Centerfield

Middle class to whose standards? I think it has more to do with poverty within an entire culture rather than finances of just one individual, but it would take a book to explain why I think that.

I think you've done a great job of outlining all the angles on this issue. To me, none of these ideas need be contradictory. To remove the radical chic of Osama Bin Laden, his ideology needs to be defeated both militarily, diplomatically, and through offering an alternative ideology to neutralize it. In the meantime, we need excellent counterterrorism at home.

The article alluded to the idea of "relative deprivation" when it discussed "vicarious humilitiation." Their line of logic is as follows:

Muslims are being oppressed. I am a Muslim, and therefore I am being oppressed. Furthermore, although I may be relatively well off, I am in a position of power to do something about the condition of my less fortunate brethren.

Perhaps we are looking in the wrong place for the "cause" of suicide bombers. Judging by the evidence, there are no social conditions that have led to suicide bombers appearing out of nowhere. What I think has happened is this -- Islamic terrorist leaders have learned how to turn people into suicide bombers. We in the west have sophisticated techniques for turning our young men and women into soldiers (boot camp), or lawyers (law school). The terrorist masterminds have a METHOD that works in creating a bomber.

Most cults take their members from the disaffected middle class. That seems like the closest match to me -- a cult, but one that operates in secret and encourages its members to appear outwardly typical.

Somewhere I think there is a community that has shared these techniques -- the recruitment, the teaching, and the bomb making itself. The leaders don't kill themselves, they get an 18 year old and move on. They do it because they can, because it works.

Very good analysis, Marc. I don't think there's a single cause, it's probably more of a combination as you mention. To comment on a few of the responses...

We in the west have sophisticated techniques for turning our young men and women into soldiers (boot camp), or lawyers (law school).

I'm not sure that we can compare the military or law school to suicide bombing schools. I could see a military reference, although I wouldn't necessairly agree with it, but a law school reference? Law school is an education, it's not a brain washing experience. There is not a uniform mindset that emerges from any law school--just compare a "conservative" graduate of Harvard with a "liberal" graduate. Same school, two totally different philosophies.

Yes, our military employs some variation of brainwashing. Soldiers are taught to always obey those in authority over them. They are taught to perform their duty without question. The more interesting study is how quickly that concept vanishes when they leave the military. They suddenly discover the freedom to question, the ability to disagree, etc. Why is that?

I would say that the core difference between the West, particularly the United States, and the Middle East is our belief in individualism. In this country we celebrate people who are different, who carve out their own way. Oprah is uniquely American because she rose from the ghetto, not by going along, but by dreaming. Arnold came here because he saw that spirit and wanted to be part of it. They are just two of the millions who make America what it is. Uniformity frightens us. That's why you hear such rumblings over what many view as the over-reaching of the religious right. We will not march lock step--we are Americans.

In the Middle East, individualism has never taken hold. Religion is the dominant force. People's entire lives are controlled by the Iman--he determines how they think, how they vote (if they vote), and how they live. They have never known any differently.

IMHO, that's the difference...individualism. How does that explain the British bombers? There are always exceptions to the rule, no doubt. I'll be curious as we discover more about them whether or not they even knew that they were going to die. It's quite possible that they believed that there would be time for them to escape. Who knows...

One school sees terrorism, in general, and suicide bombing in particular as a symptom of desparation and economic hardship. The solution, in this scenario, is to abjure military solutions and help these countries to modernize their economies and give the youth some hope. (A variation of this with respect to Palestinean suicide bombers is to resolve the Israeli-Palestinean conflict). The other school sees suicide bombing as a reflecting an ideological devotion to radical Islam and a reaction to and a rejection of the freedoms of the west. The solution here seems to be military action to eliminate the terrorist fringes and promoting democracy to provide a political outlet

This is a good description of the schools of thought, but as viewed most simplistically by their most partisan adherents. (You sent me groping for my AH dictionary with abure, which means "renounce," for anyone else wondering).

