SWC Poll: What Motivates Islamist Terrorism against the West?

[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.

[marct]

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.

Honestly, I have never liked Huntington's argument. His basic unit of analysis is a "civilization", often expressed as "Arabs", "Chinese", "Westerners", etc. As an analytic device, this is reminiscent of de Gobineau's The Inequalities of the Human Races (1853-1856). It is also fatally flawed in its understanding of how humans form cultures and "civilizations" since it is based on a confusion between phenotype and genotype - i.e. he assumes that a group of people who form a phenotypicaly recognizable group are inherently different from other groups.

Marc

[120mm]

I liken it to WWII. The Allies fight the Aggressive Axis to the "glorious victory". That's the oversimplification.

In reality, that fails to address the complexity of who the "Allies" and the "Axis" really were.

History tells us that the Polish weren't completely "sweetness and light". Also, the Finns weren't on anyones' side but their own. Or the USSR, for that matter? And what about the Romanians? Or the Vichy French? Or the German-sympathetic Chinese who were also fighting the Japanese? Or the Danes & Swiss?

Despite its' complexity, can anyone then argue that WWII was NOT fought by the Allies against Axis Aggression?

Surely, this is not the same kind of conflict as WWII, with the well-defined (sometimes) nation state, but I think there is some utility in simplifying terms.

[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.

[omarali50]

It is not an "either/or" situation. Human societies are complex, yet they also have simple patterns. Both observations are true. Islamist terrorists are driven by religious ideology, but they are also motivated by percieved injustices (Israeli occupation and its hypocritical support by the US being the most obvious). The question is frequently asked why Israeli occupation alone is such a problem? But that is like asking why 9-11 was such a big deal when more people than that die in Traffic accidents every month. Why not a war on traffic rather than a war on terror? Its because of a whole network of framing assumptions that make one category completely different from another in people's minds (rightly or wrongly). Whether its a good thing or not, the fact is that groups of human beings use many shortcuts to simplify decisions. "Us" and "them" are defined for them by these shortcuts (but its always a moving target, things change but they change in fits and starts). Hypocrisy is a huge big deal for most human beings (we are also ALL hypocrites, go figure). Anyway, let me try again: To the extent that the Islamists are motivated by firm belief in islamist theology, they are irreconcilable with the infidel world. But its always surprising to see that they SAY these are their beliefs and those beliefs (infidels must submit, muslims must rule, house of war, house of peace, etc. etc) seem incompatible with peaceful coexistance, yet they have very specific grievances and it does seem that without those grievances in play, MOST of them would no longer be in the fight...does that make sense? AND we must keep in mind that people are people before they become muslims or christians or jews. Our biological human failings and motivations run much deeper than our ideologies. Our ideologies themselves are built on layers of culture and cannot always be taken at face value...