Terrorist Attacks in Indonesia: Does Terrorism Work?

This article aims to conduct an analytical examination of the terrorist attacks in Indonesia to assess the success of terrorism. The analysis uses a framework to evaluate the success and inherent advantages from a tactical, organizational, and strategic perspective. Notable cases analyzed include the Bali Bombings in 2002 and 2005; the Australia Embassy Bombing in 2004; the Jakarta Marriot and Ritz-Carlton Bombings in 2009; and the Jakarta assaults in 2016. These instances were selected based on their substantial influence on Indonesian culture and their portrayal of various terrorist strategies and goals. The implication indicates that although certain tactical objectives may be accomplished, there are typically restrictions on achieving strategic and organizational aims. This study explains tactical successes implied by immediate casualties and economic disruption. The study gives some recommendations to enhance intelligence efforts in counterterrorism, cooperation and collaboration with international efforts, and improving the deradicalization program. This insight can be used by policymakers and law enforcers who work with counter-terrorism efforts to make the efforts in Indonesia more effective.


INTRODUCTION
A study undertaken by Djumantara et al. (2021) reveals that Indonesia suffered a total of 751 bombings between the years 1977 and 2018.The attacks were conducted by religious extremists based in Indonesia; they claimed to be a Muslim extremist group who wanted to change an incumbent government into an Islamist-based country (Abuza, 2023).Responsible for a significant number of high-profile bombings in Indonesia and Southeast Asia, Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) remains a substantial threat despite extensive efforts to combat terrorism (Abuza, 2023).The group was established to establish an Islamic state in Southeast Asia, encompassing Indonesia, Malaysia, the southern Philippines, Singapore, and Brunei.
The impact of jihadist movements on Indonesian terrorism has been substantial, particularly during the 2002 and 2005 Bali bombings.These attacks represented a change in strategy, focusing 2014).Implementing these enhanced measures has had a wide-ranging impact, resulting in the immediate reduction of threats and the establishment of comprehensive programs to counter radicalization.
Jackson (2007) emphasizes that terrorism is a strategic approach to achieving political objectives intentionally and deliberately.This study seeks to investigate the efficacy of terrorism in attaining political, ideological, and organizational goals, specifically in democratic settings.Pape (2003) and Abraham (2006) have constructed the theory and concept to assess the efficacy of terrorism.These theories offer differing viewpoints on 'how terrorism impacts society' and 'does terrorism work?' by analyzing the aftermath of each terrorist attack.Indonesia has performed a variety of strategies to dismantle terrorism, including making changes to its regulations, improving its intelligence capabilities, and cooperating with other countries, notably the United Kingdom, the United States, and Australia.The 9/11 attacks on the United States serve as a global context for understanding the motivations behind targeting Western interests, demonstrating the impact of terrorism on a nation's security policies and economic stability (Bergen, 2021).The Middle East Institute (2014) states that these flexible tactics have effectively reduced immediate risks and tackled the underlying factors of radicalization, hence fostering a feeling of security and trust among the population.Notable achievements include the substantial decrease in major terrorist attacks after 2009, the dismantling of terrorist networks, and the establishment of comprehensive deradicalization programs that aim to combat the dissemination of extremist ideologies among the prison population and the wider community (Crisis Group, 2023).The study of the efficacy of terrorist attacks and counter-terrorism efforts has become a central subject in global security studies.The studies by Krause (2018) and Pape (2003) provide a framework for assessing the effectiveness of terrorist attacks from tactical, organizational, and strategic perspectives.The previous studies on the effectiveness of terrorist attacks did not include Indonesia as an area of research.This study will analyze terrorist attacks that occurred in Indonesia.This research presents a comprehensive analysis of multiple theoretical frameworks from prior studies, utilizing a comparative methodology.It aims to provide practical recommendations for improving counter-terrorism efforts and developing successful law enforcement strategies for future terrorism prevention in Indonesia.
Indonesia.This article utilizes the effectiveness framework established by Krause (2018).This framework consists of three levels: the tactical, the organizational, and the strategic levels.
Furthermore, it employs the notion of intrinsic motivations, as suggested by English (2016), to examine each situation.In addition, the author incorporates elements from Pape's (2003) strategic rationale for suicide terrorism.According to Pape (2003), the increase in suicide terrorism indicates that terrorist organizations have recognized the effectiveness of their activities in achieving their goals.The significant increase in suicide terrorism shows this phenomenon.In addition, terrorist groups use violence as a means of intimidating and spreading fear throughout the broader populace.
The efficacy of terrorism, however, cannot be shown by any actions that include the use of violence, threats, intimidation, or instilling fear among different segments of society.Hoffman's (2017) paper explores the broader ramifications of terrorist activities and examines the perspectives of other scholars about the success and ineffectiveness of such acts.In assessing the success of terrorist activities, it is crucial to evaluate whether they have achieved a comprehensive strategic triumph, a partial strategic victory, a tactical victory, or the inherent advantages of the conflict.
Insurgent and terrorist activities rely on individuals who possess a high level of organization and are part of established organizations to accomplish their goals.An instance of success in an organizational context is a primary kind of success.The vast majority of terrorist actions and almost all campaigns have been perpetrated by a group driven by its self-interest.The Government may face a situation where a significant percentage of the population harboring distrust towards them creates favorable conditions for terrorists to gain momentum.Supporters may use this distrust to accomplish their goals by creating divisions among the political opposition.A collective will initiate an assault to develop and maintain its reinforced base, demonstrating readiness to sacrifice and kill the foe.Furthermore, this approach enhances the organization's financial resources, personnel, supporters, and influence and facilitates sustainability.Blomberg (2011) states that terrorist organizations gauge their effectiveness by assessing many factors, such as their duration of existence, membership size, sponsorship, network connections, and alliances.
When addressing terrorism, "strategic efficacy" refers to the capacity to influence a country's fundamental character, governing principles, and inhabitants (Pape, 2003).Terrorist groups use acts of violence to pressure governments into halting military activities and to compel those who do not adhere to their ideology to leave (Krause, 2018).This action aims to establish an autonomous political entity or authoritarian regime within the targeted area (Hoffman, 2017).
Terrorism may be strategically advantageous as a prerequisite for gaining organizational success through acts of terrorism, as it can inflict deaths and effectively convey opinions while also creating divisions throughout society due to its dual capability for both actions (Abraham, 2006).In terrorism, the efficacy of tactical movements cannot be overstated.Using it makes it possible to succeed in either the organizational or strategic domain (English, 2016).
Tactical effectiveness refers to the capability to execute an assault with the precise amount and kind of violence at the designated place, against the intended target, and at the scheduled time.
This study will use the theoretical analysis employed by English (2016) to assess the efficacy of terrorism.Specifically, the focus will be on analyzing all terrorist incidents in Indonesia since the nation's proclamation of independence.According to Oyewole (2021), it is unusual for terrorist organizations to achieve strategic success.This is because only a tiny proportion of terrorist groups have completed their ambitious goals, which are often based on ideology and require the government's consent.Indonesia has several terrorist organizations that have carried out acts of violence and instilled fear within its territory (Oyewole, 2021).
An examination of terrorism attacks in Indonesia and other nations reveals clear trends and consequences.For instance, the Bali bombings (2002)(2003)(2004)(2005) had considerable global consequences and prompted a significant restructuring of Indonesia's counter-terrorism tactics.However, the outcomes of similar assaults in different nations have been diverse and influenced by specific political and socioeconomic circumstances.By utilizing the theoretical frameworks stated by Krause (2018) and Pape (2003), a comparative analysis of the tactical and strategic results of these terrorist attacks in Indonesia was conducted.The study highlights the unique difficulties and responses encountered in different circumstances.Indonesia's efforts in countering terrorism have been marked by notable progress, achieved via legislation reforms and active engagement in international cooperation.Nevertheless, the terrorist organizations in Indonesia continue to face limitations in their strategic accomplishments.This is consistent with global trends, where terrorist groups rarely achieve long-term ideological goals (Abrahms, 2006;English, 2016).
This study highlights the need to understand the tactical effectiveness of terrorist operations in achieving short-term objectives while recognizing the broader strategic limitations these groups face.The knowledge obtained from the comparative research provides valuable insights for enhancing counter-terrorism efforts in Indonesia and other areas.

Analysis of Key Terrorist Events:
Bali Bombings: 2002 and2005 The Bali bombings were the most disastrous terrorist attacks in Indonesian history, which were executed by Jemaah Islamiyah (JI), a terrorist group affiliated with Al-Qaeda.Both bombings were tactically successful, causing significant casualties and economic disruption.The 2002 bombing killed 202 people and injured 209; a car bomb exploded outside the Sari Club in Kuta, Bali, followed temporary decline in tourism, but the long-term impact on political goals was minimal.In the years after Osama bin Laden's declaration of war against the United States in 1996, suicide bombing became more popular as a form of self-sacrifice.This caused terrorist organizations that shared similar ideas to assume that attaching explosives to the bodies of non-believers was the most efficient approach to remove those who did not believe in their ideals (Moghadam, 2008).Specifically, Nasir and Putra (2023) highlight that this technique is consistent with the broader tendencies observed in other worldwide jihadist movements.To instill panic, generate media coverage, and disrupt economies, the spotlight is placed on major attacks that have caused significant damage.
A total of twenty people lost their lives, and an additional 129 individuals sustained injuries because of the explosion that took place in 2005.Three suicide bombers detonated their explosives in two restaurants situated at Jimbaran Beach Resort and Kuta (Jones, 2005).The assault strategy was indistinguishable from the terrorist incident that took place in 2002 (Crisis Group, 2005).While this attack was not as deadly as the bombing that took place in 2002, its purpose was still to cause more disruption to the tourism economy (Jones, 2005).Although the initial economic impact was significant, the strategic political objectives were not accomplished (Crisis Group, 2005).
The choice of high-profile tourist areas maximized media coverage and psychological impact.As Crenshaw (2000) notes, the tactical success of such attacks lies in their ability to generate immediate fear and widespread attention.Krause (2018) also emphasizes that tactical success is achieved when attacks are executed at the right time and place to maximize their impact.Hoffman (2006) also stated that the use of terrorism is more successful than any other kind of political struggle in terms of causing fear and attracting the attention of the public.J.I. achieved increased recruitment and funding following these attacks.The bombings demonstrated the group's operational capabilities and ideological commitment, enhancing its reputation among extremist circles.Blomberg et al. (2011) argue that such incidents can bolster organizational cohesion and attract recruits.Krause (2018) further argues that organizational success can be measured by the group's ability to maintain its operations and expand its influence.
The bombings have failed to achieve their political objectives, such as implementing Sharia law in Indonesia or deterring U.S. military involvement in Muslim countries.Instead, they prompted a robust counter-terrorism response from both Indonesian and international authorities, strengthening international cooperation against terrorism.Rabasa et al. (2004) note that the attacks led to significant international support for Indonesia's counter-terrorism efforts.The establishment of Detachment 88 anti-terror was one of the instances on the brace of counter-terrorism effort cooperation with the US government.Krause (2018) suggests that strategic success is achieved when the political goals of the terrorists are realized, which was not the case in these incidents.The bombers and supporters gained secured with spiritual rewards (Jihad Fii Sabillillah).This is, along with the concept of martyrdom, a powerful motivational tool for terrorist organizations (Moghadam, 2009).Houmanfar and Ward (2012) discuss how the promise of eternal rewards can sustain terrorist motivations despite strategic failures.
The long-term impact of these bombings on Indonesia's tourism sector was significant.counter-terrorism strategies that address immediate threats and long-term prevention, including economic resilience and recovery efforts.

Australian Embassy Bombing
On September 9, 2004, a suicide bomber detonated a car bomb outside the Australian Embassy in Jakarta, killing nine and injuring over 150.The car bomb was detonated during the morning rush hour, maximizing the number of casualties and the psychological impact.The embassy, representing Australian interests, was a symbolic target, emphasizing J.I.'s opposition to Western influence in Indonesia.Despite the tactical success, the attack did not result in any policy changes by Australia, reinforcing the notion that such attacks are strategically ineffective-unfortunately, immediate casualties and extensive damage to the embassy and surrounding areas.Hoffman (2017) emphasizes that such high-profile attacks are designed to maximize media attention and spread fear.Krause (2018) points out that tactical effectiveness can also be judged by the ability of the attackers to reach their intended targets and cause significant disruption.For J.I., the attack demonstrated its capability to target foreign interests in Indonesia, reinforcing its operational presence and attracting media attention.The incident underscored the group's ability to disrupt diplomatic relations and create international headlines.
As Bloomberg, Gaibulloev and Sandler (2011) note, the attack galvanized the group's base and showcased its operational capabilities.Krause (2018) also argues that organizational success can be seen in maintaining operational capacity and resilience in the face of counter-terrorism measures.
Strategically, the bombing failed to alter Australian or Indonesian foreign policies.Instead, it led to increased security measures and counter-terrorism efforts.Fortna (2015) suggests that such failures are common, as governments often respond to terrorism with heightened security rather than policy changes.Krause (2018) emphasizes that strategic success requires achieving political concessions, enhancing their posthumous status.Houmanfar and Ward (2012) discuss how the promise of eternal rewards can sustain terrorist motivations despite strategic failures.
Powell ( 2004) explores the impact of terrorist attacks on political decision-making and public sentiment.Considering the Australian Embassy bombing, Powell's analysis provides valuable insights into why the attack did not result in policy changes but instead strengthened the determination of both the Australian and Indonesian governments to combat terrorism.The bombing highlighted the strength of governmental policies in the face of terrorism and the tendency of such attacks to foster unity rather than division.

Jakarta Marriott and Ritz-Carlton Bombings
The coordinated bombings that occurred on July 17, 2009, at two luxury hotels in Jakarta resulted in nine deaths and over fifty injuries.According to the research conducted by Jones (2005) and Smith ( 2010), the explosions were targeted explicitly against multinational business executives who were attending hotel meetings.The assaults were intended to disrupt the economic stability of Indonesia and deter international investment.Due to meticulous preparation, the attackers used sophisticated measures to bypass hotel security.Despite the initial chaos and media coverage of the attacks, they had little long-term political impact, and there were no significant policy changes resulting from them, according to the Indonesian Police Report in 2009.The attention from global media has measured this attack as a tactical success.The high-profile nature of the targets ensured they got significant media coverage and instilled widespread dread as Ritz-Carlton is one of the most Five-Star popular hotels in the world.Crenshaw (2000) states that high-profile targets are chosen to optimize the psychological impact of the attack.According to Krause (2018), keeping the momentum of terrorists depends on their effective tactical operation.It is Similar to the statement by Rose et al. (2007), which discovered that by generating significant casualties and media attention, coordinated bombings, such as the Madrid train bombings in 2004, struggled to achieve their political goals.Pape (2003) argues that achieving operational success is crucial for sustaining the organization's momentum.Furthermore, Krause (2018) emphasizes that an organization's performance is shown by its ability to maintain operations and preserve group cohesion (Krause, 2018).
Despite the extensive media coverage, the attacks failed to secure significant political concessions.Conversely, the Indonesian Government intensified its efforts to counter terrorism, including enhanced cooperation with surrounding nations and expanded information sharing.
According to Cronin (2011), the main reason such attacks fail to bring about political change is that they cannot do so.According to Krause (2018), achieving strategic success becomes challenging due to significant policy changes or political surrender, which must be evident in this context.The individuals responsible for the assaults were praised within their networks, enabling them to sustain On January 14, 2016, terrorists linked with ISIS carried out a series of explosives and shootings in Jakarta.This resulted in the deaths of four innocent individuals and caused injuries to 23 others.The militants used a combination of suicide bombers and firearm assaults, with a particular focus on a Starbucks café and a police outpost located near the Sarinah shopping center (Jones, 2016).
The attacks were carefully orchestrated to cause substantial disruption and induce fear, using social media intentionally to amplify their impact (Smith, 2017).The immediate and efficient response by Indonesian law enforcement authorities, highlighting the need for swift police intervention, effectively reduced the duration and scale of the attack (Indonesian Police Report, 2016).The attack was tactically effective, resulting in a disturbance of normalcy and inciting fear among the community.Choosing a vibrant commercial area maximized the impact.Hoffman (2017) suggests that directing attention toward public spaces might heighten the perceived threat of terrorism across the broader population (Hoffman 2017).Krause (2018) emphasizes that tactical success is achieved by executing well-coordinated and forceful attacks that disrupt daily routines and garner significant media attention (Krause, 2018).
The attacks showcased ISIS's strategic expansion into Southeast Asia, bolstering its efforts in propaganda dissemination and recruitment inside the region.Hoffman (2017) noted that this expansion was vital for ISIS in demonstrating its global influence (Hoffman, 2017).Krause (2018) argues that attaining organizational success depends on the enlargement of the operating range and the ongoing execution of recruitment efforts (Krause, 2018).
The strategic impact was limited.The Indonesian Government enforced stricter counterterrorism measures, thereby intensifying the isolation of extremist formations.This significant response corroborates Frontera's (2015) assertion that acts of terrorism often result in a heightened resolve by the victimized state to counteract the perpetrators or organizations behind the assaults (Frontera, 2015).Krause (2018) notes that strategic success becomes challenging when attacks fail to bring about the desired political changes (Krause, 2018).The National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Response to Terrorism analyses the influence of terrorist attacks, such as the 2016 Jakarta event, on the formulation of national security policies.The report on the 9/11 attacks emphasizes the long-lasting impact of terrorism on global security plans and underscores the necessity for comprehensive measures to combat it.

The 2018 Surabaya Bombings
The Indonesian government has implemented a comprehensive strategy to combat terrorism effectively.Enhanced authority was bestowed upon security forces by implementing new legislation, observed in other countries, where significant acts of terrorism have led to the adoption of heightened security measures rather than political concessions.
Hwang (2023) stated that Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) has presented an important insight into evolving operational strategies and how they threaten society.JI has proven to be remarkably resilient, constantly changing its strategy and unwavering in its ideological dedication to its strategies for facing the counter-terrorism effort.The group's unwavering adaptability and flexibility in operation pose a persistent threat in Indonesia and the broader Southeast Asian region.It is noteworthy to see how certain groups, like JAD, continue to carry out sophisticated attacks despite increased security measures, showcasing their resilience and adaptability.
The consequences of the Surabaya bombings highlighted the strategic constraints.Despite facing initial challenges, JAD managed to achieve its long-term goals.In contrast, the Indonesian government's response showcased the resilience and efficiency of state institutions in their fight against terrorism.This response supports the findings by Rose et al. (2007), which stated that the 2004 Madrid train bombings failed.Despite that, they play a role in intensifying counter-terrorism efforts and fostering cooperation between countries.
The Oikumene Church Attack in Samarinda occurred in 2016.
