Suicide BombingDr. Robert Pape a prominent political scientist at Chicago University recently published a book, Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism (2005), in which he argues that it is not ideology or religion but occupation that motivates suicide terrorism. Click here to read an interview with him that discusses the main ideas of his book. You may also click here to read about the Tamil Tigers who invented and are leaders in the use of suicide bombing.
18 Comments:
This post has been removed by the author.
Interesting stuff; can't say I've thought too much about the causal relationships concerning suicide attacks, but Pape's argument is pretty convincing. It is by no means surprising that the presence of occupational forces would inspire that sort of fervor where simple "cultural rejection of the West" fails to. It goes without saying that a fundamentalist Islamic state would strongly disapprove of Western values and lifestyle, but it would be a heck of a leap for anyone to blow themselves up out of simple distain for a society and government half a world away, let alone dozens of people per year. However, if Western troops stand on the street corners armed, potential suicide terrorists have a tangible enemy against whom they may rebel and martyr themselves. Fundamentalist Islam is a very easy target for the American pro-war propaganda machine to single out as America's enemy and the single cause of all terrorist acts. It is just as easy for the average American to accept the fundamentalist Muslim as his enemy. Perhaps if the American media made any attempt to establish that fundamental Islam and suicide terrorism are not mutually exclusive, this would cease to be the case.
Toward the end of the interview, Pape explains that religious difference between native and occupying forces is all but a necessary component for suicide terrorism to take place. It irks me somewhat that he downplays that extremely significant fact into little more than an aside. If the bare-bones requirements for suicide attacks are an occupying force of a different religion, then Islam does indeed play a role in said attacks as they concern the American people. Granted, it is not a direct cause so much as a rallying point for hostility so to speak, but that is never the less a point of very substantial relevance that Pape just kind of glosses over. Perhaps he was afraid that frank and immediate reference to this fact would cause readers to hastily and falsely demonize Islam? It is apparent that occupation and subjugation breed the hatred and desperation necessary for suicide terrorists to be created. However, the argument could most certainly be made (as I understand Pape's observations) that religion does indeed "motivate suicide terrorism" granted its ability to "(enable) terrorist leaders to demonize the occupier in especially vicious ways," as Pape puts it.
In any case, I would hope against hope the department of homeland security has done similar empirical studies on this matter; or at the very least examined this one.
Dying to Win is a fitting yet disconcerting title. What has one won in the aftermath of a suicide bombing? The logic assumes that a gain for your people is more important than your own life and the lives of the other unlucky people who happen to get blown to bits on the way to work. It is not suprising that suicide bombing is more prevalent in conflicts where there is a religious difference, because it allows people to rationalize their actions and convince themselves of divine righteousness. But how deep does the divide have to be? Even inside religious there are sparring factions, such as Sunni vs Shi'ite, Catholic vs Protestant, etc. Even when two people accept the same god or prophet there are still differences in interpretation which can, in some instances, justify violence and/or suicide tactics.
The foreign policy of the US and the presence of foreign troops certainly influences people to become suicide bombers but I think there are other factors as well. A person must be very dissatisfied with his life if he is willing to sacrifice it; he must be upset and frustrated with the way things are going. Part of this is due to the subjugation to foreigners but other issues such as economic status, social acceptance, and personal issues all contribute to the decision. If a person fits into society well, can get a job, have a family, etc then they are much less likely to radicalize than an unemployed, marginalized outcast. In Saudi Arabia unemployment is a serious issue for young men because of a weak economy, heavily subsidized necessities of life (which leads to a sense of entitlement), and poor schooling policies that leaves students with unmarketable skill sets. The result is a large number of unemplyed, disaffected men who arent satisfied with their lives. In comes Al Qaida and other extremists who offer a get into heaven free card through martyrdom in the noble cause of expelling foreigners, and it is not suprising that some believe their reasoning and go through with it.
Simply withdrawing troops is an unrealistic and undesirable method of stopping suicide bombings. A look at other social factors which combine to explain 'why they do it' is necessary to end the despicable tactic.
