« Dani Rodrik has painted himself into a corner | Main | The Kissing Game »
Ron Paul is Correct
The central fact is that overwhelmingly suicide-terrorist attacks are not driven by religion as much as they are by a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. From Lebanon to Sri Lanka to Chechnya to Kashmir to the West Bank, every major suicide-terrorist campaign—over 95 percent of all the incidents—has had as its central objective to compel a democratic state to withdraw.
That's Robert Pape, author of Dying to Win: The Logic of Suicide Terrorism, an in interview from several years ago. Steve Levitt points to the interview in one of his best posts. Here's one bit from Levitt. Read the whole thing.
For most government officials, there is much more pressure to look like you are trying to stop terrorism than there is to actually stop it. The head of the TSA can’t be blamed if a plane gets shot down by a shoulder-launched missile, but he is in serious trouble if a tube of explosive toothpaste takes down a plane. Consequently, we put much more effort into the toothpaste even though it is probably a much less important threat.
Posted by Alex Tabarrok on August 11, 2007 at 07:20 AM in Economics | Permalink
Comments
re the first quote: Things aren't that clear cut. I suspect a army presence would be rather more palateable if the army were of the same religion as the occupied people. In each of the examples given, religious difference is central. I'll believe you if you can give me some convincing examples of terrorism developing in a territory where the locals and the occupiers are of the same faith.
Posted by: axwse at Aug 11, 2007 8:59:40 AM
For once something we agree on.
I think that conflating nationalist aims with the "they hate our freedoms" is misstating the issues.
I also think that much of the action taken in the name of defending us against threats is "security theater". I'm with Steve Levitt on this.
My question is why does the administration act this way?
Is presenting things in a black and white manner just an easier way to advance their foreign policy aims? If they said, for example, "we are invading Iraq for their oil", it is generally believed that the people would be less inclined to go along. Every war is sold on the basis of ideology and nationalism.
As for security theater is this incompetence, cronyism, part of the fearmongering that is used to support the foreign policy or what?
If you disagree with policy (or even agree) it seems to me to be useful to explore people's unstated motives as well.
Posted by: robertdfeinman at Aug 11, 2007 10:27:23 AM
I'd disagree with the first excerpt. The fact is, with the exception of Sri Lanka, the suicide bombers are all Muslims, motivated in part by their religions sanction of dying for their religion. Sri Lanka is a case of inter-ethnic violence and inter-religious, and has nothing to do with democracy or homeland. "Strategic objectives" are part of it, but without religion, usually Islam, no suicide bombers.
Posted by: Dennis Mangan at Aug 11, 2007 10:49:02 AM
every major suicide-terrorist campaign—over 95 percent of all the incidents—has had as its central objective to compel a democratic state to withdraw.
I think this may be true of suicide terrorism, and may also be true of terrorism in general. But isn't there a certain selection effect? When the Muslim Brotherhood initiated a terrorist campaign in Syria, attempting to unseat the decidedly un-democratic government of Hafez al-Assad, Assad responded with a military solution: raze the villages sympathetic to the terrorists and kill their inhabitants. When the PLO initiated a terrorist campaign against the government of the Kingdom of Jordan, the King similarly sent in his military, and had them kill everyone sympathetic to the PLO. Terrorism isn't targeted exclusively at democracies -- it's just that it only works well against democracies. If there's a totalitarian occupying military, and you start terrorist attacks against them and their civilians in the hopes of recovering your homeland, it's vastly more likely that your homeland will be reduced to rubble, and your people/clan/tribe hunted to extinction. Not always (e.g. Chechnya, where their homeland has been reduced to rubble, but . . . well, they're still mostly alive). But usually.
Re: Feinman:
If they said, for example, "we are invading Iraq for their oil", it is generally believed that the people would be less inclined to go along.
Well, sure. Because if oil was what we wanted, all we'd have had to do is end the sanctions regime. The administration is full of oilmen. They know that better than you or me.
