Suicide Attacks: weapon of the future?

[davidbfpo]

Readers maybe interested in visiting this well regarded an well connected Israeli website, prompted by their latest if lengthy piece of research.


The Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center is the educational and documentary center of the national memorial site of the Israeli intelligence community. It is located at the Center for Special Studies (C.S.S.), at Gelilot near Tel Aviv, and specializes in information about intelligence and terrorism. It regularly releases exclusive information on its Internet site, both in Hebrew and English (http://www.terrorism-info.org.il), a large percentage of which is based on original Palestinian documents captured by Israeli forces.

Ordinary People and Death Work:Palestinian Suicide Bombers as Victimizers and Victims

Applying criminological/victimological concepts and theories, the study addresses the social processes involved in Palestinians" suicide terrorism and describes Palestinians" pathways to suicide bombing. The data are derived from in-depth interviews of 7 male and female Palestinians serving prison sentences in Israel for attempted suicide bombing. The social background, context, and experiences of the interviewees, including their recruitment, interactions with the organizations that produce suicide bombing, the tangible and intangible incentives and rewards that motivated them to become suicide bombers, their preparation for the mission, and the strategies employed by the organizations to sustain recruits" resolve to conform to the plan are described and analyzed. The implications of the findings for theory and public policy are drawn and discussed

[Strickland]

The UK MoD has also compiled a very useful study on suicide bombers; however, the report is classified FOUO.

[TROUFION]

We are all aware that suicide attacks have increased dramatically since 2001.

We are all aware that modern suicide attacks began in Palestine/Levant during the 1980's.

Civilizied peoples deplore, condemn and disdain suicide and suicide warfare.

BUT, the real question is this: is suicide warfare effective? What is the purpose, method and intent? The end state?

If effective then what are the counter-measures (and no 5.56, 7.62 and .50 cal are not effective counter-measures they are point defense and do not attack the root of the problem).

[tequila]

I would date modern suicide terrorism to the Tamil Tigers in their fight for independence against the Sinhalese government in Sri Lanka.

Dr. Robert Pape (http://www.amazon.com/Dying-Win-Strategic-Suicide-Terrorism/dp/1400063175)has written on suicide terrorism and its rationale. Wikipedia entry on the book that summarizes its arguments here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dying_to_Win:_The_Strategic_Logic_of_Suicide_Terro rism).

[TROUFION]

Tequila: so you disagree with Pape? "Modern suicide terrorism began in Lebanon in the 1980s" (14)

[TROUFION]

Ch. 12: A New Strategy for Victory
Though “we” cannot leave the Middle East altogether, Pape asserts, a “strategy for victory” is available (237-38). U.S. should define victory as the separate objectives of “defeating the current pool of terrorists” and preventing a new generation from arising (238-39). He rejects Frum-Perle view that the root of the problem is in Islam (241-44). “Rather, the taproot is American military policy” (244). The notion that Islamic fundamentalism is bent on world domination is “pure fantasy” (244-45). An attempt by the West to force Muslim societies to transform “is likely to dramatically increase the threat we face” (245). He calls for a policy of “‘off-shore’ balancing”: establishing local alliances while maintaining the capacity for rapid deployment of military forces (247-50).

(Tequila thanks for the link, via Wikipedia)

WE now have a resevoir of US and Coalition Troops who have faced this threat. What methods to counter work? Does Pape's analysis still hold water?

[tequila]

I'd say Hizbullah beat the LTTE to the punch, but the LTTE really molded effective suicide terrorism in the 1980s. How many suicide bombers has Hizbullah used compared to the LTTE? Also, the LTTE I'd argue has been far more effective.

[Stan]

Perhaps a tad earlier than 1980 ?


Kamikazes were the most common and best-known form of Japanese suicide attack during World War II

[TROUFION]

Yes the Kamikazi came first, BUT after 1945 the next round of suicide attacks came in the 1980's, hence the "modern suicide attacks" or better phrased "current threat from suicide attacks."

[Stan]

Thanks Troufion !
May have to get the book.

[Tc2642]

Interesting to note that it was the Ismali's who first came up with the suicide attacker, cira 8th century.

[Jedburgh]

Suicide bombing is simply a tactic, along the same line as IEDs - and both have been used to varying degrees of success in the COE. However, as has been noted repeatedly, it is often referred to as a "strategic tactic", as it's impact can be distributed far beyond its immediate messy consequences by the broadcase media and virtual comms.

Personally, I feel it is pointless to look at a "root of the problem" for suicide bombing per se - we need to look to the root of the conflict and move from there. Each region where suicide bombing has been used to any significant degree has to be looked at in its own unique context - although there are certainly similarities.

We're dealing with the issue in Iraq (http://usacac.army.mil/cac/milreview/download/english/JanFeb05/Bbun.pdf) (unprecedented numbers) and Afghanistan, then we have the LTTE as mentioned, the phenomenon of the Chechen "Black Widows" (http://www.peaceinthecaucasus.org/reports/SuicideReport/SuicideReport.pdf) as well as female suicide bombers (http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB408.pdf) used by the Marxist PKK, and, of course, the spectrum of Palestinian suicide bombings (http://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/isrl-pa/ISRAELPA1002.pdf). There are other examples, but my point is that to treat any or all of these situations in an identical manner is a mistake.

I'd say Hizbullah beat the LTTE to the punch, but the LTTE really molded effective suicide terrorism in the 1980s. How many suicide bombers has Hizbullah used compared to the LTTE? Also, the LTTE I'd argue has been far more effective.
Hezballah moved on (http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/hizbz.htm) from suicide bombings to refining their use of IEDs in their campaign against the IDF and SLA in South Lebanon (as well as more conventional military raid/ambush tactics), whereas the LTTE has continued to use suicide bombers across the spectrum.

FYI, aside from buying the book, here's Pape's article from the Aug 03 issue of American Political Science Review: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism (http://www.danieldrezner.com/research/guest/Pape1.pdf)

...Perhaps most important, the close association between foreign military occupations and the growth of suicide terrorist movements in the occupied regions should give pause to those who favor solutions that involve conquering countries in order to transform their political systems....
In sum, at the tactial level, we've developed an entire spectrum of countermeasures, identified indicators and continue to train and raise awareness of our soldiers and LE professionals. However, threat TTPs continue to evolve in the face of our countermeasures - there will never come a point when we are completely protected from suicide bombers or IEDs. When it comes down to it, the ultimate solution is what the community here at SWC has long been pushing - improved implementation of effective COIN. Make your list of buzz-words regarding interagency cooperation and building governance capabilities - as Troufion stated in his post at the head of this thread, addressing root causes means more than killing bad guys.

[Merv Benson]

At their heart, human bomb attacks are explosive public relation events that strike at "strategic" pizza parlors and ice cream vendors. As noted above, Hezballah has moved to more effective tactical defensive measures against Israel's forces. There has to be some irony in the fact that Hezballah's rocket attacks against Israel killed fewer people than their human bomb attacks did especially on a per attempt basis.

Most terror attacks are for the purpose of grabbing media attention. They are acts of impotence meant to make governments look impotent, and too often the media follows that script.

[Tempest1]

Regardless of what our adversaries are called they have established a precedent with a technology that is hard to counter and defeat. It is extremely effective because it generates media coverage. The Tactics used by the terrorists have evolved because they utilize what generates media attention to sway public opinion.

Terrorism's goals are to directly and indirectly influence FEAR.

[120mm]

Ch. 12: A New Strategy for Victory
Though “we” cannot leave the Middle East altogether, Pape asserts, a “strategy for victory” is available (237-38). U.S. should define victory as the separate objectives of “defeating the current pool of terrorists” and preventing a new generation from arising (238-39). He rejects Frum-Perle view that the root of the problem is in Islam (241-44). “Rather, the taproot is American military policy” (244). The notion that Islamic fundamentalism is bent on world domination is “pure fantasy” (244-45). An attempt by the West to force Muslim societies to transform “is likely to dramatically increase the threat we face” (245). He calls for a policy of “‘off-shore’ balancing”: establishing local alliances while maintaining the capacity for rapid deployment of military forces (247-50).

(Tequila thanks for the link, via Wikipedia)

WE now have a resevoir of US and Coalition Troops who have faced this threat. What methods to counter work? Does Pape's analysis still hold water?

The problem IS Islam, and it's desires to prevent their (often primitive, tribal) culture being obliterated by a pervasive and invasive western culture.

The idea that US military policy is the basis for Islamic aggression is a cop-out.

Islam sees a good offense as being the best defense, in cultural terms.

[tequila]

120mm - Can you expand on your thesis? I disagree in pretty much every way, but I'd like to hear more about your argument.

[Mondor]

Islam is part of a culture but is not in and of itself a culture. If in doubt, just change out the word Islam for Christian. I know that the "Christian culture" of Brazil is pretty different than the "Christian culture" of England.

Again, religion is a component of a culture not a stand alone culture. Don't make me tell the board's Anthropologist on you.

[Jedburgh]

Don't make me tell the board's Anthropologist on you.

:eek:


....now there's a warning I haven't heard before.

[Sarajevo071]

Islam is part of a culture but is not in and of itself a culture. If in doubt, just change out the word Islam for Christian. I know that the "Christian culture" of Brazil is pretty different than the "Christian culture" of England.

Again, religion is a component of a culture not a stand alone culture. Don't make me tell the board's Anthropologist on you.

Muslim would answer to you: “Islam is religion, is culture, is universal idea and is way of life.” ;)

[Sarajevo071]

Just be careful not to confuse LOCAL/TRIBAL customs, which sneak in local understanding of what is Islam. Great examples would be Afghanistan, Bosnia and Chechnya…

Afghanistan is full of pervasive look on bad behavior toward women (local/tribal customs according to Ahmed Rashid-man who knows that good- I recommend both his books), and mentality that was changed under decades of warfare and wahabi/salafi influence:

Bosnia was and still is open, multicultural society, always closer to European life style then to Arabic way of life, keeping Islam in sphere of private life, never forcing others into it. Even during they war when they felt abounded by Europe and US simple because they were muslims dying under serbian (christian) shells.

War in Chechnya started like a public resistance and war for liberation. Once again, Muslim populous was abounded by “freedom loved” and “democratic West” so they got help where they could… Arabs and they wahabi/salafi look on Islam. Let’s not forget, Wahabism is just ONE sect in Islam.

Anyways, my point is that Islam is not what many people today think that Islam is. There are many local customs and beliefs, behaviors that got mix and people there think that is Islam and they behave that way.

Compare Afghans and Taliban, and they appalling behavior toward woman while Islam when started rise up against killings of baby-girls just because Arabs in those time used to buried female babies just for being born - female!? Islam put end to that. And that same thing is still happening in China and Korea (not sure if those people are Buddhist or Christians, but they are not Muslims).

We may here discuses difference of suicide bomber killing civilians in restaurants or pilots killing villages with bombs, but ultimately there is no difference between innocents. I don’t think that those people care for different labels like “terrorism” and “preemptive strikes” and “collateral damage”. There is just they pain, tears and blood.


=========================================
I recommend these books by Ahmed Rashid:
Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia
http://www.amazon.com/Taliban-Militant-Islam-Fundamentalism-Central/dp/0300089023/sr=1-1/qid=1172608200/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-6916386-1264651?ie=UTF8&s=books

Jihad: The Rise of Militant Islam in Central Asia
http://www.amazon.com/Jihad-Rise-Militant-Islam-Central/dp/0142002607/sr=1-1/qid=1172608169/ref=sr_1_1/103-6916386-1264651?ie=UTF8&s=books

[Mondor]

Anyways, my point is that Islam is not what many people today think that Islam is. There are many local customs and beliefs, behaviors that got mix and people there think that is Islam and they behave that way.

That was my point exactly.

[120mm]

Hi Tequila. I don't have time to expand too much, but I see the current conflict as a conflict of cultures -very- similar to the European West discovery and conquest of the New World. The European agrarianism, technologism and expansive nature was diametrically opposed to the folks who were here at the time.

In the same way, US/Western culture cannot help but to be expansive in nature, and the less wealthy and technologically advanced "Islam" (substitute tribal middle-east if you'd like) cannot bear the onslaught of western culture. As a result of this, they -must- fight us in order to perceive that they have a chance of preserving their way of life.

No way do they preserve their way of life; even if they were able to destroy us, but it's something they gotta do.

To lay the current conflict on US military actions alone is a copout, in my view, and exposes the author's prejudices.

"My" prejudice on the issue is that I want the western world to win. It would be nice if their culture would change peacefully, but I doubt it. It would even be nice if we could build a "cultural wall" that allowed them to continue to be who they are, without changing, but that ain't going to happen.

As much as I don't want it to happen, I see this going pretty much like the 300 year Euro-native american conflict, with several hundred years of alternating accomodation and slaughter, until the tribal culture is rendered irrelevant.

[tequila]

Well, do you identify Islam the religion as the problem, or "Middle Eastern culture"? Because I am sure you know that the Middle East is a very small part of the Islamic world. It makes a difference.

Your attitude appears to be same as Pape's, ironically. Pape identifies aggression expressed in territorial military occupation as the major cause of suicide bombing. You identify specifically Western aggression in terms of cultural assault as the major cause of suicide bombing. Both of you seem to believe that invasion or aggression of some sort as the main cause of suicide bombing.

Do you believe that Western territorial invasion does not cause suicide bombing? How to account for the fact that the most numerous Muslim/Western suicide bombing campaigns involve a Western territorial occupation, then (Chechnya, Palestine, Iraq).

Also, how to account for the numerous examples of suicide bombing where Western invasion is not at issue? The LTTE espouses a semi-Marxist ideology, for instance.

[marct]

Hi Tequila & 120mm,

Thought I'd jump in with some observations.


Well, do you identify Islam the religion as the problem, or "Middle Eastern culture"? Because I am sure you know that the Middle East is a very small part of the Islamic world. It makes a difference.

You are quite correct about drawing a distinction between the two. Middle Eastern cultures have also, historically, been producers of God-King ideologies / religions; look at Sumeria, Egypt, Assyria, Persia, etc. While it is important to distinguish between the various Middle Eastern cultures, it is also important to realize that Islam (and Judaism and Christianity) all were produced out of a cultural matrix that centers around a very strong Authority Ranking relationship.


Do you believe that Western territorial invasion does not cause suicide bombing? How to account for the fact that the most numerous Muslim/Western suicide bombing campaigns involve a Western territorial occupation, then (Chechnya, Palestine, Iraq).

Also, how to account for the numerous examples of suicide bombing where Western invasion is not at issue? The LTTE espouses a semi-Marxist ideology, for instance.

Suicide, as a form of aggression, has been around for a lot longer that we have had explosives :wry:. I think it is important to distinguish between a cultural matrix that allows / encourages suicide in its defense, including what specific rationalizations are culturally acceptable, and the particular technology involved in committing suicide. BTW, every cultural matrix includes some justifications for suicide, including the Western Anglo complex :cool:.

Having said that, what then are the rationalizations used in the Middle Eastern Culture Complex (MECC; BTW, geographically, that extends from Pakistan to Morocco)? As I mentioned earlier, the MECC is based on a fairly strict form of Authority Ranking (AR) system and has historically shown up in the form of God-King ideologies either incarnate (Pharaoh, the Persian Emperors, etc.) or discarnate (Johanine Christianity, Zoroastrianism, Mazdean dualism, etc.). The current radical Islamist groups tend to split the difference with a discarnate, absolute deity and incarnate "pseudo-prophets" who share in part of the "divine mana" (e.g. bin Ladin, Mullah Krekar, Muqtadr al Sadr, etc.).

This AR system is segregated along lines of approach to deity, with the higher status being accorded to those closer to deity. "Suicide" has been culturally "sold" as a short-cut into the direct presence of the deity, leaving the "poor, toiling" pseudo-prophets still awaiting their own turn :rolleyes:.

Is this a response to "Western territorial invasion"? Nope, it's a response that is already in the cultural matrix. Note, for example, that the "history" has been conveniently rewritten by the Islamist crowd to gloss over he minor fact that they invaded and conquered large parts of the Byzantine Empire, the entire Persian Empire and the Visigoth Kingdom of Spain.

This isn't a response to "Western territorial invasion", it is a response to 350+ years of having their own territorial invasions rolled back. Indeed, if you look at the Muslim Brotherhoods' writings, you will note that structurally they are very similar to every other religion that has had one of its main "truths" dashed on the rocks of reality. Eric Hoffers' The True Believers (http://www.amazon.com/True-Believer-Thoughts-Movements-Perennial/dp/0060505915/sr=1-1/qid=1172671735/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-0046598-2588730?ie=UTF8&s=books) deals with this type of reaction.

Marc

[tequila]

Is this a response to "Western territorial invasion"? Nope, it's a response that is already in the cultural matrix. Note, for example, that the "history" has been conveniently rewritten by the Islamist crowd to gloss over he minor fact that they invaded and conquered large parts of the Byzantine Empire, the entire Persian Empire and the Visigoth Kingdom of Spain.

This seems a rather odd take. If Mexico sent infantry battalions across the border into Texas and California, I doubt anyone here would call this anything but a territorial invasion, despite the fact that Texas and southern California were Mexican territory far more recently than any part of the Middle East was Christian. I don't think we would accept a formulation that told us this was simply Mexican rollback of Anglo-American invasion.

I also find it odd that you seem to identify the sources to suicide terrorism in the cultural matrix of the Middle East. As Pape points out, suicide terror is a relatively modern phenomenon in the Middle East without any deep historical foundation. Also, the Hindu Tamil cultural matrix seems largely devoid of any historical stirrings towards suicide martyrdom.

I'd argue as well that Islam represented a historical rejection of the God-King cultural formulation, instead enforcing a strict separation of Godhead from human rulership, instead embedding religious authority in either a more broad-based religious/cultural consensus based in the ulema (the figure of the caliph has often been mischaracterized as a Pope figure, when in fact even Ottoman caliphs who wielded real worldly power often had to mediate their authority through the ulema, especially when it came to intra-Islamic matters). Historically the attitude of most Sunni Muslims towards their rulers has been, I'd argue, represented by the idea that the split between divinely authorized rulership occurred after Ali's death. Yezid and Mua'wiya of the Umayyads have been reviled ever since Abbasid times (understandably since the Abbasids themselves were seeking religious justification, which was also largely withdrawn when they emulated Umayyad decadence) as being earthly kings rather than true caliphs representing God's will on Earth.

For Shia, of course, there is a definite variation with their veneration of the Grand Ayatollahs.

[marct]

Hi Tequila,


This seems a rather odd take. If Mexico sent infantry battalions across the border into Texas and California, I doubt anyone here would call this anything but a territorial invasion, despite the fact that Texas and southern California were Mexican territory far more recently than any part of the Middle East was Christian. I don't think we would accept a formulation that told us this was simply Mexican rollback of Anglo-American invasion.