I enjoyed this article because it discussed the causes of suicided bombing as a bigger problem as simply trying to prevent bombers from getting the supplies or stopping them before they can blow themselves up. It seems this is how the US is currently trying to prevent suicide bombers in Iraq, while this may stop attacks in the short term it doesn't prevent them altogether. I liked this article because it dispelled the popular myth that all suicide bombers are islamic fundamentalists targeting the US assets. It did this by showing how the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka are actually the most prolific suicide bombers. I think this myth exists because the only suicide attacks that we hear of in the US are those against ourselves.
While I had never heard of the correlation between suicide attacks and an occupational force it makes a great deal of sense. Not only because it provides a cause for suicide bombers but also because it provides an easy target. For example it is much easier to stand outside a US army barrack in Iraq and blow yourself up then it is to travel to the United States and then blow yourself up. Unfortunately I don't see the US leaving Iraq in the near future, especially since President Bush has made it clear he intends to keep a strong presence in Iraq for as long as he is president.
Yet even with the author's explanation of the causes of suicide attacks I still don't understand why a person would blow themselves up for a cause. While I understand that sometimes they view it as their only weapon, but my argument is: aren't they more valuable to their cause if they are alive? For example if they blow themselves up and kill 25 people, while that does make a statement; they could inflict heavier casualties by doing say 15 car bombs killing 5 people each. Also, if they did one each day or every other day there would be a steady loss of life and attention to their cause as opposed just one isolated attack.
Pape makes a variety of good points regarding suicide attacks and points out that the data does not support the typical American view of a suicide bomber as someone who is a Muslim religious fanatic bent on murder simply for the rewards that they believe they will get in the afterlife. Pape makes a good point in mentioning that 1) suicide bombers aren’t always Muslim, and 2) aren’t always religious and can be of a secular nature.
When I was in high school, in my AP Government and Politics textbook had a little side box on one page that talked about the cost effectiveness of the war on terrorism. The book pointed out that we could either spend a ton of money to go to war or we could just drop a ton of money into these countries to end the reasons that terrorism exists.
Now apply that to Pape, and you can see why going to war is so expensive. By going to war, you are essentially making more war because occupation leads to these suicide attacks. However instead of invasion or increased occupation, the US could have dropped a smaller amount of money into countries where terrorism occurs and achieve arguably better results. By improving those countries, the US could reduce internal turmoil and the presence of foreign troops could be reduced and along with resentment towards the US.
However in the case of Israel, I don't think that Israel simply dumping money into the West Bank and Gaza would necessarily make the Palestinians any less likely to attack with suicide attacks because at issue there is land and other factors like the settlements, along with the occupation.
In response to what Greg was saying about Pape glossing over religion as a reason, I think he did that for two reasons. One, he doesn’t want the attention surrounding his book to be focused on religion, since his book deals with and points out that suicide bombers can be secular. And two, since people get out of reading something that they want to get out of it, I think he might have been trying to down play religion since the interview was for the American Conservative and he may not have wanted someone to be reading that article, get a part where he talks about religion, and then in the readers mind summarize the entire article as “suicide bombers are religiously motivated.”
The theory on suicide terrorism that Pape puts forth is very convincing. I would especially like to high light his final statement that “The longer our forces stay on the ground in the Arabian Peninsula, the greater the risk of the next 9/11, whether that is a suicide attack, a nuclear attack, or a biological attack”. If the U.S. were to withdraw from the Arabian Peninsula it would only be if the U.S. also felt that its strategic vital interests within the region were secure. Currently, these interests include energy security, the creation of a “free” and democratic Iraq, security against possible Iranian aggression and much more.
The U.S. has adopted the use of hard power, that is, military and economic pressures in order to promote its interests in these various areas. However, if the pressure of physical troop placements were to be removed something else would have to move in to takes its place so that the interests the U.S. has in the Middle East do not go unprotected. This is where I argue the Bush administration and the administrations following him should be working to increase American soft power. This way the countries in the Middle East will not have to be pressured by American troops in order to go along with American interests.
Unfortunately, the Bush administration has shown an open disdain to the idea of soft power and has done little to help provide security through the promotion of American soft power within the Middle East. Although it is a tactic that will take time, the replacement of the coercive hard power of troop placement with the attractive soft power of legitimate and multilateral foreign policy will prove to be an important step to not only stemming the tide of suicide attacks but in promoting American security around the world.
This post has been removed by the author.
