Islamic insurgency and tactical adoption of terrorism by global jihadist’s

Patrick Cannon BSST 332: Practices of Terrorism 12/8/2014

Abstract

Since the 1970’s, the Middle East has seen an increase in political activism and violence.

The United States has been involved with efforts to counter extremist groups in this region, post

9/11 our efforts have increased drastically, specifically in Iraq and the Afghanistan/Pakistan

(AFPAK) region. Ten years after the both Operation Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom many

lessons have been learned and new perspectives have emerged. Globalization and increased

connectivity have created a new view on insurgency and extremist activity. The purpose of this

paper is to further look into this notion and address how the United States government has to re-

define and re-think the violence of Global Jihad and Islamic Extremists as Radical Islamic

Insurgency Based Terrorism. Along with looking at the role of tactical adoption to further make

recommendations in research and policy to fix operational and analytical pitfalls in future

conflicts.

I. Radicals or Patriots? Unconventional Tactics in a Globalized World

a. Terminology and Methodology

b. Insurgency and Terrorism: Complementing and Competing Paradigms

II. The Importance of Definition: Tactics, Logic and the Real World

a. Guerilla Warfare and Terrorism as Tactics

b. Failure of Old School Logic: Tactical Adoption and Group Efficacy

c. Caliphates and Sharia Law: A Case Study of Radical Islamic Groups

III. Gaps and Analysis: Redefine the Enemy and Rethink our Tactics

a. Conclusion: Recommendations on the Enemy and Tactics

Radicals or Patriots? Unconventional Tactics in a Globalized World

Change is inevitable, regimes change and new figures come to power. These shifts occur

both violently and non-violently. More then not as history has shown most of these changes

come at the end of a sword or in our modern era, the barrel of a gun. Insurgency and Terrorism

are not new venues of warfare, we have seen their increase use post globalization and

colonization of areas worldwide. What is new is our understanding of both concepts, post 9/11

the government has increased focus and research of non-state actor groups. Insurgency can be

traced back as far as the Roman Empire, but the earliest mention of insurgent and guerilla tactics

is in the “Art of War” written by Sun Tzu. But it wasn’t until the 18th century that these state on

non-state actor violence began to become noticeable. During this time of proper warfare these

tactics were seen as cowardice and “a manifestation of criminality” (Sr & Gray, 2011). The

French Revolution, The American Revolution, even the Napoleonic wars saw rise of these

unconventional tactics of conflict manned by the common people.

In the 20th century many insurgent conflicts were seen especially with the rise of anti-

colonialism sentiments, the earliest being the rise of the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against

British occupation. This conflict would in one shape or form until the Good Friday Agreement in

1998. In the late 50’s to early 70’s, Americas fear of communism would lead us into a war in

Vietnam were the Viet Cong army would employ these guerilla tactics against a well-trained and

well equipped U.S. army that would eventually retreat in 1972. Last but not least the Soviet

Union would attempt to occupy Afghanistan but were beaten back by the Mujahedeen. The

mujahedeen fully employed guerilla tactics against the feared Russian army forcing them to

retreat as well. This case of insurgency in Afghanistan during the 1980’s would lead to the

problem we have today. It’s been thirteen years since the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan and

eleven since the invasion of Iraq. The Islamic insurgence has reached new heights in violence

and it global reach. Many lessons have been learned from this conflict, but one still remains;

what are we actually fighting?

In our post 9/11 world policy makers and the media have been so hung up on “Terrorism”

because of the events of that day that the government has labeled everything following that day

as “an act of terror”. But just because it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, doesn’t mean

it is a duck. Terrorism is an issue of the modern day, like guerrilla warfare it is an asymmetrical

tactic used by non-state actors to further agendas. But some experts and scholars in the various

fields of terrorism, insurgency, and modern conflict view terrorism differently than those making

policy. David Kilcullen one of the top experts in counter-insurgency and modern conflict has

stated the he believes that we are not fighting a war on terror, but a war on insurgency on a

global scale. This lead to my belief that many of the groups fighting this global jihad are not pure

terrorist groups, rather they are insurgencies that have adopted terrorism as one their primary

tactics because of its coercive effect and simplicity.

