Either/Or

by von

RAND SIMBERG, remarking on the revelation that the latest terror plot in the UK was carried out by MDs:

By the way, it would also be nice if this latest development finally puts to bed the ongoing "progressive" myth that terrorism is caused by poverty and alienation, or by our foreign policy (the latest manifestation of this nonsense is the nutty notion that we are "creating terrorists in Iraq").

It's the Jihad, stupid. ...

....

We continue to deny moral agency to Muslims, and act as though we really are responsible for all bad things in the world, and they have no responsibility for their own behavior. If we don't understand what we are at war with, and chase after solutions to problems that don't really exist, and continue to foolishly ask questions like "why do they hate us?", we can never win.

These musings get a favorable nod from Professor Reynolds (HT), but I don't know why they should.  Terrorists are not Animal Crackers, with a set number of shapes.  Nor is this a case of either/or. The explanatory options aren't "Jihad" on one hand or "why do they hate us?" on the other, with nothing else (or in between).  The motivation for terrorists in Gaza is not the same as the motivation for terrorists in Iraq and is not the same as the motivation for terrorists in the UK.  The societies are different, the causes are different, and the victims are different. 

And, yes, this matters. A terrorist in Gaza, living hand-to-mouth, may very well be motivated partly by poverty:  he has no options, sees little hope, and has an easy (and nearby) out-group to blame:  the Jews.  A Sunni insurgent killing Shia civilians (or ambushing US troops) may have similar feelings, albeit directed to a different perceived foe.  But a person who travels half-around the world to fly a jetliner full of passengers and fuel into an office building is motivated by something quite different.

Moreover, it should be no surprise to find that terrorists motivated most by ideology -- and those most dangerous to us -- can be quite educated.  Those who kill in the name of an idea frequently come from privilege (e.g., Lenin, Che Guevara, and Pol Pot).  This shouldn't be a surprise: all-consuming Jihads are luxury goods.  They require time, money, and freedom from material need; you can't indulge in them if you're barely getting by.  So it is with Islamic terrorism as well.

Trying to provide an overarching explanation for "terrorism" -- whether "Jihad" or "poverty" -- is silly.  And, fundamentally, obscuring and unhelpful.  We will find ourselves perpetually afraid of monsters that do not exist; wasting our efforts against shadows, as the real monsters walk among us.

UPDATE:  Stuart thinks I'm guilty of the same sin, different degree:

A bit too pat, von. Fact is, it's only in a certain cultural climate that the supposedly "natural" reaction to various forms of adversity is terrorism. Poverty, it turns out, is not the only trigger or even the main one. It's fatuous to deny that the idea of terrorism as a legitimate response to grievances is generated within a specific cultural and religious context. For example, Africa is not awash in international terrorists despite widespread poverty and political dysfunction, and is not exporting terrorists to other parts of the world. Indeed, moderate outward-looking Muslim countries such as Malaysia aren't exporting or coddling terrorists on any appreciable scale, either. It's primarily the Middle East that is generating and exporting this kind of exaltation of violence. What this means is not that Islam is inherently violent, but that when it is combined with certain non-modern cultural norms and placed in a globalizing world in which the vanguard is Western, it produces in some fraction of its adherents a violent response.

Stuart's right that Islamism is that ideology most likely to export terrorists from one part of the world to another -- it's a prime mover.  (Today, at least:  yesterday, the leader in the field was communism.)  He's also right that the problems in the Middle East are unique in both kind and effect.  Nowhere else do you find such a confluence of high ideology; grinding poverty; extreme wealth; anachronistic cutures; and an overabundance of competing claims to the same lands, water rights, and cultures. 

I think it's far too much to say, however, that "Africa is not awash in international terrorists despite widespread poverty and political dysfunction" -- and suggest that an ideological difference is the explanation. It's true that Africa is not exporting terrorists to other continents.  Africa itself, however, is awash in terrorists -- from Zimbabwe to Rwanda (reaching back only a few years).  And many of those terrorists cross national borders (i.e., are "international" in a technical sense).  That they do not cross oceans probably has as much to do with relative wealth, foreign policy, and internal political and economic interests -- as much as (if not more than) any ideology.

Comments

[john miller]

Thank you von.

Well said. Plus I really am getting sick and tired of people on the right side of the spectrum telling was what liberals think, especially without providing evidence of same.

Let's afce it, bin Laden was hardly an underprivileged kid. All the liberals have been trying to say is that we need to look at what the possible underlying motivators may be, and yes, they can be several different things.

A few lefty crackpots have been blaming us for the attacks of 9/11 and others, but nobody with any real credibility.

Yes, we have to, as hilzoy pointed out a few days ago, look at consequences of our actions. That doesn't mean we have to cchange our actions, but it does mean we have to be aware of potential consequences and be ready to counter them.

And the statement that our being in Iraq is not creating terrorists is pure malarky, particularly when at least one of the accused has stated that he was motivated because a relative of his (a Sunni) was killed by a Shiite death squad and he blames the West.

Again, he, like all the terrorists, is still accountable for his actions, something which nobody on the left (except for the few crackpots) has denied.

