OK, lets recap, with an eye to responding to some themes in the comments.
First, lets assume for the sake of discussion that there is a form of violence which we call terrorism, which is different on one end, from crime, and on the other, from open warfare, which maintaining some of the features of each.
The three key distinguishing features would be: violence against civilian targets with the intent to damage morale and effect political change; violence not targeted at either political leaders, combatants, or the resources necessary to lead or conduct war or economic life. The targets
trains, airliners, Olympic athletes, airports, cafes, schools, and symbolic buildings
are selected for their maximal dramatic impact, rather than for their substantive impact.
It would be like attacking Los Angeles by blowing up Universal Studios rather than the California Aqueduct.
This is ultimately a philosophy of self-liberating action of praxis. In this philosophy, the actor finds the meaning of his or her life in the liberating acts that they do. Sound familiar? Ill quote (for the 3rd time) Berlin:
The values to which they attached the highest importance were such values as integrity, sincerity, readiness to sacrifice ones life to some inner light, dedication to an ideal for which it is worth sacrificing all that one is, for which it is worth both living and dying. You would have found that they were not primarily interested in knowledge, or in the advancement of science, not interested in political power, not interested in happiness, not interested, above all, in adjustment to life, in finding your place in society, in living at peace with your government, even loyalty to your king, or your republic. You would have found common sense, moderation, was very far from their thoughts. You would have found that they believed in the necessity of fighting for your beliefs to the last breath in your body, and you would have found that they believed in the value of martyrdom as such, no matter what the martyrdom was for. You would have found that they believed that minorities were more holy than majorities, that failure was nobler than success, which had something shoddy and vulgar about it. The very notion of idealism, not in its philosophical sense, but in the ordinary sense in which we use it, that is to say the state of mind of a man who is willing to sacrifice a great deal for principles or some conviction, who is not prepared to sell out, who is prepared to go to the stake for something which he believes, because he believes in it this attitude was relatively new. What people admired was wholeheartedness, sincerity, purity of soul, the ability and readiness to dedicate yourself to your ideal, no matter what it was.
No matter what it was: that is the important thing.
Ive suggested above that there is a philosophical basis for this violence, and Ill go further, and say that to defeat it, you have to understand and manage its philosophical underpinnings, because one of the key features of this kind of violence is that it is both hard to capture the managers, and relatively easy to recruit the agents.
Now here, Ill confess a bias. Im basically a philosophical kind of guy, although that will come as a surprise to my friends in physical space, who know me as the guy who goes Beer!! More Beer!! a lot (not too much Sam Adams any more, though), and so there is the problem at a psychologist has in imputing psychological interpretations to every event.
But Ill restate the above more seriously. It is easy to grow terrorists in this climate. Easiest right now in the Middle East, but Ill suggest that other parts of the world are not all that far behind. We can work had to capture them, build layers of security into our lives, accept some level of tragedy or loss, or we can figure out how to stop growing them.
Now this isnt a call to roll over and play dead, nor to simply give in to the current crop of political demands. In fact, its an argument that as soon as we did give in to the current crop of demands, a whole new set would come up, because if I am right, it is the act of warring against the West and modernity that matters, not any specific goals.