Posted by: Taeyoung at Aug 11, 2007 11:00:47 AM
The fact is, with the exception of Sri Lanka,
the suicide bombers are all Muslims
Not to broaden the debate unnecessarily, but historically it seems like
most people are willing to glorify suicide attacks if circumstances
seem appropriate to them. See for example
Ricaurte, hero of Colombia, whose suicide attack is referred to in Colombia's national anthem. And that's a very Catholic country...
Posted by: bbartlog at Aug 11, 2007 11:33:13 AM
"The central fact is that overwhelmingly suicide-terrorist attacks are not driven by religion as much as they are by a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland."
This strategic objective does not rule out that the attacks are driven by religion. In fact, quite the opposite. Why is it that so often fundamentalist Muslims see themselves as a nation within a nation? It is also worth noting that Islamic terror groups explicity call for replacing secular government with Sharia law; that, in their own words, is why they are fighting. It is interesting that people go through such mental gymnastics to produce any reason for the violence other than religion, while the perpetrators cite only religion. If they also cite that they want "their" homeland, it is no reason to romanticize what they are doing or become confused about root causes. Those who have read Islamic scripture know that the world belongs to Muslims and that a land ruled by any law other than Sharia is an insult to god. Radical Muslims in the UK think the UK should be theirs (watch "Dispatches"). That doesn't justify them fighting the democratic government, nor does it mean that if they do their actions are not driven by religion.
Posted by: jizay at Aug 11, 2007 12:06:35 PM
rdf, you might be interested in this from Michael Neumann in CounterPunch on the reason we are in Iraq and public support for war.
Posted by: TGGP at Aug 11, 2007 12:22:04 PM
The head of the TSA can't do anything about a terrorist sneaking a shoulder-launched missile into the country but he can do something about the toothpaste on the plane.
Posted by: Hei Lun Chan at Aug 11, 2007 12:49:30 PM
Alex's post seems to be searching for a coherent point.
It's an interesting detail that religion has very little to do with the bombings, but where's the paragraph going? That's it seems counterintuitive that democracies are occupying someone else's land?
And does that include Israel, in which case the matter of whose land is much too large and unsettled to flippantly say Palestinians are fighting an occupier.
It has also been covered already, but I'll add my two cents for clarity's sake; the head of the TSA has a job with defined parameters for what he is responsible for. Items coming on board the aircraft are obviously within those parameters, but the TSA policing areas for miles around every major airport are probably not. If they are, they need to be put under someone else's umbrella for the sake of efficiency.
The only thing I've found so far that I dislike about Levitt's writing is his tendency to bring up "big" ideas, and then leave out seemingly obvious details. His now famous opening of Freakonomics leaving off the obvious question; if abortion is responsible for the decline of that crime wave, what started it? (That's rhetorical.)
Posted by: Ray G at Aug 11, 2007 2:44:17 PM
Palestinian Territory Al Fatha vs Hamas .Same Faith...
Posted by: JEAN at Aug 11, 2007 3:00:28 PM
It's pretty dubious how far democracy can be considered an influence in anything that's happened with Chechnya. This was true under Yeltsin (where it was a regular military defeat the did cause the Russians to withdraw in the 1st war, and a war of aggression on false pretense so as to maintain criminal groups in charge of the country that started the 2nd war) and even more so under Putin.
Posted by: Matt at Aug 11, 2007 4:11:45 PM
From Lebanon to Sri Lanka to Chechnya to Kashmir to the West Bank,
From Muslims to Hindus to more Muslims to even more Muslims to yet more Muslims.
Posted by: tommy at Aug 11, 2007 4:43:17 PM
"Lebanon in the 1980s, of those suicide attackers, only eight were Islamic fundamentalists. Twenty-seven were Communists and Socialists. Three were Christians."
Posted by: joan at Aug 11, 2007 5:15:07 PM
"Lebanon in the 1980s, of those suicide attackers, only eight were Islamic fundamentalists. Twenty-seven were Communists and Socialists. Three were Christians."