The point I was trying to make was that the radical Islamists are using a very limited historical take on what is and is not their "territory" in their rhetoric about re-establishing the Caliphate. In effect, they are recognizing the "Right of Conquest" when they were the ones who were doing the conquering, but do not recognize it when they were the ones conquered. On the issue of Mexican battalions, I would agree, but most Western nations recognize the right of conquest and the formal ceding of territorial rights - the Islamists do not, at least when it comes to their territorial claims.


I also find it odd that you seem to identify the sources to suicide terrorism in the cultural matrix of the Middle East. As Pape points out, suicide terror is a relatively modern phenomenon in the Middle East without any deep historical foundation. Also, the Hindu Tamil cultural matrix seems largely devoid of any historical stirrings towards suicide martyrdom.

Then would strongly suggest that Pape go back and read enuma elish, and take a look at groups like the sicarii. As I said, the technology is different, but the validation for suicide is in the cultural matrix. On the Hindu Tamil complex, I don't know it well enough to have an informed opinion. Suicide, loosely construed as death resulting from role appropriate action, is certainly part of Hindism - see the discussion between Krishna and Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita.


I'd argue as well that Islam represented a historical rejection of the God-King cultural formulation, instead enforcing a strict separation of Godhead from human rulership, instead embedding religious authority in either a more broad-based religious/cultural consensus based in the ulema (the figure of the caliph has often been mischaracterized as a Pope figure, when in fact even Ottoman caliphs who wielded real worldly power often had to mediate their authority through the ulema, especially when it came to intra-Islamic matters).

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one :). I certainly do agree that much of the divinity was shifted to a discarnate locale, but all that did was to shift the communications chain one link further away. The ulama certainly became important, partly as the "voice of the community" and partly as the "intermediary to God". Still and all, that didn't change the basic God-King complex, it just shifted its focus so that you now had multiple people "speaking for" the God-King.

On your comment about the Ottoman caliphs, sure, I agree that they used the ulama. However, it's also instructive to look at when they started to go "off". Take a look at Murad II (aka Murad the Mad) and his "reforms" for an example of this.


Historically the attitude of most Sunni Muslims towards their rulers has been, I'd argue, represented by the idea that the split between divinely authorized rulership occurred after Ali's death. Yezid and Mua'wiya of the Umayyads have been reviled ever since Abbasid times (understandably since the Abbasids themselves were seeking religious justification, which was also largely withdrawn when they emulated Umayyad decadence) as being earthly kings rather than true caliphs representing God's will on Earth.

For Shia, of course, there is a definite variation with their veneration of the Grand Ayatollahs.

As I said, the God-King complex was shifted into a discarnate form, not eliminated. Even the Shia versions of this, e.g. the hidden caliphs, etc., shows a retention of the complex.

I'm not trying to argue that Islam believes in incarnate God-Kings, just that the concept of a God-King is inherent in the religion and cultural matrix.

Marc

[tequila]

On your comment about the Ottoman caliphs, sure, I agree that they used the ulama. However, it's also instructive to look at when they started to go "off". Take a look at Murad II (aka Murad the Mad) and his "reforms" for an example of this.

Are you talking about Murad IV? I'd actually use the Ottoman time period during that time as a good example of ulema independence vs state authority, specifically in their collective refusal to endorse the war against the Shia Safavids as a jihad.


We'll have to agree to disagree on this one . I certainly do agree that much of the divinity was shifted to a discarnate locale, but all that did was to shift the communications chain one link further away. The ulama certainly became important, partly as the "voice of the community" and partly as the "intermediary to God". Still and all, that didn't change the basic God-King complex, it just shifted its focus so that you now had multiple people "speaking for" the God-King.

Eh ... very iffy IMO. The ulema do not represent anything like a priesthood in that there is no claim to holy writ in their opinions, thus removing the "intermediary to God" aspect that one finds in Roman Catholicism. You could almost make that argument with regards to Sufi masters, but since most Sufis orders reconciled with the ulema centuries ago I'd even doubt that one. If the God-king discarnated, it discarnated to the Quran, I suppose, but it's tough to get a holy kingdom when you're being ruled by a book --- see the difficulties the Saudis have had, in which the clash of religious justification for an earthly kingdom has resulted in widespread Islamist mockery and hatred for the Saudi royal family.

I think reaching for the Bhagavad-Vita as an argument for suicide terror is even more of a stretch. If you're going to go there, you'll have to include nearly every belief system which justifies (1) action (2) belief in righteousness.

[goesh]

I think the Viking Berserkers could pretty much be put in the category of suiciders as well as some of the Native American Dog Soldiers. I'm aware of the African Wolloff oral tradition of them, in particular one cultural hero who weighted himself with stones so the remnants of survival instincts couldn't kick in and cause him to flee. There were NVA sappers in Nam' who took themselves out. It's nothing new to the species, that's for sure. To me it's simply the ultimate rejection of unbearable circumstances, a transcendence into divine rage and rejection. The man who jumps on a hand grenade to save his buddies or the man that slaps on a C-4 vest and takes himself out in a market, both are dead, cultural heroes but I contend countless Veterans are buried all over the planet going back a few thousand years who died pretty much resolved to the fact that they were in their last engagement(s).

Suicide bombing bolsters the rank and file in the jihadist camps and it garnishes media attention and cows-down the civilian victims but it also hardens the resolve of the opponents and eventually numbs the civilian victims into a lethargy that allows life to continue on. Iraqis are still going to the markets and the Israelis kept riding the buses and eating at pizza parlors -they let the divine wind of fate carry them on, resolved that life must go on despite the presence of violent monsters. We see the same dynamic at play in inner cities where many residents don't go out at night but do so in the day time with considerable trepidation. Ontologically, it boils down to our side essentially giving our lives to save lives and their side giving their lives to take lives, each claiming righteousness in the eyes of the Creator. From a COIN perspective, the jihadist suiciders have the immediate tactical advantage but in the long run, we will win out.

[marct]

Hi Tequila,


Are you talking about Murad IV? I'd actually use the Ottoman time period during that time as a good example of ulema independence vs state authority, specifically in their collective refusal to endorse the war against the Shia Safavids as a jihad.

<sound of hand slapping head>Sorry, yes Murad IV, my mistake. I was referring to his outlawing of alcohol and tobacco, and his reign of terror both in Istanbul and Anatolia.


Eh ... very iffy IMO. The ulema do not represent anything like a priesthood in that there is no claim to holy writ in their opinions, thus removing the "intermediary to God" aspect that one finds in Roman Catholicism. You could almost make that argument with regards to Sufi masters, but since most Sufis orders reconciled with the ulema centuries ago I'd even doubt that one. If the God-king discarnated, it discarnated to the Quran, I suppose, but it's tough to get a holy kingdom when you're being ruled by a book --- see the difficulties the Saudis have had, in which the clash of religious justification for an earthly kingdom has resulted in widespread Islamist mockery and hatred for the Saudi royal family.

I wouldn't use the RC church as an example, the theologies are too different. Your observation about the Quran are interesting, but I think that they neglect the importance of Hadith (oral tradition) and "continuing revelation" (I know, it's a Christian term, but it does capture most of the flavour of post-Ghazali Sufism up until, say 1600 or so).

Part of the problem is that this is hard to talk about without using a lot of technical terms. A "culture complex" doesn't necessarily deal with the lived reality of a people at a particular point in time; it deals with mutually reinforcing symbolic "perceptions of reality" that state what social relationships should be in a given situation. The God-King meme is really an absolutist, authority ranking meme that combines divine authority with secular action. In many pastoralist societies (85% according to Lenski's survey), it tends to be transposed into Storm/Sky Gods and act as a rationale for particular kinship forms and overall social organization, even if no particular individual is considered as "divine".

Marc

[120mm]

Well, do you identify Islam the religion as the problem, or "Middle Eastern culture"? Because I am sure you know that the Middle East is a very small part of the Islamic world. It makes a difference.

Your attitude appears to be same as Pape's, ironically. Pape identifies aggression expressed in territorial military occupation as the major cause of suicide bombing. You identify specifically Western aggression in terms of cultural assault as the major cause of suicide bombing. Both of you seem to believe that invasion or aggression of some sort as the main cause of suicide bombing.

Do you believe that Western territorial invasion does not cause suicide bombing? How to account for the fact that the most numerous Muslim/Western suicide bombing campaigns involve a Western territorial occupation, then (Chechnya, Palestine, Iraq).

Also, how to account for the numerous examples of suicide bombing where Western invasion is not at issue? The LTTE espouses a semi-Marxist ideology, for instance.

The reason most suicide bombings involve western invasion is simple: As a relatively primitive culture, they have to have an enemy present to strike them. Invaders = more available enemy to strike.

I would not get too worked up over "which" part of the tribal world we're involved in a conflict with. I'm generalizing by necessity.

Do you NOT think that the largely disparate cultures are a significant part of the reason we fight?

[Sarajevo071]

"My" prejudice on the issue is that I want the western world to win. It would be nice if their culture would change peacefully, but I doubt it. It would even be nice if we could build a "cultural wall" that allowed them to continue to be who they are, without changing, but that ain't going to happen.


The reason most suicide bombings involve western invasion is simple: As a relatively primitive culture, they have to have an enemy present to strike them. Invaders = more available enemy to strike.

I would not get too worked up over "which" part of the tribal world we're involved in a conflict with. I'm generalizing by necessity.

Do you NOT think that the largely disparate cultures are a significant part of the reason we fight?


Idea that “Western Culture” need to win sounds to me way to imperialistic and colonialistic, to agree with it. And, idea that every single one in the Word just waiting to be “liberated” (and in that process they country invaded either culturally either military) for saggy Mac Donald’s burgers and calorie full Coke is just -wrong.

Why they culture need to change in the first place? Because they are not same like yours?

Source of problems Islamic culture (countries) have with West have anything to do with freedom, liberty, and democracy, but have everything to do with Western policies and actions in the Muslim world. Everything will be different and better if Muslims did not believe their faith, brethren, resources, and lands to be under attack by the West.

To quote Scheuer:


“Right or wrong, Muslims are beginning to view the United States as a colonial power with Israel as its surrogate, and with a military presence in three of the holiest places in Islam: the Arabian peninsula, Iraq, and Jerusalem. It is time to review and debate American policy in the region, even our relationship with Israel.

"No one wants to abandon the Israelis. But I think the perception is, and I think it's probably an accurate perception, that the tail is leading the dog - that we are giving the Israelis carte blanche ability to exercise whatever they want to do in their area. And if that's what the American people want, then that's what the policy should be, of course. But the idea that anything in the United States is too sensitive to discuss or too dangerous to discuss is really, I think, absurd."

And from Imperial Hubris:


• U.S. leaders refuse to accept the obvious: We are fighting a worldwide Islamic insurgency—not criminality or terrorism—and our policy and procedures have failed to make more than a modest dent in enemy forces.

• The military is now America's only tool and will remain so while current policies are in place. No public diplomacy, presidential praise for Islam, or politically correct debate masking the reality that many of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims hate us for actions not values, will get America out of this war.

• Bin Laden has been precise in telling America the reasons he is waging war on us. None of the reasons have anything to do with our freedom, liberty, and democracy, but have everything to do with U.S. policies and actions in the Muslim world. Islamic religion. He could not have his current—and increasing—level of success if Muslims did not believe their faith, brethren, resources, and lands to be under attack by the United States and, more generally, the West. Indeed, the United States, and its policies and actions, are bin Laden's only indispensable allies.
…

The military is now America's only tool and will remain so while current policies are in place. No public diplomacy, presidential praise for Islam, or politically correct debate masking the reality that many of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims hate us for actions not values…

And calling someone primitive or hating them for being different is almost same in value, if you ask me.

[TROUFION]

In light of the discussion so far, read this AP account of a recent high profile suicide attack. How does this fit the MO, what is the effect: short and long term?

NATO: Intelligence suggested bomb threat By JASON STRAZIUSO, Associated Press Writer
Wed Feb 28, 3:01 PM ET

Intelligence reports indicated that the Taliban had the ability to carry out suicide attacks near the main U.S. base in Afghanistan even before a bloody bombing during a visit by Vice President Dick Cheney, NATO said Wednesday.

Col. Tom Collins, the top spokesman for NATO's force in Afghanistan, said suicide bomb cells were present in the capital, Kabul, just 30 miles south of Bagram Air Base.

"We know for a fact that there has been recent intelligence to suggest that there was the threat of a bombing in the Bagram area," Collins told reporters. "It's clear that there are suicide bomber cells operating in this country. There are some in the city of Kabul."

Tuesday's bombing killed 23 people, including two Americans, outside Bagram while Cheney was meeting with officials inside. The Taliban claimed the attack was aimed at Cheney, but officials said it posed no real threat to the vice president.

The attacker never tried to penetrate even the first of several U.S.-manned security checkpoints at Bagram, instead detonating his explosives among a group of Afghan workers outside the base.

"The Taliban's claims that they were going after the vice president were absurd," Collins said.

Collins said it was unclear whether the Taliban had really known of Cheney's visit, or if the timing of the attack was a coincidence. The last suicide bombing at Bagram was in June 2006, when an attack aimed at a U.S. convoy wounded two Afghans near a market area outside the base.

U.S. Ambassador Ronald Neumann said he did not believe the Taliban had responded to Cheney's presence, given that he arrived on Monday and only stayed the night because bad weather forced him to postpone a meeting with Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

"I just have not seen the ability to react that quickly, to grab your handy-dandy latest suicide candidate, who is usually not your brightest fellow around, and get him mobilized and get him up to the gate," Neumann said. "It strains credulity for me."

He said Cheney "could have been in New York for all the threat" the bomb posed.

Afghanistan's Interior Ministry said a preliminary investigation suggested the bomber was a foreigner. But Lt. Col. David Accetta, a U.S. military spokesman, said the best that investigators could determine was that the bomber was of "Middle Eastern descent," meaning he could have been from Afghanistan, Pakistan or other neighboring countries.

___

Associated Press reporter Fisnik Abrashi contributed to this report.

[MountainRunner]

Jumping in late to the party, but I thought I'd through in a couple of pennies into the mix.

First, while Pape is cited, his message and his material wasn't contextualized very well. The most notable example is the references to LTTE in this discussion, including by TROUFION. If we're talking about Islamic terrorism, suicide or otherwise, we must explicitly exclude LTTE. They are virtually agnostic.

Also, if you cite Pape, know that he finds suicide terrorism is directly related to military occupation or location. Messages from OBL/UBL, for example, LTTE, and the 7/7 bombers etc all make specific references to placement of military combat forces in a region. This is the foundation of Pape's argument for off-shore balancing.

It is also worthy of noting that while "Civilizied peoples deplore, condemn and disdain suicide and suicide warfare", to quote TROUFION in the opening of this thread, this does not discount the Islamic, or otherwise, populations the suicide act is performed for. These populations may not entirely support the means but they support the ends, a scenario seen in Palestine.

If you don't want to buy his book, which is a good book, or you don't want to download the paper, you can watch or listen (via iPod if you want) his JHU APL Rethinking War series seminar (http://www.jhuapl.edu/POW/rethinking06/video.cfm#pape).

[120mm]

Idea that “Western Culture” need to win sounds to me way to imperialistic and colonialistic, to agree with it. And, idea that every single one in the Word just waiting to be “liberated” (and in that process they country invaded either culturally either military) for saggy Mac Donald’s burgers and calorie full Coke is just -wrong.

Why they culture need to change in the first place? Because they are not same like yours?

Source of problems Islamic culture (countries) have with West have anything to do with freedom, liberty, and democracy, but have everything to do with Western policies and actions in the Muslim world. Everything will be different and better if Muslims did not believe their faith, brethren, resources, and lands to be under attack by the West.

To quote Scheuer:



And from Imperial Hubris:



And calling someone primitive or hating them for being different is almost same in value, if you ask me.

That's not my point at all. A large portion of the world believes in treating women like property, tribalism and revenge/honor killings. They also believe in a form of conservatism that values chastity, among other things.

The "communications revolution" combined with the amoral (anti-moral?) content being imported into their cultures whether they want it or not, is destroying their culture.

In effect, the corrosive effect of Britney Spears and Animal Sex on the internet, available 24/7 is damaging to their culture. And while they consume it willingly, I don't think they believe that it is willing consumption.

My point is not that I don't think that the US is imperial. I don't think we KNOW that we are imperial.

And as far as wanting "our side" to win, no, I don't want my head sawed off with a rusty knife, and I don't want my wife put into a sack and stoned to death. THAT is what I call Primitive Behavior.

I would be willing to let folks in the part of the world (that is undefinable, because the Definition Nazis on the board will jump all over me) "just live their lives", but that is not the nature of humanity.

[tequila]

120mm - What evidence do you have for your view that cultural difference (exemplified, I suppose, by internet pornography) is the principle reason for Islamist suicide attacks, as opposed to the reasons listed by Islamist terrorists in their numerous statements of purpose which almost exclusively reference politics?

One could make the argument that tribalism, the treatment of women as property, violence, etc. are far more prevalent in sub-Saharan Africa than in the Muslim Middle East. Yet we have a distinct lack of African terrorists. What accounts for this?

[120mm]

120mm - What evidence do you have for your view that cultural difference (exemplified, I suppose, by internet pornography) is the principle reason for Islamist suicide attacks, as opposed to the reasons listed by Islamist terrorists in their numerous statements of purpose which almost exclusively reference politics?

One could make the argument that tribalism, the treatment of women as property, violence, etc. are far more prevalent in sub-Saharan Africa than in the Muslim Middle East. Yet we have a distinct lack of African terrorists. What accounts for this?

I'm sorry, I have left the path. I wasn't talking about suicide bombings. I was talking about the overall conflict between the two cultures. The suicide bombing is merely a small portion, a "tactic" if you will.

On the subject of the Islamist terrorists "statements of purpose", you do know that UBL, et al have listed "America's abuse of the environment" as one of the reasons for attacking the WTC, right? I doubt the average terrorist gives a rip about "the environment. There statements are mainly "bull####" imho. They have a few trick ponies they walk out on the street now and again for the dhimmis.

I think it is most likely that the guys who issue statements desire power and power alone.

On the subject of African lack of terror, I reference Marc's above statement about the sentiment that the Arabs once ruled the world, and feel cheated that they still do not.

I also do not see a strong sense of moralism in African tribes. If there were, where did all the AIDS come from? At the risk of generalizing, Africans don't have the history of world domination and civilization, and I don't "think" they have a uniting moralizing religion which will be crushed by western society.

And, oh yeah, they also don't have huge oil reserves to purchase.

As I am dying the "death of a thousand cuts" through your questions, I'm interested in maybe you putting out some of your ideas. Perhaps that will shorten this exercise....

[Sarajevo071]

That's not my point at all. A large portion of the world believes in treating women like property, tribalism and revenge/honor killings. They also believe in a form of conservatism that values chastity, among other things.

