SWC Poll: What Motivates Islamist Terrorism against the West?

[SoiCowboy]

The management level of Al-Qaeda are fundamentalist Islams version of a military industrial complex. They've been fighting since Afghanistan and war is now a way of life.

The foot soldiers motivation varies. Three motives that stand out for me in showing motivation to fight is complex would be:

I can't remember the source but it went that 50% of Al Qaeda caught in Iraq were Yemenis who came to fight for the money rather than anything else.

Some of the Al Qaeda just seem to do jihad as a just another thing that you're expected to do as a 'man', go to stripclubs, drink, blow up a few hundred people. Not exactly your stereotypical jihadis; examples would be the 9/11 bombers and the bluewater bombers.

Others become jihadis because how else can the evil crusaders being directed by the Jewish ZOG machine be stopped?

[Steve Blair]

I lean more toward an "Other" response, because over time the reasons will change and will also be manipulated by those in the higher command ranks (as much as those may or may not matter for what develops on the ground).

I for one believe that over time the basic ideology of a terrorist group (in the classic sense) really doesn't matter. They become addicted to the cycle of revenge killing, or it becomes so institutionalized in their operations that the original reason(s) for the killing don't matter. They may always have an IO reason for their killing, but at the ground level that reason is more a slogan than an actual belief system.

That said, it is always important to make some fine distinctions with these groups. Some, especially the political wings, are obviously open to maneuver. Others, such as the hard-core jihadist/Provo IRA/whatever cells, are not.

For the upper ranks, I would say that motivations tend more toward a mix of response 1 and 2, with the shading depending on the group in question. There is always a cultural component, but that can be triggered by policy decisions as well.

[goesh]

scratch an X in the #2 category for me. The clash of cultures is just getting ramped up - the root and bones of contention go way beyond equitable resource allocation, despite the bantering of dime-a-dozen politicians, pacifists and Liberals to the contrary. What we got is an ontological smackdown with Allah in one corner and George Washington in the other corner, secular V theocratic, the Bill of Rigts V tenets of Shariah Law, Divine V Mundane.

[antonymous]

I'd also lean toward the "other" response...but the differentiation between terrorism "over there" and "over here" is valid.

Quickly:

1. Fighting in places like Afghanistan is now ingrained into the local culture. They have been fighting their own "long war" for decades now. Any structure imposed by the West will be fought until the bitter end.

2. Terrorism conducted in Iraq and Afghanistan is clearly meant to de-legitimize the state. Taking down infrastructure has no other purpose, but once the coalition leaves, it will be a free-for-all in terms of civil war (which will look like "the West's" mess), but also in terms of security and future reconstruction. The optimist in me says that their war of attrition will be over once ethnic groups fill the security niches and start building infrastructure from the ground up - it will give them an air of legitimacy that the coalition could not establish. Huge motivator.

3. Attacks on the West serve many purposes. The first that we think of is the vulnerability of our own infrastructure. Second - to draw attention to a cause or perceived injustice. Beyond that, I'm no expert - I'd love to hear what everyone else thinks.

4. Finally, I think the religious aspect creates a sort of false binary...globalization is capable of uprooting longstanding cultural traditions, and there's a definite loss of power for those who previously held it. If transparency, rule of law, and strong nation-states are required for prosperity, it means relinquishing power, and standing mini-powers want no part of that. Of course, there are many other nuances (esp. regarding religion) that I'm overlooking, but for me, power and perceived power are the real keys here.

[Stu-6]

Principle foreign policy. While there will always be some who are drive in by religious or cultural reasons or are just plan crazy, foot soldiers come from being able to point to a perceived injustice and convincingly say “they did this we must fight”. Of course cultural/religious/ideological differences make that easier to do.

[aktarian]

What is "West"? Or more precisely, who is "West"?

Al Qaida claims it targeted US because they had troops in Saudi.
Hamas targets Israel because Israel occupies Palestine. Is Israel part of "west"?
Madrid and London bombings were because Spain and UK had troops in Iraq.

You said that you will concentrate on Western targets. But attacks in islamic countries happen because their gov'ts are pro-US. Sharm el-Sheik bombings and GIA attacks were as much about killing foreigners (specially if they were Israelis) as they were about hurting Egypt by disrupting tourism and as such punishing its gov't for being pro-US. You can't separate the two, radical islamists rant against secular, pro-US gov'ts as much as they do against US/West.

[120mm]

I guess I like the "inevitable clash of cultures" argument, best. Most objections I've seen to that argument tend to go the "but it's more 'complex' than that" flavor, but I offer this question; What about a titanic, inevitable clash of cultures strikes you as "simple?" Of course it's complex. That's what very large conflicts are.

[Mark O'Neill]

I guess I like the "inevitable clash of cultures" argument, best. Most objections I've seen to that argument tend to go the "but it's more 'complex' than that" flavor, but I offer this question; What about a titanic, inevitable clash of cultures strikes you as "simple?" Of course it's complex. That's what very large conflicts are.

I go back to my previous point - what "culture(s)" are you referring to? we have several 'Islamic' cultures in the part of the world that I live in, and they are all quite different.

[Firestaller]

I think Salafi jihadists target the US because of America's military protection of the Gulf states.


Knock the US out, the Saudi monarchy (as well as many of the surrounding countries) is as good as gone. Saudi Arabia's rule of law is no different than the Talliban.

[OfTheTroops]

I believe the answer lies in the broader question. What motivates individuals to join violent organizations? What leads Tim Mcveigh to bomb OKC? What leads anarchists to riot at the WTO? What gives rise to gang wars? How is Islamic hatred different than other insurgent/radical/guerilla? Either a personal trauma, an impoverished childhood, nothing better to do, ignorance or education could all lead to a break from the pro-social into anti-social/criminal/terrorists behavior. They believe they are justified or they believe they are going to get away with it.
Having gone off track a bit. I believe Opportunity and Means and some personal motivation incubated in a environment that will support the movement.
Just my personal opinions.