Book on Suicide Terrorism

[CBL4]

"Dying to Win : The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism" by Robert Pape. He collected data on every suicide bombing from 1980 to 2003 and analized it. Here is what he says on Amazon:

The data show that there is little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, or any one of the world’s religions. In fact, the leading instigators of suicide attacks are the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, a Marxist-Leninist group whose members are from Hindu families but who are adamantly opposed to religion. This group committed 76 of the 315 incidents, more suicide attacks than Hamas.

Rather, what nearly all suicide terrorist attacks have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland. Religion is rarely the root cause, although it is often used as a tool by terrorist organizations in recruiting and in other efforts in service of the broader strategic objective.
...
From 1980 to 2003, terrorists across the globe waged seventeen separate campaigns of suicide terrorism, including those by Hezbollah to drive the United States, French, and Israeli forces out of Lebanon; by Palestinian terrorist groups to force Israel to abandon the West Bank and Gaza; by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (the “Tamil Tigers”) to compel the Sri Lankan government to accept an independent Tamil homeland; by al-Qaeda to pressure the United States to withdraw from the Persian Gulf region. Since August of 2003, an eighteenth campaign has begun, aimed at driving the United States out of Iraq; as of this writing, it is not yet clear how much this effort owes to indigenous forces and how much to foreigners, possibly including al-Qaeda.
...
Since September 11, 2001, the United States has responded to the growing threat of suicide terrorism by embarking on a policy to conquer Muslim countries—not simply rooting out existing havens for terrorists in Afghanistan but going further to remake Muslim societies in the Persian Gulf. To be sure, the United States must be ready to use force to protect Americans and their allies and must do so when necessary. However, the close association between foreign military occupations and the growth of suicide terrorist movements in the occupied regions should make us hesitate over any strategy centering on the transformation of Muslim societies by means of heavy military power. Although there may still be good reasons for such a strategy, we should recognize that the sustained presence of heavy American combat forces in Muslim countries is likely to increase the odds of the next 9/11.

To win the war on terrorism, we must have a new conception of victory. The key to lasting security lies not only in rooting out today’s generation of terrorists who are actively planning to kill Americans, but also in preventing the next, potentially larger generation from rising up. America’s overarching purpose must be to achieve the first goal without failing at the second. To achieve that purpose, it is essential that we understand the strategic, social, and individual logic of suicide terrorism.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/pr...0/104-2462047-3461506?_encoding=UTF8&n=507846

CBL

 

[Mephisto]

Quote:

To win the war on terrorism, we must have a new conception of victory. The key to lasting security lies not only in rooting out today’s generation of terrorists who are actively planning to kill Americans, but also in preventing the next, potentially larger generation from rising up. America’s overarching purpose must be to achieve the first goal without failing at the second. To achieve that purpose, it is essential that we understand the strategic, social, and individual logic of suicide terrorism.
______

Wow! Sounds like someone is thinking "outside the box." Makes every bit of sense too. In spite of the fact that Saddam's regime was so absolutely horrible NOT ONE suicide attack was EVER leveled at his troops by all his citizens.

Who would have thought that the best way to combat the "suiciders" is not to invade their country. It seems to give credence to assertions that the billions we've spent fighting terrorism would have been better spent at home (and no one would have died in combat).

 

[rikzilla]

Interesting analysis, but flawed.

How would the grandaddy of all suicide bombings fit? Who were we occupying on Sept 11th 2001? What occupier were the Kenya-Tanzania embassy bombings meant to drive out? The USS Cole comes to mind...a target of opportunity. There was no occupation of Yemen; only a warship in need of refueling. Even Khobar Towers doesn't really fit since US forces were and are not occupying Saudi Arabia but are there at the behest of the Saudi government.

OTOH there have been plenty of occupations not met my suicide bombings. The French resistance did not use it against the Nazis. The Japanese, Germans, and Italians did not use it against the US. (there were Kamikase, but only in battle) The Chinese, Philipinos, Vietnamese, Cambodians etc.. did not use it against the Japanese.