Terminology and Methodology

Much of my research is centered on the work of David Kilcullens and his notions and

claims and the data set I am currently working on at START. My goal was to use this as a base to

build a further case of why the United States Government need to re-define who we are fighting

and in turn re-think our current strategy and policy. I also looked into Dr.Mark Lichbach and

Robert Pape’s work. Mark Lichbach headed a dataset called Guerilla Insurgency: A Springboard

for Terrorism, which I worked on as a START intern. The dataset looked at the correlation of

insurgent groups and their use of terrorist tactics in a conflict. Dr. Robert Pape wrote Dying to

Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism which analyzed the adoption of suicide tactics by

terrorist groups. All three of these figures work helped me establish a framework in which I

could define what Radical Islamic Insurgency Based Terrorisms was and why we need to view

jihadist violence as such.

I also found that certain definitions were crucial for context and understanding of this

topic. The definitions of insurgency and terrorism are not include because they have their own

dedicated section. Operations definitions also have their own dedicated section. The following

terms are important:

Nationalism- “is a belief, creed or political ideology that involves an individual

identifying with, or becoming attached to, one's nation” (Rothi, Lyons, & Chryssochoou,

2005)

Religious Nationalism- the relationship of nationalism to a particular religious belief,

dogma, or affiliation. This relationship can be broken down into two aspects; the

politicization of religion and the influence of religion on politics. (Xypolia, 2011)

Non-State Actor- are entities that participate or act in international relations. They are

organizations with sufficient power to influence and cause a change even though they do

not belong to any established institution of a state.

Globalization- the process of international integration arising from the interchange of

world views, products, ideas and other aspects of culture.

Guerilla Warfare- “a form of irregular warfare in which a small group of combatants

such as armed civilians or irregulars use military tactics including ambushes, sabotage,

raids, petty warfare, hit-and-run tactics, and mobility to fight a larger and less-mobile

traditional military”. (Department of Defense, 2014)

Asymmetrical Warfare- “is war between belligerents whose relative military power

differs significantly, or whose strategy or tactics differ significantly”. (Tomes, 2004 )

Insurgency and Terrorism: Complementing and Competing Paradigms

Non-state actor violence comes in many forms, while terrorism and insurgency both stem

from a political grievance and indifference they are very different. Insurgency is better defined

then terrorism, the Department of Defense defines the concepts as:

Insurgency- “an organized resistance movement that uses subversion,

sabotage and armed conflict to achieve its aims. Insurgencies normally seek to

overthrow the existing social order and reallocate power within the country.

They may also seek to” (Department of Defense, 2014);

o Overthrow an established government without a follow-on social

revolution Establish an autonomous national territory within the

borders of the state, Cause withdrawal of an occupying power, Extract

political concessions that are unattainable through non-violent means.

Terrorism- “the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to inculcate

fear; intended to coerce or intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit

of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological” (Department of

Defense, 2014).

Right of the bat one difference can be seen, terrorism (not terrorist’s or terrorists groups) is a

tactic and nothing more. This has caused problems with our current strategy against global

jihadist groups, we view them solely as terrorist groups and terrorism as a physical problem. The

truth is, not all radical Islamic groups are solely terrorist groups, and rather they are insurgents

using terrorist tactics. There are benefits and fall backs to this, the benefit is that terrorist style

attacks can significantly impact a large opposing force with just a few men and will coordinated

execution. This seems similar to guerrilla warfare the key difference being that terrorist tactics

are usually conducted in a manner that targets civilians to punish the government.

The complementing and unifying factor between insurgency and terrorism is that both

live and die by the populace they claim to fight for. A Non-State group relies on its people for

funding, support, safe heavens and may other key needs to maintain a group’s capacity to

operate. This can be swayed by a group’s ideology and tactics, if a groups demands are too

unreasonable and there tactics to brutal a population will not support a given group. As stated

before the real contrasting factor is target selection between the two tactics. Donald Black states

that “terrorism is unilateral and covert…and its targets are civilian rather than military” (Black,

2004), On the other hand insurgency has a covert nature but its actions are much more overt, so

too is their presence once they come into full swing. Scholars like black also highlight that target

selection can change for terrorist and insurgent groups, “those popularly known as guerillas may

sometimes engage in terrorism, and those known as terrorists sometimes engage in guerilla

warfare” (Black, 2004). This shows that there are pure terrorist groups and pure insurgencies, the

trouble is that they are few and far between are pure or do not remain pure.