Posted by: joan at Aug 11, 2007 5:16:51 PM
A straight-forward reading of the Qur'an appears to say the following:
- Islam, or submission to Allah, is the only way to heaven.
- The ideal for government is the institution of Sharia law over all citizens where:
- Every infidel must convert to Islam or face death.
- Jews and Christians are the only exceptions. Since Muhammad considered Islam a fulfillment of these religions, he let's them survive. However, they must still follow "Dhimmis," or the relegation under Islam throughout Islam's territory.
- Muslims in non-Islamic countries are simply buying time until Sharia law can be instituted. Radical Muslims in countries such as England and the Netherlands believe that they will eventually take over the country for Islamic law.
- The only guarantee of heaven is in dying in battle for Allah. It's hard for unmarried males to turn down the promise of virgins for death in battle.
Moderate Muslims typically rationalize away these portions of the Qur'an, much the same way that mainline protestants rationalize some parts of the Bible such as the rule against female pastors.
However, the clear reading of the Qur'an gives way to these points above. So many examples exist of Muslims killing for things most people consider inconsequential. Canada, a nation with a fairly benign foreign policy, faced the most serious threat of any western nation with the plot to bomb their capital. Literally hundreds of thousands of Hindus in India have been killed in the name of Allah since the 1940s. Theo van Gogh was killed riding his bike around a dutch neighborhood for exercising his right to free speech. Nuns were killed because of some Danish cartoons. A journalist was killed in Iraq because he married an Iraqi women from a Muslim family. Scores of women and gays have been killed in theocracies such as Iran and Afghanistan under the Taliban. 186 children were killed in the Christian state of Beslan in the hope of creating a conflict to eventually set up an Islamic state.
So, Newt is right. Radical Islam, and not some liberal notion about poverty or injustice, poses the greatest threat to liberal democracy today. While I don't like the way the Iraq war was handled either, I can understand the intentions of the neo-conservatives to break the chronic cycle of violence and Islamization.
Posted by: Matthew at Aug 11, 2007 5:26:50 PM
TGGP:
I read your citation, but he also dodges the question of why we invaded Iraq. It may not be important to his aims of withdrawing, but it is still an interesting question. The one idea he floats is to show our strength after 9/11.
He also makes remarks about the left failing since WWII, but I think his focus is too narrow. I have an essay were I argue that both the left and the right have failed in some fashion. The left has failed in restraining the expansion of the military and police functions and the right has failed to prevent the expansion of social services.
Both side keep railing against these advances, but don't seem to have much effect. I think this reflect the fact that the majority of people like the nanny state at home, but also like the US to act like an empire abroad.
I think the division into left/right no longer captures the divisions within society accurately. I'm not sure what the new segments should be called. You can see that both parties are having problems with their members. Neither group has a coherent philosophy.
Posted by: robertdfeinman at Aug 11, 2007 6:51:36 PM
I also read that article. The author, while semi-correct about recruitment dertailment being a powerful means of action, missed the biggest potential impact of all: Congress not funding the damned thing.
Posted by: fustercluck at Aug 11, 2007 8:40:43 PM
Let's face it the reason behind all of these wars all the way back to the American revolution can be found in the book Rule by Secrecy.
The guy with the most money calls the shots. And everything that happens makes him more money!! Bush even said that earlier this year at a press conference. One world, one currency, one leader. Think about it.
Posted by: cstilman at Aug 11, 2007 10:29:06 PM
I read your citation, but he also dodges the question of why we invaded Iraq. It may not be important to his aims of withdrawing, but it is still an interesting question. The one idea he floats is to show our strength after 9/11.
That's not a dodge, you just don't find his theory satisfactory. It makes sense to me. The Iraq war was so incredibly idiotic that most conspiracy theory explanation don't hold water, and once the rational is discarded the only thing left is the irrational, to paraphrase Sherlock Holmes.