There are too many exceptions. He puts forth an interesting idea; but it seems to have little merit. His take seems to be that we could give in and quit these "occupations" (as defined by our adversaries) and suicide bombings would cease. Therefore the question must be asked; What do we do when Spain, Portugal, or Serbia are similarly declared to be "occupied islamic lands"??

The author is merely taking an "outside the box" look at the specific problem of suicide bombings and using his "findings" to support the age old tactic of appeasement. Any way you cut it, appeasement simply doesn't work.

-z

 

[Ziggurat]

Wow! Sounds like someone is thinking "outside the box." Makes every bit of sense too. In spite of the fact that Saddam's regime was so absolutely horrible NOT ONE suicide attack was EVER leveled at his troops by all his citizens.

Terrorism can be effective against democracies, but it has never, ever been effective against totatitarian dictatorships. What the hell would Saddam care if a few of his troops got killed? Just level the city the bombers came from, problem solved.

But Saddam was deeply involved in suicide bombings, just not in Iraq. That is the nature of such tyrannies: they may be internally "stable", but the price for such stability is the exportation of violence. Saddam frequently paid large sums of money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers - did you not know this, or did you choose to ignore it? Do you really want to focus the debate solely on suicide bombing, and not on the broader problem of terrorism? I don't see how that's a winning debate tactic for you.

Who would have thought that the best way to combat the "suiciders" is not to invade their country. It seems to give credence to assertions that the billions we've spent fighting terrorism would have been better spent at home (and no one would have died in combat).

Yeah, cause that worked SO well to keep 9/11 from happening. Tell me, which invasion prompted Atta and his cohorts from flying planes into skyscrapers? Was it because of our invasion of Saudi Arabia? Or perhaps Germany? We did invade Germany, I'll grant you that. Of course, I don't recall Atta being alive at the time, or Germany being Islamic. Maybe he had a time machine - in which case, it could also have been because of our subsequent invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. Maybe that's the answer: Islamic terrorists have discovered the secrets oftime travel!

And tell me - how long ago was it that the UK invaded Pakistan? Or how about when the last time Spain invaded Morocco?

 

[normdoering]

Interesting analysis, but flawed.

I agree.

Defining the most common general motives of suicide bombers doesn't define the specific motives of the 9/11 hijackers or the motives of the Iraq insurgents -- many of whom are not Iraqi so then can't be defending an Iraqi homeland.

In the case of the 9/11 bombers we have their letters -- overtly religious letters revealing a religious motive.

 

[Bikewer]

They interviewed the guy on Diane Rehm a few weeks ago. His research is evidently quite extensive, and I believe he has the data up on a university website. (Sorry, no link)

He made no claim that suicide bombings are exclusively the territory of individuals who think they are defending a "homeland" ( a rather broad concept) from invaders/occupiers; only that this is the most common motivation.
He points out that the Tamil Tigers have done more such bombings than have any Islamic group, and they are Marxists.

 

[CBL4]

Who were we occupying on Sept 11th 2001?

According to OBL, our "puppets" are occupying Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc. OBL message at the time was about our troops in Saudi Arabia. It is an indisputable fact that we support governments that oppress Muslims. Without our money, soldiers and weapons, the tyrants would disappear. Whether you want to describe it as occupying or aiding tyranny is in many ways a matter of semantics.

CBL

 

[Ziggurat]

According to OBL, our "puppets" are occupying Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc. OBL message at the time was about our troops in Saudi Arabia. It is an indisputable fact that we support governments that oppress Muslims. Without our money, soldiers and weapons, the tyrants would disappear.

Oh, THAT is a rich claim. Yes, we did support Saudi Arabia (though that claim is harder to make now that we've withdrawn the troops we had stationed there). Yes, the government is oppressive, and this was cited as a complaint by OBL. But you've got to be drinking some pretty strong Koolaid if you think that our support is necessary for them to survive. It is not. They can easily get guns, money, and even soldiers from other willing sources (China springs to mind). This is not an attempt to justify our support for any such governments, it's simply a reality check. The problem of oppressive middle east governments would have existed even if we had never supported a single one.

 

[CBL4]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
But you've got to be drinking some pretty strong Koolaid if you think that our support is necessary for them to survive. It is not. They can easily get guns, money, and even soldiers from other willing sources (China springs to mind).

