Celebrity terrorism or why Al Qaeda is obsessed with blowing up planes

Michael Wesley, executive director of Australia's Lowy Institute for International Policy, has penned a very insightful blog post warning against complacency following the killing of Southeast Asian Islamist terrorist Noordin Mohammed Top by Indonesian police.

He argues that more such "celebrity terrorists", who have the power to inspire their followers while intimidating their enemies, are bound to emerge.

Terrorism is a form of political theatre, and there are two audiences that contemporary terrorists seek to influence: the intimidated and the inspired. The intimidated are those whom the terrorists attack, and those who identify with the terrorists' victims. Terrorists also use their violence to communicate with each other and their sympathizers – the inspired.

The increasingly dominant culture of celebrity, which produces a profound discomfort with anonymity, evokes among the alienated an urge to rage against obscurity. But it’s not just about ego, it's also crucial to the viability of a terrorist campaign. Without the ability to attract attention, peddle inspiration, and impress fellow travelers with one's commitment and ingenuity, a terrorist campaign will not be able to generate the footsoldiers, finances, and facilitators it needs.

Which, I think, explains why Al Qaeda followers are so obsessed with blowing up planes and other grandiose plots such as the Mumbai attacks. As Wesley notes, such plans are much harder to pull off without detection than simply sending anthrax in the post or stabbing random people in the street.

But sweeping, theatrical acts of terror are more inspirational to other potential terrorists and create more concentrated fear among everyone else. I also suspect that the obsession with grand plots has something to do with the narcissism of those who become entangled in terrorist cells.

I would add, though, that the "urge to rage against obscurity" is nothing new. Just read Crime and Punishment (first published 1866).

Does resurgent terrorism threaten Indonesia's bright prospects?

Up until the deadly suicide bomb attacks on two upmarket Jakarta hotels last month, the discourse surrounding Indonesia was all about the country's bright prospects.

From investment bankers to academics and journalists, everyone was talking about the remarkable transition to peacecful democracy and how Indonesia's economy, freed from reliance on exports to the West, was set to be the next emerging market success story.

The hotel attacks and the subsequent mopping up operations against Noordin Top and his Jemaah Islamiyah henchmen have changed the tone of the debate.

Reme Ahmad, who works on the foreign desk of the Straits Times, is one of many who has warned that "every bullet and bomb they use could destroy Indonesia in the eyes of investors and tourists".

But, as I have noted before when writing about Sri Lanka, terrorism tends to put fewer investors off than you might think. Sure, tourists are scared away in the initial aftermath of any major attack, but for the rest of the country it's business as usual.

The real danger comes from a sustained campaign of violence. With Noordin and many of the other key JI leaders now reportedly dead or under lock and key, this seems less likely.

But as with Al-Qaeda, even though JI appers to be becoming a more splintered grouping, autonomous, individual cells still remain a serious, if less co-ordinated, threat.