önemli katkı sağlamıştır. Ancak bir olgu olarak mantık, her ne kadar nesnel bir algıya sahip olsa da kültürel ve ideolojik sebeplerle farklılaşabilmekte, bir kişiye veya topluma mantıksız gelen bir eylem, başka birinin ya da grubun mantığına uyabilmektedir. Bu ise terör örgütlerinin örgütsel yapısının incelenerek, bu grupların sahip olduğu örgütsel mantığa uygun caydırıcı yöntemlerin belirlenmesini gerektirmektedir. Bu çalışma, terör örgütlerin kar-zarar hesaplamalarını daha iyi anlamak ve uygun teröristle mücadele yöntemleri benimsemek adına terör örgütlerinin farklılaşan mantıkları kavramayı amaçlamaktadır. Literatürde mantık, caydırıcılık, terörizmle mücadele gibi konular üzerine çalışmaların bulunmasına rağmen, farklı terör örgütlerinin nasıl caydırılabileceğine yönelik yeterli çalışmanın bulunmayışı sebebi ile önem arz etmektedir. Örgütsel (organizational approach) ve araçsal (instrumental approach) yaklaşımlardan faydalanılacak bu çalışmada, nitel araştırma metotlarından belge analizi yöntemi kullanılacak olup, birbirinden farklı teröristlere ve terör örgütlerine karşı caydırıcılığın kolluk ve güvenlik kuvvetleri tarafından nasıl oluşturulması gerektiği mantık-cayrıdırıcılık ikilemi üzerinden ele alınacaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Terörizm
• Caydırıcılık
• Mantık
• Örgütsel Yaklaşım
• Araçsal Yaklaşım

Logic-Deterrence Dichotomy In Counter-Terrorism

Öz

Although terrorist organizations vary in time and space that they operate, the danger of terrorism to state and human security still continues. States that define terrorism and terrorism differently due to their political interests also differ from each other in the terrorist organizations they fight as well as the military methods that they use in countering terrorism. Terrorist organizations, which adopt terrorism as a strategic choice to achieve their political goals, differ in their tactics and techniques due to their dynamics of struggle, ideology, and the support they receive from the society and other states. As rational actors, terrorist organizations have been deterred by law enforcement and armed forces in cases where the received losses are greater than the received profit, causing them to halt or postpone their activities. The passive and active precautions that law enforcement forces take plays an important role in decreasing the probability of success of terrorist attack or deterring them altogether. Although it has an objective perception, the phenomenon of rationality or logic can be differentiated among the actors due to cultural and ideological reasons, and an action that seems illogical to one person may fit the logic of another. This requires examining the organizational structure of terrorist organizations and determining deterrent methods in accordance with the organizational logic of these groups. This study aims to grasp the differing logics of terrorist organizations in order to better understand the profit-loss calculations of terrorist organizations and to adopt appropriate counter-terrorist methods. In this study, which will benefit from organizational and instrumental approaches, how terrorist organization can be deterred by the law enforcement and armed forces will be examined based on the deterrence-rationality dichotomy, by using document analysis as a qualitative method.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Terrorism
• Deterrence
• Logic
• Organizational Approach
• Instrumental Approach

Kaynakça

1. BAŞEREN, Sertaç Hami, “Terrorism with Its Differentiating Aspects”, Defence Against Terrosim Review, C.1, S.1, Ankara 2008, ss.1-11.
2. BLOOM, Mia, ve John Horgan, "Missing Their Mark: The IRA’s Proxy Bomb Campaign", Social Research: An International Quarterly, C.75, S.2, Maryland 2008, ss.579-614. https://dx.doi.org/10.1353/sor.2008.0055.
3. BOUDON, Raymond, “Subjective Rationality and the Explanation of Social Behavior.” Rationality and Society, C.1, S.2, New York 1989, ss.173-196.
4. BUSH, George W. National Security Strategy. Washington DC: White House, 2002.
5. CAPLAN, Bryan, “Terrorism: The Relevance of the Rational Choice Model.” Public Choice, C.128, S.1/2, Berlin 2006, ss.91–107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-006-9046-8.
6. CHARLIE, Winter, Shiraz Maher ve Aymenn Jawad al–Tamimi, Understanding Salafi–Jihadist Attitudes Towards Innovation, International Center for the Study of Radicalization and Political Violence (ICSR), Londra 2021.
7. CRAGIN, Kim, ve Sara A. Daly, The Dynamic Terrorist Threat: An Assessment of Group Motivations and Capabilities in a Changing World, RAND Corporation, California 2004. https://doi.org/10.7249/MG246.
8. CRENSHAW, Martha, “Theories of Terrorism: Instrumental and Organizational Approaches.” Journal of Strategic Studies, C.10, S.4, Oxford 1987, ss.13–31. doi:10.1080/01402398708437313.

