Suicide Attacks: weapon of the future?

[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?

[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.

....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-Milita...e=UTF8&s=books

Jihad: The Rise of Militant Islam in Central Asia
http://www.amazon.com/Jihad-Rise-Mil...e=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.

[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/

[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 . 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 .

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 .

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 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.

[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.

[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...-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/fr...00/7783602.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