Author: Robert A. Pape
Copyright: 2005
Copy: Paperback used during last year of graduate school while studying with Brian Houghton.
Gist: Pape is a social scientist that went about collecting data on every known suicide terrorist attack since 1980. He paid a bunch of college students to punch the info into some charts and then tried to make something out of all the data. In the end, what Pape identified from his research was that suicide terrorism is not the result of uneducated religious fanatics. He suggests that the tactic of suicide terrorism is a strategically logical technique used more so by non-religious terrorist groups to overpower otherwise superior entities. He cites the now defunct nationalistic LTTE terrorist group from Sri Lanka as well as some of the early Hezbollah suicide attackers who were non-religious, educated, and a handful of them were women. Ultimately, Pape tries to turn most of the Western preconceived notions of what a suicide terrorist is upside down based on his immense data.
My Ideas: There is a lot in this book that I could talk about. It was one of the most influential books for me while I was studying at the University of Hawaii doing my masters degree in political science. One little tidbit that I fascinated me was that Hezbollah is credited with being the first to develop the suicide bomber tactic, where one person blows himself/herself up to kill others. From there, members of LTTE were trained by Hezbollah in the Bekka Valley in Lebanon and the technique transferred to Sri Lanka where it was improved upon and elsewhere. Most people believe LTTE or others were the first, but Pape proves otherwise with convincing clarity.
But that’s not what I want to write about. I think the most important idea in this text is that suicide terrorism is almost always the result of one group of people reacting to a perceived existential threat that is brought about due to occupation. In other words, suicide terrorism is the result of occupation. I’ll write a few words about that and then I’ll talk about my definition of suicide terrorism.
It’s All About Occupation
If we were to look at almost every scenario where suicide terrorism is used, it is most often that the conflict is centered on the issue of occupation. In Sri Lanka, the Tamil minority that created LTTE felt threatened by the “occupying” Sinhalese majority. In Iraq and Afghanistan, Al Qa’ida (AQ) is reacting to a military occupation by the U.S. In the conflicted land of Pakistan, a number of militant groups feel the civilian government is not the true Islamic government that should be in power so the civilian government is “occupying” a position and land unrighteously. There are a number of other conflicts that all seem to center on the same issue. It seems that this sense of occupation is so frightful because it causes the minority, or those who feel their land is being occupied, to feel that their identity is being threatened. For example, by having American troops in one of the holiest of Islamic lands, Mecca, Muslims around the world to include Usama bin Laden (UBL) feel that Muslims and Islam itself is being threatened. This is a perfect example of what is meant by a perceived existential threat. Those who feel they are being occupied feel that their existence, their identity, is ultimately being threatened and they are on the verge of being labeled invalid by an occupying and often militarily superior power.
What I noticed about this idea of an occupying existential threat is that in order for the occupiers to be considered a threat, in most cases they have to have a religion that is different than those whose land they are occupying. Christian Americans in Iraq or Afghanistan or Israeli Jews in Muslim Lebanon are easy examples. Each of these cases involves an occupier with a different religion causing a perceived existential threat. Similarly, I have often wondered why the nationalistic issue of the Hawaiian Nation has not become violent. One of the reasons I’ve come up with is that those who feel they are being threatened by an occupying Western power notice that they can too easily relate to the “occupying power” on Christian religious grouns. The religion and language have become the same. If there were a more drastic contrast between the religion of the Hawaiians and that of the Western “occupiers” it is likely that conflict would have escalated to violence years ago. But, you don’t see many people who still worship Pele on the islands causing a sense of tension over religious differences. That makes it very difficult to feel threatened by those who you consider to be an occupier because there is too much common ground.
So how does this relate to our world in 2010 and the global terrorist threat? Pape suggests that in order to mitigate the threat of suicide terrorism the U.S. needs disregard what President Bush has said on the issue. Pape suggests that Bush was wrong when he stated AQ attacked us on 9/11 because of who we are and what we believe. Pape says that had nothing to do with it – it has everything to do with what we as a country are doing. It has to do with foreign policy, it has to do with military forces “occupying” Muslim lands – it has to do with our actions and not our beliefs. So, in that sense Pape suggests that we as a country need to reevaluate our foreign policy and the placement of our troops to see if they are contributing to or inhibiting our national security. We need to remove any troops of U.S. personnel who may be seen as “occupiers.”
However, this isn’t as easy as it sounds. By doing so we will have taught those who use suicide terrorism that it is an effective means of forcing the United States to bend to the will of terrorists. We as a country cannot allow ourselves to be coerced into taking action via a threat of suicide terrorism. It is extremely difficult to mitigate every terrorist threat because it means we have to stop every threat that exists, using every available means to thwart threats to the country, and that burns a lot of money and man power. Also, by showing terrorists that suicide is an effective means of dealing with the U.S. it proves to other nations and groups that they can use this technique in the future. Just like the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Lebanon in the 80’s. In the end the U.S. pulled our embassy out of the country. This was a huge win for terrorists because it proved that they were able to cause the mighty U.S. to leave the country. It caused the U.S. to de-occupy a location where the Lebanese felt an existential threat from the Israelis. Hezbollah saw the U.S. as the power behind the Israeli’s so they attacked us and won the fight. We cannot give into suicide terrorism like this again! It gives a false sense of victory to those who espouse terrorism.
What is suicide terrorism?
I have had a number of discussions on this topic with people who are supposed to be “in the know” but I’ve often come away disappointed with their definition. Here’s my contribution to the definition of suicide terrorism: any terrorist act where the willful and intentional taking of ones own life (not death by cop style) in turn takes the lives of those around you. The terrorist attacks in Mumbai on Nov 08 were not suicide attacks they were fedayeen attacks. These are attacks where the likelihood of survival is slim and the deaths of others were not dependent upon the attackers taking their own lives.
To be honest I don’t know why I make such a distinction and big deal about this issue. One thing is for sure, there is something very frightening and overwhelming when you know that an attacker is willing to take his own life in order to kill you. You know that his death equals your death as well. This isn’t the same with a fedayeen attacker (death by cop style). If I were in the middle of a fedayeen attack I know that if I can put the attacker down then I will have saved mine as well as others’ lives. If you try to take down a suicide bomber with an explosive laden vest it’s very possible everyone including yourself could die. At any rate, suicide terrorism is any terrorist act where the willful and intentional taking of ones own life in turn takes the lives of those around you. If you have questions about my definition I highly encourage you to leave a comment and we can keep this discussion going through the rest of the week.
Comments: That’s enough on this subject I think. I know I’ve bored my wife on this issue on more than one occasion – I hope I haven’t done the same to you my dear reader. It’s one of my personal favorites because the reality of the issue is often the opposite of what the usual Westerner thinks.
Next Book Review: I’ve taken the rest of the books I want to review and started placing them into more of a decent order for the following reviews. I’ve only got about 22 left on my blue book shelf. I either need to start reading again or find copies of books I’ve already read so I can be reminded of what I’ve read and thought about in the past. For next week I’ll be writing about a book entitled “Leadership on the Line.” I took a political leadership class at the University of Hawaii and had to read this little nugget. It has a few great ideas that I want to write about. The main idea will be about fear of loss vs faith in principle.
No comments:
Post a Comment