November 14, 2006

On terrorism. New York Review of Books piece on teh terra. Good reading. One of the books cited in the piece, on the response of Iraqis to the war in Iraq: "They find the claims that the United States is occupying Iraq to defend New York and deploying an army to import democracy to be so implausible that they do not believe them. Instead, they believe the claims of those who say the US Army is a self-interested army of occupation interested only in dominating the region and exploiting its oil wealth... In effect, they find al-Qaeda's propaganda more credible than ours."

Lots of interesting info and compelling conclusions, such as: 1. Terrorism is anything but new. Violence by nonstate actors against civilians to achieve political aims has been going on for a long, long time. 2. Terrorism is obviously a threat, and the deliberate killing of innocent civilians an outrage, but it is not a very big threat. 3. The danger from terrorist use of so-called weapons of mass destruction is not as large as scaremongers profess. 4. Many terrorists are not madmen. The choice to use terror can be quite rational and calculated. 5. Groups that commit terrorism, in many cases, believe they are acting defensively, using the most effective means at their disposal. 6. Suicide attacks can also represent a rational policy choice. 7. There is no special link between Islam and terrorism. Most major religions have produced some form of terrorism, and many terrorist groups have professed atheism. 8. Electoral democracy does not prevent terrorism, which has flourished in many democracies, typically being used by groups representing minorities who believe the logic of majority rule excludes them. 9. Democratic principles are no impediment to prosecuting terrorists. 10. Military action is sometimes necessary to combat terrorism, but it is often not the best way to do so. 11. Armies, in fact, often create more problems than they solve. 12. To address the issues terrorists say they are fighting for cannot automatically be dismissed as appeasement.

posted by HawthorneWingo 17 years ago
  • Certainly refreshing to see some historical perspective. The brief section looking at institutional responses from the 'security establishment' is something I'd like to see more analysis of. You are left with the sense that, ideology aside, various agencies couldn't escape prevailing paradigms or pass up chances for rent-seeking when asked to deal with something of a different order to their Cold War roles.
  • Here's a prehistorical perspetive: Terrorism in Colorado. (They did eventually find myoglobin in the coprolite, for the record.)
  • 1. Agreed 2. Depends how you define "big threat". Historically, most terrorist acts have been relatively small. 9/11 was huge. The game has changed. 3. The danger may not be as large as scaremongers profess, but it is real and significant. Dismissing it could be very dangerous. 4. Again, it depends on your definitions. Killing people with whom you personally have no quarrel is never sane or rational. 5. That is their belief. I don't share it. 6. I disagree strongly. See #4. 7. Historically, no. Recently, most definitely there is a link. 8. There are different flavours of democracy. Those which recognize minority rights tend to have fewer terrorists. 9. Some are, but in any case they shouldn't be eroded for this purpose. 10. Agreed 11. This is a continuation of 10, hardly a separate point. The use of "armies" is interesting. Surely they mean military action. 12. Agreed. It appears to have worked in Nothern Ireland.
  • ". . . In effect, they find al-Qaeda's propaganda more credible than ours." And that, as they say, is that. Can that change given unlimited time and resources? Heavens to Betsy, yes! /parting_shot
  • Perhaps I could get more worked up over terrorism if governments were more consistent in dealing with all instances of civilian deaths from violence. However, I see little difference between using cluster bombs over cities or mortars on houses where there are civilians and detonating a bomb in a crowded mall and so on. These things are, from my standpoint, indefensible per se, no matter who does 'em. Killing civilians is what modern warfare - whether it's government-sanctioned or not - is all about. Very few military personnel die these days, whereas civilians die in droves.
  • The best way to kill the terrorist is to raise his quality of living.
  • Bin Laden's standard of living was very high.
  • OMG so's mine! Duck!
  • Bin Laden's standard of living was very high. His leadership is built on it's support from the people that suffer. The leader is rather irrelevant. If the foundations for a popular movement are in place, some leader will step up. Sometimes that person is an asshole and sometimes he is not. But if you don't have the foundations for a popular movement you just have an asshole with no followers.
  • Bin Laden's standard of living was very high. Bin Laden was no mere terrorist. On preview: what glammajamma said.
  • What irks me is how many of those terrorists and warlords of today are yesterday's CIA allies, employees and third-party operatives, used back then for de-stabilizing or imposing a specific ruler/regime. I.e, Kadhaffi, another devil incarnate a few years ago, now is being helped by Negroponte to allow all his country's children to surf the web. Mmhh...
  • The best way to kill the terrorist is to raise his quality of living. The other way perhaps is to wait until they're really oldddd. Terrorism is for hot-headed young dudes primarily. I wonder if part of the reason why the Irish insurgency is fading is because the population's aging. Japan's Red Army Faction, Germany's Baader Meinhof, and the American Weathermen, all of these terrorist organizations had their springtime when the boomers were in their sh*t-disturbing years. In Iran, the median age is 24 years.
  • Bin Laden's standard of living was very high. Interesting point - I remember something about the 9/11 hijackers enjoying a pretty good life with nice cars, going to clubs, hangin' or perhaps even chillin' with various homies etc. They'd already decided to do something horrible, but still.
  • Average age of Palestinian suicide bomber(2000-04): 21 years. Percentage of these who are men: 94.5% These numbers come from a fascinating presentation on the culture of suicide bombing.
  • And to clarify why i cited the median age in Iran. If the demographic theory of conflict is true, it would be A Very Bad Idea to engage Iran in a war.
  • rocket88, did you read the article? There are specific examples backing up each of those 12 points. I'd be interested to hear your take on how those examples do or don't support the more general arguments I delineated.
  • StoryBored - I'll admit to not having read the article that was linked at the beginning of this thread, but I'm not sure what the median age in Iran has to do with terrorism per se... as at least as many young people in Iran are tired of the theocracy as are interested in supporting it. The general opinion I've heard is that support for the theocracy in Iran is prevalent only among people old enough to have participated in establishing it to begin with. "Death to America!" is for the over-40s there. Everything I've read in the past suggests that it's the poor, rural areas of the Arab countries that breed radical Islamist followers: Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, "Palestine" (in quotation marks because it's not exactly a country, yet there are undeniably Palestinian terrorists), as well as some neighboring, not necessarily Arab countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan. (Iranians are Persian, ethnically different from Arabs, which any Iranian I've met is happy to mention to anyone who refers to them as "Arab". :) I agree that it would be a Very Bad Idea to engage Iran in a war, but maybe not for that reason. The people of that age are most likely to radicalize against their own government if left alone or encouraged in that direction. It's my feeling, and hope, that the noise about "invading Iran" is just noise; that several factors (like the failure that is the Iraq war, and the Bush administration's diminished credibility, and Democratic control of Congress) will prevent a mistake of that size. But, I guess we'll see. I know there have been articles about "plans for the war" bandied about here and there in the last six months, but I don't think those plans are, um, pulloffable, particularly since the election last week.
  • The War on Terror Is the Leading Cause of Terrorism. It's official: A new report shows that the U.S. has made the world more dangerous -- not just for Americans, but for everyone.
  • Why do you hate the freedom troops?