9. DEMİR, Cenker Korhan, “Terörizmle Mücadelede Örgütsel Yaşam Evreleri Yaklaşımı”. Güvenlik Stratejileri Dergisi, C.11, S.22, İstanbul 2015, ss.131-66.
10. DOLNIK, Adam, Understanding Terrorist Innovation: Technology, Tactics and Global Trends, Routledge, New York 2007. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203945466.
11. ENDERS, Walter, Todd Sandier ve Jon Cauley, “UN Conventions, Technology and Retaliation in the Fight Against Terrorism: An Econometric Evaluation.” Terrorism and Political Violence, C.2, New York 1990, ss.83-105.
12. FINE, Jonathan, “Political and Philological Origins of the Term ‘Terrorism’ from the Ancient Near East to Our Times.” Middle Eastern Studies, C.46, S.2, New York 2010, ss.271–88. doi:10.1080/00263201003619927.
13. GANOR, Boaz, "Defining Terrorism: Is One Man’s Terrorist Another Man’s Freedom Fighter?" Police Practice and Research, C.9, S.3, New York 2007, ss.268–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/1561426022000032060.
14. GEIS, John P., ve Theodore C. Hailes, “Deterring Emergent Technologies.” Strategic Studies Quarterly, C.10, S.3, Alabama 2016, ss.47–73. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26271494.
15. GOERZIG, Carolin, “Terrorist Learning in Context – the Case of Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.” Critical Studies on Terrorism, C.12, S.4, New York 2019, ss.629–48. doi:10.1080/17539153.2019.1596623.
16. GREENE, Alan, "Defining Terrorism: One Size Fits All?" International and Comparative Law Quarterly, C.66, S.2, Cambridge 2017, ss.411–440. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020589317000125.
17. GÜNDOĞDU, Emre, “Uluslararası İlişkilerde Caydırma Teorisi”. Marmara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilimler Dergisi, C.4, S.2, İstanbul 2016, ss.1-22.
18. HALABI, Abdullah, “The Factors That Effect on Rational Decision Making.” International Journal of Applied Research, C.5, S.6, Delhi 2019, ss.65-69. https://doi.org/10.22271/allresearch.2019.v5.i6f.6760.
19. HOFFMAN, Bruce, Inside Terrorism: Revised and Expanded Edition, Columbia University Press, New York 2006. HOROWITZ, Michael C., “Nonstate Actors and the Diffusion of Innovations: The Case of Suicide Terrorism.” International Organization, C.64, S.1, Cambridge 2010, ss.33-64.
20. JACKSON, Brian A, “Technology Acquisition by Terrorist Groups: Threat Assessment Informed by Lessons from Private Sector Technology Adoption.” Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, C.24, S.3, New York 2001, ss.183–213. doi:10.1080/10576100151130270.
21. ———, Ed., The Routledge Handbook of Terrorism Research, Routledge, New York 2011. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203846459.
22. ———, et al. Aptitude for Destruction: Volume 1. RAND Corporation, California 2005. https://doi.org/10.7249/MG331.
23. ———, et al. Aptitude for Destruction: Volume 2 – Case Studies of Organizational Learning in Five Terrorist Groups. RAND Corporation, California 2005.
24. JONES, Seth G, ve Martin C. Libicki, How Terrorist Groups End: Lessons for Countering Al Qa’ida, RAND Corporation, California 2008. https://doi.org/10.7249/MG741.
25. KARABULUT, Bilal, Güvenlik: Küreselleşme Sürecinde Güvenliği Yeniden Düşünmek, Barış Kitap, Ankara 2015.
26. LEBOVIC, James H., Deterring International Terrorism and Rogue States: US National Security Policy after 9/11, Routledge, New York 2007.
