Blowing up an assumption

[one...two...tree 2,762]

(originally published in NYT 2005)

ROBERT A. PAPE

Chicago -- Many Americans are mystified by the recent rise in the number and the audacity of suicide attacks in Iraq. The lull in violence after January's successful elections seemed to suggest that the march of democracy was trampling the threat of terrorism. But as electoral politics is taking root, the Iraqi insurgency and suicide terrorism are actually gaining momentum. In the past two weeks, suicide attackers have killed more than 420 Iraqis working with the United States and its allies. There were 20 such incidents in 2003, nearly 50 in 2004, and they are on pace to set a new record this year.

To make sense of this apparent contradiction, one has to understand the strategic logic of suicide terrorism. Since Muslim terrorists professing religious motives have perpetrated many of the attacks, it might seem obvious that Islamic fundamentalism is the central cause, and thus the wholesale transformation of Muslim societies into secular democracies, even at the barrel of a gun, is the obvious solution. However, the presumed connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism is misleading, and it may spur American policies that are likely to worsen the situation.

Over the past two years, I have compiled a database of every suicide bombing and attack around the globe from 1980 through 2003 - 315 in all. This includes every episode in which at least one terrorist killed himself or herself while trying to kill others, but excludes attacks authorized by a national government (like those by North Korean agents against South Korea). The data show that there is far less of a connection between suicide terrorism and religious fundamentalism than most people think.

The leading instigator of suicide attacks is the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, a Marxist-Leninist group whose members are from Hindu families but who are adamantly opposed to religion. This group committed 76 of the 315 incidents, more than Hamas (54) or Islamic Jihad (27). Even among Muslims, secular groups like the Kurdistan Workers' Party, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and the Al Aksa Martyr Brigades account for more than a third of suicide attacks.

What nearly all suicide terrorist attacks actually have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland. Religion is often used as a tool by terrorist organizations in recruiting and in seeking aid from abroad, but is rarely the root cause.

Three general patterns in the data support these conclusions. First, nearly all suicide terrorist attacks - 301 of the 315 in the period I studied - took place as part of organized political or military campaigns. Second, democracies are uniquely vulnerable to suicide terrorists; America, France, India, Israel, Russia, Sri Lanka and Turkey have been the targets of almost every suicide attack of the past two decades. Third, suicide terrorist campaigns are directed toward a strategic objective: from Lebanon to Israel to Sri Lanka to Kashmir to Chechnya, the sponsors of every campaign - 18 organizations in all - are seeking to establish or maintain political self-determination.

Before Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982, there was no Hezbollah suicide terrorist campaign against Israel; indeed, Hezbollah came into existence only after this event. Before the Sri Lankan military began moving into the Tamil homelands of the island in 1987, the Tamil Tigers did not use suicide attacks. Before the huge increase in Jewish settlers on the West Bank in the 1980's, Palestinian groups did not use suicide terrorism.

And, true to form, there had never been a documented suicide attack in Iraq until after the American invasion in 2003. Much is made of the fact that we aren't sure who the Iraqi suicide attackers are. This is not unusual in the early years of a suicide terrorist campaign. Hezbollah published most of the biographies and last testaments of its "martyrs" only after it abandoned the suicide-attack strategy in 1986, a pattern adopted by the Tamil Tigers as well.

At the moment, our best information indicates that the attackers in Iraq are Sunni Iraqis and foreign fighters, principally from Saudi Arabia. If so, this would mean that the two main sources of suicide terrorists in Iraq are from the Arab countries deemed most vulnerable to transformation by the presence of American combat troops. This is fully consistent with what we now know about the strategic logic of suicide terrorism.

Some have wondered if the rise of suicide terrorism in Iraq is really such a bad thing for American security. Is it not better to have these killers far away in Iraq rather than here in the United States? Alas, history shows otherwise. The presence of tens of thousands of American combat forces on the Arabian Peninsula after 1990 enabled Al Qaeda to recruit suicide terrorists, who in turn attacked Americans in the region (the African embassy bombings in 1998 and the attack on the destroyer Cole in 2000). The presence of nearly 150,000 American combat troops in Iraq since 2003 can only give suicide terrorism a boost, and the longer this suicide terrorist campaign continues the greater the risk of new attacks in the United States.

Understanding that suicide terrorism is mainly a response to foreign occupation rather than a product of Islamic fundamentalism has important implications for how the United States and its allies should conduct the war on terrorism. Spreading democracy across the Persian Gulf is not likely to be a panacea so long as foreign combat troops remain on the Arabian Peninsula. If not for the world's interest in Persian Gulf oil, the obvious solution might well be simply to abandon the region altogether. Isolationism, however, is not possible; America needs a new strategy that pursues our vital interest in oil but does not stimulate the rise of a new generation of suicide terrorists.