Notice first that the prescriptions of these two schools of thought correspond roughly with the dichotomy between treatment and incarceration. It's the same chasm that law enforcement and mental health professionals glare across at each other. But this chasm exists only if one accepts the simplistic form of the conflict which suggests that one must choose one approach over the other. IMO, it's a false dichotomy in that sense. No complete solution can dismiss the insights behind each school of thought/

I am sympathetic to the diagnosis that suggests that terorism is fostered by the absence of opportunity. But I reject the notion that this means we should abjure military solutions. I am with most people in thinking that a zero-tolerance policy for serious trangressors is absolutely essential. I am all for providing opportunity and a host of other related things, as its continued absence suggests to me that without it, terrorism will be a chronic and even growing cultural problem. Providing opportunity is in my mind, a similar treatment protocol in each school.

The exact mix of these depends on how you feel about whether current terrorists may be rehabilitated. My sense is that the hard core true believers should be viewed as irredemable for most or all intents and purposes. For the rest, the burden of proof of one's redemption must rest with the trangressors. My analogy, is to view it as a polluted bucket that you can't dump out. But you can filter out some of the pollution while adding fresh water.

The answer, as any economist or corporate officer, knows is...mortgages. The terrorists don't have mortgages. Islam forbids borrowing (of course, Arab banks have found ways around that).

Anyone who doesn't have a mortgage has time to stew about injustices and grievances, real or imagined, and, worse, time to do something about it.

The World Bank should institute a kind of global FHA which sows mortgages like Johnny Appleseed sowed trees. And it wouldn't hurt if they encouraged everyone to get just a little bit over their heads in debt.

Nothing guarantees peace and prosperity like mortgages.

Has anyone theorizing on the causes of suicide bombers looked beyond the these modern cases into human history for broader patterns? There must have been analogous cases of suicidal violence, if not bombings, throughout history, I would think. I would be particularly disturbed to find out that this is an entirely new human behavior.

I think the "cult" analogy is an apt one. In our society we tend to view that suicide must be born out of desperation because of the deeply negative and uncertain associations we have with death. However, not all cultures have the same associations/outlook on death.

Part of the truely frightening thing about radical islam is that culturaly it appears to embrace rather then abjure death. Remember that for true believers, martyrdom isn't anything to be feared... it bares a direct, immediate and permanent reward - entrance to paradise. For most of us growing up in the West, I think we find it difficult to wrap our heads around the idea that a sane person could fully accept such a premise without serious doubts.... thus when we consider people who pursue such courses of action we have a tendency to presume that thier immediate circumstances MUST be so desperate that they would pin everything on the faint hope, despite all doubts, that the reward actualy exists.
I don't think we are safe in that presumption, however. I suspect that a high percentage of suicide bombers don't entertain any doubts whatsoever. Death simply holds no fear for them because they are absolutely convinced of the mythology of martyrdom.

There is an interesting paralel here in looking back at Japanese suicide attacks in WWII. Commonly we tend to see them as acts of desperation.... but upon closer examination, you'll find that many of the units which conducted Banzai Charges were NOT in particularly desperate cicumstances at the time they made such attacks, and often would have been more effective conducting a conventional attack. In fact, one of the more famous ones during the battle of Gaudalcanal happaned at a point where the Japanese appeared on the verge of WINING the campaign..... and the unit which conducted it apparently had sufficient ammunition and resources to conduct a conventional attack....and would have been far more effective in doing so.... instead it conducted a banzai charge and pretty much threw away the chances of breaking the Marine line. Also when Kamikazi attacks on the U.S. Navy first began (attacks which WERE very effective) it was NOT desperate Japanese teenagers right out of flight-school in unarmed trainers that were conducting such attacks. It was some of Japans most experience pilots in fully functional combat aircraft that initiated the practice...... individuals who were fully capable of damaging U.S. ships without sacrificing themselves. The Japanese High Command actualy had to enact policies to attempt to RESTRAIN thier experienced pilots from conducting such attacks (because they were far too valuable to loose)... and had considerable difficulty in doing so. In other words, suicide attacks were NOT just a means borne out of neccesity and utter desperation ....they were actualy a culturaly desrible ends, in and of themselves.

Colorado Representative Tom Tancredo has a solution. Check out his response when asked about suicide bombers within the US.

Talk show host Pat Campbell asked the Littleton Republican how the country should respond if terrorists struck several U.S. cities with nuclear weapons.

"Well, what if you said something like -- if this happens in the United States, and we determine that it is the result of extremist, fundamentalist Muslims, you know, you could take out their holy sites," Tancredo answered.

"You're talking about bombing Mecca," Campbell said.