27. MAZARR, Michael J., Understanding Deterrence, RAND Corporation, California 2018.
28. MEHMETCİK, Hakan, “21. Yüzyıl için Caydırıcılık: Teori ve Pratikte Neler Değişti?” Güvenlik Stratejileri Dergisi, C.11, S.22. İstanbul 2015, ss.31-60.
29. Merriam-Webster, “Deterrence.” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deterrence (Erişim Tarihi: 9 Ocak, 2025).
30. MILLER, Gregory D, “Terrorist Decision Making and the Deterrence Problem.” Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, C.36, S.2, New York 2013, ss.132–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/1057610X.2013.747074.
31. MORGAN, Patrick, Deterrence Now. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2003.
32. NEHORAYOFF, Andrea A., Benjamin Ash, ve Daniel S. Smith, "Aum Shinrikyo's Nuclear and Chemical Weapons Development Efforts." Journal of Strategic Security, C.9, S.1, Florida 2016, ss.35–48. https://doi.org/10.5038/1944-0472.9.1.1456.
33. OGUNROTIFA, Ayodeji Bayo, “Research on terrorism: An overview of theoretical perspectives.” Asian Journal of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities, C.2, Haryana 2012, ss.11-27.
34. Oppenheimer, A. R. IRA, the Bombs and the Bullets: A History of Deadly Ingenuity, Dublin, Irish Academic Press, 2008.
35. RAPAPORT, David C., “Fear and Trembling: Terrorism in Three Religious Traditions.” American Political Science Review, C.78, S.3, Cambridge 1983, ss.658-677. https://doi.org/10.2307/1961833.
36. Rasmussen Maria J., ve Mohammed M. Hafez, ed, “Terrorist Innovations in Weapons of Mass Effect: Preconditions, Causes, and Predictive Indicators”, Defense Threat Reduction Agency, Vancouver 2010.
37. ROSKIN, Michael G., ve Nicholas O. Berry, IR: The New World of International Relations. 10th ed., Pearson Education, New Jersey 2015.
38. SCHMID, Alex P, "Terrorism - The Definitional Problem." Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, C.36, S.2, Ohio 2004, ss.375-419.
39. SILKE, Andrew ve Anastasia Filippidou, "What Drives Terrorist Innovation? Lessons from Black September and Munich 1972." Security Journal, C.33, S.2, Londra 2020, ss.210–227. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41284-019-00170-6. SPENCER, Alexander, “Questioning The Concept of ‘New Terrorism”, Journal of Peace Conflict & Development, S.8, Bradford 2006, ss.1-33. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.922768.
40. SPIEGELEIRE, Stephan De, Reimagining Deterrence: Towards Strategic (Dis)Suasion Design, Hague Centre for Strategic Studies, Hague 2019.
41. SYMEONİDOU-Kastanidou, Elisabeth. "Defining Terrorism", European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, C.12, S.1, Leiden 2004, ss.14-35. https://doi.org/10.1163/157181704322756398.
42. TRAGER, ROBERT F, ve Dessislava P. Zagorcheva, “Deterring Terrorism: It Can Be Done” International Security, C.30, S.3, Massachusetts 2006, ss.87–123. doi: https://doi.org/10.1162/isec.2005.30.3.87
43. Türk Dil Kurumu, “Caydırıcılık.” https://sozluk.gov.tr/ (Erişim Tarihi: 9 Ocak 2025).
44. ÜNAL, Mustafa Coşar ve Petra Cafnik Uludağ, “Eradicating Terrorism in Asymmetric Conflict: The Role and Essence of Military Deterrence.” Terrorism and Political Violence, C.34, S.4, New York 2020, ss.772–816. doi:10.1080/09546553.2020.1742113.
45. Wiktionary, “Reconstruction: Proto-Indo-European/Tres-.” https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/tres-#cite_note-1 (Erişim Tarihi: January 11, 2025).