The "communications revolution" combined with the amoral (anti-moral?) content being imported into their cultures whether they want it or not, is destroying their culture.

In effect, the corrosive effect of Britney Spears and Animal Sex on the internet, available 24/7 is damaging to their culture. And while they consume it willingly, I don't think they believe that it is willing consumption.

My point is not that I don't think that the US is imperial. I don't think we KNOW that we are imperial.

And as far as wanting "our side" to win, no, I don't want my head sawed off with a rusty knife, and I don't want my wife put into a sack and stoned to death. THAT is what I call Primitive Behavior.

I would be willing to let folks in the part of the world (that is undefinable, because the Definition Nazis on the board will jump all over me) "just live their lives", but that is not the nature of humanity.

They don’t care what you posting or watching on Internet… One just DOESN’T need to look of it and he will not see it. That’s not problem. Problem is when “your” culture, values and rules are FORCED on “theirs”. Simple.

You say it’s not “nature of humanity” to let others "just live their lives"!? Did I understand you well here?

Once again… Beheading, full covering of woman, stoning are customs of SOME people/tribes/sects and not part of real Islamic thought and culture.

Same like one would say that random killings of kids in schools, sexslavery and prostitution, racism, etc is not part of real “western culture”. One would say it is part of collective Primitive Behavior.

I dare to say, there is no difference between “western” or “eastern” Primitivism.

[Merv Benson]

Human bomb attacks are acts of impotence and they are rarely aimed at invading forces. The vast majority are aimed at non combatants. In Iraq the victims are almost all Shia Muslims. The recent attack in Afghanistan killed one US soldier and 22 others, which suggest that if were targeting "invading forces" he was a poor shot.

A brief comment on the "cultural" battle. One of the significant difference between western culture and the culture of the jihadi is that we do not glorify the depravity that sometimes occurs. By that I mean that people who go on a killing rampage in a high school are not considered someone to emulate and put on posters.

[Sarajevo071]

Human bomb attacks are acts of impotence and they are rarely aimed at invading forces. The vast majority are aimed at non combatants. In Iraq the victims are almost all Shia Muslims. The recent attack in Afghanistan killed one US soldier and 22 others, which suggest that if were targeting "invading forces" he was a poor shot.

A brief comment on the "cultural" battle. One of the significant difference between western culture and the culture of the jihadi is that we do not glorify the depravity that sometimes occurs. By that I mean that people who go on a killing rampage in a high school are not considered someone to emulate and put on posters.

And I don’t say that they should be put on posters… I was just saying that “primitivism” is multicultural thing.

And about other thing. I agree with you but also wonder…

How will they play “game” if they have all those toys and gadgets? Would they be called heroes flying planes and bombing villages and doing “collateral damage” or they will still be “impotent”?

I don’t know. Seams to me, suicide bombings coming from desperation and lack of real weapon systems rather then impotence.


PS.
I was talking about western and islamic culture. Not jihadi.

[Jedburgh]

...figured I'd put this here as well, because of the subject matter - although it has it's own thread (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=2322) in the OEF-Afghanistan forum:

Cheney Attack Reveals Taliban Suicide Bombing Patterns (http://www.jamestown.org/news_details.php?news_id=222)

...Iraqi suicide bombers from such jihadi groups as Ansar al-Sunnah and al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia frequently seek to inflict high casualty rates by attacking soft targets, such as crowded markets. Their objective is to cause as much bloodshed as possible, incite sectarian violence and destroy U.S. efforts to construct civil society in Iraq. Afghan suicide bombers, on the other hand, appear to have different objectives and have focused almost exclusively on hard targets (government, police, military). In 2007, for example, the Taliban have attacked foreign or Afghan military/police targets in 16 of their 22 bombings (in three cases the target was undetermined).

This in-depth analysis of 158 Afghan suicide bombings since 2001 shows that this is no anomaly and demonstrates an important point: in only eight of the 158 suicide attacks from 2001-2007 did civilians appear to be the direct target of Afghan bombers. Further scrutiny of these eight civilian attacks reveals an important fact. In two of these instances, the Taliban apologized for inflicting civilian casualties and in one case a Taliban spokesmen actually denied involvement. In four other cases the suicide bombers seem to have been targeting passing military convoys or governmental representatives in crowds; therefore, the high civilian casualties appear to have been unintended "collateral damage." In only two instances were civilians clearly the target of Afghan suicide bombers.

These findings tell us volumes about the Taliban's overall strategy in employing suicide bombing as a tactic. Far from imitating Iraqi insurgent tactics, the Taliban are trying to avoid losing the battle for the hearts and minds of the Afghan people by needlessly killing civilians....

[120mm]

They don’t care what you posting or watching on Internet… One just DOESN’T need to look of it and he will not see it. That’s not problem. Problem is when “your” culture, values and rules are FORCED on “theirs”. Simple.

I don't think you understand the mindset. The reason they kill women that were raped, is because women FORCE men to do sexual things and therefore the WOMAN committed the real crime. They are witches who entrap men with their "wiles". Therefore, if they view porn on the computer, the west FORCES them to do so. 10 out of 10 mid-eastern males that I've known believe this, and they are EDUCATED people only.

You say it’s not “nature of humanity” to let others "just live their lives"!? Did I understand you well here?

Ummm, yes. If it weren't, why have we fought so many wars? Why would we have a Small Wars Council?

Once again… Beheading, full covering of woman, stoning are customs of SOME people/tribes/sects and not part of real Islamic thought and culture.

Oh, really? The impression I get, is of a very few sophisticates who have sufficient power to repress the tribal urges of their "subjects".

Same like one would say that random killings of kids in schools, sexslavery and prostitution, racism, etc is not part of real “western culture”. One would say it is part of collective Primitive Behavior.

At last we agree on something. All humans are primitive, and all societies are primitive, in their own way. In a lot of ways, Arab culture, for instance, is much, much more sophisticated than typical American culture.

I dare to say, there is no difference between “western” or “eastern” Primitivism.

Except that I am a member of the "western" primitivism, and do not wish to be subject to the whims of "eastern" primitivism.

[120mm]

Back to the subject of suicide bombing: I believe it is the natural outgrowth of being continually embarrassed on the field of battle by opposition forces. Warriors who cannot succeed on the battlefield are forced to adapt different tactics, of which suicide bombing is one.

I do not see suicide bombing as an unnatural progression of warfare. When it's all you have, it's what you use.

[Sarajevo071]

Except that I am a member of the "western" primitivism, and do not wish to be subject to the whims of "eastern" primitivism.

:D :D :D

I see. Well, at least you admitting your "western primitivism". But, realizing there is no much room for reasoning here, I will stop. Bias is just too big clouding the reality, fair judgment & truth. But, I am not surprised at all. Whatever.

Time will tell. :wry:

[120mm]

I am somewhat guilty of "thinking out loud" on my keyboard. Please forgive me if I've given offense, but I think that a failure to support my own "in-group" in favor of an "out-group" doesn't make much sense.

Now, if my "in-group" can find a way to sustain a state of peace with other "out-groups" that would be fine. I'm just not holding my breath on this happening.

[davidbfpo]

I recall Saddam Hussain provided large cash sums to Palestinian suicide bombers. Now it is a widely used tactic in Afghanistan and Iraq, are the bombers influenced by alternative pension providers?

I assume there are plenty of rich supporters of the cause, individuals or institutions, with a variety of motives.

Anyone aware of open source research on this aspect?

davidbfpo

[120mm]

All I know is that funding for the Afghanistan insurgency is said to be, by various sources, fundamentally "unlimited". The typical Taliban is paid very handsomely for his "work." It's one of the issues that we are facing in Afghanistan, today, and one of the reasons the Afghan government has been forced to raise wages, recently. I cannot believe that his (TB) family is not taken care of, as well.

[Sarajevo071]

Are you two serious!?

You really believe that insurgencies in Afghanistan and Iraq are influenced (and can be changed or stopped with more or less money to the individuals or groups)!?

You really believe that if you pay Afghans they will stop resisting to the ocupation!? Of if you didn’t fire so much Iraqi soldiers (or if you hired them back) that will made difference in they wish to defend they country!?

Did I understand you right?

[120mm]

Well, yes, a certain percentage of Afghans will fight for whoever pays them the most. Or whoever will pay them with the best chance of winning, and surviving to keep the money.

Why else would the Taliban pay up to 10X what the government pays for soldiers?

It's not a surprise, really. The only reason I stay in the Reserves, is for the drill pay each month and the extra few hundred a month retirement I will get at age 60. I could've retired last year, but chose not to for primarily the above reasons.

[120mm]

NATO officials say the Taliban seems to be flush with cash, thanks to the guerrillas' alliance with prosperous opium traffickers. The fighters are paid more than $5 a day—good money in Afghanistan, and at least twice what the new Afghan National Army's 30,000 soldiers receive.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14975282/site/newsweek/

The latest figure I've heard is $500 to $1000 per month for skilled fighters or special skills non-fighters. YMMV.

[Sarajevo071]

I am just saying that you cannot apply western (materialistic) values/rules to that part of the World.

Sure, money has value for buying this and that but to make them mercenaries and pay soldiers is rally bad notion. That’s not they main motivation.

They were always reports of people with suitcases full of money (Afghanistan, Bosnia, Chechnya), going in actual fight and recording on video for back home.

Like a proof for rich benefactor that they money really going for real cause and fighting units (mujahideen) and not for some paper pushers or whatever purposes.

[Mondor]

I am just saying that you cannot apply western (materialistic) values/rules to that part of the World.

Sure, money has value for buying this and that but to make them mercenaries and pay soldiers is rally bad notion. That’s not they main motivation.

Afghanistan has its own set of materialistic values/rules. It does not need any help from the west on that score. Most of the Afghans outside of the cities are dirt poor and have little prospect of making any sort of living above subsistence level. We (the west) are not turning Afghans into mercenaries. They generally tend to view fighting as just one of the things a man does. The man who gets paid more for fighting then the next guy is just a luckier or smarter guy. No shame is attached to fighting for pay.

[Sarajevo071]

I was not talking about “shame” but more about motivation since there is HUGE difference in motivations in mercenaries and in someone defending his land. If we can’t figure real motivation factor in they fight (without bias or hate against them) how will fight them!? Jihadis are not materialistic like western soldiers so one can’t look at them thru that lens and hope that more or less money will stop them. Simple truth. Now, from there one can think further and develop a real COIN strategy.

That was my point.

[slapout9]

Sarajevo071, do you have any suggetions on what the Strategy should be?

[Mondor]

I'll agree with you that Jihadis tend to fight for other than materialistic motivations. However, knowing that your family is going to be taken care of is a comfort that will allow most suicide bombers types to go forward with a certain peace of mind.

My point is that most Afghan's are not Jihadis, and that money and prestige are powerful motivators for the majority of the population. "The" enemy does not exist in conflicts like the ones we are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. The conflict is multifaceted and those fighting with us today may be fighting against us tomorrow, or they may the passive population that will support whoever is in control today. To try and identify "The" enemy, as if this disparate elements are a single monolithic entity, is a comforting but foolish game that will only come around and bite us.... in places we would rather not be bitten.

Everyone is a potential enemy, and a potential ally, everyone.

[120mm]

I am just saying that you cannot apply western (materialistic) values/rules to that part of the World.

Sure, money has value for buying this and that but to make them mercenaries and pay soldiers is rally bad notion. That’s not they main motivation.

They were always reports of people with suitcases full of money (Afghanistan, Bosnia, Chechnya), going in actual fight and recording on video for back home.

Like a proof for rich benefactor that they money really going for real cause and fighting units (mujahideen) and not for some paper pushers or whatever purposes.

So the multiple reports by NGOs and PRTs claiming that we are losing Afghanistan because of poverty and lack of reconstruction are just made up b.s.?

We can't apply materialistic (western) values to that part of the world? I'm going to forward this thread to all the PRT and Contracting officers I know in Iraq and Afghanistan. They need a good laugh. Either that, or they can stop paying Warlords money and start paying them in hugs and pats on the head.

[Sarajevo071]

So the multiple reports by NGOs and PRTs claiming that we are losing Afghanistan because of poverty and lack of reconstruction are just made up b.s.?

We can't apply materialistic (western) values to that part of the world? I'm going to forward this thread to all the PRT and Contracting officers I know in Iraq and Afghanistan. They need a good laugh. Either that, or they can stop paying Warlords money and start paying them in hugs and pats on the head.

Pfu! Yeah, do that.

And also ask them how many INNOCENT people end up in Gitmo because poor Afghans sell them to US troops just because they didn’t like the neighbor or they needed the money since they country is ravaged and/or occupied for years!?

And how much INTEL value did those poor bastards have!?

And, if you have numbers of those innocents (who didn’t care for Taliban or West before) that end up being piss off enough to join Taliban or AQ after return, please share with us!

After all those years and BILLIONS, what did all that money did it!?

Are we safer? Taliban disappeared? AQ destroyed?

Yes, stop putting western values on everyone and open your mind and then maybe you will understand your enemy… Don’t you think if Western forces killing LESS they civilians and kids that will bring better results then killing villages and then paying them off!?

Again, western idea that everything can be fixed or healed with money is to materialistic and to simplistic approach for global Islamic insurgency that is around for decades.

But, what I know. You are the expert here.

[Sarajevo071]

Sarajevo071, do you have any suggetions on what the Strategy should be?

Well, I am neither smart nor experienced enough to fully answer question like that. Seams you have here wide range of experts and people with experience and brain…

But, it seams to me that one first need to realistically look on causes and effects of situation today, be honest and open, less bias, and try to understand other side, they motivations and clicks in order to use same against them…

[Tom Odom]

Guys

I believe that if you step back and look at it you--especially 120mm and Sarajevo--are arguing for the very same points.

Sarejevo:

Use of money and assistance is a tool and indeed a key one in winning support. It does not translate automatically into a system built on payoffs.

120mm

NGO reports are I believe quite accurate in assessing local moods; key to those mood assessments is to examine underlying issues as well. The SENLIS report is quite good in this respect.

When we do get in the mode of pure pay off--buying "loyalty" or assuming we can buy forgiveness for sloppy operations--we are fooling ourselves. Buying loyalty never works because you are putting a price tag on something intangible. It is like assuming you have bought the "loyalty" of a GM dealer because you bought a GM. Paying indemnity is a ultimately self-defeating because you ARE putting a price tag on lives.

My 2 cents

tom

[120mm]

I agree, Tom. I could point out several earlier threads where I argued Sarajevo's points, exactly. I just don't know where I keep "going off the tracks" in this thread.

Other than that, I can't imagine what I can add, here. I just think it's sad that we cannot rationally discuss the role money plays (or doesn't play) here.

[Tom Odom]

I just think it's sad that we cannot rationally discuss the role money plays (or doesn't play) here.

Sad maybe

Human definitely

Best

Tom

[slapout9]

I think there might be some translation problems to.

[Sarajevo071]

No translation problems. I understand you just fine. I find one response to sarcastic and condescending so I responded my way. If some one takes offence of my words or sound of it, I do apologize. I will keep it to myself in future.

:cool:

[TROUFION]

Dr. Brym and his team examine the 2nd intifada, 138 attacks. His findings are summarized in this article. He points out that this is specific to Palestine-Isreal and may not apply to Iraq etc.

Here is an excerpt:

"By examining statements made by bombers, their families or representatives from organizations they claimed to be working for, the authors found that attacks were not generally governed by a strategic logic, as is often believed to be the case, but were motivated by a desire for revenge. By examining events that preceded each specific attack, they found that particular Israeli actions such as killings prompted most attacks. "For the most part," they write, bombers "gave up their lives to avenge the killing of a close relative, as retribution for specific attacks against the Palestinian people or as payback for perceived attacks against Islam."

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-06/uot-dsb061206.php

Further, the following Wikipedia Link, has a LOT of information that is relevant to this discussion. It mirrors very closely how this thread has unfolded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_bombing

And last here is today's news:

By SAMEER N. YACOUB, Associated Press Writer
16 minutes ago

BAGHDAD - A suicide car bomb struck Baghdad's Shiite militia stronghold Saturday, killing at least 18 people as international envoys met in the Iraqi capital to talk about stabilizing the violence-shattered country.

The blast hit an Iraqi patrol in Sadr City at midday, scattering burning debris across a small bridge, witnesses said.

An Associated Press reporter traveling with U.S. troops nearby said the explosion showered shrapnel across a joint U.S.- Iraq security station 300 yards away. The partially shattered windshield of a car landed at the gates of the compound.

Police said at least 18 people were killed and 48 wounded.

Question: What did this bomber-terrorist achieve?

[TROUFION]

THe question at hand is this effective as a weapon, tactic, strategy? Can the insurgents achieve the desired endstate through this campaign? Will the Shiites (particularly Sadr's militia types) be able to restrain themselves from retaliation? (guess that is a seperate issue-responses to suicide instigation attacks, when the attacker WANTS you to overreact)----

Suicide blast kills 32 Shiites in Iraq By LAUREN FRAYER, Associated Press Writer
11 minutes ago

A suicide car bomber rammed a truck carrying Shiite pilgrims returning from a religious commemoration Sunday, killing at least 32 people a day after Iraqi leaders warned sectarian violence could spread through the Middle East.

Hundreds of pilgrims were killed by suspected Sunni insurgents as they traveled to the ceremonies in the holy city of Karbala, where millions had gathered for two days of commemorations, and their return journey was equally treacherous.

The truck was bringing about 70 men and boys home and had reached central Baghdad when it was blasted by the car bomber. At least 32 people were killed and 24 were injured, police and hospital officials said.

Attacks on other vehicles carrying pilgrims Sunday killed at least five people in Baghdad.

One of those in the truck, Mustafa Moussawi, a 31-year-old vegetable store owner, said they group felt safe after crossing from Sunni-dominated areas.

"Then the car bomber slammed us from behind," said Moussawi, who suffered injuries to his right hand and shoulder. "I blame the government. They didn't provide a safe

route for us even though they knew we were targets for attack."

Iraqi security officials have struggled to protect the annual pilgrimage to mark the end of 40 days mourning for the 7th century battlefield death of the Prophet Muhammad's grandson. Shiites consider him the rightful heir of Islam's leadership, which cemented the rift with Sunni Muslims.

In what appeared to be an attack on the other side of Iraq's sectarian divide, in the northern city of Mosul, a suicide bomber attacked the offices of Iraq's biggest Sunni political party, killing three guards. The attack on the Iraqi Islamic Party's office came as politicians were leaving a reception, said party member Mohammed Shakir al-Ghanam.

Mosul, about 225 miles northwest of Baghdad, also has seen an increase in suspected Sunni insurgent attacks, including a reported raid on a prison last week that allowed nearly 150 prisoners to escape. Most were quickly recaptured.

The attacks on the Shiite pilgrims — including a bomb-rigged car and a suicide bomber with an explosives belt packed with metal fragments that together killed five in Baghdad — followed a suicide car bombing Saturday in Baghdad's main Shiite militia stronghold, Sadr City. The blast at a checkpoint killed 20 people, including at least six Iraqi soldiers.

