Next Steps in Research on Children Exposed to Community Violence or War/Terrorism

The articles in this special issue of Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review provide an overview of what is known about children's exposure to community violence and war/ terrorism, and indicate significant gaps in extant research. These gaps and research needs are summarized in this conclusion.     

On the So-Called War on Terrorism

Abstract: Since the terrorist attacks on the United States in September 2001, the country has embarked on a so‐called war on terrorism. This essay argues that so‐called war on terrorism has used the pretext of responding to terrorist attacks in the U.S. in September 2001 to wage wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that have objectives other than stamping out terrorism. It further argues that war requires a moral justification that cannot be provided for either the war in Afghanistan or the war in Iraq.     

Terrorism and Innocence

This paper begins with a discussion of different definitions of “terrorism” and endorses one version of a tactical definition, so-called because it treats terrorism as involving the use of a quite specific tactic in the pursuit of political ends, namely, violent attacks upon the innocent. This contrasts with a political status definition in which “terrorism” is defined as any form of sub-state political violence against the state. Some consequences of the tactical definition are explored, notably the fact that (unlike the political status definition) it allows for the possibility of state terrorism against individuals, sub-state groups and other states. But a major problem for the tactical definition is the account to be given of “the innocent.” In line with justwar thinking, the idea of “the innocent” is unpacked in terms of the concept of non-combatants and this in turn is treated as the category of those who are not prosecuting the harm that allows for a legitimate violent response. Problems with this approach are explored, with particular reference to criticisms made by Gregory Kavka. The recent drive to expand the class of those who may be legitimately attacked is subjected to scrutiny. Particular attention is paid to the role of “collective responsibility” and “deserving your government” in these arguments. This revised version was published online in June 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Terrorism and the New Forms of War

Abstract: The March 2003 American preemptive strike on Iraq and related events pose entirely new conceptual questions about the notion of a valid war. A “war on terrorism” goes well beyond any usual version of the “just‐war” concept, which is itself notoriously difficult, if not impossible, to apply in current international circumstances. The implications of the emerging forms of war are examined and are found to bear in an unexpected way on justifying war, “just war,” and justice in distributional and related respects.     

Consequences of Child Exposure to War and Terrorism

Acts of war and terrorism are increasingly prevalent in contemporary society. Throughout history, weaponry has become more efficient, accurate, and powerful, resulting in more devastation and loss of human life. Children are often overlooked as victims of such violence. Around the world, children are exposed to violence in multiple forms, frequently developing traumatic stress reactions. Such reactions are best understood within the context of social-emotional and cognitive development, as children respond differently to the stress of violence depending on their developmental level. Furthermore, the violence of war and terrorism often results in a multitiered cascade of negative life events including loss of loved ones, displacement, lack of educational structure, and drastic changes in daily routine and community values. These numerous losses, challenges, and stresses affect children's brains, minds, and bodies in an orchestrated whole-organism response. This paper describes these effects, synthesizing the current state of research on childhood traumatic stress reactions from the fields of neuroscience, clinical psychology, and pediatric diagnostic epidemiology.     

Children Exposed to War/Terrorism

This paper reviews the prevalence of psychological morbidities in children who have been exposed to war-related traumas or terrorism as well as the diversity of war-related casualties and their associated psychological responses. The psychological responses to war-related stressors are categorized as (1) little or no reaction, (2) acute emotional and behavioral effects, and (3) long-term effects. Specific categories of war-related casualties discussed include refugee status, traumatic bereavement, effects of parental absence, and child soldiers. Psychological responses associated with terrorism and bioterrorism are presented. Lastly, mediators of the psychological response to war-related stressors are discussed, to include exposure effects, gender effects, parental, family and social factors, and child-specific factors. Children exposed to war-related stressors experience a spectrum of psychological morbidities including posttraumatic stress symptomatology, mood disorders, externalizing and disruptive behaviors, and somatic symptoms determined by exposure dose effect. Specific questions for future research are identified.     

Children as Victims of War and Terrorism

Summary

War and terrorism victimize all people in a country, group, or area, but disputes in recent decades are especially likely to impact children and families. Children can experience wars by being in the war zone, by being in countries that deploy military personnel to a war zone, by suffering from the consequences of military expenses and economic warfare, by experiencing war and terrorism from a distance through media, or by suffering fromindoctrination and the building of enemy images. This paper reviews what researchers havediscovered about the unique risks associated with each of those categories and recommendspromising solutions.     

Terrorism,War, and The Killing of the Innocent

Commonsense moral thought holds that what makes terrorism particularly abhorrent is the fact that it tends to be directed toward innocent victims. Yet contemporary philosophers tend to doubt that the concept of innocence plays any significant role here, and to deny that prohibitions against targeting noncombatants can be justified through appeal to their moral innocence. I argue, however, that the arguments used to support these doubts are ultimately unsuccessful. Indeed, the philosophical positions in question tend to misunderstand the justification of both the prohibition against targeting noncombatants, and that of the permission to attack combatants, for which the paper offers a new account. Such misunderstandings make it all too easy to justify both terrorist actions and morally objectionable actions on the part of nations at war. Taking proper account of the role of innocence in the context of armed conflict will alter our ordinary ways of thinking about the ethics of war, with respect to both jus in bello and jus ad bellum.

The Metaethical Paradox of Just War Theory

The traditional requirements upon the waging of a just war are ostensibly independent, but in actual practice each tenet is subject ultimately to the interpretation of a legitimate authority, whose declaration becomes the necessary and sufficient condition. While just war theory presupposes that some acts are absolutely wrong, it also implies that the killing of innocents can be rendered permissible through human decree. Nations are conventionally delimited, and leaders are conventionally appointed. Any group of people could band together to form a nation, and any person could, in principle, be appointed the leader of any nation. Because the just war approach assumes absolutism while implying relativism, the stance is paradoxical and hence rationally untenable.     

