I mention this quote because this is what I am reminded of when I read Pape in relation to suicide terrorism. (I do however, agree with his positions on air power so he can’t be all bad.There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact. -- Mark Twain) I am sure he has a mountain of evidence to support his position on the motivations of suicide attacks and I would venture that he could articulate his position better than I could mine, but that does NOT make him right. If I may be allowed to grossly paraphrase his position, he feels the catalyst for suicidal terrorism lies with a common, unified sense of nationalism that is nebulously territorial. To be perfectly candid, nothing I saw or heard in either of my deployments meshes with what this guy is saying. I am not saying that there are not, and never have been attacks that were motivated by this, only that we shouldn't amplify the voices of a handful posthumously simply because they were one of the few who cited this as their cause of choice. Many others cite politics and religious factors in their final video farewells but this does not make policy or faith the sole factor either.
It seems as though we want to treat thugs and punks as though they are statesmen and scholars and the simple fact is that the (untrained) world is loosely divided into two groups. There are those for whom violence is a last resort and an action to be considered when all others are exhausted and then there are those for whom violence is the first tool they reach for. If only the attacks in Iraq today were motivated by such lofty ideals as a “Unified Muslim Nation…” That a percentage of the attackers and instigators are educated, or come from families of some means does not mitigate the fact that they are using violent methods or exculpate them in any way. In my opinion it simply makes them a higher level thug and a greater threat to our security. Because ONE attacker, or ONE HUNDRED attackers comes from money does not mean that money is not a factor in all of this, it simply means that more likely than not, their own personal casus belli is not economically driven. That ONE attacker or ONE THOUSAND attackers may be impious, unobservant Muslims does not mean that religion does not have anything to do with this, but simply that they personally are not driven by the call to jihad.
The truth is that the clarion call has gone out to every bomb maker, hit man, sniper, petty thief, thug, ruffian and assassin out there. The message? That there are Americans, American TROOPS to be killed in Iraq and Afghanistan and it is being sent to the homicidal and suicidal alike. In addition to the usual suspects in terrorism, the message is also being delivered to the homes and gardens, wells and mosques of any person, anywhere who might have a grievance or personal beef with America. The motivations for what brings them (and the majority of the bad guys we encountered, were in fact imports) are as varied and as diverse as they can be. I generally agree that some of the people who are drawn to Iraq may have legitimate concerns or cases against the United States, that for some they are acting out of rage or desperation but I think they are again, the exception and not the rule. So while some may truly “believe” in what they are doing, most do not have such lofty ideals. We are not a perfect people and sadly despite our tremendous potential, we do not always do the right thing. Having said that, this is the best system going and for whatever flaws we may truly own, the second someone decides to be that second person and resort to violence with us the talking #### has to stop.
I completely agree that “5.56, 7.62 and .50cal are not acceptable countermeasures” and that to have to beat someone at the scene so to speak is a “point defense” that does not address the real problem. Having said that, I firmly believe the primary motivation for any attack on us over there is to instill as much doubt, fear, terror and confusion into the minds of the Iraqi and American populace as they can. With suicidal methods they are not attacking us from a tactical mindset and this is blatantly obvious because the finest military minds in the world say that these methods make zero tactical sense. That they can inflict some casualties at all is a victory that only sweetens the deal. So while I do agree that 5.56 etc… does not work as a counter measure, I am COMPLETELY convinced that .22cal, 9mm, and 5.56 are extremely effective preemptive tools, time and place dependent. (Usually the sooner the better and wherever they think they are SAFEST.) One sure way to communicate with someone who deals in terror is to use their own methods against them. I am not suggesting we send our own bombers out but rather that we choose when the bombers die and not them. From a political standpoint nothing deflates their sails faster than when the camera man gets clipped halfway through filming an attack. On a personal level nothings says "Be afraid," as well as when the neighborhood SVBIED maker is dropped outside his home, in front of his family in broad daylight. I don’t want to RESPOND to anything, I want to make them have to respond to me. If every second of their day is spent wondering, if one eye and half their mind is oriented on the footsteps behind them, they will never be as effective as when they felt safe to plan at ease among their own. Some would argue that going after the bombers and shooters themselves has little to no effect in the long term and I think that is gold plated crap. Hunting can not be your only solution and other steps need to take place concurrently with the hunt in order to succeed in the long term, but to skip the executors of the policy for the policy makers leaves a threat behind that will not “change its mind.”
Troufion originally asked whether we thought suicide attacks and the use of the methodology is successful and if so what the end state or goal would be. I feel that the attacks are successful for two reasons, neither of which is tactical. The first is that they believe they are successful and the second is that we do allow them to be successful or at the very least inadvertently perpetuate their success by vacillation.
They must feel on some level that they are successful or I contend they would not continue with these methods. I use my own personal experience as evidence. My first deployment was completely different than my second. The reason was not that we had changed, but that the enemy had. If the “Muslim playbook” calls for suicide bombings and the like the second the infidel occupies holy land, as Pape would have us believe, (I am exaggerating) then I wonder why it took so long for the practice to be adopted in Iraq? If we are so detested that our very presence on Muslim soil is looked on with loathing and murderous or suicidal thoughts then I wonder why the majority of the civilians over there truly feel they are better off now than under Saddam? Why is the single greatest fear of the Iraqi farmer not that we will stay but that we will leave without fulfilling our promises? My point is that in an evolutionary, Darwinian sense the tactics that best suited our Syrian, Iranian, Lebanese, Chechen, Egyptian, Somalian…and some Iraqi attackers to their environments were the ones that did not get them killed. (My Anthropology professor would be proud.) Tactics that are not conducive to life are quickly scrapped....
Bookmarks