But it carried additional worries for U.S.-led forces, who entered Sadr City last week under a carefully negotiated deal with political allies of the Madhi Army militia, led by the radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

He has agreed to withhold his armed militia from the streets during a U.S.-Iraqi security crackdown begun last month. But attacks on his power base could encourage al-Sadr to send his fighters back to protect Shiites if U.S.-Iraqi forces cannot.

They could also rekindle the sectarian revenge killings that have receded since the Baghdad security push began nearly four weeks ago.

Iraq's prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, appealed Saturday for international aid to fight the bloodshed, speaking at a gathering of neighbors and world powers, which included rare diplomatic exchanges between the United States and Iran.

He told delegates that Iraq's strife could spill across the Middle East if not quelled. It resumed even as the delegates packed up the briefcases and dossiers.

Separately, the U.S. military said that American and Iraqi troops had captured three suspected members of a bomb-making cell north of Baghdad.

The men were detained during an air assault Saturday in Tarmiyah, the military said in a statement. The suspects were accused of planting roadside bombs and car bombs in attacks on American and Iraqi troops, it said.

The military also announced the capture of a suspected financier of insurgents in Kirkuk province, who was taken into custody last Wednesday.

Also Sunday, a roadside bomb killed two women in a car in Mahmoudiyah, 20 miles south of Baghdad, police said.

[120mm]

I'm glad Sarajevo keeps up with it. Disparate views are good for the forum, I think. My comment about money and suicide bombing stem from my own period of doubt whether I could feed my family after my brain injury. At about the same time the Army upped the SGLI to $400,000 and I would be lying to say that I did not evaluate what I could do to see that my family was fed and cared for in terms of that $400,000.

Back to suicide bombing, I think Troufian's main point of his first post is the main point. What did the suicide bomber achieve?

A useful spin-off might be to ask, what did the suicide bomber "war-game" in his mind that led him to choose suicide bombing as a tactic/mode of expending his life.

I have a hard time accepting the "heavenly rewards" as the prime motive. I am familiar with "berzerker's rage" and think it might play a part. I am open and interested in suggestions/criticisms on anything else.

[TROUFION]

One would think it would get harder to find appropriate bomb carriers with results like these. Seems that the idea to use suicide bombers in a more tactical mode isn't nearly as 'effective' (when body counts are the goal) as pure terrorist attacks on soft targets. --Troufion

By Mirwais Afghan
2 hours, 35 minutes ago

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan (Reuters) - Three Taliban suicide bombers killed themselves along with a policeman and an Afghan civilian and wounded a dozen people in separate attacks in southern Afghanistan on Tuesday, officials said.

The Taliban have stepped up operations in their old heartland ahead of an anticipated spring offensive against government and Western forces. A Taliban spokesman claimed responsibility for all the three attacks.

In Spin Boldak, a town on the Pakistani border, a suicide bomber blew himself up at a police checkpost, killing a policeman and a bystander.

"The man entered from the Pakistani side and blew himself up as police tried to search him," Abdul Razzaq, chief of the border security force in the area, told Reuters.

He said eight people were wounded in the attack.

There were two suicide attacks in Lashkar Gah, capital of the southern province of Helmand. In both cases the bombers killed themselves but no one else.

One attacker targeted a NATO convoy, but only wounded two Afghan bystanders, according to the deputy police chief of Helmand, Mohammad Isa Iftikhari.

In the other attack, on an Afghan army office in the provincial capital, a soldier was wounded.

[120mm]

I'm just finishing up "Islam and the West" by Bernard Lewis. I notice toward the end of the book, he mentions the tradition of martyrdom in Arab pre-Islamic history, where the hero commits Regicide and dies valiantly in the end. I'm wondering how much the folklore of "martyrdom works into this "tactic."

And I'm also wondering why it has been absent in Afghanistan culture (if it has) until now. Thoughts?

[tequila]

Maybe because Pashtun culture is very different from Arab culture?

This ECONOMIST article has some basic errors but covers a lot of excellent ground (http://www.scribd.com/doc/1302/The-Economist-Article-on-the-Pushtunwali-tribe)about the clash in the NWFP between Islamism and Pashtun tribal culture.

[marct]

I'm just finishing up "Islam and the West" by Bernard Lewis. I notice toward the end of the book, he mentions the tradition of martyrdom in Arab pre-Islamic history, where the hero commits Regicide and dies valiantly in the end. I'm wondering how much the folklore of "martyrdom works into this "tactic."

And I'm also wondering why it has been absent in Afghanistan culture (if it has) until now. Thoughts?


Maybe because Pashtun culture is very different from Arab culture?

I think Tequila has it. Pretty much every culture has a place for martyrdom (aka "altruistic suicide"), and it's really a matter of in just what specific situations it should be used. In most mountainous raiding cultures, "martyrdom" is really more a last resort than a standard tactic - it tends to indicate a more general failure than anything else.

Marc

[slapout9]

120mm, I have been thinking about this for awhile and I would tend to agree with you that the 72 virgins is not the real motive. I do think that many radical Islamic leaders would like the US to believe that thousands of bombers are out there waiting to attack on command for Propaganda reasons but I am not sure that is really happening.

So what if you went the other way? What if the bomber is also a victim being exploited by radical clerics,etc. In my LE career I ran into a fair number of suicidal types who are in such despair that they do not mind taking their own life or whoever happens to be around them when it happens!

How hard would it be to find someone in Iraq who lost one or several loved ones, does not have a job, does not have a home? How many would have had all of these happen to them? Probably a fair number. The Secret Service has done some fantastic research in this area and they have some documents at their website that are open source. They also have a LE restricted website that has their main manual for LE Threat Investigations which covers several of the questions you bring up.

If you can get access to it I highly recommend it and I am personally familiar with it. I have also done these types of investigations in the Domestic Violence/Stalking situations and there are allot of similarities.

I sparked enough interest with this that at a 2006 AUM (Auburn University Montgomery) seminar about my own experiences with it that US Army Intelligence showed up:eek: besides a bunch of Feds,State and local LE.

Here is the link to the Secret Service National Threat Assessment Center go to the down load section for open source material, any of the School Shooting Information is also applicable with some modification. A targeted attack is no different then an attack on a public official according to their theories which I believe very Strongly. One they don't believe in profiling. Two they do belive that attacks can be predicted with in certain peramiters.
I have had personal communications with some of the agents that were authors of these studies so it is some good stuff , so take a look if you have time.
http://www.secretservice.gov/ntac.shtml

[120mm]

I will read those articles today, but I also have a thought: (Of course, I go to what I know) I wonder if terrain plays a role in the development of social mores in committing sanctioned violence.

A resident of Southern Iraq, or Saudi Arabia, could not fight a numerically superior force in the open and expect to survive it. Most of the terrain doesn't support "going to ground" in those conditions. In Afghanistan, Pakistan and other countries similar to that, it would be fairly simple for a small group to attack a larger group, and then E&E once the larger group was able to get their fingers out and get after them.

Therefore, wouldn't military tradition develop differently in either one of those cultures? Would a military culture that developed in open terrain have a stronger culture of suicide attacks, while a closed terrain culture develop "hit and run" tactics? (Japan would be an exception to this, at a minimum; perhaps a highly populated, small island would not support "getting away"?) I'm also thinking allowed on how "climate pressure" affects military competence, but it is an imperfect framework.

[tequila]

I think that some of this military determinism goes too far. Victor Davis Hanson, for one, really stretches it badly and leads historical/cultural analyses down roads it cannot go. As you noted, these are imperfect frameworks --- in this case highly imperfect. For instance the prevalence of raiding in pre-Islamic Arabia among bedouin tribes is well established --- hardly an example of suicidal warfare. Desert areas are places were large armies cannot support themselves and often have no real reason to go.

Historically Islam is a religion of the cities and of the literate. The bedouin tribes were among the last to be converted in Arabia and the first to bolt when Muhammad died. There really is no example of suicidal warfare or cults of martyrdom in the Middle Eastern or Islamic tradition excepting certain marginal Shia elements and maybe the Kharijite example --- it appears to be a purely modern phenomena. The Japanese example can be traced to continental Asian influences --- for instance disgraced officials and generals in Han China were expected to commit suicide to avoid judicial punishments. Yet China and Korea have no tradition of suicidal warfare.

I think we often reach too far in our attempts to find a cultural explanation for modern phenomena. Many times this is simply groups learning through media exposure and adapting methods that work. Cultural or religious justifications are usually found afterwards. The cult of suicide bombing is one of these, IMO.

[slapout9]

120mm, When you read the articles you will find your ideas are not as imperfect as you think. In the Secret Service model they would fall under environmental factors and they can have a lot of influence on the situation.
Also as you read you will find out a key predictor is they often do not have an escape plan!! They are in such pain they intend to die right there and take as many with them as they can. The old saying misery loves company is at work here.

tequila, I would agree with your analysis of suicide cults(which is a good description) they exploit the cultural factor after the attack when nobody can argue with them.

[Sarajevo071]

My praises and thanks to tequila for great response and knowledge! I always enjoy reading his postings.

Military situation or knowledge have nothing to do with suicide attacks since there is not one real examples of ME armies doing this in wars.

But they are not cults but they are extreme examples of religious devotion. If they were cult/s they would not be so widely understood (but not widely accepted) in Muslim society.

And money or education still don’t have much to do with it since you can find poor and rich, uneducated and highly educated jihadis. No one going to do that so his family can get rich.

Simple… It’s revenge, desperation, lack of better weapons, religious “duty” and PSYOPS.

[slapout9]

Sarajevo, The Secret Service model will validate everything you say! That was one of the things they found out during their research and the reason they believe there is no such thing as a bomber "profile" that can be used. it boils down to a person in a desparate situation who believes he has no other option and nothing left to loose. Yes it is simple it is not rocket science.

[120mm]

Hmmm. All good to think about, but I stubbornly stick to some of the cultural bases for various tactics.

In the US, we have the "cult of the rifleman." All good 'murricans are supposed to be born with a rifle in their hands, and when the rifle doesn't work anymore, even in situations when they know that surrendering means they get their heads sawed off on TV, they give up.

There is also the "no man is left behind" meme. A wounded soldier, behind enemy lines, will lead US military folks to sacrifice many more soldiers, just to get him/her back.

I just don't buy that martyrdom is a modern invention. It predates Islam, for goodness sakes, if one believes Bernard Lewis.

[tequila]

Hmmm. All good to think about, but I stubbornly stick to some of the cultural bases for various tactics.

In the US, we have the "cult of the rifleman." All good 'murricans are supposed to be born with a rifle in their hands, and when the rifle doesn't work anymore, even in situations when they know that surrendering means they get their heads sawed off on TV, they give up.

There is also the "no man is left behind" meme. A wounded soldier, behind enemy lines, will lead US military folks to sacrifice many more soldiers, just to get him/her back.

I just don't buy that martyrdom is a modern invention. It predates Islam, for goodness sakes, if one believes Bernard Lewis.

I have a tough time with your historical analysis. An American cultural "way of war" shows that the U.S. adapted many cultural forms of warfare throughout its history. The pre-Revolutionary period up to the Civil War saw Americans engaging in frontier style battles emphasizing light infantry and open order fighting that also had major influences on the British Army. The Civil War saw a total abandonment of this in favor of the massive fire-power based army that would see the U.S. through all its major wars up through OIF I.

Assessing a proposed dominant role of martyrdom in Arab military tradition would require historical examples of such. I have a tough time finding any significant ones before the modern era. Most cultures glorify warrior heroes who die in combat rather than surrender --- see 300 for a Western example, or the Alamo for an American one (no surrender there!). Any society with any warrior tradition will tend to have this cultural ideal somewhere.

[marct]

I just don't buy that martyrdom is a modern invention. It predates Islam, for goodness sakes, if one believes Bernard Lewis.

Maybe we should drop the term "martyrdom" since it has too many religious connotations, and use he term "altruistic suicide" instead. In this case, "altruism" is culturally defined and rationalized rather than an absolute. In this case, the "no man left behind" meme is a variant of altruistic suicide (already identified as such in the sociobiology literature).


Hmmm. All good to think about, but I stubbornly stick to some of the cultural bases for various tactics.

In the US, we have the "cult of the rifleman." All good 'murricans are supposed to be born with a rifle in their hands, and when the rifle doesn't work anymore, even in situations when they know that surrendering means they get their heads sawed off on TV, they give up.

I would agree that there are cultural biases or pre-dispositions to certain types of tactics. Anyone who has studied pre-industrial warfare shuld realize this. However, the situation changes, slightly, with the shift to a post-industrial economic base. Consider, by way of examle, the role played by an economic base, actually a "mode of production" to use the technical term, and how it affects selection of weapons which, in turn, is one of the conditioning factors in selection of tactics.

For example, in pre-industrial Pastoralist societies we find that pretty much every male starts guarding flocks at an early age (usually 5-6). Part of this means that they have to be able to protect their flocks from predators and this means a bias towards missile weapons (bows, slings, staff slings, javelins, spears, etc.). By the time these kids reach "manhood", a variable age that is culturally defined, they have usually had at least 10 years of learning to use these weapons and, if they have survived so far, they are probably pretty good with them.

So, we have a couple of cultural "vectors" established.

Males learn to use weapons at an early age;
once the become "men" hey are also "warriors";
most warriors are very good at blending into the environment;
there is a bias towards the use of missile weapons and, in most instances,
they also use some form of animal mobility (horses, camels, chariots, etc.).The exceptions to the mobility rule come in environments where the terrain strongly limits mobility, e.g. mountains and deep forest, or where there are no large animals capable of providing that mobility, e.g. pre-Columbian North America (hunted to extinction by 5000bce) and sub-saharan Africa above the Tropic of Capricorn (viral plagues that destroy horses and camels).

So, what ype of military force are we likely to see? A group of warriors who are highly mobile, use missile weaponry well, and will likely use hit and run tactics.

Now, compare this with horticultural / agricultural societies. First, you have a higher population density. Second, you have urban cultures, fields and, often, irrigation works. All of these require massed labour and a fixed location. This means that you have a large population that s culturally conditioned to

work together in a repetitive manner;
culturally standardized ways of doing things;
fixed assets that must be protected (fields, storage areas, etc.);
processing technologies that produce standardized products;
a cultural requirement that people work in teams; and
a hierarchical society with strong role differentiation.So, what type of military force are you going to see? Well, for one thing, you are going to see a differentiation in weaponry by class: a "general" type of weapons for each. Second, you are going to find a situation where most people are not warriors and have little combat experience (they are farm workers). Third, you are likely to see hierarchically organized groups of soldiers (not warriors) using standardized training and tactics based on teamwork - group movement.

End of lecture :D

Marc

[Sarajevo071]

Sarajevo, The Secret Service model will validate everything you say! That was one of the things they found out during their research and the reason they believe there is no such thing as a bomber "profile" that can be used. it boils down to a person in a desparate situation who believes he has no other option and nothing left to loose. Yes it is simple it is not rocket science.

I didn’t read that study Slapout9, even that I watch one woman from Secret Service talking something about it (thanks for the link, I will give a look tonight).

What I have in mind was that European study “Engineers of Al-Qaeda” (I believe is called) and interviews and memoirs of Aukai Collins a.k.a. “American Mujahiden” when he (unsuccessfully) tried to explain to FBI that they profile of jihadi warrior are wrong.

[Sarajevo071]

I have a tough time with your historical analysis. An American cultural "way of war" shows that the U.S. adapted many cultural forms of warfare throughout its history. The pre-Revolutionary period up to the Civil War saw Americans engaging in frontier style battles emphasizing light infantry and open order fighting that also had major influences on the British Army. The Civil War saw a total abandonment of this in favor of the massive fire-power based army that would see the U.S. through all its major wars up through OIF I.

Assessing a proposed dominant role of martyrdom in Arab military tradition would require historical examples of such. I have a tough time finding any significant ones before the modern era. Most cultures glorify warrior heroes who die in combat rather than surrender --- see 300 for a Western example, or the Alamo for an American one (no surrender there!). Any society with any warrior tradition will tend to have this cultural ideal somewhere.

Yes!

Every society has examples of “suicide attacks”! Except, in they mind those are heroic act of sacrifices for they “brothers in arms”, for Queen, God & country and these are “Muslim fanatics”… I don’t know that much of history but one can find example all back to Ancient Greeks, Ottoman Turks, Persian Assassins, warriors from steps of Asia and Caucasus, etc.

[Merv Benson]

The Aliwhite(sp?) cult in the time of Saladin is sometimes given as a model for the modern human ordinance used in the Middle East. The origin of the word assassin is traced back to them. Perhaps they are the Shia related cult that others referred to.

I agree with those who suggest that the normal raiding warfare of the Middle East was not a precursor of the current human ordinance attacks. They are in fact the opposite where weak targets are hit followed by a quick retreat. Where the analogy might fit with the human ordinance attack is the belief that exploding oneself in the presence of an enemy is a ticket to paradise, which is, I guess, the ultimate retreat.

[Sarajevo071]

Yes, I agree.

Everything (when we talk about ME) started with Shia Assassins and Old Man from the Mountain… Iran-Iraq war brought “sacrifice warfare” back in modern conflicts and Hezbollah up that in Lebanon. Sunni groups refused notions of that “sacrifice" until recent need to answer military powerful attackers and wage PSYOPS on them and inflict big casualty rate with loosing only one or couple guys… But it is War in Chechnya that gave born today’s Sunni tactics, reasoning and modern use.

[tequila]

Those were the "Hashashin", who were Ismaili (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ismaili)Shia. The Ismailis still exist; they have a website here, and are now probably the most modernized Shia sect around.

[120mm]

Bernard Lewis states that modern Arab culture was heavily influenced by the Greeks. A question to the Council: How relevant do you think this is to today's conflict?

I can feel my brain growing bigger, reading these posts. Lots of subjects for consideration. Thanks for all the good input.

[120mm]

Yes, I agree.

Everything (when we talk about ME) started with Shia Assassins and Old Man from the Mountain… Iran-Iraq war brought “sacrifice warfare” back in modern conflicts and Hezbollah up that in Lebanon. Sunni groups refused notions of that “sacrifice" until recent need to answer military powerful attackers and wage PSYOPS on them and inflict big casualty rate with loosing only one or couple guys… But it is War in Chechnya that gave born today’s Sunni tactics, reasoning and modern use.

That is good stuff. I am interested in a reference, or an explanation about "how" the War in Chechnya influenced the Sunni tactics, and what tactics we are talking about. Just suicide bombs, or IEDs as well? I need to read more about Chechnya, it seems. Any suggestions on good books on the subject?

[Tom Odom]

That is good stuff. I am interested in a reference, or an explanation about "how" the War in Chechnya influenced the Sunni tactics, and what tactics we are talking about. Just suicide bombs, or IEDs as well? I need to read more about Chechnya, it seems. Any suggestions on good books on the subject?