"Yeah," Tancredo responded.

Legal Disclaimer: The preeceding viewpoint does not necessairly reflect the view of this author....blah, blah, blah...

Nothing guarantees peace and prosperity like mortgages.

I love it! I couldn't agree more. I think it ties in with my comments about individualism. Part of the American Dream is owning your own home--something that you aren't going to find in non-capitalistic societies.

Cengel, those exceptions are good points that merit examination. But my sense is that they are just that, exceptions. What I know about various cultures suggests that when cultures embrace things like suicide and terrorism, it Is due to desparation, etc.

I've actually spent some time examining instances of cults led by charismatics. Most followers choose to become adherents based on the simple calculus that their life is improving due to the new way: they feel included, valued, given a sense of purpose, and may also have a and better material life from day to day in terms of food, shelter, etc.

As far as the efficacy of suicide bombing goes, it makes sense to me to guess that its history is correlated to the ability to act as a force multiplier. Not too many suicide bombers aim to just kill one of ours for one of theirs. Prior to the ability to do something like bomb, the opportunities for suicide terrorism were much more limited. The opportunities for efficacious terrorism were pretty much limited to setting fires and mass poisonings, which are hard to do...and which are not made more successful by adding suicide to the equation. To be a really successful suicide terrorist, you really need at least a bomb or more powerful WMD to act as a force multiplier.

In fact from the terrorist POV, it's the vast discrepancy in power between the sides(coupled with the perceived greatness of perceived injustice) that terrorist philosophy claims makes the terrorist approach morally just, and even moreso, necessary.

The logic goes, if our cause is just, then any method for achieving this necessary justice is acceptable. It then declares that the cause is the greatest necessity, the highest good, the most important justice to achieve. It's not the logic that is flawed, its the premise. Everything flows from the premise.

Poverty and jihad do not go hand in hand. If poverty caused or even contributed to jihad Mali would be a hotbed of terrorism. But it is not even though the people are both Muslim and dirt poor. It is certainly true that the working classes are more likely to be victims of terrorism, but they are not the main perpetrators. Terrorism is funded & generated by the wealthy elites; Bin Laden, the Saudi royal family, Iran’s mullahs, and so on. Without that funding there are no suicide bombers.

Poverty and jihad do not go hand in hand. If poverty caused or even contributed to jihad Mali would be a hotbed of terrorism.

C'mon Alf, let's be clear about what we're talking about. What does "go hand in hand" mean? Isn't it the case that poverty is generally a necessary although not sufficient precursor condition?

BK,

I certainly don't mean to suggest that there isn't a vast disparity of force between ourselves and the Terrorists. Nor did I mean to suggest that suicide bombings aren't an effective means of carrying out asymetrical warfare for them.

I also think you are correct that cultures that embrace concepts like suicide and terrorism TEND to be motivated by desperation. However, I do believe that it's not quite that simple and there are more factors at play.

Firstly lets remember that there is a HUGE difference between an individual being motivated toward terrorism/suicide and an entire CULTURE being motivated toward it. When the larger culture is not accepting of it, then the individuals who are most likely to contemplate it would likely be those whose immediate situation was desperate (on one or more axis, not neccessrly even economic). When the larger culture accepts it, along with building a mythology surrounding it.... then susceptible INDIVIDUALS need not be confined to those who are in particularly desperate circumstances themselves. A susceptible individual under such a scenrio may be under reasonably tolerable immediate circumstances and is motivated to act NOT neccesarly out of desperation but out a desire to fullfill cultural expectations.

Furthermore, remember that cultural mores and values can take a very long time to be shaped, often generations. Thus, while a culture may have been origionaly motivated toward suicide/terrorism due to desperate circumstances, once such values have become ingrained in the culture... they can far outlive the circumstances which gave immediate birth to them.

As I noted above, we can point to numerous historical examples where from a purely utilitarian perspective individuals or groups would have been more effective NOT to have pursued a suicide attack but did so anyway. I think this is due to the mythology that the larger culture has created around the activity...and influence such expectations have upon the individuals.

Heck, if we get right down to it, there wouldn't be a great deal in difference of effectiveness between Islamic suicide bombers simply planting the bombs and detonating them remotely (either via timed device or electronic signal) after having cleared the area themselves....and actualy being there when the devices goes off.