I think this reflect the fact that the majority of people like the nanny state at home, but also like the US to act like an empire abroad.
Sounds like you agree with Bryan Caplan then!
You can see that both parties are having problems with their members. Neither group has a coherent philosophy.
The modal person does not have a coherent, consistent philosophy. See Public Opinion in Mass Publics.
fustercluck, Counterpunch is a far-left magazine. When the author says "left", he does not mean liberal. He does not expect any politician (except Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel and such) to follow his lead. His audience is far-left activists.
The guy with the most money calls the shots.
Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are the richest people in the world. If Bill Gates called the shots he wouldn't have wound up in front of the anti-trust court. Warren Buffet has called for taxes on him to be raised. Your theory fails.
Posted by: TGGP at Aug 12, 2007 12:56:01 AM
From what I can see, terrorism is practiced almost exclusively by the very weak against the very strong. Certainly this has to do with the fact that the only way the very weak can overcome the very strong is to "convince" the very strong to quit fighting. It would seem democracies are more susceptible to such "convincing," but it can work against totalitarians too, as it did against the Soviets in Afghanistan.
yours/
peter.
Posted by: peter jackson at Aug 12, 2007 1:38:25 AM
Was terrorism used that often in Afghanistan? Terrorism is usually used in urban environments, where population density and media presence can result in very sensational attacks. Afghanistan seems too backwater for terrorism to be all that effective.
Posted by: TGGP at Aug 12, 2007 3:18:15 AM
:)
Posted by: 流水线 at Aug 12, 2007 8:16:18 AM
Guys - it's very simple. Read this slowly so you get it through your heads. Mankind evolved to be polygynous - where the high-status males had many chances to breed, and the low-status males got kicked out of the gene pool. Violence, force, power, whatever you want to call it - can be used by high-status males to maintain status, or by low-status males to gain it.
Most of the Islamic world is currently entering its 'demographic bulge' stage - that is, it has lots of young men. Much of the Islamic world also has polygyny, so a significant portion of the males will never mate (King Fahd of Saudi Arabia died in 2005; although he only had 4 wives at any one time, throughout his life he had 28 wives). Almost half of the foreign jihadis in Iraq are Saudi citizens. Surprised?
With the exception of the Tamil Tigers, nearly all suicide bombers are Islamic and male - what does the Koran promise martyrs? 72 Virgins. And although the Imans and other high-status males extol the virtue of martyrdom in their sermons, you'll notice they never actually go kaboom in an Israeli restaurant themselves. Why? The high-status males are eliminating their genetic competitors. Once in a blue moon one reads of female bombers; subsequent investigations have shown that these women were all facing 'honor killings' anyway. They can, however, restore honor (status) to their families by becoming 'martyrs.'
Posted by: Jean at Aug 12, 2007 10:06:44 AM
peter - from what I can see, terrorism is used almost exclusively agaist democracies. No such campaigns in North Korea, for example.
Posted by: hmm at Aug 12, 2007 10:49:39 AM
TGGP:
"The Iraq war was so incredibly idiotic that most conspiracy theory explanation don't hold water, and once the rational is discarded the only thing left is the irrational, to paraphrase Sherlock Holmes."
The thing you leave out is that the administration was promoting the invasion as a "cake walk". This needs to be explained as well. Possibilities include:
deluded optimism because of "macho" posturings.
deluded optimism in response to the desire of the energy sector to take over the oil. Remember the only government structure given full protection immediately was the oil ministry. Bremmer pushed through a bill privatizing the oil industry. There are also maps from before the invasion showing which oil company would get which part of the oil field.
So the remarks of others above that the oil companies can't have been behind the invasion because they favor stability loses some of its force if it was widely believed that stability was going to be restored in a very short period of time.
The occupation and invasion are two separate phases with different goals and need to be analyzed independently. The German's in WWI didn't anticipate trench warfare. Things don't always go as planned...
Posted by: robertdfeinman at Aug 12, 2007 11:29:53 AM
