Tequila: so you disagree with Pape? "Modern suicide terrorism began in Lebanon in the 1980s" (14)
Pape
Tequila: so you disagree with Pape? "Modern suicide terrorism began in Lebanon in the 1980s" (14)
Pape's conclusion (summary)
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?
Last edited by TROUFION; 02-27-2007 at 02:27 PM.
The problem IS Islam, and it's desires to prevent their (often primitive, tribal) culture being obliterated by a pervasive and invasive western culture.Originally Posted by TROUFION
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.
120mm - Can you expand on your thesis? I disagree in pretty much every way, but I'd like to hear more about your argument.
Islam a Culture?
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.
It is right to learn, even from one's enemies
Ovid
....now there's a warning I haven't heard before.
Muslim would answer to you: “Islam is religion, is culture, is universal idea and is way of life.”
Different looks on Islam ...
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
Last edited by Sarajevo071; 02-27-2007 at 09:15 PM.
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.
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.
Last edited by tequila; 02-28-2007 at 12:08 PM. Reason: added specificity
Hi Tequila & 120mm,
Thought I'd jump in with some observations.
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.
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
Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
Senior Research Fellow,
The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
Carleton University
http://marctyrrell.com/
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?
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
Israeli strategy and suicide bombing
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
Last edited by davidbfpo; 07-20-2009 at 02:28 PM.
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.
Weren't the Kamikazes somewhat first ?
Perhaps a tad earlier than 1980 ?
Kamikazes were the most common and best-known form of Japanese suicide attack during World War II
Yes and no
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."
Thanks Troufion !
May have to get the book.
RE: Assassins?
Interesting to note that it was the Ismali's who first came up with the suicide attacker, cira 8th century.
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 (unprecedented numbers) and Afghanistan, then we have the LTTE as mentioned, the phenomenon of the Chechen "Black Widows" as well as female suicide bombers used by the Marxist PKK, and, of course, the spectrum of Palestinian suicide bombings. There are other examples, but my point is that to treat any or all of these situations in an identical manner is a mistake.
Hezballah moved on 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.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.
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
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....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....
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks