Studies on radicalization & comments

[Bill Moore]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...mes-foley.html

ISIS, Hip-Hop Jihadists and the Man Who Killed James Foley

Anthropologist Scott Atran, who is frequently consulted by the U.S. government, has long argued that a jihadist’s motivations cannot be fit within a purely rational framework of costs and benefits, nor can they be understood as utterly irrational. Instead they work within the context of what they come to see as “sacred values,” which may be religious, or may have to do more with honor and respect and, perhaps, what the 18th-century political theorist Edmund Burke called “the sublime”: that “quest for greatness, glory, eternal meaning in an inherently chaotic world,” as Atran says.

“It seems like volunteers for ISIS are surfing for the sublime,” Atran wrote to me on Sunday. They are escaping “the jaded, tired world of democratic liberalism, especially on the margins where Europe’s immigrants mostly live.”

Not everything is governance, religion, or any of the other areas myopic theorists focus on, sometimes is just simple human psychology.

[Bob's World]

Why any individual is motivated to join the USMC is not why the USMC exists.

Why the USMC is employed to address any particular problem is not why the USMC exists.

To understand why the USMC exists one must study the organization, its history, missions and role in relation to the goals of the US as a whole. The stories of individual Marines, battles and campaigns are interesting, but only lend color, not clarity to the larger question.

We understand this inherently, and yet we continue to agonize over the eaches of any particular individual who decides to throw their support behind a group such as AQ or ISIS in an odd belief that if we understand why individuals join we will somehow be better postured to make the organization as a whole either comply with acceptable social norms or go away in the entirety.

The sum of these many personal stories does not tell the story of why these organizations exist. These stories certainly lend insights, but they equally distract us from reasons much more closely aligned to challenging the activities of those these organizations oppose, than to the promotion of the beliefs or promises these challengers advertise.

Historically there is almost universally a powerful bias of perspective regarding the nature and rationale for revolutionary actors by those these revolutions are directed against. We need to adjust for that bias in our analysis.

Revolutionary activity tends to be far more about the removal of some system of power or governance (often associated with some ideological system of beliefs) deemed as both intolerable and equally something one is now empowered to do something about; than they are about advancing something new and better.

Far easier to get a disparate group to agree that the status quo is intolerable, than it is to get them to agree to some future solution. Thus the chaos that typically follows a wholesale regime change, regardless of how bad or evil that previous regime might have been.

Revolution creates the chaos opportunity is made of - the problem is that so many line up to seize that opportunity, and typically not with the good of the many as their prime directive.

[Bill Moore]

Why any individual is motivated to join the USMC is not why the USMC exists.

Why the USMC is employed to address any particular problem is not why the USMC exists.

To understand why the USMC exists one must study the organization, its history, missions and role in relation to the goals of the US as a whole. The stories of individual Marines, battles and campaigns are interesting, but only lend color, not clarity to the larger question.

We understand this inherently, and yet we continue to agonize over the eaches of any particular individual who decides to throw their support behind a group such as AQ or ISIS in an odd belief that if we understand why individuals join we will somehow be better postured to make the organization as a whole either comply with acceptable social norms or go away in the entirety.

The sum of these many personal stories does not tell the story of why these organizations exist. These stories certainly lend insights, but they equally distract us from reasons much more closely aligned to challenging the activities of those these organizations oppose, than to the promotion of the beliefs or promises these challengers advertise.

Historically there is almost universally a powerful bias of perspective regarding the nature and rationale for revolutionary actors by those these revolutions are directed against. We need to adjust for that bias in our analysis.

Revolutionary activity tends to be far more about the removal of some system of power or governance (often associated with some ideological system of beliefs) deemed as both intolerable and equally something one is now empowered to do something about; than they are about advancing something new and better.

Far easier to get a disparate group to agree that the status quo is intolerable, than it is to get them to agree to some future solution. Thus the chaos that typically follows a wholesale regime change, regardless of how bad or evil that previous regime might have been.