Terrorism and Insurgency may thrive in the same environment but by no means are they

exactly identical. Between the two concepts insurgency is much easier to disrupt, this is because

an insurgency itself is a physical body as the DOD definition states “an organized resistance

movement” (Department of Defense, 2014). The issue with radical groups in the Middle East is

that they are not like traditional insurgencies. Killcullen argues that we are fighting a war on

global insurgency in not global terrorism (Killcullen, 2004 ). This notion of a global paradigm

has shifted understandings and definitions which posse the challenge of new counter strategies

(status quo strategy will be addressed in conclusion) to combat these non-state actor threats.

The Importance of Definition: Tactics, Logic and the Real World

The ability to define a person or concept is to show an understanding. What most people

forget is that times change, so do perceptions and understandings. Pre 1945 warfare logic saw

that the stronger side in a conflict not only instigated a fight, but almost always won it as well.

This logic assumed that conflict was state on state combatants. Post 1945, that all changed “the

modern action of nation building, insurgencies, and the use of guerilla and terrorist tactics” (Sr &

Gray, 2011) have become cornerstones of political and social change. If we look at an

insurgency as a physical being then tactics are “personalities” a way of expression that is dictated

by influential factors in a non-state actors environment. Often insurgencies are swayed by

government response, population interaction, amount of resources, and ideology.

If the United States is to better its operational and analytical capacity it must do a better

job of understanding why non-state actor groups adopt different tactics and view them as tactics

and nothing more. “Terrorism has become merely another derogatory word, rather than a

descriptor of a specific type of activity” (Merari, 1993 ). Further, the United States must

distinguish the various tactics employed by non-state actors. Specifically terrorism and guerilla

warfare as they are the most utilized by these groups.

Guerilla Warfare and Terrorism as Tactics and the Difference between Them

“As strategies of insurgency, however, terrorism and guerrilla are quite distinct” (Merari,

1993 ). Merari speaks how the two words are used interchangeably but highlights there

distinctness in many ways. First is the physicality, “unlike terrorism, guerilla tries to establish

physical control of a territory” (Merari, 1993 ). Guerrilla warfare is the primary tactic used by

insurgencies, in the 1980’s the anti-Soviet jihad used these tactics to combat the Russians, and it

was also very popular with South American revolutionary groups as well. These tactics include

ambushes, raids and hit run style attacks. When guerilla tactics are utilized a group or

movements goal is to assert dominance and control, this can be seen in some Islamic groups like

the Taliban for example who in the 1990’s not only seized Kandahar but the province as well.

Terrorism as a tactic does not dwell in a physical domain so to speak. The act itself is physical,

the goal and consequence is not. “As a strategy, terrorism remains in the domain of

psychological influence” (Merari, 1993 ). Coercion and fear are the endgames of a terrorist

attack, to influence a target state government in too giving in or meeting “demands” of the non-

state actor. This can include car bombing, suicide bombings and kidnappings. Simply put one

tactic is used to gain physical progress, the other to sway an enemy and cause disruption among

the populace.

Size and target selection also plays a factor, with guerilla tactics targets are almost

entirely of a military or of strategic importance (I.E. weapons depots). In guerilla warfare large

forces are utilized by non-state actors “guerillas usually wage war in platoon or company size

units” (Merari, 1993 ). When acts of terrorism are conducted size and target are the opposite of

guerilla warfare. With terrorism non-state actors work in smaller and more convert units for their

operations. This involves tactics such as bombings, kidnappings, and small arms conflict. As

stated before the goal of terrorism is coercion of a psychological manner, this is accomplished by

the unorthodox selection of civilian targets. Robert Pape discuss the strategies of denial vs

punishment in non-state actor conflict. The trouble he says is “Denial is impossible, this is due to

the fact that even groups that have state backing do not poses the means for full scale invasion”

(Pape, 2005). There by this logic terrorism uses punishment to produce a coercive effect on a

state actor adversary.

It’s easy to establish these concepts merely as tactics, the real question becomes what

makes an insurgency decide between the two. Is the adoption of one tactic or another a choice of

reason? Or one that comes out of necessity or forced adaptation based on event within a conflict?

If the might of a state actor force outweighs most non-state actor and insurgent groups, why do

governments have such a tough time extinguishing and dismantling these groups?