This is true to some degree. If we abandon our support for the Saudi's, then China could easily replace us. However, if the west abandon support for all the oil tyrannies many (most?) would fall. The west simply has the best weapons and the most money. China and other countries simply cannot replace our support for the tyrannies.

this was cited as a complaint by OBL.

Do you have a reason to disagree not to believe him? This theme (occupation and support of tyrants) is consistently posted on Al Queda supporting web pages, militant mosques and in OBL's speeches. Even if he personally does not believe it, it is his main recruiting tool.

BTW, if you want to have a serious debate, I suggest you refrain from phrases like "THAT is a rich claim" or "strong kool aid." The rest of your post makes some good points (I disagree with them but they are good points) but these particular phrases make it harder for us to have a reasoned conversation.

CBL

 

[Ziggurat]

This is true to some degree. If we abandon our support for the Saudi's, then China could easily replace us. However, if the west abandon support for all the oil tyrannies many (most?) would fall. The west simply has the best weapons and the most money. China and other countries simply cannot replace our support for the tyrannies.

Do you think that those dictatorships use F16's and advanced weaponry to keep their citizens oppressed? Or is it mostly done with a security apparatus, informants, a controlled press, single-part governments, arbitrary arrests, torture, and executions? It does not take fancy weaponry to control a population. AK47's work just as well as M16's against civilians. Syria and Iran have been managing fairly well without US support, I really don't understand where the idea comes from that any of them would collapse without our support. And the Chinese can pay in dollars just as well as we can: oil is fungible, it will get bought at market prices whether the buyer is the US, the Europeans, or the Chinese.

Note that I'm not claiming we should support tyrannies, far from it. I think we need to push for democratic reforms quite aggressively. My only point is that we're basically being made into a scapegoat, that despite faults in how we've handled various relationships in the past, we aren't really the source of the problem.

Do you have a reason to disagree not to believe him? This theme (occupation and support of tyrants) is consistently posted on Al Queda supporting web pages, militant mosques and in OBL's speeches. Even if he personally does not believe it, it is his main recruiting tool.

I have reason to disbelieve that our disengagement from the region would solve the problem. That often seems to be the goal of bringing up this argument, though I'm not sure if that's what you're advocating.

BTW, if you want to have a serious debate, I suggest you refrain from phrases like "THAT is a rich claim" or "strong kool aid."

Fair enough.

 

[CBL4]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Do you think that those dictatorships use F16's and advanced weaponry to keep their citizens oppressed? Or is it mostly done with a security apparatus, informants, a controlled press, single-part governments, arbitrary arrests, torture, and executions? It does not take fancy weaponry to control a population

I agree with you to some degree. It does not take fancy weapons but they are helpful especially when rebels get a reasonable force. They are also helpful to intimidate opposition Example of this are Hussein gassing Iraqis or the elder Assad killing 10,000 people in a town. We also provide intelligence and protect oil pipelines and terminals with fairly advanced techniques.

As to money, oil is clearly fungible. However, the west could impose a tarriff on tyrants. They would still make some money but freer countries would benefit and it would give tyrants a nudge to freedom. Also China simply does not have the money of moderate sized European nation much less the entire west. If we unite, we could drastically reduce tyranny via economic weapons. We won't but we could.

Note that I'm not claiming we should support tyrannies, far from it. I think we need to push for democratic reforms quite aggressively. My only point is that we're basically being made into a scapegoat, that despite faults in how we've handled various relationships in the past, we aren't really the source of the problem.

Scapegoats are innocent. We are part of the problem. In most cases, we are small part but we are still a part. Unfortunately, we (the west) appear to lack the temperment to push hard for freedom. Generally speaking, we help our tyrants or invade.

CBL

 

[Mephisto]

Terrorism can be effective against democracies, but it has never, ever been effective against totatitarian dictatorships. What the hell would Saddam care if a few of his troops got killed? Just level the city the bombers came from, problem solved.

Then planting a Democracy in Iraq is no guarantee that terrorism will ever end, right? In fact, just being Democratic ensures their continued suffering. You're right about how Saddam would have handled it, but the populace apparently policed themselves more effectively to avoid his wrath, why won't they do the same for us (psst, we invaded)?