Date: 08/26/2002 00:00:00 AM
And now for tangent #3 … Why do they use the methods they currently use? Because they have no better way and nothing to lose. On the Pal side you have a group of people who have been marginalized and lied to by everyone in their region including Arabs. The Israelis make peace concessions like Oslo, but continue to make things worse by expanding settlements. This does a couple things. One, it causes a distrust of the other side, which is a bad thing to perpetuate with peace deals. Two, it “supports” the old European stereotype of the “crooked Jew” in the minds of the Pals. The Israelis sign a treaty, but still build settlements, why WOULD they trust them. To Palestinians, the settlements are akin to the old British colonies, and also a reminder that they were removed from their old homes by these same people years before. They see these offerings the way the Native Americans saw and treaties with the U.S. in the 19th century. Since these people have so little to lose there is not much we can do. All Israel can do is kill them and they taunt Israel by killing themselves and their enemies in a way that would make Samson jealous. I believe that they should be given something to lose. Start a gradual pullout of settlements and self rule over a small portion. Put a pullout and expansion of Pal border timeline on paper. Explicitly write the necessity of self policing and that allowing or harboring terrorist will result in the old status quo. Once the people have something to lose, they will defend it. Think of it this way, in elementary school, when everyone was being loud and throwing paper airplanes it was good fun. But once the teacher said “If I see another paper airplane or spitball, everyone loses recess.” There might be another spitball or airplane, but once the teacher takes away recess there’s a whupping coming from the rest of the class. The people who have spent the last few decades suffering and waiting for land aren’t going to let ideologues ruin it after all they’ve been through. It’s not the 70s anymore, the mainstream Arab world has finally (begrudgingly) acknowledged the existence of Israel. Peer pressure is an amazing thing. One last thing, Sharon can’t (or shouldn’t) expect peace before signing a treaty. Historically, the fighting stopped after the peace accords were signed, not before. Sorry this was so long winded, hope you all enjoy it at the very least. –Mostafa
Date: 08/24/2002 00:00:00 AM
A.L.It sounds like Berlin and Harris are very much on the same page. Maybe I’m trying to skip to the last chapter, but so far I’m not clear where you come in on this. You seem to agree with both of them, then say that that we need to “figure out how to stop growing terrorists.” Implying that it is something we are doing that is fertilizing the soil or watering the roots? And, if that’s the case, that “something” is…what? Colonialism? Capitalism? Globalization? Hollywood? You say that you “have an easier time placing it [terrorism] in the context of alienation and a striving for national liberation.” I’d suggest that alienation and a striving for national liberation are in this case sentiments planted, watered and fertilized by some who need a mindless mass of warriors to fight their battles for them. Those pulling the strings probably aren’t any more “religious” than Hitler was, but they know how to manipulate religious zeal toward their real goals, which are, ultimately, power and conquest – for themselves. At this point, I can’t tell if you’re just throwing up ideas or if you’ve caught one and started to run with it. Hopefully, you’ll keep writing and I’ll keep reading and it will become clear.On your analysis of targets, though, I reluctantly have to disagree. I think that the reason they haven’t hit strategic targets is that, so far, they haven’t been able to. But they have tried. Taking just one example, in Israel, the attempt to blow up the Pi-Gelilot Refinery Depot in May, which would have caused national disruption in addition to many, many deaths. Remember that they hoped to bring the WTC down in ’93. And that they were also going after tunnels and bridges, even back then. Now they have our attention. Drama may no longer be their top priority. And if we make the mistake of thinking that because it hasn’t happened yet, it isn’t on their agenda, we’re going to be caught off guard. Again.
Date: 08/25/2002 00:00:00 AM
I’m coming in in the middle, but I went back to the beginning and read most of what preceded. My comments:I think lumping together Muslim terrorism, Indian ethnic violence, and European and American street crime is highly erroneous.Osama Bin Laden did have a rational purpose. He wanted to drive the US out of Saudi Arabia and with it the Saudi regime, presumably replacing the Saud ruler with himself or someone of his own choosing.In the Middle East, our support for corrupt authoritarian oil regimes has produced wealthy societies without any avenues for the exercise of citizenship, and to a degree (esp. Saudi) without access to Western knowledge. So whatever discontent there is will probably be in a traditional (anti-Western) form, there being no Western alternative. Palestinian terrorism is rational in the sense that there is a goal, Palestine. They have a better chance of reaching that goal than the IRA or the Basque separatists, I think. Terrorism is used because the alternative is to cease to exist as a force. Weapon of the weak, etc. This was not a war of al-Qaeda vs. the US, with al-Q trying to defeat the US. The goal was to change US foreign policy and to stir up trouble.Both the 9/11 terrorists and Palestinian terrorists are well funded by oil money which comes as “free money” to be dispensed at will (unlike earnings which have to be reinvested and managed). We don’t see Indonesian or Bangla Deshi terrorism because the funding isn’t there.I basically don’t think terrorism is a powerful analytic concept, partly because it privileges state violence. Most “sub-states” think of themselves as “pre-states”. For example, even by your definitions some of the US-sponsored violence in Central America ca. 1980 was terrorist. Civilians were murdered in bulk for purposes of intimidation, in part by un-uniformed private police forces working outside the law (though winked at by the legal forces). Yet I don’t think you would want to count that as terrorism, because being insurgent (and perhaps futility) is really part of the definition.So anyway, I would deal with the present case as a specific thing rather than a new state of the world order.My source for some of the above is The Hidden Truth, Dasquie & Brisard, which is a better book than the Corn, Cave, and Silverstein reviews would have you think.