Failure of Old School Logic: Tactical Adoption and Darwinian Selection

When it comes to warfare “most models of human conflict tend to focus on military

power, predicting that- all else equal- the stronger side will prevail” (Johnson, 2009). While this

logic has proven true many times, post WWII it does not hold the argument that it used to. The

reason being that before 1945 most conflicts where state on state conflict. Today’s modern

conflicts have been primarily sate on non-state actors, this is due to more globalized network of

interaction between different parts of the world. When states go head to head with a non-state

actor group, whether in their own country and another recent history has shown that traditional

warfare and “cold war” tactics cannot prevail against an insurgency. Killcullen talks about an

insurgency and the environment it works in as biological system. In terms of tactics, Darwinian

Selection has been applied to why non-state groups change and adopt tactics to take on more

powerful state actors.

According to Johnson application on Darwinian selection shows “stronger sides may

suffer a disadvantage” (Johnson, 2009). The three areas he highlights are Variation, Selection,

and Replication. Essentially “weaker sides adapt faster and more effectively” (Johnson, 2009) in

this case Islamic insurgencies, whom Johnson also looked at as well. Johnson states that much

like in the wild, insurgencies change tactics through natural selection. The reason this is

applicable is “organisms must constantly adapt just to stay in the same strategic position relative

to their enemies” (Sagrain, 2003), such is the case with any insurgency. Non-state actors have to

adapt to counter-reactions by state actors as well as stay one step ahead. But have Islamic groups

used variations of tactics? Selected the successful ones and continue to replicate these tactics?

Caliphates and Sharia Law: A Case Study of Radical Islamic Groups

Tactical adoption and Darwinian Selection sound good in theory, but what of its real

world application? Have we seen Islamic groups go from traditional insurgencies to insurgencies

utilizing terrorism? With the Islamic resurgence the world began to see an increase Islamic

activism, starting with the Iranian revolution in 1979. This is an example of a pure insurgency,

and others have occurred such as the Sunni Insurgency in Iraq and the Houthi Rebellion in

Yemen. The well-known insurgency that has come out of the conflict in the Middle East is the

Taliban in Afghanistan. The Center of Security Studies in Switzerland recently published an

article discussing what they call the “Talibanization of Insurgency” (Mahadevan, 2014). The

Taliban got its start with the mujahedeen that fought against the soviet invasion in the 1980’s but

was officially founded by Mullah Omar in 1994 as a milita that then took over governmental

control until 2001. The Taliban serves as a forefather of sorts within the present day Islamic

insurgent groups.

The Taliban

Post-soviet invasion there was a power vacuum in Afghanistan, one that the Taliban filled

quickly and efficiently. “The Taliban have long had an innate understanding of guerrilla tactics

at the field level, based on the accumulated wisdom of three decades of civil war in Afghanistan”

(Mahadevan, 2014), this has allowed them to sustain a prolonged insurgency against the afghan

government and U.S. forces. The Taliban has used guerilla tactics against U.S. forces, Taliban

fighters were notorious for ambushes and raids against U.S convoys and patrols in the Helmand

and Kandahar provinces. Subversion was also part of the Taliban arsenal, “It is known that the

Taliban spent the years 2002–05 infiltrating large numbers of cadres into Afghanistan, from safe

havens in Pakistan” (Mahadevan, 2014). This would allow the Taliban to expand its insurgency

across Afghanistan, thus gaining territory and a foothold.

While original Taliban tactics were successful, counter measures by U.S. and Afghan

forces forced them to adopt new tactics to keep an edge. Post 2005 the Taliban increased its use

of Improvised Explosive Devices (IED’s) against U.S. and Afghan forces, this terrorist style

tactic proved effective, “Afghan IEDs can be built for as little as $265 apiece. The US

government, in contrast, spent $ 18 billion on designing and manufacturing bomb-detection

equipment” (Mahadevan, 2014). Not only has the Taliban changed the existing social order

before but wishes to do so again, which makes them an insurgency. However as the fight has

raged new tactics have been adopted to react to pressure. The Haqqini network, a faction within

the Taliban has used Kidnapping for Ransom as a fear tactic and as way to raise funds. But some

scholars believe this has left Afghanistan, many Taliban fighters came from outside of

Afghanistan and such have taken those tactics back home. “Although the Taliban model of

insurgency has yet to be exactly replicated in other contexts, some aspects can already be noticed

elsewhere” (Mahadevan, 2014), this shows the influence of the global paradigm that has

developed from globalized jihad into other areas such as North Africa.