But Saddam was deeply involved in suicide bombings, just not in Iraq. That is the nature of such tyrannies: they may be internally "stable", but the price for such stability is the exportation of violence. Saddam frequently paid large sums of money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers - did you not know this, or did you choose to ignore it?

Sure, I knew it, and did you know that monies were given to the Catholic Church for the families of IRA members? Muslims give donations to people they think have sacrificed for them, Catholics, Baptists, Buddhists and Jews do too. Why is it so horrible when Muslims do it?

Do you really want to focus the debate solely on suicide bombing, and not on the broader problem of terrorism? I don't see how that's a winning debate tactic for you.

No, but I did particularly have the London bombings and the bombings today in Bagdhad while I was writing. You're absolutely right, the OP's original subject was suicide terrorism.

Yeah, cause that worked SO well to keep 9/11 from happening. Tell me, which invasion prompted Atta and his cohorts from flying planes into skyscrapers? Was it because of our invasion of Saudi Arabia? Or perhaps Germany? We did invade Germany, I'll grant you that. Of course, I don't recall Atta being alive at the time, or Germany being Islamic. Maybe he had a time machine - in which case, it could also have been because of our subsequent invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. Maybe that's the answer: Islamic terrorists have discovered the secrets oftime travel!

And tell me - how long ago was it that the UK invaded Pakistan? Or how about when the last time Spain invaded Morocco? [/B][/QUOTE]

C'mon, we all know that 9/11 was caused by the one extremist with enough money and influence to strike the U.S. HE is a far more dangerous man to us than Hussein could ever have been. Yet, we've diverted resources and manpower to fight in Iraq where suicide terrorism (they just happen to be bombings for the most part) is a daily occurence.

Without all the hystorical sarcasm we should honestly be turning our suspicions toward the London bombings especially BECAUSE they don't fit the criteria. Hopefully this won't be the start of a horrifying (and nearly impossible to defeat militarily) terrorist trend. Are we going to regret not finding OBL because of a possibly new terrorist tactic that will bring the war home to everyone?

 

[Mephisto]

Terrorism can be effective against democracies, but it has never, ever been effective against totatitarian dictatorships. What the hell would Saddam care if a few of his troops got killed? Just level the city the bombers came from, problem solved.

Then planting a Democracy in Iraq is no guarantee that terrorism will ever end, right? In fact, just being Democratic ensures their continued suffering. You're right about how Saddam would have handled it, but the populace apparently policed themselves more effectively to avoid his wrath, why won't they do the same for us (psst, we invaded)?

But Saddam was deeply involved in suicide bombings, just not in Iraq. That is the nature of such tyrannies: they may be internally "stable", but the price for such stability is the exportation of violence. Saddam frequently paid large sums of money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers - did you not know this, or did you choose to ignore it?

Sure, I knew it, and did you know that monies were given to the Catholic Church for the families of IRA members? Muslims give donations to people they think have sacrificed for them, Catholics, Baptists, Buddhists and Jews do too. Why is it so horrible when Muslims do it?

Do you really want to focus the debate solely on suicide bombing, and not on the broader problem of terrorism? I don't see how that's a winning debate tactic for you.

No, but I did particularly have the London bombings and the bombings today in Bagdhad on mind while I was writing. You're absolutely right, the OP's subject was a book about suicide terrorism.

Yeah, cause that worked SO well to keep 9/11 from happening. Tell me, which invasion prompted Atta and his cohorts from flying planes into skyscrapers? Was it because of our invasion of Saudi Arabia? Or perhaps Germany? We did invade Germany, I'll grant you that. Of course, I don't recall Atta being alive at the time, or Germany being Islamic. Maybe he had a time machine - in which case, it could also have been because of our subsequent invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. Maybe that's the answer: Islamic terrorists have discovered the secrets oftime travel! And tell me - how long ago was it that the UK invaded Pakistan? Or how about when the last time Spain invaded Morocco?

C'mon, we all know that 9/11 was caused by the one extremist with enough money and influence to strike the U.S. HE is a far more dangerous man to us than Hussein could ever have been. Yet, we've diverted resources and manpower to fight in Iraq where suicide terrorism (they just happen to be bombings for the most part) is a daily occurence.