[cleek]

it would also be nice if this latest development finally puts to bed the ongoing "progressive" myth that terrorism is caused by poverty and alienation

now if we could just get rid of the myths that it's caused by "evil" or "hatred of freedom and democracy". talk about denial of moral agency.

If we don't understand what we are at war with, and chase after solutions to problems that don't really exist, and continue to foolishly ask questions like "why do they hate us?", we can never win.

right, because the best way to beat something is to stubbornly refuse to learn anything about it. it's the Hulk Smash approach to foreign policy.

We are winning the war on the ground, and losing it where it really matters, in the media, and political establishment. The enemy understands the nature and value of their information war, but our side remains clueless.

how do you conduct an "information war" if you refuse to learn anything about the attitudes you're trying to influence? if you don't care to learn why they hate us, how the fnck are you supposed to counter it? do you just smash the propaganda directly into your enemies' skulls ?

von: Those who kill in the name of an idea frequently come from privilege (e.g., Lenin, Che Guevara, and Pol Pot)

there are a few Anglo names you could've added to that list, as well.

[Stuart]

A bit too pat, von. Fact is, it's only in a certain cultural climate that the supposedly "natural" reaction to various forms of adversity is terrorism. Poverty, it turns out, is not the only trigger or even the main one. It's fatuous to deny that the idea of terrorism as a legitimate response to grievances is generated within a specific cultural and religious context. For example, Africa is not awash in international terrorists despite widespread poverty and political dysfunction, and is not exporting terrorists to other parts of the world. Indeed, moderate outward-looking Muslim countries such as Malaysia aren't exporting or coddling terrorists on any appreciable scale, either. It's primarily the Middle East that is generating and exporting this kind of exaltation of violence. What this means is not that Islam is inherently violent, but that when it is combined with certain non-modern cultural norms and placed in a globalizing world in which the vanguard is Western, it produces in some fraction of its adherents a violent response.

What do we do about it? I'm not sure there is much that can be done other than just wait for it to burn itself out, like a fever, while trying to quarantine it and prevent it from infecting others. Eventually those who are disposed to this sort of behavior will be shunned or defeated, and it will stop. And yes, it will require some cultural change.

Saying that there is no overarching explanation for terrorism doesn't mean that the responsibility for the choice to engage in terrorism lies elsewhere than with the terrorists. Individuals still make choices. They are responsible for those choices. And it makes no sense to say that the West somehow is responsible, unless you have a way to explain those in different parts of the world who are in similar situations and don't resort to violence as a way to express their frustrations and grievances.

[hilzoy]

von: god post. Thanks.

One disagreement, about this: "the ongoing "progressive" myth that terrorism is caused by poverty and alienation" -- First, I think progressives are at least as various as terrorists, and so it would probably be helpful to say specifically who you're talking about here.

For another, it has always been nuts to say that poverty was the main cause of terror, in view of the existence of bin Laden and other educated, privileged terrorists. I don't think the same can be said about alienation, though, and alienation is a very different matter. On some level, terrorists would almost have to be alienated from what they're attacking; more interestingly, they probably have to at least feel as though other routes to whatever it is they're trying to achieve are closed to them. (Of course, feeling this way is different from its being true.)

I would suspect that at least one story about how one ends up as a terrorist would involve being stranded between cultures, too Westernized to be straightforwardly Muslim (where 'straightforwardly' means: in the unquestioned manner of some imagined simpler past), and too Muslim to be just Western; and in that state reaching for something simpler to hold on to, combined with a sense that your own government is just corrupt and rigged in such a way that change is impossible, topped off with the knowledge that Muslims, other Muslims who do not have the privilege you have, are being killed every day, and that something has to be done about it.

(I am deliberately omitting anything about whether any of those killings are in any way justified, or whatever. After 9/11, people in this country were profoundly disinclined to entertain such questions; it seemed disrespectful of the horror of it all, and like pointless self-hatred. I thought that was wrong, but I understand it. I don't see why Muslims who see people dying every day in Iraq, Gaza, Lebanon, etc., would not take the same view we did of such questions, though I think it's wrong in their case too. If they do, then we should not expect people's rage to be mitigated by thoughts about why we went into Iraq, why Israel bombed Lebanon and makes incursions into Gaza, etc.)

That's alienation, but it is a form that not only is not poverty, but more or less requires some degree of privilege.

[Anderson]

It's the Jihad, stupid.

I should have more patience for stupid people accusing *me* of being stupid ... where my "stupidity" consists precisely in having a more intelligent grasp of the facts ...

... but I don't. Maybe I'm getting tired of the internet.

[Doran Williams]

I wonder how Simberg and Reynolds would explain American terrorists, and why they do not even allude to American terrorists. I'm not talking about domestic terrorists, like McVeigh, or the murderers of abortion doctors, or White Supremeists. I'm talking about American terrorists such as George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Tommy Franks, Paul Wolfowitz, Ollie North, et. al. American terrorists who practice their terrorism on the people of other countries.

I suspect that Simberg and Reynolds avoid this subject because they are enablers of and apologists for American terrorists. That is to say, they support terrorism as long as it is their terrorism.