Al Shabbab in Somalia

Al-Shabbab is a radical Islamic group out of Somalia that formed out of the Islamic

Courts union in 2006. From their beginnings Al-Shabbab was an insurgency, engaging Ethiopian

forces and forming strongholds. However when African Union and other governmental forces

began to successfully combat them Al-Shabbab shifted its tactics. “Late September 2013, a small

team of gunmen attacked the upscale Westgate shopping center” (Bryden, 2014). This attack

highlighted Al-Shabbab’s shift into implementing terrorist attacks to further their agenda. They

have also employed suicide bombings and “suicide infantry”. This and the July 2010 bombings

were both conducted by Al-Shabbab’s Martyrdom Brigade. This brigade carries out many

terrorist style suicide missions, usually outside of Somalia. In comparison the group utilizes its

insurgency component in country. On a global perspective Al-Shabbab is not hiding trade secrets

“ Jacob Zenn, an expert on Boko Haram who has advised the State Department on the terror

group, said worrying signs have emerged of the extremists communicating and sharing tactics

with al Shabaab” (Vos & Smith , 2014).

Boko Haram in Nigeria

Organized by Mohammed Yusuf in 2002 out of Northern Nigeria Boko Haram is radical

Islamic group that despite having been around for more than a decade has recently gained

momentum in their cause. Originally Boko Haram was seen as a pure terrorist group employing

suicide bombing attacks and drive by assassinations of key political figures. The group has

become a full-fledged insurgency, attacking government forces to remove them a seize territory

to establish bases of operation. “Boko Haram's tactics have changed accordingly, from smash

and dash attacks, killing thousands, into attempts to grab and hold territory” (Grossman &

Joscelyn, 2014). Despite this image change Boko Haram still utilizes terrorist tactics, their latest

being kidnapping. “Perhaps less sophisticated than other tactics, kidnapping has become one of

the group’s primary funding sources, a way to extract concessions from the Nigerian state and

other governments” (Zenn, 2013). The spotlighted kidnapping was that of 276 young girls from a

school in northern Nigeria.

While Boko Haram does not fall into a straight forward transition of insurgency adopting

terrorism, they still qualify. Not only is Boko Haram another example of an insurgency utilizing

terrorist tactics, it reinforces the global paradigm threat as both groups not only have affiliation

with each other, but Al-Qaeda as well.

Gaps and Analysis: Redefine the Enemy and Rethink our Tactics

When it comes to insurgency and the ins and outs of its practice there is an abundance of

literature and scholarly research. Even with this abundance, there are area that have yet to be

covered or thoroughly explored. Most insurgency literature still follows classical thought process

a structure, meaning they still view individual insurgencies as singular entities. As Killcullen

discusses in his thesis, he views these insurgencies as a global movement. These Islamic

insurgencies are united through their common religious beliefs. Add our fast paced globalized

society and you have a vast network. On top of this when it comes to globalized insurgency

practitioners and academics have not studied if this globalized is unique to radical Islam or if it

can be replicated. When it comes to terrorism vs insurgency, many scholars have done extensive

work on both areas and compared and contrasted them. The areas that need to be covered is the

pressing of terrorism as at tactic and not a living thing.

In the realm of tactical adoption there were some gaps to consider. Much literature covers

how tactical adoption occurs and that in fact it’s a phenomena; but why does it occur? Many

scholars have looked into the histories and timelines of groups like the Taliban and Boko Haram

adopting terrorism as tactic along with distinguishing pure terrorists from insurgency movements

but the real how has not been established. What kind of government actions push non-state actors

to terrorism in an insurgency? When do these groups find it acceptable to target their own

population that they are relying on for support? Is there a point of no return for the use of

terrorism, one this tactic is adopted can the use of guerilla tactics not make up for the use of

terrorism?

Conclusion: Recommendations on the Enemy and Tactics

If there is anything Killcullen and Lichbach agree on is this “Terrorism is only a means to

an end” (Killcullen, 2004 ). Lichbach’s work has also shown that the adoption of terrorism by

insurgency groups is not a new thing. Along with the global paradigm perspective one thing is

clear, we need to re-think our adversary and the use of tactics on both sides. Through some

research and my own viewpoints I have defined these two terms:

Radical Islamic Insurgency- Non-State actors who use insurgent tactics in hope to

obtain the goals of a radical Islamic ideology as well as overthrow the existing social

order and establish shria law or other radical Islamic influences as the governing body.

Insurgent Based Terrorism- Non-State/Insurgent actors that adopt the use of terrorism

as a tactic in their armed/guerilla conflict against a state actor.