Iraq, American Empire, And The War On Terrorism

Abstract: The U.S. government is trying to secure continuing American military and economic supremacy on a global scale over the long term. The U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq is part of this imperial project, which is now being pursued under the mantle of the war on terrorism. This essay examines these developments in the context of U.S. military spending and foreign policy since the end of the cold war, and it argues that there is reason to be concerned about the continuing viability of democratic government in the United States.     

Children Exposed to Community Violence or War/Terrorism: Current Status and Research Directions—Introduction

This issue of Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, Children Exposed to Community Violence or War/Terrorism: Current Status and Research Directions, addresses the current status of our knowledge as well as critical research needs in the area of children exposed to violence outside the family. Although much has been learned in recent years about children exposed to violence, significant research gaps remain, the identification of which may help to build a more complete and rigorous science base in this area. This journal issue represents the distillation of a 3-day workshop on children exposed to violence, held in July of 2002, that identified what is known about children exposed to violence and what this information tells us about future research directions. Although many federal agencies have supported some research in this area, there is a need for more targeted attention on the topic, particularly with regard to measurement, sampling, and interventions/services. The papers in this issue were selected with these themes in mind. Although no single issue could cover the entire field, we intend to offer a representative sample of where we are and where we need to go with the hope of stimulating additional thought, collaboration, and research in this important area.     

Recognizing Terrorism

It has been claimed that most of the world’s preventable suffering and death are caused not by terrorism but by poverty. That claim, if true, could be hard to substantiate. For most terrorism is not publicly recognized as such, and it is far commoner than paradigms of the usual suspects suggest. Everyday lives under oppressive regimes, in racist environments, and of women, children, and elders everywhere who suffer violence in their homes offer instances of terrorisms that seldom capture public attention. Or so this essay argues, through exploring two models of terrorism and the points of view highlighted by each.     

Misreading Islamist Terrorism: The "War Against Terrorism" and Just-War Theory

Abstract: The Bush administration's military war on terrorism is a blunt, ineffective, and unjust response to the threat posed to innocent civilians by terrorism. Decentralized terrorist networks can only be effectively fought by international cooperation among police and intelligence agencies representing diverse nation‐states, including ones with predominantly Islamic populations. The Bush administration's allegations of a global Islamist terrorist threat to the national interests of the United States misread the decentralized and complex nature of Islamist politics. Undoubtedly there exists a “combat fundamentalist” element within Islamism. But the threat posed to U.S. citizens by Islamist terrorism neither necessitates nor justifies as a response massive military invasions of other nations. Not only does the Bush administration's war on alleged “terrorist states” violate the doctrine of just war, but in addition these wars arise from a new, unilateral, imperial foreign‐policy doctrine of “preventive wars.” Such a doctrine will isolate the United States from international institutions and long‐standing allies. The weakening of these institutions and alliances will only weaken the ability of the international community to deter terrorism.     

Cultural Issues in Terrorism and in Response to Terrorism

Summary

Among the multiple causes of terrorism is a clash of cultures. Trauma and the destruction of culture may create fertile ground for violent cultures and future terrorists. Cultural differences are important elements in the prevention, assessment, and treatment of post-terrorism psychological sequelae. Cultural and spiritual practices have been used or adapted to reduce anxiety, enhance recovery, and provide supplemental interventions. Learning within a community and engaging community and religious leaders, community members, and the individual patient in order to be guided by the specific needs of a group or an individual is essential to effective interventions following terrorism.     

Some Thoughts on Terrorism, Moral Complaint, and the Self-Reflexive and Relational Nature of Morality

The contemporary discussion of terrorism has been dominated by deontological and consequentialist arguments. Building upon my previous work on a paradox concerning moral complaint, I try to broaden the perspectives through which we view the issues. The direction that seems to me as most promising is a self-reflexive, conditional, and, to some extent, relational emphasis. What one is permitted to do to others would depend not so much on some absolute code constraning actions or on the estimate of what would optimize overall the resulting well-being but on the precedents that the past actions of those others provided, on the relationships among the participants, on tacit or explicit offers and possible agreements among them, and on the reciprocity (or lack thereof) that ensues.

Reasons for Conflict: Political Implications of a Definition of Terrorism

This essay analyzes the U.S. political situation before the 2003 invasion of Iraq and ties this conflict to the events of 9/11. The guiding thread of the discussion is the definition of “terrorism” that has led to George W. Bush's declared “war on terrorism.” By means of Hegel's dialectic logic, the essay exposes the problem offered by the category of causality involved in the definition of terrorism: Is terrorism the original “cause” of the war declared on it by the United States (as the Bush administration claims) or is terrorism rather the very “consequence” of that war?     

In the Face of Terrorism: Evidence that Belief in Literal Immortality Reduces Prejudice Under Terrorism Threat

Based on terror management theory, previous research has shown that terrorism threat increases prejudice against Muslims and is mediated by death‐related thoughts. Because this effect was found on a correlational level, it remains unclear whether terrorism threat increases prejudice against Muslims because of enhanced death‐related thoughts or the opposite: terrorism threat increases death‐related thoughts because of stronger prejudice against Muslims. To disentangle this shortcoming, we varied death‐related thoughts by systematically manipulating the belief in literal immortality. Using two studies, we found that participants exposed to terrorism pictures (vs. controls) had increased prejudice against both Muslims (Study 1) and immigrants (Study 2) when they were led to believe that literal immortality does not exist but not when they were led to believe that it does exist. Mediation analysis indicated that this effect was mediated by death‐related thoughts. This provides further evidence that terrorism threat increases prejudice because of death‐related thoughts.