CSPAN "Dying to Win: Strategic logic of Suicide Terrorism"

There is an idiot professor Robert Pape saying the reason there are suicide bombers is to boot American troops out of the arabian peninsula. His logic is based on numbers of bombing attacks that have increased since we entered Iraq. Of course he adds that we shouldn't blame ourselves for this - apparently to obfuscate those that would attack his so-called logic.

I did not read Pape's book yet but I intend to do so as soon as I can get a copy here in Germany. So I do not know what his response to your question would be except it is clear that the thesis of his argument is this: suicide bombings are a function of occupation of territory by foreign troops of a different religion and not a function of fundamentalism itself. You'll note, that if the author is correct, we are working against our own interests in Iraq. In fact the author says that:

TAC: What do you think the chances are of a weapon of mass destruction being used in an American city?

RP: I think it depends not exclusively, but heavily, on how long our combat forces remain in the Persian Gulf. The central motive for anti-American terrorism, suicide terrorism, and catastrophic terrorism is response to foreign occupation, the presence of our troops. The longer our forces stay on the ground in the Arabian Peninsula, the greater the risk of the next 9/11, whether that is a suicide attack, a nuclear attack, or a biological attack.

I am of the opinion, which is shared by one of the panelists who I think is named Flint Loverett, that we have been spared another attack on the homeland only because it is not in the game plan of the enemy and not because we are tying them up in Iraq. To believe that the terrorists of the Arab world cannot find another 19 suicidal individuals to attack America because they are engaged in Iraq is utter nonsense and so stupid as to be unworthy of comment.

Somehow we must work our way through this dilemma and find a strategy that works before these crazies blowup Pittsburgh. I leave you with these remarks from Dr. Pape's:

RP: Al-Qaeda appears to have made a deliberate decision not to attack the United States in the short term. We know this not only from the pattern of their attacks but because we have an actual al-Qaeda planning document found by Norwegian intelligence. The document says that al-Qaeda should not try to attack the continent of the United States in the short term but instead should focus its energies on hitting America’s allies in order to try to split the coalition.

I'm reading a book that was written in 1957 that talks about the same kind of Arab Islamic violence.

"That society has deteriorated to a point where violence is almost inevitable...
--tired of being overwhemed, have leapt with frantic sadistic joy to burn and kill.
The burning of Cairo, the assassination of Prime Ministers, the intimidating of Christians, the vehemence and hatred in their literature--all this is to be understood in terms of a people who have lost their way, whose heritage has proven unequal to modernity, whose leaders have been dishonest, whose ideals have failed.
In this aspect, the new Islamic upsurge is a force not to solve problems but to intoxicate those who cannot longer abide the failure to solve them.
pp. 158-59, Islam in Modern History, by Wilfred Cantwell Smith, Princeton University Press

He's absolutely correct, as far as suicide bombings in Iraq go. We know that from debriefs of captured suicide bombers, facilitators, and other terrorists.

There's is a chain of suicide bombing recruitment that starts in mosques from Morocco to Pakistan, runs through countries neighboring Iraq, and feeds potential recruits to VBIED cells in central Baghdad. That chain starts with mosque based recruiters that seek out individuals predisposed or receptive to extremist indoctrination.

They're specifically promised rewards in heaven, bombarded with apocalyptic propaganda, and basically lured into blowing themselves up to defend Islam against invading crusaders. That's not speculation, that's why they go to Iraq. To kill Americans, infidels, and apostates, so they can go straight to heaven.

There were suicide bombers in the past, of course, and it's not like terrorism was invented in or for Iraq. The only new development is how popular it's gotten, due to global events and the increasingly sophisticated media propaganda machine that the extremists run. They are able to portray the current struggles in the world as signs of end times, and promise any who are willing to raise the sword now a free ticket to heaven. I've had to study some of it, and it's chillingly effective material to manipulate uneducated but faithful people. The kind that haunts your dreams when you really think about it.

It's wacko stuff, but terrifying when you realize that people honestly believe it to the point of driving a VBIED into a schoolyard or farmers market.

suicide bombings are a function of occupation of territory by foreign troops of a different religion and not a function of fundamentalism itself.

Yes and no.

The phenomenon of suicide bombings aren't necessarily tied to territorial concerns. There are instances when it happens anyway, out of purely fanatical concerns. You could argue that 9/11 had a territorial angle, if you consider we had troops in Saudi. Bin Laden often railed against that, and I'm sure it was a factor in the 19's indoctrination. But with pure fanatics, the existance of the Dar al Harb (House of war, ie any non-Muslim lands) is an affront to the Islamic world.

At some point, they'd come after us for any reason. Not in any great numbers, but as the 19 proved, you don't need big numbers to get a big reaction.