Pape’s argument not only clarifies many issues that many westerners let alone Americans arent capable of comprehending but it also brings about many answers to questions that are essentially overlooked such as his topic of “The logic of Suicide Terrorism” .. no one has ever thought of why these people are “crazy” enough to blow themselves up ! the assumption is almost always is that they are irrational terrorists !! however if any of you have seen the movie “Paradise Now” , you would have also encountered the same conclusion that pape analyzed. Towards the end when one of the main characters (I think his name was Khalid) explains to the leader why he finally decided that he will do the operation and that it’s a result of the Israeli humiliation and pain that has caused them… the movie is a natural and elegant film, which leaves you thinking and feeling in ways you did not expect. For those who say that such a movie should not be shown, or that there is no value in pondering such topics from this viewpoint - my response is that open awareness and the exchange of ideas is the beginning of a solution. … You cannot suppress reality, or freedom of speech and expression. This film vividly demonstrates that life is not black and white - we live in shades of gray. This is a perspective that should be seen, and deserves to be shown.
to Stefan wirth …… If you had been raised under the same circumstances, what would you do? How can people like the Palestinians who are under occupation and constant destruction “fit into society well” “get a job” or even “have a family” ?????????? its easy to actually say things and criticize than to be in the situation itself !!
As I alluded to in my first post, I'm pretty sure I know why Pape opted to downplay the importance of religious difference to suicide terrorism. It's the fact that he chose to do this to begin with that bothers me. I can appreciate his desire to establish that fundamental Islam and religion in general is not the cause of suicide bombings, this much is admirable and it is a very important issue. But even so, his desire to refute widely held false assumptions about terrorism and advance his (and I hate to use this word) agenda gets in the way of his objectivity as a political scientist and neutral observer. Just present all the facts and rational people will reach the correct conclusions. If he's only quick to present the facts he wants people to hear, he's really no better than the meainstream sources he's trying to play foil to.
This post has been removed by the author.
I find this article extremely interesting. Dr. Pape is obviously a brilliant man, and has a great deal of knowledge on the subject of Suicide terrorism. With that said, I am confused why this man knows more on the topic then the leaders and administrators of our country. It seems to me, that this man’s knowledge would prove very valuable for our government and our allies government and it seems he is an untapped resource for extensive knowledge on terrorism.
What really bothers me is what Dr. Pape has to say about the reasons for Anti-American sentiment. It seems that what he is saying is the hatred for Americans really lies because of our occupation, something the anti-bush, anti-war, anti-everything people in this country have been saying. Why are we still in these countries? It’s because, I suspect, we want to clean up what we made dirty. But, then why is our presence making so many people angry thus forcing them to suicide bomb. It makes me question if we should take the approach of Hezbollah, who, after the Israeli-Lebanon conflict this summer, Hezbollah volunteers cleared and cleaned the streets and payed, with the help of Iran’s government to re-build what they destroyed. I am not saying the US should become Hezbollah, but we should figure out what approach to take so that anti-american sentiment will go down.
I think that Pape's ideas are very different than what we continually hear out of the US media, and at the same time is much better researched and, most likely, closer to the truth of the matter. Suicide bombing that isnt because of religion? Never will you hear that out of the US media or the current White House.
I really liked the part where Pape talks about where suicide bombing hasn’t occurred. He does well to explain that though bombing happens when a democratic government is, or is perceived to be, occupying an area he also helps to explain the religious context that flows into this problem. He makes clear that in every case where there is suicide attackers that there is a difference of religion, like the US in Iraq, Sri Lanka, Israel/Palestine, etc. Pape puts it like this, “When there is a religious difference between the occupier and the occupied, that enables terrorist leaders to demonize the occupier in especially vicious ways.” He shows that we are making it easier for Bin Laden and others to recruit because of our occupation of Iraq and our troops that are situated and stationed all over the Arabian Peninsula.
Pape sheds light on this topic in ways that I haven’t heard before, and does it quite convincingly.
This article I felt was very interesting and reminded me of the film Paradise Now...I didn’t know if anyone had watched the film and/or had comments about the validity of the documentary as a representation of the logic of suicide bombing.