The best stuff on the Chechins I have seen--and I admit I am not the best read on this AO--is from FMSO, Les Grau and company.

I do concur fully on the differences in origins of suicide tactics among the Shia resting with the Old Man of the Mountain, especially as it relates to Lebanon and Hizballah.

Best

Tom

[Sarajevo071]

Chechen related suicide attacks did not begin until 2000. Through five years of conflict (the First Chechen War 1994-1996 and the first year of the second war), there were no Chechen related suicide bombings in Russia.

The vast majority of suicide bombings have been directed at those whom the Chechen separatists consider combatants. The preponderance of these attacks has been directed at military installations and government compounds in and around Chechnya.

There is no evidence of foreign involvement in either the planning or execution of Chechen suicide attacks. There is no evidence of foreign involvement in either the planning or execution of Chechen suicide attacks.

In contrast to Palestinian National Authority where suicide bombers and/or their families often receive large rewards from Arab sponsors, there is no evidence of financial rewards being given to Chechen suicide bombers.

A majority of the identified Chechen suicide bombers were victims of Russian “counter-terrorist” operations. None of the identified Chechen suicide bombers were socially or economically marginalized relative to the surrounding Chechen population, nor did they exhibit any apparent preexisting psychopathologies or homicidal inclinations.

Despair, hopelessness, and a sense of injustice are the lowest common denominators that almost always precipitate suicide terrorism in Chechnya. Even in those cases when Chechen suicide bombers were clearly manipulated by ‘handlers,’ it remains clear that desperation and a desire for revenge makes them more susceptible to this manipulation.

Females comprise a clear majority of Chechnya’s suicide bombers, as 68&#37; of identified Chechen suicide bombers are female. This is in contrast to Palestine, where females make up only a very small minority (ca 5%) of attackers.

Many females in Chechnya experienced lost of they family members or they was raped or other way humiliated, and in tradition of they hard life in North Caucasus, they decided not just to be victims and to take revenge. Leaders of Chechnya Resistance use that to give message to they fighters that if woman can do that man should fight harder and do more…

In same time they start justifying new tactics with chosen examples from they rich warrior history and sacrifice in they wars, quotes from Koran, fatwas from religious leaders… One could easy argue that all that start with risen influences of Wahabi thought in Chechnya Jamats and Islamic radicalization of war in Chechnya. West left them to the Russia so they turn for the help where they could get one… Middle East.

AQ saw success of suicide attacks in Chechnya and quickly adopted and welcomed that idea. Insisting of examples from Palestine and from war in Chechnya, they urged they own people to use same weapons. Based on those examples from war in Chechnya in 2000. AQ exploited and market that idea all over the World.

By them, since West is so materialistic and hooked on earthly life and goods idea that one would sacrifice his life regardless of age, status or education, that would terrified and paralyze West. In same time, personal examples of sacrifices would turn other Muslims to they idea, “wake the Umma” and show the rest of Muslims (who are “lost”) path to the true Islam.

And yes, videos of IEDs were all over the Internet long before any other theater get to use them. But that is not so surprising since Russian own military doctrine was based on people defense against advanced enemy and majority of people knew basic sabotage tactics… “All people are Army” concept is concept behind Socialistic public education. Fighters from Chechnya went in Afghanistan sharing knowledge and experience, while in return getting bases, weapons and training for others fronts in Caucasus.


PS.
My apologies for not getting back to you sooner… I was busy with other things.

[Sarajevo071]

Talking about books… There are many of them and these are just small examples:

My Jihad: The True Story of An American Mujahid's Amazing Journey from Usama Bin Laden's Training Camps to Counterterrorism with the FBI and CIA
by Aukai Collins
http://www.amazon.com/My-Jihad-American-Mujahids-Counterterrorism/dp/1585745650/ref=pd_bbs_2/002-4337874-3883269?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174182996&sr=1-2
(GREAT personal story and good look on battlefields in Chechnya!)

Allah's Mountains: The Battle for Chechnya
by Sebastian Smith
http://www.amazon.com/Allahs-Mountains-Battle-Chechnya-New/dp/1850439796/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-4337874-3883269?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174183063&sr=1-1

A Small Corner of Hell: Dispatches from Chechnya
by Anna Politkovskaya
http://www.amazon.com/Small-Corner-Hell-Dispatches-Chechnya/dp/0226674339/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-4337874-3883269?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174183102&sr=1-1

Grief of My Heart: Memoirs of a Chechen Surgeon
by Khassan, M.D. Baiev
http://www.amazon.com/Grief-My-Heart-Memoirs-Chechen/dp/0802777090/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-4337874-3883269?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174183142&sr=1-1

The War in Chechnya (Eastern European Studies (College Station, Tex.), No. 8.)
by Stasys Knezys and Romanas Sedlickas
http://www.amazon.com/Chechnya-Eastern-European-Studies-College/dp/089096856X/ref=sr_1_1/002-4337874-3883269?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174183456&sr=1-1

Chechnya: Tombstone of Russian Power
by Anatol Lieven
http://www.amazon.com/Chechnya-Tombstone-Russian-Anatol-Lieven/dp/0300078811

My War Gone by, I Miss It So
http://www.amazon.com/My-War-Gone-Miss-So/dp/0552771333/ref=sr_1_1/002-4337874-3883269?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174183265&sr=1-1by Anthony Loyd
(My personal favorite! His descriptions of war in Chechnya would give you idea why would people in Chechnya turn to suicide attacks and accepts Wahabi radical ideas. He went back in Bosnian war to get rest of war in Chechnya!!?)

[Jedburgh]

...I need to read more about Chechnya, it seems. Any suggestions on good books on the subject?
Not books, but SWJED provided links last May to the pdf transcripts of a series of interviews conducted with Chechen commanders back in '99 (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=761).

Back in 1998 - 1999 I was the manager of a Marine Corps project supporting the Corps' Urban Warrior program - our goal was to gain the perspective of those who had planned and conducted an urban insurgency against a modern conventional force. Ms. Marie Bennigsen Broxup conducted interviews of 20 Chechen commanders and staff officers in Chechnya.....

[jcustis]

Did anyone catch the recent show that highlighted the culture of suicide bombers, dating back to the almost teenage Iranian soldier who loaded himself down with explosives and charged a Iraqi tank?

It could have been the History Channel or National Geographic show for all I can remember. It may have even been Pelton conducting the interviews. A couple of things stuck with me though, and I think they are important:

1) The sense of martyrdom is enhanced through the IO aspect of murals, posters, T-shirts, etc., that make it into the open to render honor to a bomber. These are powerful images indeed, and I imagine they shape the youth that see them in much the same way that Provo murals influenced the minds of young Irish lads growing up during the troubles. I've been driven to ask myself where the line exists between suicide/martyrdom in the Judeo-Christian and Islamic contexts.

2) As long as martyrdom can be held up as a noble construct that suppresses the fear of death (or at least allows a candidate to overcome his fear), there may never be an effective countermeasure beyond blunt force.

[Sarajevo071]

Not sure if is same documentary but to me that sounds like:

The Cult of the Suicide Bomber (2005) with ex-CIA Robert Baer narrating and going in places like Iran, Hezbollah heartland in Lebanon, Palestine...
http://www.amazon.com/Cult-Suicide-Bomber-Robert-Baer/dp/B000FG8BO6

Or could be:
Inside the Mind of a Suicide Bomber (History Channel) (2003)
http://www.amazon.com/Inside-Suicide-Bomber-History-Channel/dp/B000FBFYTG/ref=pd_bxgy_d_text_b/104-5658104-2043108

But if you are talking about first movie it is very informative and made good.

[Bill Moore]

I read over the heated posts on this site, and wonder why there is so much debate over why terrorists employ suicide bombers as a tactic. The primary reason is that it works, and the second order effects just keep on giving:

1. Sucide Bombers not only create a climate of fear, but require our forces to use defensive tactics that are counter productive in winning the hearts and minds.

2. Once the tactic is validated not only by its effectiveness, but by its social acceptance, it will rapidly spread (find more an more volunteers). The global media (T.V., internet, etc.) has made it not only acceptable, but desirable.

3. It is a poor man's guided missile that not only goes bang and achieves the desired tactical effects, but makes the headlines, sells the war effort (creation of martyrs), and forces us to spend a disproportionate amount of money on defensive measures.


I found the talk about money somewhat amusing, because suicide bombers don't bomb for money, they do it for the cause they believe in. Do you fight only for money? Several suicide bombers are well educated and finacially secure. We're attempting to wish a problem away if we think throwing money at it will change the conditions. While I think the PRTs are doing great work, what effect are they really having? Are we winning? If you hate someone, and then they offer you a $100.00 and ask you how do you like me now? What are you going to say? Listen to the narratives of the terrorists and you will realize you're not going to win them over anytime soon with economic incentives. The economic olive branch is extended to those sitting on the fence, in hopes they don't join the terrorists.

What concerns me is the spread of terrorism throughout the Muslim world, becaus it was not culturally acceptable in Afghanistan, and I think we'll start seeing it employed in SE Asia within the next couple of years.

If Jim Jones can convince educated Westerners to drink the poison Kool Aid, then I don't see why it is so hard to understand why soldiers who are devoutly religious would be willing to die to further their cause. Perhaps our culture has become so materialistic and void of values that we simply can't comprehend this act? Why do we think everyone wants to be like us, the Prozac nation? I think we need to "accept" the fact that many people hate us with a passion, regardless of how many candy bars we pass out, and hate is a powerful emotion that can and is exploited.

[kaur]

"Suicide Bombers Profiles, Methods and Techniques," by SFC Merle Miyasato

http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/Suicide-Bombers.pdf

[120mm]

I read over the heated posts on this site, and wonder why there is so much debate over why terrorists employ suicide bombers as a tactic. The primary reason is that it works, and the second order effects just keep on giving:

1. Sucide Bombers not only create a climate of fear, but require our forces to use defensive tactics that are counter productive in winning the hearts and minds.

2. Once the tactic is validated not only by its effectiveness, but by its social acceptance, it will rapidly spread (find more an more volunteers). The global media (T.V., internet, etc.) has made it not only acceptable, but desirable.

3. It is a poor man's guided missile that not only goes bang and achieves the desired tactical effects, but makes the headlines, sells the war effort (creation of martyrs), and forces us to spend a disproportionate amount of money on defensive measures.


I found the talk about money somewhat amusing, because suicide bombers don't bomb for money, they do it for the cause they believe in. Do you fight only for money? Several suicide bombers are well educated and finacially secure. We're attempting to wish a problem away if we think throwing money at it will change the conditions. While I think the PRTs are doing great work, what effect are they really having? Are we winning? If you hate someone, and then they offer you a $100.00 and ask you how do you like me now? What are you going to say? Listen to the narratives of the terrorists and you will realize you're not going to win them over anytime soon with economic incentives. The economic olive branch is extended to those sitting on the fence, in hopes they don't join the terrorists.

What concerns me is the spread of terrorism throughout the Muslim world, becaus it was not culturally acceptable in Afghanistan, and I think we'll start seeing it employed in SE Asia within the next couple of years.

If Jim Jones can convince educated Westerners to drink the poison Kool Aid, then I don't see why it is so hard to understand why soldiers who are devoutly religious would be willing to die to further their cause. Perhaps our culture has become so materialistic and void of values that we simply can't comprehend this act? Why do we think everyone wants to be like us, the Prozac nation? I think we need to "accept" the fact that many people hate us with a passion, regardless of how many candy bars we pass out, and hate is a powerful emotion that can and is exploited.

No one here, was saying they fight "only for money". the "heated exchange" was in response to Sarajevo CLAIMING we said the suicide bombers were fighting "only for money." To overreact and build the straw man argument that any individual here is so foolish as to claim that kind of ticks me off. (I take it as a personal affront.)

Having said that, money is a significant reason why I, personally, remain in uniform. And I am not "materialistic". I'm more of the "wanting to feed my family without being on welfare" ilk. My membership in the Reserves has limited my employment ability to sub-poverty level jobs or military contracting. In fact, yours and Sarajevos insinuation that I am "materialistic" (whatever the hell that means), because I dared to discuss the issue, kind of pisses me off.

The question was, and remains, what role does money play in the decision to become a suicide bomber. The answer, as Sarajevo has pointed out so eloquently in subsequent posts appears to be, "It's different, based on your culture." Personally, if my culture supported suicide bombing, money in sufficient amounts to care for my family in perpetuity, wouldn't be a cause for me to become a suicide bomber, but I believe it would influence my decision, based on my already-mentioned brush with poverty and the fact that my role as husband, father and provider has once been damaged to the point where I considered myself worth less than my insurance policy.

Thank you for the reading suggestions, I will make an effort to get through them. And my apologies if I am misreading intent, here, and for any slights I may have given.

[Sarajevo071]

Hm… OK. Me taking the high road and not wishing to go into pissing competition with you seams didn’t work and you take that like my agreement that you are right. Please, don’t take my measured responses before like my weakness. I was only being polite guest here. But, you pushed. So, here it goes…
(Others, please forgive me long response and explanations but I deem then necessary in this case)


120mm,

I wasn’t “implying” anything and I thought I was clear without need to spell out every single thing. I guess my mistake. Sorry, I don’t have PhD. So, let me correct that now.

I strongly believe that other “minor things” have to do MORE with they hate and wish to sacrifice themselves then money! Like:

Decade long sanctions that killed HALF-MILLION Iraqi kids, bombing or shooting they civilians left and right, killings tens of thousands of they soldiers, invading they country for no real reason except oil and Israel security and based on BIG lie about Iraqi connections with 9/11 and terrorism, CONTINUES killings, imprisonment and rapes of innocent Iraqis (many of them FRIENDLY to US but after imprisonment, torture or killings of they family members, women and kids, end up going STRAIGHT to Insurgency or to suicide missions), for bringing terrorism and sectarian war in they country (things that they did NOT have before)…

MAYBE, just maybe that “minor” things have to do more with ever growing hate and resentment of US and West, and ever growing fear of Muslim world that is showing in growing numbers of suicide attacks and support in Muslim masses that they will not support that otherwise! Also, I dare to say here… Most Muslims do not support those attacks, especially against civilians, but after everything that happened they understand. And that’s huge thing considering how much Islam is against suicide and attacking and hurting civilians.

If you know a drop about your state of mind and motivations of your enemy (you mention of being interrogator!?) you should know all this by yourself (or try to learn) … But you don’t. You keep insisting on YOUR OWN reasons why you stayed in reserve, and you keep mentioning reason is - MONEY!?

You self (for second or third time) proving my own point of western materialistic mind-set and keep insisting of applying your own western/materialistic values in trying to understand something that have NOTHING to do with materialism! And then, you get offended for me calling you materialistic… Where is mentioning of “doing the right thing” or “patriotism” in your reasons!? Since you are not materialistic… I can see only mention of money.

If you know your enemy you will know that they believe that doing that “sacrifice” is precisely the right way of helping they families (and themselves). Having in mind monetary “security” would be monetary gain which if AGAINST everything they believe and doing for! If you know a drop about your state of mind and motivations of your enemy you will know that no one is doing that for the monetary gain, money security or “pension payments”… And that no one goes around asking “who will help and pay my family if I do this?” They just DON’T DO THAT.

Insisting that you are right and that we should accept that, and we should based anti-terror fight on that wrong assumption would put us in bigger danger since we will develop wrong tactic and fight wrong battles… Like we are doing right now.


end and out.

[120mm]

Very good points, Sarajevo. But I fail to see where you connect "wanting to see one's family survive" to "materialism." If you deconstruct it far enough, your desire to breathe can be shown as a completely selfish act of rampant "materialism." Some of the most "materialistic" people I have ever known happen to come from the "Oriental" world.

Also would be very interested in "why" various sympathetic agents pay the families of suicide bombers. I can think of a few reasons: They want to be seen as "supporting the struggle" without actually risking their own status quo. Do terrorists and their supporters see through this? Was Saddam's payment of Palestinian suicide bombers seen as insincere, or was it seen as "Saddam finally coming around to our point of view."

It is possible that the paying of money could be an I/O campaign aimed at the "materialistic west" and we somehow miss the meaning of it entirely.

At least in the Arab cultures I'm familiar with, largesse is common. To my reasoning, it is to show that "materialism" means nothing to them. Is this just a western-misinterpreted Arab largesse?

On the point of soldiering for money: It is not uncommon, regardless of culture. I continue to put my uniform on during drills and training because it pays well. At one time I did it for adventure. At another I did it for patriotism. Now, though, after doing it for 20+ years, it has become such a part of me; I both hate and love it, but if they missed a paycheck, I'd retire and never go back. I can't see a suicide bomber doing it for money, but I think there is a certain utility to a discussion of what role money DOES play in COIN, because it most surely does.

[Sarajevo071]

Very good points, Sarajevo. But I fail to see where you connect "wanting to see one's family survive" to "materialism." If you deconstruct it far enough, your desire to breathe can be shown as a completely selfish act of rampant "materialism." Some of the most "materialistic" people I have ever known happen to come from the "Oriental" world.

Not that. I was simply referring on your look being “too materialistic and to western” looking thru that experience… And I was comparing my own experience… Being wounded 2 times, loosing so much on material and almost everything on personal level, and not getting dime to show for it… Except “satisfaction” that I did “right thing”.

Stupid, I know.



Also would be very interested in "why" various sympathetic agents pay the families of suicide bombers. I can think of a few reasons: They want to be seen as "supporting the struggle" without actually risking their own status quo. Do terrorists and their supporters see through this? Was Saddam's payment of Palestinian suicide bombers seen as insincere, or was it seen as "Saddam finally coming around to our point of view."

It is possible that the paying of money could be an I/O campaign aimed at the "materialistic west" and we somehow miss the meaning of it entirely.

I believe I answer (or I tried to answer) that from they perspective… One can be part of (armed) jihad in many different ways. Fighting, material support, moral support, spreading the word and news, praying for mujahideens… So those who don’t fight they send money. That’s not payment but rather “gratitude” and “thanks” for they sacrifice for better Umma (meaning ALL of Muslims). I think, it’s bigger benefit for those are GIVING then for those that receive. Or something like that.



At least in the Arab cultures I'm familiar with, largesse is common. To my reasoning, it is to show that "materialism" means nothing to them. Is this just a western-misinterpreted Arab largesse?

Look, you have many examples of jihadi leaving they jobs, riches, carriers, families (with small kids, even babies!) behind them… If that is not non-materialistic then I don’t know what is it. You are right in the way that war payments & war booty is common in Arabs. But first made distinction between Arabs (Arab have wide meaning) and Muslims. Then you will see that Muslims (being Arab or not) see spending wealth in Jihad like form of being in war! So for them that will not be “spending” or “rewording” others or paying them but more like “investing” in they own well being like Muslims and afterlife.



