Terrorism, Psychology, and Profiling

It has been noted, ad nauseum I might add, that there is no profile for a terrorist. This remark is either born out of ignorance of what a profile is or it is used as a means of facilitating a political argument. Either way this belief hinders the instruction of terrorist psychology to political decision makers and to a lesser extent the population at large. This remark, when used as political argument, can be readily dismissed because it centers on the narcissistic belief that the U.S. is the direct cause of terrorist activity and blatantly ignores the psychological factors that are often involved in the individual decision to engage in violence. Although blowback from U.S. operations can be a catalyst for terrorism recruitment it is rarely the driving force that spawns terrorist groups. The rationale behind this argument is an attempt to absolve an individual from criminality and instead base their argument on the perceived failings of society.

The reason a profile for terrorists does not exist is because profiles are based upon individual personalities as opposed to a single profile that all terrorists must fall into. Essentially it is the equivalent of pounding a square peg into a round hole; it just doesn’t work. Psychological profiling is not used as a general category that numerous individuals will fit into, but rather based upon evidence left behind by a single individual in an attempt to construct a description of their personality. When a profile is done on a serial killer or serial rapist it is done primarily on actions witnessed by the victim or other bystanders and physical evidence left at the scene. Profiles that are done on terrorists, cult leaders, and even world leaders are done using public speeches, writings, or interviews of people close to the individual being profiled. Once enough information is gathered a profile is compiled and while not perfect it can adequately describe an individual’s personality. It should be noted that an individual’s personality does not change, but only becomes more refined over the course of a lifetime.

The purpose of profiling an individual differs from case to case. When profiling a serial killer the investigator is trying to establish, among other things, motive and victim type. When profiling a terrorist leader the purpose is similar in that a motive must be determined, but also what the leader means to their group. Of course other reasons exist for profiling a terrorist, but these two are of primary concern because the profiler must try to establish what will happen should certain events take place. For an example of this the profile that was done on Adolph Hitler is a great place to start. You can view it here. The end purpose for any profile is to establish an insight into an individual’s personality so that steps can be taken to deal with the individual. A profile may not be the only key to understanding terrorism and countering, but it is only meant to be a single tool in the larger fight. Although profiles are constructed on an individual basis some elements do overlap from person to person because all people have some needs in common. With that said I will leave with an excerpt from an essay published in 1990 by Gottfredson & Hirschi that discusses low self-control in criminality. I will leave it up to the reader to apply it terrorism.

“Criminal acts provide easy or simple gratification of desires. They provide money without work, sex without courtship, revenge without court delays. People lacking self-control also tend to lack diligence, tenacity, or persistence in a course of action.... People lacking self-control ... tend to be adventuresome, active, and physical.... People with low self-control ... tend to have unstable marriages, friendships, and job profiles[; and are] self-centered, indifferent, or insensitive to the suffering and needs of others, [although not] routinely unkind or antisocial. On the contrary, they may discover the immediate and easy rewards of charm and generosity.... In sum, people who lack self-control will tend to be impulsive, insensitive, physical (as opposed to mental), risk-taking, short-sighted, and non-verbal, and they will tend therefore to engage in criminal and analogous acts.”