Concerning the article, although this may seem to be of little importance, it enthralled me to see that Robert Pape’s research included native-language sources. I have tons of respect for research of this caliber, and that is why I am pursuing the acquisition of language myself! I feel as though to understand different cultures, including “terror culture”, it helps to understand, first hand, the information traveling throughout the area.
It also seemed interesting to me to learn that suicide bombing is a popular outlet for political compulsions, as opposed to religious demonstrations as many people think. Along the same line, it makes sense that because the bombers are acting in retaliation against foreign occupation, military force in the area is likely to only endanger citizens on a global scale.
The only question I have though, and the most frustrating part about researching politics, is that even with information like this, ¾ of the nation would not even be able to hold a conversation about the topic because they are so closed minded. What is the most effective way to convey information like this (for the sole purpose of relaying objective information) in a way that people will take it into consideration? Does the peoples’ opinion regarding what should be done in the Middle East even have any influence on the matter? Comments welcome please!
I found the article very interesting because it pointed out that Islamic fundamentalism and suicide bombings are not inherently related to one another. More importantly, however, was his point that the war in Iraq is counter productive in fighting the war on terror, as it has essentially "created" terrorists willing to wage a war against an occupying force using suicide bombings as their weapon.
The title of the article implies that the points he raises in some way justify suicide attacks. One of the reasons why suicide attacks are viewed so negatively and are so poorly understood isnt because they kill or because the concept of killing onesself to kill others is incomprehensible, but because most of the time the targets are unsuspecting civilians. At this point, many are of the mind that bombing attacks against troops are not terrorist acts, and this certainly isnt the first time in history that suicide attacks have been employed against American forces. In WWII the Japanese flew planes into our ships with devastating effects, yet these were not regarded as "terrorist" acts. The state of mind where fighters are willing to die in an attack against a superior invading/occupying force is hardly new. The interview shows that the occupation of Iraq is at odds with the objectives of the WOT but doesnt adequately address the issue of suicide attacks with respect to those who don't have the option of withdrawing from the region (Israel). While many point out that Israeli presence in Gaza and the West Bank constitute occupation and therefore foster the creation of a suicide bomber mindset, there are those who view the mere existence of Israel as an occupation. This being said, I fully agree that the occupation of Iraq has been extremely detrimental to our progress in the WOT.
I do not believe that a religious or other ideological difference is required to turn regular violence into suicidal violence, and even Pape contradicts himself on this with the example of Ireland, basically saying that their concerns were being addresssed before it escalated that far. What is the impoartant decideing factor is the type of oppression that leads to such feelings of resentment and despair. Most Psychologist agree that suicide bombers are rational people who kill others in hopes that the other side will give up and go away and kill themselves because they realize this hope is futile.
I must dissagree with those who say that America has to stay in the region to clean up the mess it made; cut and run worked well enough for the British and it can work for us too. Imagine if we stopped shooting children for longer than 15 minutes, they would be back to listening to the same intolerable pop music in no time.
The article was very intersting. I really liked how he argued that the war on terror has actually had the opposite effects. Indeed, Iraq has now become a haven for terrorist activities, and a sort of terrorist magnet. Not only Iraq, but this is aso occuring in Afghanistan on daily basis. With the help of the ISI spy agency in Pakistan, the Taleban are resurging in Afghanistan, specially after the Pakistani government signed a deal with the Leaders in the Waziristan area in which the Pakistani government promised not to get involved in any way. However, the daily sucidie bombings (of which all the suicide bombers are either Pakistanis or Saudis) happens there on daily basis. On a personal note, one of my uncles almost got killed 2 weeks ago when a bomb detonated outside the Masjid Jamia in Herat in which several people were killed and many injured. There have been similar stories as that ones in Iraq, in which people dress up as polie officers and take people to be tortured and then eventually killed. This has been occuring frequently in the northern South Western part of Afghanistan. The US needs to do something immediately, otherwise Afghanistan will become another Iraq and US's claims of victory in war on terror in Afghanistan will be turned into another failure.
In response to alkotf
If I grew up in the same circumstances as the Palestinians I would obviously have a different view of the conflict. But my peaceful suburban upbringing allows me to judge the situation through a relatively clear lens, unclouded by the emotions and history that both sides have.