Without all the hystorical sarcasm we should honestly be turning our suspicions toward the London bombings especially BECAUSE they don't fit the criteria. Hopefully this won't be the start of a horrifying (and nearly impossible to defeat militarily) terrorist trend. Are we going to regret not finding OBL because of a new terrorist tactic that could concievably bring the war home to everyone?

Suddenly the war in Iraq doesn't make us feel quite as safe anymore.

 

[Mycroft]

Then planting a Democracy in Iraq is no guarantee that terrorism will ever end, right? In fact, just being Democratic ensures their continued suffering.

Wow, so I guess the solution to terrorism is to get rid of democracy.

 

[Mephisto]

Wow, so I guess the solution to terrorism is to get rid of democracy.

No, Ziggy just said, "Terrorism can be effective against democracies, but it has never, ever been effective against totatitarian dictatorships."

The solution is to give everyone their own little totalitarian dictatorship.

 

[Ziggurat]

As to money, oil is clearly fungible. However, the west could impose a tarriff on tyrants.

How do you figure this is even possible? Who would authorize it? The UN security council? Not a chance in hell: two of the security council permanent members pretty much ARE tyrannies, and other members find it quite convenient to triangulate with tyrannies against other members for short-term gain. Only the west? Do you honestly think the west is prepared to use military force to demand a cut when Chinese tankers go to fill up at Saudi oil terminals? Because that's what it would take. That would be labeled piracy pretty damned quickly, and there's no possible way it would get any support in Europe. Regardless of how nice a thing this might be (and that really isn't obvious either), the will to do this simply will never exist. It is not an option.

 

[Ziggurat]

Then planting a Democracy in Iraq is no guarantee that terrorism will ever end, right?

We live in a world without guarantees. The 13 colonies weren't guaranteed to succeed in their revolution against the British crown. The north was never guaranteed to win the civil war. England was never guaranteed to be able to withstand the onslaught of Nazi Germany. And you aren't guaranteed a job when you graduate from college. Life is full of situations where the best course of action still offers no guarantee. Are you unable to recognize this basic reality?

In fact, just being Democratic ensures their continued suffering.

It does not follow that because terrorism never works against tyrannies that it always works against democracies. It does not follow that since tyrannies are not plagued by terrorism that democracies always are. These are logical fallacies.

And for the record, one of the few guarantees in life is that living under a tyrrany WILL lead to continued suffering. We have not guaranteed an end to Iraq's suffering, but we've given them a chance at that. You would have made sure that was impossible, if you had your way.

You're right about how Saddam would have handled it, but the populace apparently policed themselves more effectively to avoid his wrath, why won't they do the same for us (psst, we invaded)?

You misdiagnose the problem. It isn't that the population under a tyranny polices itself (it doesn't), but that those who would use violence to achieve power recognize that the only way to accomplish their goals is to become part of the tyrrany. So those who would be terrorists instead become the secret police. Viola - no "terrorism", just a terrorised population. Your logic for why the population doesn't police itself now makes no sense either, since the population has become the primary target of the terrorists.

Sure, I knew it, and did you know that monies were given to the Catholic Church for the families of IRA members?

The debate WAS originally about suicide bombers only. It's fine to expand the discussion. I will make no excuses for the support given by some to the IRA. It was wrong, and it is wrong. The US has in the past been too selective in its attention to terrorism. In that I agree with you. That doesn't change the fact that Saddam was a major state sponsor of terrorism and a sworn enemy of the US. His support for terrorism was intolerable. So would the Catholic Church's be, but unlike Saddam, I suspect they can probably be pushed away from such actions without needing to invade the Vatican. Has the catholic church done anything that you would consider sponsorship of terrorism since 9/11?

C'mon, we all know that 9/11 was caused by the one extremist with enough money and influence to strike the U.S. HE is a far more dangerous man to us than Hussein could ever have been.