They would have a greater risk of the device being detected or going astray when left unattended, but it would also be offset by the fact that they wouldn't need to recruit and train a new individual every time an attempt was made. Bottom line.... there is something beyond pure utility or desperation at play here.... I think a large part of it can be chalked upto cultural expectations.

"C'mon Alf, let's be clear about what we're talking about. What does "go hand in hand" mean? Isn't it the case that poverty is generally a necessary although not sufficient precursor condition?"

BK,
Then how would you explain the fact that quite a fair percentage of suicide bombers (including a number of 9-11 attackers) were middle class even from a thorougly Western perspective? How would you explain the fact, that many of the Japanize Kamikazi pilots during WWII were actualy from the UPPER CLASSES of Japanese society? How would you explain the fact that many individual in our own society who involve themselves in murder-suicide pacts or fall prey to sucide cults are from thoroughly middle class households?

It would make a very neat package to say that extremism and self-destructive behavior was directly tied to poverty. In that case all we would have to do to combat such behavior would be to reduce poverty (a noble goal in itself). Unfortunately, I don't think it's that simple.
Certainly poverty CAN cause or contribute to such behaviors..... but it seems pretty clear to me that it is only one of a NUMBER of conditions which do so ( i.e. it is NOT a NECCESARY precursor but it is NOT an UNCOMMON one.)

bk,

But this chasm exists only if one accepts the simplistic form of the conflict which suggests that one must choose one approach over the other. IMO, it's a false dichotomy in that sense. No complete solution can dismiss the insights behind each school of thought.

...

But I reject the notion that this means we should abjure military solutions. I am with most people in thinking that a zero-tolerance policy for serious trangressors is absolutely essential.

Couldn't agree with you more! FAR too many people are thinking of our options in the "Global War on Terror" as an either-or choice (likely because they are conditioned to think that way on all sorts of matters) as opposed to realizing that elements of both are present and elements of both must be addressed. To paraphrase the great book Built to Last, they have embraced the tyranny of "or" instead of the genius of "and."

In fact, some colleagues and I have long regarded the "GWOT" as being composed of a "strategic" campaign (i.e., eliminating the root causes of terrorism and the conditions that cause terrorism to emerge and survive) and a "tactical" campaign (i.e, defeating terrorist organizations as they already and currently exist).

Efforts to win the first are primarily political and informational in nature, whereas efforts to win the second are more likely to include intelligence and military operations in support of political objectives, as well as efforts to defeat financing, sanctuaries, and their offensive capabilities.

Ultimate victory can only come from winning the strategic campaign, but that doesn't make the tactical campaign any less critically (or immediately) important as a supporting effort and "holding action" while we wait work toward this ultimate victory.

In fact, some colleagues and I have long regarded the "GWOT" as being composed of a "strategic" campaign (i.e., eliminating the root causes of terrorism and the conditions that cause terrorism to emerge and survive) and a "tactical" campaign (i.e, defeating terrorist organizations as they already and currently exist).

This reminds me of the Mark Satin piece written shortly after 9/11 on the need for a foreign policy that is tough on terrorism AND tough on the causes of terrorism (roughly analogous to your tactical and strategic campaigns respectively).

Just out of curiosity, would you consider the Iraq War part of the strategic campaign or the tactical campaign? I would argue that it is part of the strategic campaign, since it was an effort to remove a regime that had a high potential for harboring terrorists. This is opposed to being a part of the tactical campaign, which I would argue the Afghanistan operation was, in that it was a direct strike at the organization which attacked us.

I think the specific goal of the strategic campaign should be the empowerment of moderate political forces in the Islamic world. The Iraq War has done much in this regard - but I think much more needs to be done with respect to PR/propaganda and monetary support for moderate pro-democracy factions in other Islamic countries.

Then how would you explain the fact that quite a fair percentage of suicide bombers (including a number of 9-11 attackers) were middle class even from a thorougly Western perspective?
I'd respond by saying that you're using a small sample size to prove your point. Expanding the sample to include, say, palestinians would make it appear you are citing the exception that proves the general rule.