I agree that the Israeli occupation has damaged the Palestinian economy and made life frustrating and humiliating for those subject to daily searches, roadblocks, etc. But how do suicide attacks resolve these problems? They may bring international attention to the issue but they also allow more confrontational and expansionist Israeli governments to come into power, further curtailing and restricting movement (by fostering the belief that palestinians do now want peace, they are terrorists). Furthermore, how does one injustice condone another? There is an arabic term, samud, which means fortitude or endurance, an alternative to violent reprisal. It may not be emotionally gratifying to turn the other cheek when your family is under occupation or attack but it is the most practical when all evidence shows that violence against Israelis only strengthens expansionist aims.
A few classes ago Khan brought up the idea that many Arabs use Israel as a scapegoat for all their problems. While Palestinians have a much more legitimate defense of this claim than say, Egypt does, the failure to progress and unite is not 100 percent the fault of Israelis. Corruption, crime, factional fighting, etc are problems which are home grown, yet most palestinians do not have the audacity to confront their own issues and shortcomings. Given the two sided Us vs Them mentality in this conflict, it is much easier, though unproductive, to point out flaws in others than to identify and solve problems in oneself.
Dr. Robert Pape definitely provides some extremely interesting and valuable insight into the complicated nature of suicide bombing as a tactic of terrorism. Much of what was stated in the interview with Dr. Pape is probably not known to the general public, at least in America in my opinion. Most people would ignorantly assume that suicide bombing is a creation of Islamic extremists strictly used against Israel, the United States and her allies within the context of the “war on terrorism”. It was enlightening to me as I am sure it would be to others to learn that the devastatingly effective method of terrorism was created by the Tamil Tigers and that they still constitute the largest numbers of suicide bombers to date. Furthermore, it is very interesting that the Tigers are practitioners of the Hindu faith and the recipients of their attacks in Sri Lanka are Buddhists. Islam is in no way a major player in the fierce conflict of that nation.
I believe Dr. Pape also made an excellent point when he explained that religion is definitely a factor in the recruitment and execution of suicide bombings, but the specific religion involved is inconsequential. As long as the occupiers are for the most part of a different religious background than the people being occupied, the fringe elements in those societies can leverage these differences in order to promote and foster their radical agendas. Although I was previously aware of the Tamil Tigers and their spate of suicide bombings, this focus on the difference in religions involved as opposed to the actual religions is quite novel to me.
While I cannot contest the main premise just described, I do find a problem with his elaborated explanation of this phenomenon. Dr. Pape says that if Islamic fundamentalism was the main factor in suicide bombing than how come there has never been an al-Qaeda terrorist from Iran since that nation is considered an Islamic fundamentalist state and has a population of 70 million, which nearly triple that of several of its neighbors. I believe this point to be completely irrelevant because first, Dr. Pape states himself that most suicide bombers are “walk-ins” or volunteers. While Iran may be governed by a conservative Islamic regime, the citizens of that country are more pro-Western than citizens of any other country in the Middle East. Therefore, I reject his implication that the citizens of Iran are all Islamic fundamentalists. Second, al-Qaeda is a largely fundamentalist Sunni organization. As being seen in the Middle East today, conflict between civilizations (as opposed to the famous clash of civilizations theory) is proving extremely significant. The growing power and influence of the Shiite Muslims in Iran and their proxy, Hezbollah, in Southern Lebanon are causing tensions with the rulers of largely Sunni populations. Iraq today, whom many consider to be in a state of a civil war, is a frightening potential microcosm of a larger conflict between these two Islamic sects in the region (granted in Iraq the Shiites are the majority and in the Middle East as a whole the Sunnis are the majority). Consequently, I find it extremely hard to imagine an al-Qaeda suicide bomber coming out of Iran.
Lastly, I do agree that the presence of U.S. and other foreign troops on what is perceived as Arab lands will continue to hurt the interests of the United States more than it will help them. Ultimately this issue will have to be addressed because as Dr. Pape correctly described, suicide-bombers are a demand-driven phenomenon and do not exist in specific numbers. Whether they are fighting on U.S. soil or against our forces, interest or allies over-seas, they are still fighting us. Therefore, we need create a plan that is pro-active, one that stops the creation of these bombers, rather than one that is re-active and creates more causes for their recruitment.
Post a Comment
<< Home