***

Beyond recognizing the limits of military action and stepping up domestic security efforts, Americans would do well to recall the virtues of our traditional policy of "offshore balancing" in the Persian Gulf. During the 1970's and 1980's, the United States managed its interests there without stationing any combat soldiers on the ground, but keeping our forces close enough - either on ships or in bases near the region - to deploy in huge numbers if an emergency. This worked splendidly to defeat Iraq's aggression against Kuwait in 1990.

The Bush administration rightly intends to start turning over the responsibility for Iraq's security to the new government and systematically withdrawing American troops. But large numbers of these soldiers should not simply be sent to Iraq's neighbors, where they will continue to enrage many in the Arab world. Keeping the peace from a discreet distance seems a better way to secure our interests in the world's key oil-producing region without provoking more terrorism.

Robert A. Pape, an associate professor of political scienceat the University of Chicago, is the author of the forthcoming "Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism."

http://www.fromoccupiedpalestine.org/node/1532

[Yoink 7]

(originally published in NYT 2005)

ROBERT A. PAPE

Chicago -- Many Americans are mystified by the recent rise in the number and the audacity of suicide attacks in Iraq. The lull in violence after January's successful elections seemed to suggest that the march of democracy was trampling the threat of terrorism. But as electoral politics is taking root, the Iraqi insurgency and suicide terrorism are actually gaining momentum. In the past two weeks, suicide attackers have killed more than 420 Iraqis working with the United States and its allies. There were 20 such incidents in 2003, nearly 50 in 2004, and they are on pace to set a new record this year.

To make sense of this apparent contradiction, one has to understand the strategic logic of suicide terrorism. Since Muslim terrorists professing religious motives have perpetrated many of the attacks, it might seem obvious that Islamic fundamentalism is the central cause, and thus the wholesale transformation of Muslim societies into secular democracies, even at the barrel of a gun, is the obvious solution. However, the presumed connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism is misleading, and it may spur American policies that are likely to worsen the situation.

Over the past two years, I have compiled a database of every suicide bombing and attack around the globe from 1980 through 2003 - 315 in all. This includes every episode in which at least one terrorist killed himself or herself while trying to kill others, but excludes attacks authorized by a national government (like those by North Korean agents against South Korea). The data show that there is far less of a connection between suicide terrorism and religious fundamentalism than most people think.

The leading instigator of suicide attacks is the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, a Marxist-Leninist group whose members are from Hindu families but who are adamantly opposed to religion. This group committed 76 of the 315 incidents, more than Hamas (54) or Islamic Jihad (27). Even among Muslims, secular groups like the Kurdistan Workers' Party, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and the Al Aksa Martyr Brigades account for more than a third of suicide attacks.

What nearly all suicide terrorist attacks actually have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland. Religion is often used as a tool by terrorist organizations in recruiting and in seeking aid from abroad, but is rarely the root cause.

Three general patterns in the data support these conclusions. First, nearly all suicide terrorist attacks - 301 of the 315 in the period I studied - took place as part of organized political or military campaigns. Second, democracies are uniquely vulnerable to suicide terrorists; America, France, India, Israel, Russia, Sri Lanka and Turkey have been the targets of almost every suicide attack of the past two decades. Third, suicide terrorist campaigns are directed toward a strategic objective: from Lebanon to Israel to Sri Lanka to Kashmir to Chechnya, the sponsors of every campaign - 18 organizations in all - are seeking to establish or maintain political self-determination.

Before Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982, there was no Hezbollah suicide terrorist campaign against Israel; indeed, Hezbollah came into existence only after this event. Before the Sri Lankan military began moving into the Tamil homelands of the island in 1987, the Tamil Tigers did not use suicide attacks. Before the huge increase in Jewish settlers on the West Bank in the 1980's, Palestinian groups did not use suicide terrorism.

And, true to form, there had never been a documented suicide attack in Iraq until after the American invasion in 2003. Much is made of the fact that we aren't sure who the Iraqi suicide attackers are. This is not unusual in the early years of a suicide terrorist campaign. Hezbollah published most of the biographies and last testaments of its "martyrs" only after it abandoned the suicide-attack strategy in 1986, a pattern adopted by the Tamil Tigers as well.

At the moment, our best information indicates that the attackers in Iraq are Sunni Iraqis and foreign fighters, principally from Saudi Arabia. If so, this would mean that the two main sources of suicide terrorists in Iraq are from the Arab countries deemed most vulnerable to transformation by the presence of American combat troops. This is fully consistent with what we now know about the strategic logic of suicide terrorism.