How would you explain the fact, that many of the Japanize Kamikazi pilots during WWII were actualy from the UPPER CLASSES of Japanese society?
I'd have to see the data. But kamikazes weren't jihadists, were they? Perhaps jihadish? But they sure weren't terrorists to my knowledge. Wherever I've been unclear, I'm really making a connection between poverty and the successful seed conditions for terrorist growth. Class kamikazes as suicide bombers and cite other instances of particular suicide bombers being middle or upper class, and I'm happy to acknowledge that suicide bombers themselves need not be poor. I'm not sure what that proves though.

How would you explain the fact that many individual in our own society who involve themselves in murder-suicide pacts or fall prey to sucide cults are from thoroughly middle class households?
That's a great question, thanks for asking it, as it's really helping me to clarify my thinking. First, I'd say that murder-suicide pacts are a markedly different phenomenon from terrorism in many ways. These are generally the outcome of a deeply troubled personal relationship, and are primarily inward-directed, in the eyes of the killer, bearing in mind that there's an element of narcissismn anyway, so it MUST be inwardly directed.

Suicide cults and other cults are similar manifestations to terrorist movements, involving charismatic zealots. Poverty is certainly not a necessary condition here. But again, do we think of such cults as peopled by terrorists?

It would make a very neat package to say that extremism and self-destructive behavior was directly tied to poverty. In that case all we would have to do to combat such behavior would be to reduce poverty (a noble goal in itself). Unfortunately, I don't think it's that simple.

Certainly poverty CAN cause or contribute to such behaviors..... but it seems pretty clear to me that it is only one of a NUMBER of conditions which do so ( i.e. it is NOT a NECCESARY precursor but it is NOT an UNCOMMON one.)

My thesis, in case I've not stated it clearly, is not to connect poverty to all extremism and self-destructive behavior. Notice that the respond of mine you cited was made in reference to jihadists, who, in my meaning commit to carrying out a moral crusade against others.

Within Islam, it does not to my knowledge necessarily imply a violent form of crusade, but it's my sense that it was violent jihadis that Alf was referring to. IF not, my bad. I'll take the blame for whatever miscommunictaion has occurred. This thread started by talking about suicide bombers, I took off on Alf's comment about jihadists and was thinking more about the seed conditions for a terrorist movement than about suicide bombers per se...

My clarified thesis is that a substantial oppressed and impoverished population is a necessary initial condition for the growth of terrorism to the point that it becomes a serious threat to the public. And maybe necessary is after all too strong a word, so let's say that I overstated my case. I was wrong, If so though, I think it's like winning the argument that wood is not a necessary condition for a campfire.

Anyway, I think Cengel and others here and elsewhere, in asking pointed questions about my thesis, have drawn attention to that which I see as the most troubling danger in terrorism. I've pointed out that poverty and oppression provide optimal seed conditions for initial growth. But this does not imply that over time, these initial conditions must endure. They need only endure long enough to grow a critical mass of relatively unquestioning faith. Such a movement evolves.

And even though I'm way overlong already, I'd like to make one last point related to something Cengel brought up before, the middle and upper class nature of the suicide bombers themselves in the case of 9/11. The growth and evolution of a movement past critical mass may require early sacrifices on the part of important leaders in order to inspire the requisite faith in the required number of followers, both of the movement's righteousness, and of its efficacy. IOW, you need a show-me moment. in fact, looking at suicide cults, in most instances, their end comes in some sort of grand failure related to such a show-me moment.

When talking about the conditions that breed terrorism, I think it's too narrow to look only at poverty. It seems clear that a lot of terrorists aren't poor, but, as the article implies, they have a more generalized anger toward the West, arguably fueled by both material conditions and culture. From a jihadists' standpoint (which often reflects a mindset, I think, that Islam is, or should be, a superior culture to the West), there are lots of things that would "fuel" a violent reaction other than poverty: the Palestineans, the introduction of western values in Islamic societies, corrupt local governments, the presence of western military forces in Islamic countries, etc. I'm not saying for a minute that the way the jihadists view these things are correct, only that in their minds, it is likely to create a feeling of helplessness. So, I think you have to look beyond just poverty when talking about the conditions that fuel terrorism. On the other hand, I think there is a cultural/political component. Islam is a religion that believes in the unity of the social and the political, unlike the west,where we basically see politics and society as separate. Because of that, it seems to me, jihadists cannot separate economic and political problems from religious/social issues. As a result, they see the power of the United States--an alien and offensive culture-as both a political and a social problem. Thus, IMO, terrorism (remembering that it is still a heavily fringe movement in the Muslim world) is perhaps as much a psychological issue (as the article implies) as it is a political/economic issue. This makes it all the more difficult to address.