The Oikumene Church in Samarinda, East Kalimantan, was targeted by a member of Jamaah Ansharud Daulah (JAD), an organization associated with ISIS, on November 13, 2016.The assailant launched a Molotov cocktail at the church when a service was taking place, causing the demise of a two-year-old girl and inflicting injuries on three other children.The assault generated substantial public indignation, primarily as a result of the deliberate victimization of minors and the desecration of a religious sanctuary, so accentuating the savagery of the assailants.Pape (2003) indicates that the attack was strategically successful, employing a straightforward yet efficient approach to inflict casualties and instill fear (Pape, 2003).The strike showcased JAD's operational range and capacity to carry out attacks despite continuous counterterrorism endeavors.Nevertheless, according to Krause's theory, the onslaught failed to accomplish substantial political or ideological objectives.However, it resulted in heightened security protocols at places of worship and an enhanced counter-terrorism reaction, indicating a strategic inadequacy in attaining broader political goals (Krause, 2018).The attack emphasized the significance of community monitoring and collaboration with authorities to prevent such attacks.
The Makassar Cathedral Bombing occurred in 2021.The Makassar Cathedral bombing was strategically successful, as it adhered to attacking symbolic locations to cause the most casualties and attract media coverage (Pape, 2003).The strike demonstrated JAD's operations proficiency and intense dedication to its mission.Nevertheless, as per Krause's theory, the bombing failed to accomplish broader strategic goals.The attack prompted a heightened counter-terrorism reaction, which involved apprehending additional members of JAD.

On
However, it did not lead to political compromises or substantial policy changes (Krause, 2018).This exemplifies the broader trend of terrorism having minimal strategic efficacy, emphasizing the necessity for solid counter-terrorism policies and community resilience to reduce the impact of such acts.In response to the devastating events of 9/11, the United States implemented a variety of counter-terrorism measures to strengthen its security significantly.These actions involved establishing the Department of Homeland Security and implementing the USA PATRIOT Act.

Comparative Analysis with
Engaging in vigilant surveillance, exchanging intelligence, and coordinating with various law enforcement agencies prevented other large-scale attacks.The U.S. Department of State (2010) Mawdsley et al. (2004) highlight that the bombings severely disrupted Indonesia's tourism sector, a critical component of the Indonesian economy.The initial sharp decline in tourist arrivals following the attacks had long-lasting effects on local businesses and employment, and some countries declared tourism travel banned in Indonesia after the attacks.Whenever the two Bali bombings, 2002 and 2005, were tactically successful in causing immediate casualties and economic disruption, they failed to achieve their broader strategic objectives.The attacks highlighted the need for comprehensive March 28, 2021, the Sacred Heart of Jesus Cathedral in Makassar, South Sulawesi, was subjected to a suicide bombing carried out by two individuals affiliated with Jamaah Ansharud the cathedral during a Palm Sunday service.However, they were thwarted by the security personnel, prompting them to trigger their explosives at the entryway.The explosion resulted in the deaths of the two individuals who carried out the bombing and caused injuries to 20 other individuals, including church attendees and security staff.This incident caused considerable disturbance and instilled terror within the local community.
The terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, targeting the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, had a profound impact on the formulation of national security policies in the United States.The 9/11 attacks orchestrated by Al-Qaeda led to a substantial loss of life and inflicted severe economic harm.The attacks also demonstrated Al-Qaeda's proficiency in orchestrating extensive operations, further enhancing its standing as a skilled practitioner of organizational strategies.Krause   (2018)  emphasizes the significance of thorough planning and accurate implementation to attain tactical success through a powerful attack.Strategically, the attacks did not accomplish their intended goal of compelling the United States to retreat from the Middle East.Instead, the United States launched the War on Terror, which entailed military interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, leading to substantial harm to Al-Qaeda's operational infrastructure.Krause (2018)  argues that the interpretation emphasizes the strategic failure of 9/11, attributing it to the U.S. government's strong military and political response that effectively prevented Al-Qaeda from achieving its goals.