To paraphrase Sully, we can say that the two pillars of efficient action are a concept which is pertinent, and means which are adapted. This is particularly so in the domain of the war against terrorism.

Anti-terrorism Concepts

In the field of concepts a breath of fresh air has just been brought to us by the RAND Corporation, with the publication of a study entitled ‘How Terrorist Groups End: Implications for Countering al Qa’ida’.

The RAND Study

In substance, the researchers studied 648 terrorist groups which were active during the period 1968-2006. Their principal conclusion is that 10 per cent of them ceased their activity after having achieved their aims, while only 7 per cent were suppressed by military force. This leaves a hard core of 83 per cent, and this is where the main interest of the study lies. It demonstrates that half of this hard core (43 per cent) laid down their arms following a political solution, and the other half (40 per cent), who refused to move forward towards a political solution, were dismantled by action which combined offensive intelligence and infiltration. This was used by a security apparatus coordinating the public actors in the field of law enforcement: justice, police, customs and the civil service. Among other observations, the RAND study underlines the resilience of religious terrorist groups, which makes law enforcement much more difficult. This, then, is an interesting basis on which to clarify the choice of a concept of fighting terrorism.