One of the points of my post was really to point out the inadequacy of explanations or solutions based on a simple materialistic analysis; for example, Carla and others talk about needing to address the root issues of terrorism. But, if my analysis is correct, addressing the root issues of terrorism will be extremely difficult because it implies changing the worldview of jidhadists. I don't know how you do that. You can talk about the shortcomings of western policy toward the Muslim world--supporting repressive and corrupt regimes, the Iraq War, failing to solve the Palestinean issue, backward economies with limited opprotunities, and so on. But the fact is, none of these justify to a western mind (and to most Muslims as well) flying airplanes into buildings and blowing up subways in western countries. There is something more at work here, IMO, and it seems to me to be a Manichean view of the world that sees any trace of westernization not merely as "unIslamic" but as an attack on Islam and, indeed, almost a personal attack on the jihadist's identity.

That the bombers themselves are not poor or oppressed doesn't mean that poverty and oppression don't play a major role in their motivation. They are generally at an age of idealism and academic pursuit during which they are likely to take up the causes of their less fortunate brethren.

I'd liken these guys to in some respects to wealthy kids running around Ivy League campuses wearing Che Guevara t-shirts. It's obviously a far more profound and perverse thing to become a terrorist than a campus leftist, but I think there is a similar dynamic given the age and background of the usual suspects.

These guys are easily swept up by the injustice that they see in their or their families' original countries. Throw in a heaping spoonful of twisted religion and alienation and they are then ripe for conversion by those who would use them for their political ends.

But there must be something for the young bombers to rail against, and part of it, at least, seems to be the injustice of preserved poverty in oil-rich nations.

Tractarian,

My opinion would be that the War in Iraq served to advance both strategic and tactical interests (as all tactics should support strategic objectives, this is somewhat redundant, but you know what I mean). I would say it served the "tactical" campaign in that it allowed us the positioning of 120,000 Coalition troops with which to pressure neighboring Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Syria (not to mention Pakistan and, of course, Saddam Hussein) into at least reducing their financial and organizational support for terrorist organizations. But the present phase-- ushering in and supporting the conditions for an enduring, democratically-supported government-- more applies to the "strategic" campaign, since it addresses what at least some of us believe is a "root cause" of the jihadists-- frustration at their own disenfranchisement at the hands of corrupt and repressive regimes. This would fit with Dr. Alberto Abadie of Harvard's thesis that the lack of political freedom, more than anything, is the most accurate indicator for the presence of terrorists in a country.

One of the points of my post was really to point out the inadequacy of explanations or solutions based on a simple materialistic analysis; for example, Carla and others talk about needing to address the root issues of terrorism. But, if my analysis is correct, addressing the root issues of terrorism will be extremely difficult because it implies changing the worldview of jidhadists. I don't know how you do that.

I think that the model that Bobby and I loosely agree upon is the most reasonable one. And the bucket analogy of adding fresh water to a bucket because you can't just dump it out applies to the notion of how nearly impossible it is to change the world view of jihadists. Changing the worldview of faithfully committed zealots is nearly impossible. But you can make the efficacy of their world view questionable, and make the facts on the ground a poor match for the zealot's description of reality. And maybe you can do a better job of predicting material things and then making them come true.

If terrorism is a fire, we have to deny the terrorists the fuel they need to grow. It's an effort whose chances of success can be measured only over decades and generations. And it absolutely must include the promotion of moderate islam, if necessary an alteration of Islam to include values that its most extreme forms do not wish to consider, such as gender equality. I think we should be upfront about this basic conflict. Muslim fundamentalists who suggest that we're trying to impose our cultural values upon Islam are not wrong, and we shouldn't shy away from this, it just muddies the waters.

We should take on the nature of Sha'ria policy and challenge Muslims on whether such policies are in fact directly constructed from the Koran and the words of Allah. This really has to happen by any means necessary, IMO. Gender equity is IMO non-negotiable. and the necessity of allowing non-usorious lending in order to foster a modern economy to the benefit of all the people is also pretty much non-negotiable.

Travels
tag2-Travels