Revolution creates the chaos opportunity is made of - the problem is that so many line up to seize that opportunity, and typically not with the good of the many as their prime directive.

Despite how intelligent this analysis appears on the surface it is deeply flawed when it is applied to ISIS. Apply to the Kurds and it fits perfectly. ISIS is not popular, and they're not focused on removing so much as focused on imposing their form of governance regardless of what the masses desire. It is obviously true that existing governments can and do create conditions that enable these movements to gain steam, but that doesn't mean the existing form of governance is the "sole" problem and that this morally justifies ISIS/ISIL's activities and intent. What is also true is we have our strategy must address protecting our interested (interests can be debated) and our citizens (not debatable), and if we sincerely believe ISIS/ISIL is a threat then there is a moral obligation to act. How we act to protect those interests must be informed by a wide range of factors, and it doesn't necessarily mean military action, nor does it mean we always must address the core underlying issues that are frankly beyond our control.

Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, etc. all have ineffectively executed governance and created an ecosystem that AQism groups can exploit, but that does not make their movements popular or just. If our interests our threatened, we merely need to protect our interests in the short run and stop fooling ourselves that we have the power to solve the deeper issues of inappropriate borders, ethnic hatred, etc. Limited objectives should be our guiding light, not social-political reform, that aspect belongs to the indigenous people.

[davidbfpo]

A short UK article that starts with:

Young British Muslims whose families have lived in the UK for generations are more at risk of radicalisation than recent migrants to Britain, according to new research which reveals the common characteristics of those most vulnerable to recruitment by terrorists.

Suffering from depression, being financially comfortable and being socially isolated were also common factors amongst those sympathising with terrorism, the University of London study found.

The author is Professor Kamaldeep Bhui, lead author of the study and professor of cultural psychiatry and epidemiology at Queen Mary University of London said:

The relationship between radicalisation and mental health is complex but we now know depression, alongside poor social networks and isolation, does play a role in vulnerability to radicalisation.

Link to newspaper report:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...d-9754062.html

This C4 News (TV) report has a little more information:http://www.channel4.com/news/islamic...di-uk-research

Finally found the actual research paper 'Might Depression, Psychosocial Adversity, and Limited Social Assets Explain Vulnerability to and Resistance against Violent Radicalisation?' on an open access e-journal:http://www.plosone.org/article/info%...l.pone.0105918

[davidbfpo]

A short article with links to the areas covered:http://digest.bps.org.uk/2014/10/the...extremism.html

[OldyButGoodie]

A short article with links to the areas covered:http://digest.bps.org.uk/2014/10/the...extremism.html

Certainly interesting. As I read history, this process is not limited to a small group of close friends. Whole nations can and have made a "Risky Shift". Germany, Cambodia, Rwanda, and others. At large scales, these shifts look very much like self-determination.

Here's the question: If self determination leads to a nation or people bent on world conquest or tribal slaughter, must that self-determination be respected?

[davidbfpo]

Certainly interesting. As I read history, this process is not limited to a small group of close friends. Whole nations can and have made a "Risky Shift". Germany, Cambodia, Rwanda, and others. At large scales, these shifts look very much like self-determination.

Here's the question: If self determination leads to a nation or people bent on world conquest or tribal slaughter, must that self-determination be respected?

Your question, if worded differently, regularly appears here on SWC. I recall discussions over R2P (Right to Protect) and Mass Atrocities (usually with an African setting). Rwanda crops up too IIRC.

The world remains imperfect, but there is some form of concensus that genocide should be responded to - Darfur comes to mind and the LRA's longterm campaign of murder plus. It is a political decision of course, as non-state responses are rarely, if ever, effective.

Respecting 'self-determination' now that is a question that Bill C. often raises, usually on SWJ, about the American wish to pursue its own values beyond its shores: free trade, markets, democracy etc.