On the point of soldiering for money: It is not uncommon, regardless of culture. I continue to put my uniform on during drills and training because it pays well. At one time I did it for adventure. At another I did it for patriotism. Now, though, after doing it for 20+ years, it has become such a part of me; I both hate and love it, but if they missed a paycheck, I'd retire and never go back. I can't see a suicide bomber doing it for money, but I think there is a certain utility to a discussion of what role money DOES play in COIN, because it most surely does.

But not that much that I think you seems to imply… Yes, it’s not uncommon for asking to be paid. Soldiers need food, weapons and clothes. What I am saying is - that’s not primary reason why Muslim soldiers going in jihad. Nor why they doing suicide attacks. If you read those examples from Chechnya you will see that none of them was paid and that primary reason was revenge and wish to do something with only weapons they have… They own life.

That was actual explanation of one Palestinian suicide bomber.

[Sarajevo071]

Now, I would like to thank you on all your responses, time and posts, and I wish to stop here… We made good arguments and points but I think we are talking to much space and time from others.

:cool:

[marct]

Not that. I was simply referring on your look being “too materialistic and to western” looking thru that experience… And I was comparing my own experience… Being wounded 2 times, loosing so much on material and almost everything on personal level, and not getting dime to show for it… Except “satisfaction” that I did “right thing”.

Stupid, I know.

Not "stupid"; standing up for what you believe in and doing the "right thing" is rarely "stupid" although individual actions in the course of doing "the right thing" may be. That is something inherent in the human condition :wry:.


....One can be part of (armed) jihad in many different ways. Fighting, material support, moral support, spreading the word and news, praying for mujahideens… So those who don’t fight they send money. That’s not payment but rather “gratitude” and “thanks” for they sacrifice for better Umma (meaning ALL of Muslims). I think, it’s bigger benefit for those are GIVING then for those that receive. Or something like that.

Christianity has / had a similar concept (i.e. the Communion of Saints). It's still in the theology, but it isn't part of most Christian's "lived reality". As Christianity moved more and more into a more secular and/or personal form, this pretty much disappeared from the overall cultures. I suspect that the final nail in its coffin was he 30 years war in Germany during he 17th century that gave rise to the modern nation state system.

I'm bringing this up because the idea of the Umma is quite hard for most Westerners to understand, at least in its practical application in furtherance of a jihad.


Look, you have many examples of jihadi leaving they jobs, riches, carriers, families (with small kids, even babies!) behind them… If that is not non-materialistic then I don’t know what is it. You are right in the way that war payments & war booty is common in Arabs. But first made distinction between Arabs (Arab have wide meaning) and Muslims. Then you will see that Muslims (being Arab or not) see spending wealth in Jihad like form of being in war! So for them that will not be “spending” or “rewording” others or paying them but more like “investing” in they own well being like Muslims and afterlife.

And that type of mindset is almost non-existent in the West, which is why it is so hard to understand. It is also one of the reasons why many Western academics, mainly Marxists and their close kin, "translate" the impulses leading to suicide bombers in terms of the secular theology they are familiar with, i.e. as a result of poverty and "oppression".

"Translating" motivations between "cultures", in this case I prefer the term "life worlds" (not quite the same thing, but probably more apropos in this instance), is always difficult, but it gets much harder when core areas of the two life worlds are radically different. For example, the Anglo Culture Complex has a cultural trait of what might be called "radical individualism" tempered, as the social level, by a belief in discussion and negotiation before violence. Part of this culture trait comes out of the Protestant concept of no one standing between an individual and God (although it's roots go back well before Christianity).

This can easily lead other cultural groups to view the Anglo Complex as "vacillating" or "endlessly talking and never doing", and that perception is usually formed by people in cultures which are more centrally oriented oriented in terms of symbolic authority (what Karl Polanyi called a Redistributive form of social organization: "things" flow into the centre and are distributed to everyone from the centre). This certainly seems to have been Hitler's perception of the West and, from what I have heard and seen, bin Laden's as well. This misunderstands how the Anglo Complex operates and leads many to drastically underestimate what members of the Anglo Complex will do in a situation where open conflict happens.

Marc

[120mm]

Now, I would like to thank you on all your responses, time and posts, and I wish to stop here… We made good arguments and points but I think we are talking to much space and time from others.

:cool:
Sarajevo, this was space and time well spent. You did a lot to help "the light go on" in my head about Dar es Islam. (Well, combined with reading like mad). Now, I will go and digest this information. Thank you.

[Sarajevo071]

Thank you 120mm. I was just trying to help. I am researching thematic of terrorism, modern/urban wars and today’s Islamic movements for more then decade now, and I thought I could help. For months I was just trolling and reading amazing posts, opinions, experiences and studies here. I was taken with smart and honest talks and exchange of opinions from the first day I stumble on this place…

I felt, it was my time to help and contribute. Hope I will be able to that more in future.

[Culpeper]

I don't think suicide attacks work in the long run. There is always a rash of suicide attacks that eventually tapper off with nothing accomplished except for less bad guys, one at a time, and a lot of dead innocent people. Israel is a good example. Suicide attacks are overrated both tactically and strategically. It is just a stupid tactic by stupid people that end up not getting want they want. These type of people only accomplish eating their own young.

[TROUFION]

Culpeper, I have to disagree.

Look at Iraq. Suicide attacks are one of many types of attacks, yet they garner the largest media response. Also they get the most inflamatory reaction. The 'rampage' by Shiite Militia and Police in Mosul yesterday is a great example of reaction (over-reaction). If you examine the intent of the attacks: to cause a rift between the factions, to instigate civil war, it is having an effect.

Look at the US Congress, casualties (US and Iraqi) are fueling the the fire behind the withdrawal rhetoric. They are passing these Bills to tie funding to a time table for withdrawal, if the President Vetos the Bill then the Congress still achieves the objective of cutting off funding, and they can blame it on the Bush Admin. An announced timetable for withdrawal will immediatly place US/coalition forces in a lame duck status, with no authority.

Suicide attacks in Iraq are driving the sensational casualties, they gain media coverage far greater than a simple remote IED. They instigate sectarian responses, these responses could lead to increased civil war, the civil war is a big reason touted for withdrawal of US forces, the announced withdrawal of US forces on a timeline will negate their presence and defeat the 'surge' possibilities for success. The only response left that seems promising in small scale currently is the reaction of some Sunni groups to the mass killings of Iraqi's-the distancing of them from Al Qeada etc. But this is probably too little too late. This Counter-reaction will most likely fade fast once a timeline for US withdrawal is announced and the average Sunni is forced to fend for himself.

No, I do think, unfortunately that the suicide attacks are having, like a raid, effects far out reaching the troops and resources expended.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070328/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

[marct]

I just got this from the Proteus mailing list. It's worth looking at.

Countering Suicide Terrorism


In February 2000, The International Institute for Counter-Terrorism (ICT) conducted its second international conference at the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya, Israel. The conference dealt with the phenomenon of suicide attacks and was attended by many world-renowned scholars, such as Ehud Shprinzak, Martha Crenshaw, Rohan Gunarathna and others. The lecturers provided historical perspective and addressed the phenomenon of suicide attacks in different regions of the world, while giving special focus to suicide attacks in Israel, Sri-Lanka, India, Lebanon, and Turkey. As a product of the conference, ICT published one of the first books on the phenomenon of suicide terrorism - Countering Suicide Terrorism.

Since the year 2000, the phenomenon of suicide attacks has spread all over the world and many countries have found themselves suffering the effects of this growing terrorist modus operandi. Suicide terrorism's increasing threat, global spread, lethality, special characteristics and the enormous challenge of countering it have raised special scholarly interest in the subject. Many articles and books have been written in recent years on this phenomenon, some of them with contradicting conclusions. As the Countering Suicide Terrorism books were sold out and due to the growing interest in this subject, ICT decided to republish this book in a digital format that can be downloaded from its website. Some of the articles in the digital version were left as they were in the original book while other articles were updated or rewritten. We believe that these articles can contribute to the existing scholarly effort in understanding the growing threat of Suicide terrorism.

In order to draw your attention, ICT published my updated article "The Rationality of the Islamic Radical Suicide attack phenomenon" on March 21, 2007 on our website <http://ict.org.il/apage/11290.php> . This article serves as an introduction to the subject.

Please download your copy of the reversed ICT publication of "Countering Suicide Terrorism"
<http://www.ict.org.il/var/119/51563-Countering%20Suicide%20Terrorism.pdf (http://www.ict.org.il/var/119/51563-Countering&#37;20Suicide%20Terrorism.pdf)>
Marc

[Ender]

There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact. -- Mark Twain

I mention this quote because this is what I am reminded of when I read Pape in relation to suicide terrorism. (I do however, agree with his positions on air power so he can’t be all bad.;)) I am sure he has a mountain of evidence to support his position on the motivations of suicide attacks and I would venture that he could articulate his position better than I could mine, but that does NOT make him right. If I may be allowed to grossly paraphrase his position, he feels the catalyst for suicidal terrorism lies with a common, unified sense of nationalism that is nebulously territorial. To be perfectly candid, nothing I saw or heard in either of my deployments meshes with what this guy is saying. I am not saying that there are not, and never have been attacks that were motivated by this, only that we shouldn't amplify the voices of a handful posthumously simply because they were one of the few who cited this as their cause of choice. Many others cite politics and religious factors in their final video farewells but this does not make policy or faith the sole factor either.

It seems as though we want to treat thugs and punks as though they are statesmen and scholars and the simple fact is that the (untrained) world is loosely divided into two groups. There are those for whom violence is a last resort and an action to be considered when all others are exhausted and then there are those for whom violence is the first tool they reach for. If only the attacks in Iraq today were motivated by such lofty ideals as a “Unified Muslim Nation…” That a percentage of the attackers and instigators are educated, or come from families of some means does not mitigate the fact that they are using violent methods or exculpate them in any way. In my opinion it simply makes them a higher level thug and a greater threat to our security. Because ONE attacker, or ONE HUNDRED attackers comes from money does not mean that money is not a factor in all of this, it simply means that more likely than not, their own personal casus belli is not economically driven. That ONE attacker or ONE THOUSAND attackers may be impious, unobservant Muslims does not mean that religion does not have anything to do with this, but simply that they personally are not driven by the call to jihad.

The truth is that the clarion call has gone out to every bomb maker, hit man, sniper, petty thief, thug, ruffian and assassin out there. The message? That there are Americans, American TROOPS to be killed in Iraq and Afghanistan and it is being sent to the homicidal and suicidal alike. In addition to the usual suspects in terrorism, the message is also being delivered to the homes and gardens, wells and mosques of any person, anywhere who might have a grievance or personal beef with America. The motivations for what brings them (and the majority of the bad guys we encountered, were in fact imports) are as varied and as diverse as they can be. I generally agree that some of the people who are drawn to Iraq may have legitimate concerns or cases against the United States, that for some they are acting out of rage or desperation but I think they are again, the exception and not the rule. So while some may truly “believe” in what they are doing, most do not have such lofty ideals. We are not a perfect people and sadly despite our tremendous potential, we do not always do the right thing. Having said that, this is the best system going and for whatever flaws we may truly own, the second someone decides to be that second person and resort to violence with us the talking #### has to stop.

I completely agree that “5.56, 7.62 and .50cal are not acceptable countermeasures” and that to have to beat someone at the scene so to speak is a “point defense” that does not address the real problem. Having said that, I firmly believe the primary motivation for any attack on us over there is to instill as much doubt, fear, terror and confusion into the minds of the Iraqi and American populace as they can. With suicidal methods they are not attacking us from a tactical mindset and this is blatantly obvious because the finest military minds in the world say that these methods make zero tactical sense. That they can inflict some casualties at all is a victory that only sweetens the deal. So while I do agree that 5.56 etc… does not work as a counter measure, I am COMPLETELY convinced that .22cal, 9mm, and 5.56 are extremely effective preemptive tools, time and place dependent. (Usually the sooner the better and wherever they think they are SAFEST.) One sure way to communicate with someone who deals in terror is to use their own methods against them. I am not suggesting we send our own bombers out but rather that we choose when the bombers die and not them. From a political standpoint nothing deflates their sails faster than when the camera man gets clipped halfway through filming an attack. On a personal level nothings says "Be afraid," as well as when the neighborhood SVBIED maker is dropped outside his home, in front of his family in broad daylight. I don’t want to RESPOND to anything, I want to make them have to respond to me. If every second of their day is spent wondering, if one eye and half their mind is oriented on the footsteps behind them, they will never be as effective as when they felt safe to plan at ease among their own. Some would argue that going after the bombers and shooters themselves has little to no effect in the long term and I think that is gold plated crap. Hunting can not be your only solution and other steps need to take place concurrently with the hunt in order to succeed in the long term, but to skip the executors of the policy for the policy makers leaves a threat behind that will not “change its mind.”

Troufion originally asked whether we thought suicide attacks and the use of the methodology is successful and if so what the end state or goal would be. I feel that the attacks are successful for two reasons, neither of which is tactical. The first is that they believe they are successful and the second is that we do allow them to be successful or at the very least inadvertently perpetuate their success by vacillation.

They must feel on some level that they are successful or I contend they would not continue with these methods. I use my own personal experience as evidence. My first deployment was completely different than my second. The reason was not that we had changed, but that the enemy had. If the “Muslim playbook” calls for suicide bombings and the like the second the infidel occupies holy land, as Pape would have us believe, (I am exaggerating) then I wonder why it took so long for the practice to be adopted in Iraq? If we are so detested that our very presence on Muslim soil is looked on with loathing and murderous or suicidal thoughts then I wonder why the majority of the civilians over there truly feel they are better off now than under Saddam? Why is the single greatest fear of the Iraqi farmer not that we will stay but that we will leave without fulfilling our promises? My point is that in an evolutionary, Darwinian sense the tactics that best suited our Syrian, Iranian, Lebanese, Chechen, Egyptian, Somalian…and some Iraqi attackers to their environments were the ones that did not get them killed. (My Anthropology professor would be proud.) Tactics that are not conducive to life are quickly scrapped....

[Ender]

So where does suicide terror fit with this and what is its end state? As I said tactics that do not keep you alive are not tactics at all. So that must mean that there is more than one focus to the bombing campaign and suicide terror is actually driven by operational and strategic motivations. There is a tactical component to the “bombing campaign” but it involves the prolific use of IED’s and is the topic of another thread I saw here so I will not try to elaborate on that component now.

Assume for a second that the motivations for promoting a suicide campaign are strategic and that the perpetrators may know more about us then we would like to admit. Whenever your enemy possesses a weapon or a method you do not it is at the very least, reason to pause and reflect. In essence that is exactly what suicide terror is, it is a level that we will not stoop to, nor could if we wanted to because we do not have the slightest basis to mentally wrap our arms around an action (suicide) that fundamentally runs contrary to everything we have ever been taught or know. From a strategic standpoint those who perpetrate and film the attacks know all too well it is much easier to let us beat ourselves at home with television and computer going hand in hand with relative ignorance and complacency than it is to defeat us over there with rifles and bombs. The insurgents do not have to beat us over there; they just need to outlast us.

I do not feel that the suicidal terror is an act of desperation or impotence. It takes a tremendous amount of warped resolve to strap yourself to a vest or inside a vehicle that will take your life. It takes a certain amount of inner fortitude to kiss your wife and kids goodbye and allow yourself to be placed in operational solitude for an event that will prevent you from ever seeing them again. Clich&#233; or not I am reminded of a quote from Marlon Brando’s character Kurtz in Apocalypse Now,

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078788/quotes

“I remember when I was with Special Forces. Seems a thousand centuries ago. We went into a camp to inoculate the children. We left the camp after we had inoculated the children for Polio, and this old man came running after us and he was crying. He couldn't see. We went back there and they had come and hacked off every inoculated arm. There they were in a pile. A pile of little arms. And I remember... I... I... I cried. I wept like some grandmother. I wanted to tear my teeth out. I didn't know what I wanted to do. And I want to remember it. I never want to forget it. I never want to forget. And then I realized... like I was shot... like I was shot with a diamond... a diamond bullet right through my forehead. And I thought: My God... the genius of that. The genius. The will to do that. Perfect, genuine, complete, crystalline, pure. And then I realized they were stronger than we. Because they could stand that these were not monsters. These were men... trained cadres. These men who fought with their hearts, who had families, who had children, who were filled with love... but they had the strength... the strength... to do that. If I had ten divisions of those men our troubles here would be over very quickly. You have to have men who are moral... and at the same time who are able to utilize their primordial instincts to kill without feeling... without passion... without judgment... without judgment. Because it's judgment that defeats us.”

I am not cheering Kurtz or implying that the enemy is “stronger” than us because they are more inclined to stoop to moral depravity than we. What I would like to highlight from this is that suicide specifically and bombing in general is part of a sociological and cultural complex over there and we can not measure their actions by our own relatively ethnocentric experiences. “Because they could stand that these were not monsters.” I am less afraid of the SVBIED attacker himself or the engineer who aids him but I AM TERRIFIED of the mother who weeps tears of sorrow and JOY when that same attacker kisses her goodbye for the last time. My point is that we do not have the slightest basis for mentally absorbing this kind of behavior, it will never make sense to us, and until we truly understand why some (even a small percentage) of the population agrees with and supports suicidal attacks we will be no closer to a true answer than we are now.

One last thought in relation to suicide attacks being a complex or an “industry” of sorts. Any suicide vests we ever found came in groups of three or more. All of the vests in any one particular site or cache were invariably, identically constructed and uniformly designed. This may not sound like much but it says a great deal to me. Military organizations mass produce the items they know they are going to use often. The number of vests produced indicate that the “insurgency” (in all of its 52 flavors) plans on using them often enough to warrant making ten as opposed to one. I disagree that they have legions of trained suicide bombers lined up and ready to go but also do not believe this is an action born entirely and solely out of revenge or desperation. That the vests are usually stamped out as such indicates to me that this is less individualized, less emotional and less about desperation or rage. No one (that we ever saw) adds “For Ahmed, who died at the hands of the infidel” on his vest or vehicle and any actions I ever saw from the enemy looked less like a heart thing and more like cold, hard math.

[TROUFION]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070617/ap_on_re_as/afghan_violence

suicide attacks grow in afghanistan, what is the driver, the end state of this style of warfare, it generates fear, resentment and casualties its extreme means gains press coverage but the strategic end goal has to be more than this. It seems from some angles to be counterproductive. In cultures that value 'honor and justice' I don't see much true justice in killing civilians, the honor, I question the honor of the attacks but that is a cultural bias.

[Abu Buckwheat]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070617/ap_on_re_as/afghan_violence

suicide attacks grow in afghanistan, what is the driver, the end state of this style of warfare, it generates fear, resentment and casualties its extreme means gains press coverage but the strategic end goal has to be more than this. It seems from some angles to be counterproductive. In cultures that value 'honor and justice' I don't see much true justice in killing civilians, the honor, I question the honor of the attacks but that is a cultural bias.