Some have wondered if the rise of suicide terrorism in Iraq is really such a bad thing for American security. Is it not better to have these killers far away in Iraq rather than here in the United States? Alas, history shows otherwise. The presence of tens of thousands of American combat forces on the Arabian Peninsula after 1990 enabled Al Qaeda to recruit suicide terrorists, who in turn attacked Americans in the region (the African embassy bombings in 1998 and the attack on the destroyer Cole in 2000). The presence of nearly 150,000 American combat troops in Iraq since 2003 can only give suicide terrorism a boost, and the longer this suicide terrorist campaign continues the greater the risk of new attacks in the United States.

Understanding that suicide terrorism is mainly a response to foreign occupation rather than a product of Islamic fundamentalism has important implications for how the United States and its allies should conduct the war on terrorism. Spreading democracy across the Persian Gulf is not likely to be a panacea so long as foreign combat troops remain on the Arabian Peninsula. If not for the world's interest in Persian Gulf oil, the obvious solution might well be simply to abandon the region altogether. Isolationism, however, is not possible; America needs a new strategy that pursues our vital interest in oil but does not stimulate the rise of a new generation of suicide terrorists.

***

Beyond recognizing the limits of military action and stepping up domestic security efforts, Americans would do well to recall the virtues of our traditional policy of "offshore balancing" in the Persian Gulf. During the 1970's and 1980's, the United States managed its interests there without stationing any combat soldiers on the ground, but keeping our forces close enough - either on ships or in bases near the region - to deploy in huge numbers if an emergency. This worked splendidly to defeat Iraq's aggression against Kuwait in 1990.

The Bush administration rightly intends to start turning over the responsibility for Iraq's security to the new government and systematically withdrawing American troops. But large numbers of these soldiers should not simply be sent to Iraq's neighbors, where they will continue to enrage many in the Arab world. Keeping the peace from a discreet distance seems a better way to secure our interests in the world's key oil-producing region without provoking more terrorism.

Robert A. Pape, an associate professor of political scienceat the University of Chicago, is the author of the forthcoming "Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism."

http://www.fromoccupiedpalestine.org/node/1532

his group committed 76 of the 315 incidents, more than Hamas (54) or Islamic Jihad (27). Even among Muslims, secular groups like the Kurdistan Workers' Party, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and the Al Aksa Martyr Brigades account for more than a third of suicide attacks.

Perhaps religion doesnt play as large a role but the target sure does.... Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al Asqua Martyrs Brigade, Hizzbollah...

[Ban Hammer 13,703]

got it, it's the fault of the west.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

got it, it's the fault of the west.

It's not about assigning blame for terrorism to anyone but themselves, Charles. The argument demonstrates with concrete facts that suicide bombing is not something born out of radical Islamic fundamentalism. The Tamil Tigers, as an example, despise religion and they have been blowing themselves up for the last 30 years or so. Terrorism has an aim and it is a political one, not a religious holy war as the neo-cons like to believe to be.

[Dr. A ♥ O 203]

From Occupied Palestine Blog? I can see how they would post this on their blog applying it to their own situation. I'd like to see those facts updated since 2003 adding the results from the US war in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's interesting that the author points out that democracies are the vulnerable ones to suicide attacks. I'm trying to think of any bombing attacks since 2003 towards a non-democratic nation but I can't think of any occupying anywhere except maybe in Burma? That's right! The bombings in Burma since 2003 skew the findings of this 2005 publication. It helps support that the bombings happen when the people feel they are occupied in their homeland but it debunks that only democracies are vulnerable. Burma is under a military dictatorship. Maybe this is an isolated case though?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

From Occupied Palestine Blog? I can see how they would post this on their blog applying it to their own situation. I'd like to see those facts updated since 2003 adding the results from the US war in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's interesting that the author points out that democracies are the vulnerable ones to suicide attacks. I'm trying to think of any bombing attacks since 2003 towards a non-democratic nation but I can't think of any occupying anywhere except maybe in Burma? That's right! The bombings in Burma since 2003 skew the findings of this 2005 publication. It helps support that the bombings happen when the people feel they are occupied in their homeland but it debunks that only democracies are vulnerable. Burma is under a military dictatorship. Maybe this is an isolated case though?

It was originally published in the NYT as indicated at the top of the post.