As other scholars have shown that classic logic and classic counter paradigms have become

archaic and present day logic and understanding must come into play. But to change logic, must

change definition and enhance our understanding. Insurgencies are complex but have simple

motivations and needs, they become part of the very environments they wish to change making

them difficult to up root.

What I recommend is not more research or new policy, it is both. We do need to change

policy to improve the effectiveness of both counter-terrorism (CT) and counter-insurgency

(COIN) operations. This is a tweak of Killcullen’s proposal of focusing on COIN operations.

Both forms of counter-operations are required but both need to be formatted to a global scale.

Unlike traditional insurgencies which are usually tied to an individual areas, the campaigns of

the Taliban, Boko Haram, Al-Shabbab and other radical groups are tied together through

religious nationalism of Radical Islam (I say radical because the schools of thought and

ideologies of these groups differ from non-radical Islam). This has allowed the global jihadist

movement to extend far beyond the mountains of Afghanistan or the Arabian Peninsula. So how

do we improve? There are four areas of effectiveness we need to improve:

1. Tactical Adoption Factors- we must understand how and why a group decides to use

guerilla or terrorist tactics

2. Advising and Low Key Presence- if U.S. intervention is required, we do not need an

invasion force, teach and monitor should be our motto.

3. Accurate Framework- goals and objectives must be set before stepping foot in-country.

Eradicating a group is not enough, we have to stabilize.

4. Networking and Cultural Awareness- proposed by Killcullen, one must understand the

area he is in. outsiders have the disadvantage of no local knowledge.

At the end of the day, most insurgencies must be dealt with by the locals, that being said in our

highly globalized world outside interventions from super powers and other countries is

inevitable. The line between a radical and a patriot is a thin one and only time and a final

outcome will decide what the history books will say. Knowledge is said to be power, but is

useless unless it is utilized to better yourself and any situation that needs resolution. If this logic

is adopted then we can effectively combat non-state extremist violence and the global jihadist

movement more effectively, maybe to bring an end but at least turn the tide.

Bibliography

Black, D. (2004). The Geometry of Terrorism . Charlottesville: University of Virginia .

Bryden, M. (2014). The Reinvention of Al-Shabbab: A Strategy of Choice or Necessisty? . Washington D.C. : Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) .

Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Department of State. (2009). U.S. Goverment Counter Insurgency Guide . Washington D.C. : United States Department of State .

Central Intelliegence Agency (CIA). (2009). Guide to the Analysis of Insurgency . Langley .

Collings, D., & Rohozinski, R. (2013). Shifting Fire: Information Effects in CounterInsurgency and Stability Operations. Cambridge : U.S. Army War College: University of Cambridge .

Grossman, L., & Joscelyn, T. (2014). Analysis: Boko Haram focuses on seizing territory. Washington D.C. : The Long War Journal.

Johnson, D. (2009). Darwinian Selction in Aysymetrical Warfare: The Natrual Advantage of Insurgents and Terrorists. Edinburgh : Univeristy of Edinburgh .

Killcullen, L. (. (2004 ). Countering Global Insurgency . Australia .

Mahadevan, P. (2014). Strategic Trends in 2014: The Talibanization of Insurgency . Zurich : Center for Security Studies.

Merari, A. (1993 ). Terrorism as a Strategy of Insurgency . London: Frank Cass.

Pape, R. (2005). Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism . New York : Random House .

Rothi, D., Lyons, E., & Chryssochoou, X. (2005). National Attachment and Patriotism in a European Nation: A British Study. Middlesex University.

Sagrain, R. (2003). Adapt or Die: What Charles Darwin can Teach Tom Ridge about Homeland Security . Washington D.C. : Foregin Policy .

Sr, A. M., & Gray, D. H. (2011). Insurgency, Guerilla Warfare, and Terrorism: Conflict and its Application for the Future. Global Security Studies .

Tomes, R. R. (2004 ). Relearning CounterInsurgency Warfare . Carlisle: U.S. Army War College .

Vos, S. D., & Smith , A. (2014, Decemebr 2). Boko Haram Trades Terrorist Tactics With Somolia's Al-Shabbab. Retrieved from NBCNews.com: http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/missing-nigeria-schoolgirls/boko-haram-trades-terrorist-tactics-somalias-al-shabaab-n140456

Xypolia, I. (2011). Cypriot Muslims Amoung Ottamans, Turks, and Two World Wars. Stanfordshire: Keele University.

Zenn, J. (2013). Boko Haram's Evolving Tactics and Alliances in Nigeria . West Point : Counter Terrorism Center .