View all SPBIED and SVBIED attacks for what they are ... Human Guided Weapons systems ... the motivation may be personal and religious but thats no different than the programming of a JDAM. Its a weapons platform that can retarget... if you view it this way it makes sense that apart from the IO exploitation there is no difference between a Zero or a Judy plowing into a ship off Japan and a SVBIED ramming a NATO convoy.

[Culpeper]

We are all aware that suicide attacks have increased dramatically since 2001.

We are all aware that modern suicide attacks began in Palestine/Levant during the 1980's.

Civilizied peoples deplore, condemn and disdain suicide and suicide warfare.

BUT, the real question is this: is suicide warfare effective? What is the purpose, method and intent? The end state?

If effective then what are the counter-measures (and no 5.56, 7.62 and .50 cal are not effective counter-measures they are point defense and do not attack the root of the problem).

Suicide attacks are a sign of desperation. It is a sign that a society is willing to eat its young to avoid meeting the enemy within rules of engagement. Most suicide attacks today target civilians. What countermeasures did the United States use against Japanese suicide attacks against our military? It certainly wasn't counter-suicide attacks. Suicide attacks can be a liability in the long run. It is a gamble to sway public opinion. It's up to the public to decide. Some things just aren't decided by politics and military. Hamas has not succeeded in destroying Israel with individual suicide attacks against civilians. It has caused much pain and debate amongst public opinion but it hasn't changed a thing with Israel. Israel is in the same position it was before some idiot decided it would be a good idea to send their children off to kill themselves and other civilians. So, the most effective countermeasure for today's suicide attacks is an informed public opinion. It is the one area where it is the civilians dying and therefore it is up to them what will happen to the other side. If they decide that they have had enough and want to negotiate than that is what will probably happen. If they decide they have had enough and want the destruction of those involved no matter the cost than that is what will probably happen.

[Jedburgh]

Pew Global Opinion Trends 2002-2007, 24 Jul 07: A Rising Tide Lifts Mood in the Developing World
47 Nation Pew Global Attitudes Survey

It is a global survey, but the bit that relates to the topic of this thread is that the survey reflects a Sharp Decline in Support for Suicide Bombing in Muslim Countries (http://pewglobal.org/reports/pdf/257.pdf)

....Among the most striking trends in predominantly Muslim nations is the continuing decline in the number saying that suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilians are justifiable in the defense of Islam. In Lebanon, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Indonesia, the proportion of Muslims who view suicide bombing and other attacks against civilians as being often or sometimes justified has declined by half or more over the past five years.

Wide majorities say such attacks are, at most, rarely acceptable. However, this is decidedly not the case in the Palestinian territories. Fully 70% of Palestinians believe that suicide bombings against civilians can be often or sometimes justified, a position starkly at odds with Muslims in other Middle Eastern, Asian, and African nations.

The decreasing acceptance of extremism among Muslims also is reflected in declining support for Osama bin Laden. Since 2003, Muslim confidence in bin Laden to do the right thing in world affairs has fallen; in Jordan, just 20% express a lot or some confidence in bin Laden, down from 56% four years ago. Yet confidence in bin Laden in the Palestinian territories, while lower than it was in 2003, remains relatively high (57%)......
The section of the report on the Middle East and the Muslim world begins on page 59 of the pdf.

[marct]

From Columbia University Press



ON SUICIDE BOMBINGTalal Asad
BUY THIS BOOK ONLINE (http://www.columbia.edu/cu/cup/publicity/asad_excerpt.html#cart) | Read more about On Suicide Bombing (http://www.columbia.edu/cu/cup/catalog/data/978023114/9780231141529.HTM) | Listen to a podcast interview with Talal Asad (http://www.columbia.edu/cu/cup/publicity/asad_podcast.mp3)

View this excerpt in PDF format (http://www.columbia.edu/cu/cup/publicity/asad_excerpt.pdf) | Copyright information (http://www.columbia.edu/cu/cup/publicity/asad_excerpt.html#copyright)

Available at http://www.columbia.edu/cu/cup/publicity/asad_excerpt.html

[Pragmatic Thinker]

Perhaps death is a better alternative to living in a refugee camp? Or perhaps an easily influenced young man who believes American Imperialists are out to destroy his religion is easily persuaded to kill himself? The suicide bomber does believe he is going have a much better life awaiting him on the other side, so how do you defeat this? We as Americans value our lives and self-preservation is a common characterstic, so how do we defeat people who believe in an ideology that says it is acceptable and respected to strap on explosives or drive a vehicle laden with explosives into a crowd of people, or a convoy, or a public bus? I am not ready to blame the media for reporting it, the internet for allowing them to post the vidoes, nor am I going to blame foreign or military policy...this tactic is medieval and runs counter to our culture so what do you do?

PT

[marct]

Hi PT,


this tactic is medieval and runs counter to our culture so what do you do?

The short answer is to attack it at the level it operates at - the symbolic. The long answer is to really dig into Islam and reshape both the narrative used by the groups that push it and the symbolic equations they are using to support that narrative.

First, and foremost, shift the descriptive language (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2007/04/war-on-terrorism-aqstyle-terro/). Second, really examine who is doing these attacks - it isn't just "po, po people in refugee camps" as the last set of attacks in the UK demonstrate once again. Third, counter the symbolic equation inside the system by creating a series of symbolic "breaches" (these are paradoxes) which you resolve in a manner that is most advantageous to stopping these attacks.

These three actions are the symbolic equivalent of COIN ops and, like COIN, they only generate a breathing space for a "political" solution. At the symbolic level, this solution will ultimately call for the equivalent of a reformation inside Islam similar to that provoked by Al-Ghazali in the 12th century.

Marc

[Pragmatic Thinker]

Hi PT,



The short answer is to attack it at the level it operates at - the symbolic. The long answer is to really dig into Islam and reshape both the narrative used by the groups that push it and the symbolic equations they are using to support that narrative.

First, and foremost, shift the descriptive language (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2007/04/war-on-terrorism-aqstyle-terro/). Second, really examine who is doing these attacks - it isn't just "po, po people in refugee camps" as the last set of attacks in the UK demonstrate once again. Third, counter the symbolic equation inside the system by creating a series of symbolic "breaches" (these are paradoxes) which you resolve in a manner that is most advantageous to stopping these attacks.

These three actions are the symbolic equivalent of COIN ops and, like COIN, they only generate a breathing space for a "political" solution. At the symbolic level, this solution will ultimately call for the equivalent of a reformation inside Islam similar to that provoked by Al-Ghazali in the 12th century.

Marc

I am not implying that only poor people are suicide bombers, there are numerous college students and other professionals throughout the Middle East who volunteer for martydom as they call it. I get what you're saying but I have no faith that anyone in our government is willing to embrace these ideas. It is interesting to watch the Senate and Congress haul General Casey now Patreus on the carpet and ask for progress reports, but I don't see much of our Madam Secretary of State answering for what her department is doing or not doing to support the political solution. I am curious who decided arming Sunni militias in the western provinces to fight was a good idea for Iraq's long term success? Anyway, good posts and thanks for the reply....

[marct]

Hi PT,

Unfortunately, i do have to agree with your somewhat pessimistic take on the political process. I've been re-reading Sun Tsu and came across a lovely quote that seems to apply in this situation:


Sun Tsu, The Art of War, Samuel B. Griffith (trans), Oxford University Press, 1963 edition

Book 3, 19-22; 31-33

19. Now there are three ways in which a ruler can bring misfortune upon his army:
20. When ignorant that the army should not advance, to order an advance or ignorant that it should retire, to order a retirement. This is described as 'hobbling the army'.
21. When ignorant of military affairs, to participate in their administration. This causes the officers to be perplexed.
22. When ignorant of command problems to share in the exercise of responsibilities. This engenders doubts in he minds of the officers.
...

31. Therefore I say: 'Know the enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles you will never be in peril.
32. When you are ignorant of the enemy but know yourself, your chances of winning or losing are equal.
33. If ignorant of both your enemy and yourself, you are certain in every battle to be in peril.

[Merv Benson]

As a tactic against military units these operations have been very ineffective. In Iraq they have been primarily aimed at creating mass casualties among non combatants. This has caused a shrinking of support for these operations in almost all Muslim countries other than among the Palestinians.

One way to further shrink that support for these operations is to have more focus on the fact that the attacks are a war crime and a blatant violation of the Geneva Conventions. This would have the effect of further delegitimizing the tactic and reducing its effectiveness.

[jastay3]

Suicide bombers aren't even the weapon of the present. It seems to me they are running out of suicide bombers. And they have never had many in the first place, otherwise they would send them in wolf-packs(I've only heard of that done once). Suicide bombers are fearsome only because of novelty.
As a suicide bomber can only be used once(obviously) he is basicly a missile that walks about twenty miles in a day or rides about thirty an hour in a car. A suicide bomber takes fifteen years to "build"(be born and raised and properly propagandized). Unlike conventional missiles a suicide bomber can chicken out and not only refrain from exploding but defect to the enemy and betray his comrades.
Thus the effect of suicide bombers is primarily theatrical. While "the moral is to the physical as three to one", it is also true that "fammiliarity breeds contempt". Their effect is only in their strangeness which by definition lasts only so long as they are strange.

[jastay3]

Perhaps death is a better alternative to living in a refugee camp? Or perhaps an easily influenced young man who believes American Imperialists are out to destroy his religion is easily persuaded to kill himself? The suicide bomber does believe he is going have a much better life awaiting him on the other side, so how do you defeat this? We as Americans value our lives and self-preservation is a common characterstic, so how do we defeat people who believe in an ideology that says it is acceptable and respected to strap on explosives or drive a vehicle laden with explosives into a crowd of people, or a convoy, or a public bus? I am not ready to blame the media for reporting it, the internet for allowing them to post the vidoes, nor am I going to blame foreign or military policy...this tactic is medieval and runs counter to our culture so what do you do?

PT



Actually it is not even medieval. The Hasheshim were considered strange in their day as well.

[RTK]

Suicide bombers aren't even the weapon of the present. It seems to me they are running out of suicide bombers. And they have never had many in the first place, otherwise they would send them in wolf-packs(I've only heard of that done once). Suicide bombers are fearsome only because of novelty.
As a suicide bomber can only be used once(obviously) he is basicly a missile that walks about twenty miles in a day or rides about thirty an hour in a car. A suicide bomber takes fifteen years to "build"(be born and raised and properly propagandized). Unlike conventional missiles a suicide bomber can chicken out and not only refrain from exploding but defect to the enemy and betray his comrades.
Thus the effect of suicide bombers is primarily theatrical. While "the moral is to the physical as three to one", it is also true that "fammiliarity breeds contempt". Their effect is only in their strangeness which by definition lasts only so long as they are strange.

Your obvious lack of operational relevance is telling.

[Stan]

Hello Jastay3,


Suicide bombers aren't even the weapon of the present. It seems to me they are running out of suicide bombers. And they have never had many in the first place, otherwise they would send them in wolf-packs(I've only heard of that done once). Suicide bombers are fearsome only because of novelty.

I'm a tad confused with your recent post. Have you read some of the current stats available regarding suicide bombers lately ?

That is, where the vast majority come from ? Since 2003 studies indicate that suicide bombers in Iraq (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/18791.html) are mostly foreigners - only 15 to 18% were Iraqis.

I got this bad feeling that resources are not as scarce as you may have concluded.

Please also take a minute to introduce yourself here (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/forumdisplay.php?s=&daysprune=&f=33).

Regards, Stan

[Jedburgh]

A big chunk of the thread had gone slightly off-topic into a heated discussion comparing military ops to terrorism. I've cut that out and created a new thread. However, for those participating in the discussion on Terrorist Targeting vs Military Targeting (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=3737), keep in mind that this discussion can go south quickly (its already hovering on the edge) if anyone descends to direct attacks upon other members in the discussion, their affiliations or background. Attack the faults in the argument - not the presenter.

[RTK]

Unlike conventional missiles a suicide bomber can chicken out and not only refrain from exploding but defect to the enemy and betray his comrades.

AQIZ ensured this would not happen early on by rigging each "martyr" with a "command detonation device" should the participant get cold feet. The overwatch element would break trigger if it looked like the "missle" would scat.

When 44% are coming from Saudi (probably with a salafist background) and a full 10% of the 124 suicide bombers who's nationalities were known came from such western countries as Britain, France, Spain, and Italy, one can make a pretty good argument that it's not a 15 year cultivation program as you've stated. That's only 124 bombings. I don't know offhand, but I'd be willing to bet there have been upwards of 500 suicide bombings in the last 4 1/2 years.

Something quick and radical, I'd submit to you, is happening in these countries and I'd almost guarantee it's started since 2001. I'll leave it to Marc to extrapolate the meanings of these stats like only an anthropologist can.

[marct]

Hi Ryan,


Something quick and radical, I'd submit to you, is happening in these countries and I'd almost guarantee it's started since 2001. I'll leave it to Marc to extrapolate the meanings of these stats like only an anthropologist can.

I would think the increasing trend is seeing female suicide bombers and the reactions to them. As to when this started, I would actually place it a lot earlier - in the 1960s or early 1970s with the general rise of religious extremism in Islam, Christianity and Judaism. On the stats, I really don't like to make snap judgements on such a tiny data set. What I will note, however, is that the increase seems to be amongst the better educated and well off, usually 2nd generation in that socio-economic bracket, crowd. I think we are seeing the global outbreak of what Irving Hallowell called a Revitalization Movement.

[Stan]

From Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/leadership/careers/2007/08/24/female-suicide-bombers-cx_0827oxfordanalytica.html), "As more women perpetrate successful suicide attacks worldwide, the burden has increased on governments to craft innovative strategies to mitigate a threat that is both malleable and unpredictable."

Marc, You are light years ahead of these folks ! The article only came out today...did you draft it or what :cool:

I certainly hope your paycheck matches your intellect and keen sense of observation :rolleyes:


Women have always played an important role in violent jihadist circles, providing support, emotional preparation and encouragement to male terrorists. However, in recent years women have begun to themselves serve as suicide bombers, posing major challenges for international counter-terrorism efforts.

These women are driven by a variety of motivations, usually based on the adoption of a "collective identity" -- religion and community "stardom" are less significant motivators. Countering the threat will require non-traditional counter-terror strategies, including: involving more women in counter-terror roles, increasing community outreach and providing Muslim women with alternative means of self-expression and roles in the public sphere.

Recent arrests of Muslim women across Europe indicate a growing movement there towards violent jihad. Most of the women detained for terrorist offenses have subsequently been tried and convicted of supporting global jihadist movements:

--Netherlands. A Dutch-Moroccan woman named Bouchra El Hor is currently standing trial in London for writing a letter to her husband encouraging him to pursue martyrdom. In the letter, she said, "You and I have to separate for the sake of Allah."

--Switzerland. A Swiss-based Muslim woman of Belgian-Moroccan descent, Malika Al-Aroud, was charged in June with managing a terrorist Web site, al-minbar.sos, which displayed beheadings, kidnappings and extolled violent jihad. Al-Aroud has publicly declared her love for bin Laden and the Taliban's spiritual guide, Mullah Mohammed Omar.

--United Kingdom. Other women likely to stand trial in the United Kingdom include sisters Yeshiembet Girma and Muembembet Girma, who are accused of helping the male jihadists involved in the July 21, 2005 attempted bombings escape; Samina Malik, a woman from West London accused of possessing information likely to be useful to a terrorist; and Mehreen Haji, who with her husband is suspected of terrorism fundraising.

[davidbfpo]

There are a small number of academics who have thought about this issue, although from one seminar listening to three of them without any policy response or "tool kit".

I will try to find a link to the seminar, held in London earlier this year and a joint venture with an American university.

Two of the academics were American and the third, an Israeli male, who has interviewed Palestinina failed suicide bombers.

davidbfpo

[gh_uk]

@davidbfpo

I suspect the London event you are referring to is this one;

http://www.iiss.org/conferences/counter-terrorism-series/female-suicide-bombing-and-europe

Held at IISS in March 2007. The link above has some of the papers and presentations; did you also attend?

I believe the Israeli academic you are referring to is Yoram Schweitzer. He has a website here: http://www.labat.co.il/

GH

[MikeF]

Since the initial invasion of Iraq, we’ve seen a significant increase in suicide bombings. Prior to our invasion, this tactic was limited to very insignificant miscreants. Some claim that the advance of the suicide bomber is the primary question of our time.

Out of whatever desperation, what drives a man (or woman) to engage in such an activity- intentional suicide with the direct results of destroying civilians? Outside of military engagements(Japanese kamikazes and Tamil Tigers) and suburban recluses (Columbine), this venture is unheard of.

As a target of suicide bombers, I always questioned their decision making process. What made them so desperate?

Is it simply the way of the Arabs/Muslims- a tendacy towards violence? Is it a neglected childhood? Is it sexual repression? Is it rejection from love? Is it the defunct repressions from post-colonialism? Is it desperation out of a sense of or lack of manliness or Thurmos as defined by the Greeks?

What say you?

[davidbfpo]

There have been several threads on the role of suicide bombing in AQ's strategy, have a peek at them - much to learn.

How AQ and others define Jihad is a core issue and later will try to add an article that appeared recently.

davidbfpo

[Ron Humphrey]

Since the initial invasion of Iraq, we’ve seen a significant increase in suicide bombings. Prior to our invasion, this tactic was limited to very insignificant miscreants. Some claim that the advance of the suicide bomber is the primary question of our time.

Out of whatever desperation, what drives a man (or woman) to engage in such an activity- intentional suicide with the direct results of destroying civilians? Outside of military engagements(Japanese kamikazes and Tamil Tigers) and suburban recluses (Columbine), this venture is unheard of.

As a target of suicide bombers, I always questioned their decision making process. What made them so desperate?

Is it simply the way of the Arabs/Muslims- a tendacy towards violence? Is it a neglected childhood? Is it sexual repression? Is it rejection from love? Is it the defunct repressions from post-colonialism? Is it desperation out of a sense of or lack of manliness or Thurmos as defined by the Greeks?

What say you?

Is the fact that there may not be quite as much distance between the western and other cultures in this particular arena.

When looking at this in the past I got to looking at how common suicides or attempted suicides are even here. Now generally here it is a more private affair but that doesn't necessarily differentiate it. Imagine if someone were to be focusing on those here most likely to attempt it and were to

1- provide them with a assurance that they won't fail in their attempt

2- Place a nugget of purpose behind why its ok to do it(easy enough considering the already scewed state of mind)

3- Possibly offer incentives such as money for those they leave behind in order to get past that last piece of guilt

Just another way to look at it

[jmm99]

I can't answer why an individual would become an AQ or Hamas suicide bomber. The correct answer, in AQ-speak, is "for the greater glory of God".

Anyway, here are some references for evaluation.