What changed with Iraq and Afghanistan is that we actually showed up in their lands, guns blazing, and took over. That lowers the 'fanaticism' bar considerably, and makes it much, much easier to recruit suicide bombers. That's why we see so many now, literally hundreds a year.

Our presence makes for great PR, as far as terrorist recruiters go. They lie and distort, but paint a very compelling fantasy for the potential bombers, and one that simply wouldn't be possible if we weren't there.

If the professor is claiming that the attacks on us are because of our presence on the soil of the Arabian Peninsula, beginning with the Gulf War in 1991, how does he explain the very first attack on America by Islamic radicals, the takeover of the American Embassy in Beirut in 1979?

I'll explain that one.

The Muslim fanatics in Iran were able to capitalize on what should have been a purely nationalistic resistance to the Shah (who we installed), and convert it into a fundamentalist uprising. Iranians were very upset with us, because we basically didn't care what happened to them so long as the Shah kept a hard line in opposing the Soviets.

Once the Ayatollah and his crew took over, and rose to power and influence, the fundamentalist whackjobs got in what they saw as payback. They didn't want the Shah, or us, around, and resented the influence of both, although it was only the added nuttiness of Islamic exremism that made the Embassy crisis possible. That was totally uncivilized behavior, andpar for the course with that crowd. Still, they were only able to ascend to power by leeching off of what the vast majority of Iranians considered a legitimate grievance: opposition to the Shah.

All politics is local, even with jihad.

I agree with you that that Pape's proposition is not self-evident and we certainly have to consider his bona fides as well as the quality of his scholarship before we junk our entire policy in the war against terrorism and set to naught all blood and treasure that has been spilled in Iraq. This is what it says about his research in that article:

Robert Pape: Over the past two years, I have collected the first complete database of every suicide-terrorist attack around the world from 1980 to early 2004. This research is conducted not only in English but also in native-language sources—Arabic, Hebrew, Russian, and Tamil, and others—so that we can gather information not only from newspapers but also from products from the terrorist community. The terrorists are often quite proud of what they do in their local communities, and they produce albums and all kinds of other information that can be very helpful to understand suicide-terrorist attacks.

But he evidently believes that his research justifies the dismantling of Bush's policy. In fact he claims to Bush's policy is counterproductive:

TAC: That would seem to run contrary to a view that one heard during the American election campaign, put forth by people who favor Bush’s policy. That is, we need to fight the terrorists over there, so we don’t have to fight them here.

RP: Since suicide terrorism is mainly a response to foreign occupation and not Islamic fundamentalism, the use of heavy military force to transform Muslim societies over there, if you would, is only likely to increase the number of suicide terrorists coming at us.

He's absolutely correct, as far as suicide bombings in Iraq go.

First his discussion was not limited to Iraq. He was making a generalization based on his statistical analysis that suicide bombings occur because we are invading their space. He spoke of the London bombings and spoke about suicide bombing in general.

Secondly, even in Iraq it is not accurate that suicide bombings are occuring because we are there. One only has to look at who is being killed to see the fallacy of that argument. They are killing more of themselves than our soldiers. If we left they would kill even more of each other not less. We are saving lives by being there.

The suicide bombers that were initially used against our troops and convoys, and that is the target that nearly every potenial bomber is sold on when recruited. (Killing apostates doesn't have the same appeal as killing crusaders). The targets only changed when AMZ decided that it would be more effective to attack civilian targets and make Iraq ungovernable by inciting ethnic warfare.

Still, the bombers themselves rarely know that. Once the actual VBIED cell get a hold of a candidate, they ritually prepare him and keep him secluded until the time of the hit. Many believe that they are on the way to attack an American outpost before their car is detonated remotely. Often, they're not even told of their destination, only to drive a certain route.

We've intercepted, captured, and interrogated a number of bombers and VBIED cells, and the fact of the matter is, most think that they're doing what they do to fight Americans. When they call home to report to the family of the suicide bomber, they inform them that their son died blowing up an American convoy. They'll say he killed some large number of troops, but the media won't cover it.

If we left they would kill even more of each other not less. We are saving lives by being there.

That may be the case in general, especially now that sectarian violence has been spaked. For the specific method of suicide attacks, however, it's a reaction to our presence. Muslims-on-Muslim suicide attacks don't really happen in the normal course of events.

For the specific method of suicide attacks, however, it's a reaction to our presence. Muslims-on-Muslim suicide attacks don't really happen in the normal course of events

I don't know how recent suicide bombing is as a tactic in that region. But it's just a tactic and a means to an end. Muslims have been killing each other for hundreds of years long before we invaded Iraq. So I don't fall prey to the notion it's somehow our fault they're killing each other.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.