That makes absolutely no sense. Who had more money: Saddam or Bin Laden? Clearly, Saddam. Who controlled more territory? Osama could be argued to have control over large parts of Afghanistan, but I'd still give the edge to Saddam. Who had more influence in the media? Osama got occasional tapes played on Al Jazeera, but Saddam had a lot of those Al Jazeera employees on his payroll, as well as journalists and politicians throughout the arab world and even further abroad (Kofi's son is implicated in illicit deals with Saddam, not with OBL). Who had more men working for him? Clearly, Saddam. By any measure, Saddam was more powerful than bin Laden.

The ONLY sense in which Saddam could EVER be less of a threat was the degree to which he could be disuaded from exercising that power to strike at us through the threat of retaliation. But that disuasion was hardly a guarantee. If Saddam ever thought he could sponsor terrorist strikes at us without it being traceable back to him, why wouldn't he do that? The mural of him standing before the burning WTC towers makes it pretty clear he'd be happy to do so. So our safety relied on Saddam's judgment: would he think he could get away with it? Note that this isn't the same question as whether or not he actually could. Saddam has made huge blunders in the past, we were hardly ensured of rational and safe choices in the future.

Without all the hystorical sarcasm we should honestly be turning our suspicions toward the London bombings especially BECAUSE they don't fit the criteria.

Alternatively: the London bombings demonstrate that the criteria of "liberation" was never a good one to begin with.

Are we going to regret not finding OBL because of a possibly new terrorist tactic that will bring the war home to everyone?

I have little doubt that the london bombers were inspired (at least in part) by Bin Laden's ideology. I suspect that there was no direct organizational connection. This is not known definitively, but I think it's a pretty reasonable working hypothesis (do you have any evidence to the contrary?). If I am correct, then capturing OBL would probably have had zero effect on the London bombing.

 

[CBL4]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
How do you figure this [tarriff on oil tyrannies] is even possible?

"All" it would take is the western nations plus Japan to agree to it. The UN and the rest of the world are irrellevant if the west acts together. United, we have the power to do just about anything. In this case, we would be on the side of freedom. If the will was there, it could happen in a few years. Unfortunately, the will and vision is lacking because it would mean short term sacrifices. It also would require Europeans and the US to agree which in the current political climate is impossible.

It is a very plausible, doable plan that is never going to happen. If would take some preperation but given a 5 year timetable, it would not even be that costly. But that ain't gonna happen because we are not serious about working for democracy.

CBL

 

[Ziggurat]

"All" it would take is the western nations plus Japan to agree to it. The UN and the rest of the world are irrellevant if the west acts together.

Perhaps you mean something different from what I understood. Are you saying that western countries demand a tarrif whenever western companies trade with tyrannies? Or are you saying that western countries should impose this tarrif on any country dealing with tyrranies? The later is simply impossible, because it requires being willing to go to war with countries who do not want to pay this tarrif (which would include China and Russia). If you only mean the former, well, all that would mean is China gets oil a little cheaper, the Saudis sell their oil for a little less, and we end up paying more for oil. I don't see how that could possibly make any fundamental difference.

If you think it can make a difference, you'll have to be more specific. Which countries would the tarrif apply to? What kind of trade would it apply to? Who would enforce it? And what effect do you think it would have?

 

[CBL4]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
If you think it can make a difference, you'll have to be more specific. Which countries would the tarrif apply to? What kind of trade would it apply to? Who would enforce it? And what effect do you think it would have?

I meant that any oil produced by an oil tyranny would have a tarriff if it were brought into any western nation. The tarriff would vary according to the vileness of the tyranny. The vileness measure (and therefore the tarriff) would be recomputed yearly. The maximum tarriff might be 200% for a Saddam Hussein.

Enforcement would clearly be an issue but if the west were committed, this would not be too big a deal.

The effect would be something like this: Global oil prices would rise to to perhaps 60 dollars a barrell. Tyrannian oil would sell for $20 plus a $40 tarriff. Utopian oil would sell for $60 with no tarriff. This would give Tyrannia an incentive to reform. It would also give the west a new source of revenue. It also would have been much more effective in the late 90s when oil prices were lower.

Yes, China and other non-participating countries would be be able to buy cheap oil from Tyrannia. I think the freedom gained in the world would be worth it.

I admit that this is an oversimplification but it is a type of action that the west needs to take - make life difficult for tyrannies and make life easier for poorer liberal democracies.

CBL