Date: 08/25/2002 00:00:00 AM
I disagree some with the Berlin quote. More than a few “willing to die for their cause” terrorists are quite serious about political goals, and about winning. It’s not just some roamntic doomed gesture. The IRA sure as hell was, and is, serious. And they probably invented urban terrorism. The Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka, who are considered to be perhaps the most effective and deadly guerilla force in the world, are also quite serious.So, for that matter, were most the founding fathers of Israel, who blew up buildings to get the Brits out.
Date: 08/24/2002 00:00:00 AM
Lynn -Two reasons it isn’t clear: 1) I’m writing elliptically in short chunks and doing a bad job of editing and writing continuously. My bad, but can’t help it with the way my life is right now. 2) I’m using this to work out an idea that is even not completely clear to me, but suddenly feels like it’s within my grasp. I think that there are maybe two more short installments and then a wrapup, and by then I should be more articulate. Thanks for bearing with me.Re targets: 30 years after they start blowing stuff up, they go after a refinery?? They have never gone after water works, sewage, electricity transmission or generation…the stuff modern societies work on. They went aftyer WTC because it is the imaginary capital of “Jew York”, not because of anything in the building itself…and that distinction is one we don’t clearly understand and need to manage.As to “growing them”; I’m not suggesting Western culpability, juat an “integrated pest control” type approach, in which the preconditions for the growth of undesirable species can often be used to influence their prevalence.A.L. (back to unpacking)
Date: 08/24/2002 00:00:00 AM
Love your space, only problem is keeping up with the pace. Particularly happy to see you describe yourself as a citizen rather than an expert. I too am merely a citizen and taxpayer aboard this curious conveyance. I do have a life long habit of observing alienation and attempting to account for it. Kind of like birdwatching with a sharp edge. If I have missed previous posts and this is old news please excuse me, as I said, it is difficult for me to keep current with your content for more than a few days at a time, having said that, I suggest that Columbine, Whitman, and similer”inexplicable” outrages were predicted quite well by English author John Brunner a good 30 or so years ago. Most Americans seem to only be conversant with “Stand on Zanzibar” because JB used something similer to John Dos Passos as a literary device. Like “Atlas Shrugged” it is just so long that one almost needs to be recuperating from a certified illness to have an excuse to put the necessary time into it. Instead, if you haven’t yet, read “The Sheep Look Up” from 1972. I think Brunner may have been the first writer to use the term “mucker” with great focus and precision. Thanks and please carry on. a. rose
While not unfamiliar with the roots of terrorism (they didn’t exactly invent it in Northern Ireland or in north Africa), I checked into Amazon after 911 and picked up half a dozen books after searching on the keyword, “terrorism.”
There were (and are) many to choose from virtually all of which were written by experts as their credentials were clearly stated along with description of the tome being offered.
I disregarded the ones by former amabassadors (pot full of choices there) and leaned towards professional journalists and a hodgepodge of assorted writers who had been there. I believe I read two of them then gave the lot to my local library for their annual fund raising sale.
You make much ado of nothing. There’s nothing especially complex or difficult to understand. One thing that has changed is the availability of large monetary sums and technology of various sorts.
Rinky dink little countries like Iraq or North Korean would “normally” pose no thread to the average country, let alone a powerful one. What is the difference then?
Did the assorted terrorists of Western Europe, a popular activity that began in the 1960’s, have the same? Poor Yasser Arafat had little more than the threat of hijacking a plane once in a while in the 1970’s. The mere use of planes on 911 doesn’t reflect the threat of terrorism. What was behind it, made it possible?
Some billionaire dies and leaves a few bucks to the anti-gun crowd and suddenly their voice gets a little stronger.
Or skip the money. Make a little technology available to some nut case who has an IQ of 185.
Bad things may happen either way and there’s no need for an outcry, popular backing of any kind. All you really need is a small group of people, no pitchforks needed to bring distress to the lord of the manor, to cause a good deal of concern and harm to a large group of people.
Carl Sagan, Richard P. Feynman, and a few other scientists dabbled a little bit in the social sciences, which is where you’re mainly trying to find a way to fiddle with the machinery, but they did so from the vantage point of a bit of knowledge of science. Some of the scientists who dabbled came up with some positive decisions, mostly based on their inherit hunch about, or sense of, some inate sense of good will which would prevent us from destroying ourselves.
But you dabble in social sciences, give a bit of thought to the financial end of things, but generally ignore the grand possibilities afford us by science to do great good….
….or great harm rather easily. The concentration of wealth, in rather substantial amounts, is rather remarkable in the world we live in today. And there’s often been a link between crime and terrorism. Those chaps that were running Afghanistan for a few years cultivated some rather large poppy fields.