[Dr. A ♥ O 203]

From Occupied Palestine Blog? I can see how they would post this on their blog applying it to their own situation. I'd like to see those facts updated since 2003 adding the results from the US war in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's interesting that the author points out that democracies are the vulnerable ones to suicide attacks. I'm trying to think of any bombing attacks since 2003 towards a non-democratic nation but I can't think of any occupying anywhere except maybe in Burma? That's right! The bombings in Burma since 2003 skew the findings of this 2005 publication. It helps support that the bombings happen when the people feel they are occupied in their homeland but it debunks that only democracies are vulnerable. Burma is under a military dictatorship. Maybe this is an isolated case though?

It was originally published in the NYT as indicated at the top of the post.

Yeah, I'm aware of that. I was commenting on this link: http://www.fromoccupiedpalestine.org/node/1532

you posted as your source.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

got it, it's the fault of the west.

It's not about assigning blame for terrorism to anyone but themselves, Charles. The argument demonstrates with concrete facts that suicide bombing is not something born out of radical Islamic fundamentalism. The Tamil Tigers, as an example, despise religion and they have been blowing themselves up for the last 30 years or so. Terrorism has an aim and it is a political one, not a religious holy war as the neo-cons like to believe to be.

Good point. Why would anyone ever connect radical Islam and suicide bombers? It's just crazy.

It's most likely Tim McVeigh, the KKK, the IRA or a bank robber.

[Pooky 3,848]

It's most likely Tim McVeigh, the KKK, the IRA or a bank robber.

I hate to ask, but what could motivate a suicide bank robber?

[Dr. A ♥ O 203]

It's most likely Tim McVeigh, the KKK, the IRA or a bank robber.

I hate to ask, but what could motivate a suicide bank robber?

The bank is occupying their money!

[shaggy_mutt 0]

Good point. Why would anyone ever connect radical Islam and suicide bombers? It's just crazy.

It's most likely Tim McVeigh, the KKK, the IRA or a bank robber.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

It's most likely Tim McVeigh, the KKK, the IRA or a bank robber.

I hate to ask, but what could motivate a suicide bank robber?

Bad math.

Edited January 10, 2009 by LuckyStrike

[NickD 203]

got it, it's the fault of the west.

It's not about assigning blame for terrorism to anyone but themselves, Charles. The argument demonstrates with concrete facts that suicide bombing is not something born out of radical Islamic fundamentalism. The Tamil Tigers, as an example, despise religion and they have been blowing themselves up for the last 30 years or so. Terrorism has an aim and it is a political one, not a religious holy war as the neo-cons like to believe to be.

I feel these guys ate to much leaded paint from an old wall. Or smoked too much crack.

[Dr. A ♥ O 203]

I'm still thinking about this article. He bases his claim that the terror tactics are as old as time but this "war on terror" is basically new by the times these findings were published. I'm also thinking about what he said with democracies being the most vulnerable to terror. This terror attack in India supports that evidence as India is the world's largest Democracy with over one billion people. India intelligence has discovered that the terrorist attackers were from Pakistan. At this time I don't know enough about the name of this particular group or if they even had a group name. If we're going off the assumption that this was not Muslims attacking Hindi's and it's not religious based but as the author states it's political based then what is their message? Are all terrorist attacks to be seen as political violence now? Their targets were civilians and monuments of historical importance. Why are terrorists targeting structures if it political? What does the Taj Mahal and a transportation station have to do with politics?

Examining the other evidence the author offers is the occupation factor. They are attacking India's democracy because these people felt India is occupying Pakistan? Again it is territorial? I know the general history of the India and Pakistan conflicts along the boarder. Pakistans government is currently under an authoritarian regime after the 2001 overthrow of the Taliban. Their last democratically elected President fled into exhile only to come back and be assassinated. So something is really going on in Pakistan. I think in that article there needs to be more added to the sources of terroism he examines and I still say his findings could really be enhanced with an update on the reports since 2003.

21-year-old Ajmal Kasab, one of ten terrorists who attacked Mumbai, India on November 26th, 2008 walks through the Chatrapathi Sivaji Terminal railway station, carrying weapons and duffel bags of ammunition. Kasab and his cohorts - all from Pakistan - killed over 170 people over the course of three days, until all except Kasab were killed by Indian forces. (AP Photo/Mumbai Mirror, Sebastian D'souza)

Edited January 11, 2009 by Olivia*

[Dr. A ♥ O 203]

We also don't get to hear much about these go do we?

Internally Displaced People leave Kibati heading north from the city to their villages, Kibumba and Rugari, north of the provincial capital of Goma, Congo, on November 2, 2008. Several thousand people displaced in the fighting between rebels and government troops in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo began returning home Sunday as a ceasefire held, an AFP correspondent on the scene reported. (YASUYOSHI CHIBA/AFP/Getty Images)