----------------------------------------------
Raymond Ibrahim, The Al Qaeda Reader
Hardcover: 352 pages
Publisher: Doubleday; 1 edition (August 7, 2007)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 038551655X
ISBN-13: 978-0385516556

http://www.raymondibrahim.com/the_al_qaeda_reader

The relevant Al Qaeda document, prepared under Zawahiri's supervision and originally titled "Jihad and the Superiority of Martyrdom", is more a legal brief than anything else - well written and argued from the AQ standpoint. See pp. 141-171 of above.

The following two chunks of references follow Zawahiri's logic.

-----------------------------------------------
from Islam: The Perfect Way of Life
http://web.archive.org/web/20040929175351/abdulhaqq.jeeran.com/

The Islamic Ruling on the Permissibility of Martyrdom Operations
http://web.archive.org/web/20041011230417/abdulhaqq.jeeran.com/ruling.html

Fatwa of Sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi
http://web.archive.org/web/20041009222904/abdulhaqq.jeeran.com/fatwa_sheikh_qaradhawi.html

------------------------------------------------
from Islam Online
http://www.islamonline.net/English/index.shtml

Palestinian Women Carrying Out Martyr Operations
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503545134

Martyr Operations Carried Out by the Palestinians
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1119503543974&pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar%2FFatwaE%2FFatwaEAskTheScholar

Palestinian Martyr Operations
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1119503544306&pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar%2FFatwaE%2FFatwaEAskTheScholar

Attacking Civilians in Martyr Operations
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503544354

Martyr Operations or Terrorism
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503546498

Condemning the Martyr Operations
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503545286

------------------------------------------------
The Hijacked Caravan
http://www.ihsanic-intelligence.com/

Monograph
http://www.ihsanic-intelligence.com/dox/The_Hijacked_Caravan.pdf

This takes on Zawahiri's argument in detail. The footnotes refer to a number of webpages, which should be of interest.

--------------------------------------------
Suicide attack - Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_bomber

This is a general reference, which led into the webpages above; except for Ibrahim's book which I already had.

[MikeF]

Much reading to do now.

Mike

[davidbfpo]

MikeF and others,

Try this: http://www.thecordobafoundation.com/attach/Arches_issue_02x_Web.pdf

Within is an article by Moazzam Begg on 'Jihad & Terrorism: A War of Words; Begg is a UK citizen, detained in Guantanamo Bay and released back to the UK. There's background to the publication too, but stay focussed.

davidbfpo

[jmm99]

M. Begg seems an interesting person, to say the least. A bookseller of varied experiences.

Wonder if he has written anything besides the book. E.g., in Arabic, with English translation (not an Arabist, unfortunately). His Wiki bio has much written about him; but not much from him on his politico-religious views.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moazzam_Begg

He seems heavy on suras 5 & 9, which is orthodox enough since he is discussing jihad.

Anyway, the article is in my Zawahiri folder & I'll stay focused.

[IntelSeg]

In Spain we have a good organization that realizes different studies on jihadist organizations, it is the Foundation Athena Intelligence.

His last writing titles The Fundamentalist Distortion of the Islamic Message

http://www.athenaintelligence.org/aij-vol3-a18.pdf

[davidbfpo]

Someone has re-discovered an old Isreali article: http://entitledtoanopinion.wordpress.com/2009/01/01/just-talking-about-israel/

and linked it via the Kings of War website, with a comment as a guide to the current campaign in Gaza: http://kingsofwar.wordpress.com/

Not seen the data before and needs a lengthy read, probably in hard copy and undoubtedly controversial. I will copy this thread to the current Gaza thread.

davidbfpo

[davidbfpo]

I missed this at the time of broadcasting (15th December 2008) by the BBC and the reporter is good. Short clip on Afghan suicide bombers and some interviews:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/panorama/hi/front_page/newsid_7783000/7783602.stm

The entire programme (30 mins) is on the wider apsects of UK CT having it's roots in Pakistan: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00g44l7

davidbfpo

[uzodinma]

Islam forbids suicide and killing innocent people(without recourse to Justice and Law).According to reputable hadiths,suicide leads to hell that is further than a forty years scent of Paradise.This means that 911 is an act of disbedience and also means that Al Qaeda are dajjal (the Anti Christ) who leads to "Muslims" to hell while promising heaven!The failure of intelligence agencies to identify these weaknesses in the terrorist ideology suggests compromise.Consult me blog for free details: http://satanistterrorist.blogspot.com/

[davidbfpo]

An article from 2004 (pre-dating this thread) and found today, appears to be a good summary: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18224475.900-the-making-of-a-suicide-bomber.html?page=1

davidbfpo

[davidbfpo]

One of the two attempted suicide bombing cases in the UK, in 2008, this one in Bristol (the other was in Plymouth IIRC) has finally been dealt with at court: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8144114.stm In a radio report special attention was drawn to the original impetus for police action 'came from within the Muslim community' and if IIRC previously reported as from a local mosque he frequented (not the first time this has happened).

Very short summary and I'd expect some more commentary before next week.

The Plymouth defendant was dealt with in January 2009: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7859887.stm and mother's interview on his vulnerability: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/7664316.stm

davidbfpo

[goesh]

Al-Anfal (60):
"Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the Cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly. "

whatever you spend, up to and including your life.........

[goesh]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,534185,00.html

"GARDEZ, Afghanistan — Suspected Taliban militants armed with bombs, rifles and rocket-propelled grenades launched near-simultaneous assaults Tuesday on Afghan and U.S. facilities in two eastern cities, killing six Afghan police and intelligence officers.
..............
Militants, some of them wearing explosive belts and disguised in women's burqa robes, launched the attacks in late morning, storming the governor's compound, the intelligence department and the police department in Gardez and the U.S.-run airfield in Jalalabad about 90 miles to the northeast.
.............
A Taliban spokesman, Zabiullah Mujahid, claimed responsibility for the attacks. He said 15 militants — all in suicide vests — took part in the Gardez attacks, but officials said they believed all the assailants were killed. "

[Granite_State]

A chilling read from the NYT Magazine on female suicide bombers:


IT IS DIFFICULT to learn much about suicide bombers since there is rarely anything left of them. In Diyala, however, because there have been so many bombers who were women, the police have been driven to study the phenomenon, developing a nuanced and thoughtful picture of women who resolve to kill themselves. It was with the help of the police, who were willing to give me access to some of the would-be bombers, that I reported this piece. In particular, working with my interpreter, an Iraqi woman who was trained as a social worker, I was able to have long and even intimate conversations with two of the women in police custody. Police officers were able to corroborate much of what they said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/16/magazine/16suicide-t.html?_r=1

[MikeF]

A chilling read from the NYT Magazine on female suicide bombers:


This story is a very important one to consider. This was my area of operations. I've written about Zaganiyah, but I haven't really talked about Abu Sayda or Mukisa yet. Abu Sayda is a Shia enclave with ties to Baghdad and Iran. Mukisa and Qubbah were the political, judicial, and religious headquarters of the ISI in the DRV. Additionally, Saddam used to recruit his Fedayeen from Mukisa.

I'm not sure why Major Hosham left out a couple of details. He is a Tamimi and a Shia so he has his own perogatives or maybe they were just lost in translation.

The women started blowing themselves up about a year after I left. Neither Rayna nor Baida were particularly religious. In fact, from what I understand, Rayna doesn't believe in God. They acted out of hate and revenge.

This was just one of the secondary and tertiary effects that occured after the Surge one that I have no I idea on how to fix or cope much less comprehend.

I've spoken with several sociologist and defense analysis experts about this phenomena; however, most take the data as outliers. I disagree. Yes, maybe, in terms of Iraq it is an outlier, but if you examine the empirical evidence prior to 2003, the numbers become important. Moreover, it demonstrates a morphing or evolution of the suicide bomber. They no longer are typical radical fundamentalist.


Baida was smiling again. “If I had not seen you before and talked to you, I would kill you with my own hands,” she said pleasantly. “Do not be deceived by my peaceful face. I have a heart of stone."

This incident along with others left me to question the Pop-Centric COIN theory.

How do you secure this populace?

v/r

Mike

[Abu Suleyman]

Anecdotal evidence is powerful, because it is illustrative and evocative. However, it is rarely generalizable, and it is difficult to extrapolate. I would point you towards Lindsey O'Rourke's Op-Ed, (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/02/opinion/02orourke.html) which is actually a summary of a piece that should be coming out soon in Security Studies.

[tequila]

Actually I read the story and found little about Baida's motivations that could be read as uniquely gender-motivated. Sure, there was something about the "freedom" she found in what she viewed as the righteous acceptance of death in the service of what she viewed as her country and religion, which perhaps might not have been as profound if she had been male. But her key motivation appears to be those old standbys: anger at foreign occupation and vengeance for her father and brothers.

[MikeF]

Anecdotal evidence is powerful, because it is illustrative and evocative. However, it is rarely generalizable, and it is difficult to extrapolate. I would point you towards Lindsey O'Rourke's Op-Ed, (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/02/opinion/02orourke.html) which is actually a summary of a piece that should be coming out soon in Security Studies.

Good points and great link. It appears Ms. O'Rouke is going to study the issue. You are correct. It is difficult to generalize off of anecdotes; however inductive studies should not be ignored. My belief is empirical evidence supported by inductive studies often produces the strongest arguments.

This area is personal for me as I know many of the people involved. One common current that I've observed out of the DRV is a lack of hope. There was a time when those same young girls dreamed of going to university and studying to be doctors, teachers, and lawyers. In some ways, it is just sad to see their dreams fade b/c their parents continue to fight amoungst each other.

Additionally, I imagine their will be strong debate within the Islamic community over the use of women as martyrs. They debate just as strongly as we do here at SWJ.

v/r

Mike

[Abu Suleyman]

You are correct. It is difficult to generalize off of anecdotes; however inductive studies should not be ignored. My belief is empirical evidence supported by inductive studies often produces the strongest arguments.

I agree. I suppose that my primary complaint with anecdotes is that they are so powerful that they can overcome actual evidence. Witness the effect of the anecdotes that returned from Tet versus the actual "net" reality on the battlefield. Humans are natural story tellers, and stories can captivate, and by themselves mislead.



This area is personal for me as I know many of the people involved. One common current that I've observed out of the DRV is a lack of hope. There was a time when those same young girls dreamed of going to university and studying to be doctors, teachers, and lawyers. In some ways, it is just sad to see their dreams fade b/c their parents continue to fight amoungst each other.

That is an interesting problem. I know that Dr. Pape argues that suicide bombing comes about because of occupation, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/index.html?curid=2476943) although, I am unconvinced of his arguments completely. There have been some statistical critiques of his study, and I know that Lindsey follows in his footsteps a lot.

However, to me the bigger question is why some individuals become suicide bombers and others do not. I spent most of my time across the river from Diyala, so am not intimately familiar but not a stranger to the issues. Indeed, the despair you talk about is common. However, the overwhelming majority of both men and women do not become suicide bombers. What then, drives the few that do?

[davidbfpo]

Team,

There are several threads on suicide bombing on SWC and this one lasted awhile. I only post this as a reminder: http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=2304&highlight=suicide+bombers&page=7

Post 124 links to an Israeli academic who has interviewed failed Palestinian women suicide bombers.

davidbfpo

[gh_uk]

One of the best overviews of this subject (in my view at least) comes from Martha Crenshaw who, in this article, does a fairly good job of knocking down both Robert Pape (Occupation theory) and Mia Bloom (Outbidding other groups theory).

http://iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/21946/Crenshaw_Explaining_Suicide_Terrorism.pdf

There has been a lot of other work in this area since Pape and Bloom published in 2005. One of the better authors for explaining the motivation/ pyschological side is Anne Speckhard (http://www.annespeckhard.com/articles.html) who comes at it from a clinical side and has done some good work on female (notable Chechen) attackers.

(This happens to be my phd area, but I'm more focused on the organisational side than the personal motivation/radicalisation debate).

[MikeF]

However, to me the bigger question is why some individuals become suicide bombers and others do not. I spent most of my time across the river from Diyala, so am not intimately familiar but not a stranger to the issues. Indeed, the despair you talk about is common. However, the overwhelming majority of both men and women do not become suicide bombers. What then, drives the few that do?

That's the $10,000 question. Let me know if you figure it out. :D

David is right. Suicide Bombers are discussed on another thread, but I'll leave this one with one last thought. The female suicide bombers started AFTER we dismantled the ISI government, military infrastructure, training camps, and beheadings and near-genocide of the local Shia. Maybe it was b/c the AQ leadership was desperate. I dunno.

v/r

Mike

[Scott Shaw]

I, like Mike F, am tied heavily to this particular AO. I was Lieutenant Colonel Khalid al Ameri's advisor for a year from the time he was the Bn XO through the removal of two battalion commanders and a huge AO switch from Muqdadiyah to the DRV. We cleared the ground around Abu Sayda, Mukisa, Qubbah, and Zaganiyah from April-June 08 after the brave troopers of 5-73 Cav (Thanks, Mike, Phil K, and COL P) and were starting to hold it when my team left in late June.

Mike is right about the ground. It is a Sunni area sandwiched between two large Shia areas (the Abu Sayda area and the Khalis area north-east of Baquoba). They greatly feared the Shia, the IA, and the IPs and the attacks targeted the ISF. As the ISI moved from Baghdad to Baqouba and was cleared from there, it moved into the DRV with its thick palm groves and thicker hatred of the occupiers and Shia lacky ISF. This area was one that ISI could refit in and conduct attacks to the south into Baqoubah and Khalis and to the north into Abu Sayda and Muqdadiyah. These attacks provoked the kind of sectarian violence that we saw in late 2006 and early 2007. It was so violent there that driving the MSR was an assured contact. The SCO in my squadron when asked where al Qaeda was by a visiting VIP said “Drive down that route, they’ll find you.”

It took two full Stryker infantry companies with the battalion recon platoon and Bn HQ and an entire Iraqi Army battalion with augmentation from the brigade HQ that settled into five COPs over a 25 square kilometer area (there was more, but it was really not settled or Shia) to calm the place – not pacify it and definitely not clear it, simply prevent chaos. The IA established COPs using routes that we could control and then we launched attacks to clear the routes. We started in the south and worked north toward the river – oil-spot style. The final hold-outs were Qubbah and Mukisa. Both as Mike points out were Saddam and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi support zones. They were so deep in the palms, so far from civilization that those who would do the people of Iraq and our Soldiers harm could hide nearly indefinitely. Zarqawi nearly did. They hid because the local insurgents who supported ISI were the sons of the villagers. It was a home-grown cadre of insurgents and when they were killed during CF and IA operations, it became a blood feud. No amount of projects or assistance except in the form of security was going to solve this problem in the short run (and more than likely in the 5-10 year run).

The manuals show a nice clean “10% over there that hate you, 80% in the middle, and 10% who are in your corner” and it was not the case there. The ratio was more like 50-40-10. It’s what created people like Rayna and Baida. It’s what enabled the insurgents hiding in the palm groves to survive – their parents bringing them food even though they knew what might happen.

The question is what do you do then? Is it an area that you just write off? How long can you allow the enemy a support zone in which he is not disruptable? Those palm groves won’t allow for Hellfire shots, so I guess GEN Krulak’s method is out. How do you combat hatred that is near Hatfield-McCoy with the truism that “all counterinsurgencies have a half-life?”

I know that many of these are un-answerable, but this article was a good read for me to understand what makes someone into a suicide (or homicide) bomber. There are some others (like the work of Dr Hafez – and he has video too if you don’t want to read it), but this was a good quick read.

Scott

And I spoke on the phone with LTC Khalid two days ago. The area is much quieter that it used to be - nearly nothing. I didn't have an interpreter and could only carry about four minutes of Arabic before my conversational skills ran out (and so did his English). Mike, I'll PM you with an update.

[davidbfpo]

This thread has been dormant for sometime, but suicide attacks remain a daily event and perhaps this new book - only published in Hebrew - will offer insights.

The Smarter Bomb: Women and Children as Suicide Bombers, with a three page introduction:http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/ipc_e085.htm

[Fuchs]

Most tactics are being suppressed by a huge superiority of the enemy ("dominance"). The continuation of hostilities can therefore be limited to the least easily suppressed tactics, and that does obviously include suicide bombings.

I'd say this tactic is about as relevant to the future as are conflicts with extremely different organized violence capabilities between the opponents.

[davidbfpo]

Robert Pape has written a commentary - thanks to FP; sub-titled:
Extensive research into the causes of suicide terrorism proves Islam isn't to blame -- the root of the problem is foreign military occupations.

Opens with:
Although no one wants to talk about it, 9/11 is still hurting America. That terrible day inflicted a wound of public fear that easily reopens with the smallest provocation, and it continues to bleed the United States of money, lives, and goodwill around the world. Indeed, America's response to its fear has, in turn, made Americans less safe and has inspired more threats and attacks.

(Ends with)The United States has been great in large part because it respects understanding and discussion of important ideas and concepts, and because it is free to change course. Intelligent decisions require putting all the facts before us and considering new approaches. The first step is recognizing that occupations in the Muslim world don't make Americans any safer -- in fact, they are at the heart of the problem.

Not surprisingly his views have attracted many comments in opposition.

[davidbfpo]

From an Israeli think tank, a short paper as yet unread:
This article applies a psychological approach to explore and to explain the behavior of Palestinian terrorists who blow themselves up in the light of their own words. It is shown that terrorists have no suicidal intent; hence their behavior is not an act of suicide. Psychological analysis point to a behavioral reaction to stress situations that are perceived as threatening to survival, which could account for the lethal activity of the Palestinian terrorists. These findings suggest that such terrorists could be deterred if an appropriate alternative for their lives was available to them.

Link:http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/en/article/20415

[davidbfpo]

A short article 'Convincing suicide-bombers that God says no' by Professor Adam Lankford, a criminal justice professor at the University of Alabama and the author of 'The Myth of Martyrdom: What Really Drives Suicide Bombers, Rampage Shooters, and Other Self-Destructive Killers':http://www.opendemocracy.net/adam-lankford/convincing-suicide-bombers-that-god-says-no

Link to Amazon with publishers reviews:http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Martyrdom-Suicide-Shooters-Self-Destructive/dp/0230342132/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1358688551&sr=1-1&keywords=The+Myth+of+Martyrdom%3A+What+Really+Driv es+Suicide+Bombers%2C+Rampage+Shooters%2C+and+Othe r+Self-Destructive+Killers


those responsible for prosecuting the case against suicide-terrorism should have capitalised on a much simpler and more powerful belief that Christians, Jews, and Muslims all agree on: God disapproves of suicide. This should have been the launching point for changing perceptions about suicide-terrorism worldwide. And it still can be.

In his research he found:
...many of them were clearly suicidal, in the clinical sense. In a number of cases, they openly admitted their psychological pain and deep despair in their suicide notes or “martyrdom” videos, or in the statements they made to those around them.

Also on:http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21929240.200-martyr-myth-inside-the-minds-of-suicide-bombers.html?full=true