I hope people who have blogs like this one will start to bear down on this aspect of the neo-con right -- that they are essentially the supporters of a certain kind of terrorism and a certain type of terrorist. Those American terrorists are the monsters that truly do walk amongst us. They come from privilege, not from poverty. They typically have access to the levers of both public and private power and they use that power as a terrorist weapon. They've too long escaped being held accountable for their support of American terrorists, just as the American terrorists themselves have avoided accountability.

[john miller]

hilzoy, I don't think von really wants to be equated with God (or even god).

Secondly, it wasn't von saying that about progressives. I am sure you realize that, but your comment kind of intimated that it was.

[Anderson]

von: god post.

It was good, but was it *that* good?

[hilzoy]

Sorry von: my misreading. I take back the progressives part. (I did read the post several times, but apparently that wasn't enough ;( )

[hilzoy]

Oh, and ditto the god part.

[hilzoy]

Caffeine is my friend. I need to go have some.

[Steve]

Von, I'm curious: Do you have a vision for how we win the fight against radical Islamism, in the long term?

I'd love to think this is a movement that will ultimately devour itself, much as the Soviet Union proved itself to be unsustainable in the economic sense. Since I know von isn't the kind of guy to believe we win this war through genocide, I wonder if he has a sense of the long view, or if it's as murky to him as it is to me?

[Doran Williams]

Just how successful are terrorists at achieving their goals through terrorist acts?

Here is an excerpt from the blog at www.schneier.com which addresses that question. The answer is: Not all that often.

"Why Terrorism Doesn't Work

"This is an interesting paper on the efficacy of terrorism:

"This study analyzes the political plights of twenty-eight terrorist groups -- the complete list of foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs) as designated by the U.S. Department of State since 2001. The data yield two unexpected findings. First, the groups accomplished their forty-two policy objectives only 7 percent of the time. Second, although the groups achieved certain types of policy objectives more than others, the key variable for terrorist success was a tactical one: target selection. Groups whose attacks on civilian targets outnumbered attacks on military targets systematically failed to achieve their policy objectives, regardless of their nature.

"The author believes that correspondent inference theory explains this."

There is more at the blog. Well worth reading.

[someotherdude]

It would be interesting to understand what terrorism was like before Western colonialization.

I remember when the assorted Leftist movements of the Middle East (1930's - 1980's) were the most dangerous organizations to the survival of Western Civilization. And religious impulses were encouraged to counter the godless.

[someotherdude]

von,

"It's true that Africa is not exporting terrorists to other continents. "

No its not...South Africa has been exporting terrorists for decades.

[someotherdude]

mercenaries...terrorists...freedom fighters...you pick.

[someotherdude]

Anglo-Protestant nations have been exporting mercenaries who use terrorist methods for many many years.

(I suspect Roman Catholic nations involved with colonialization are guilty as welll, but I am not as familiar)

[Donald Johnson]

What Doran said. I live in this culture and I still can't get used to how hypocritical the political mainstream is. Reagan's support of the contras, of Unita, of the Salvadoran and Guatemalan military was morally no different from supporting any Muslim terrorist group.

Hilzoy wrote--

" am deliberately omitting anything about whether any of those killings are in any way justified, or whatever. After 9/11, people in this country were profoundly disinclined to entertain such questions; it seemed disrespectful of the horror of it all, and like pointless self-hatred. I thought that was wrong, but I understand it. I don't see why Muslims who see people dying every day in Iraq, Gaza, Lebanon, etc., would not take the same view we did of such questions, though I think it's wrong in their case too. If they do, then we should not expect people's rage to be mitigated by thoughts about why we went into Iraq, why Israel bombed Lebanon and makes incursions into Gaza, etc."

I think the feeling that the sufferings of our group mean that we don't have to be self-critical, something you saw even in supposedly leftist circles after 9/11, is the main reason otherwise decent people in any culture can be brought to support terrorism of one form or another.

[rea]

Trying to provide an overarching explanation for "terrorism" -- whether "Jihad" or "poverty" -- is silly.

If you are a true believer in a "War" on "Terror," there has to be a simple, overarching explanation for "terrorism"--otherwise trying to end "terrorism" through military action can't work.

[john miller]

"I think the feeling that the sufferings of our group mean that we don't have to be self-critical, something you saw even in supposedly leftist circles after 9/11, is the main reason otherwise decent people in any culture can be brought to support terrorism of one form or another."

Wasn't the whole purpose of the "Shock and Awe" part of the Iraq invasion to terrorize the Iraqis into submission?

Just a case to support your thesis Donald.

[von]

No its not...South Africa has been exporting terrorists for decades.

Outside of Africa? (And let's leave aside mercenary groups.)

Anglo-Protestant nations have been exporting mercenaries who use terrorist methods for many many years.

Care to elaborate?

(I would agree that colonialism has done a lot of harm and wrong, as well as some good).

General Point: Given that the post is partially about precision in thought and language, I think we need to restrict ourselves to the generally-accepted narrow definition of "terrorism." A lot of countries may have, from time to time, used methods that are shared with what we would today call a "terrorist." But, a terrorist group is generally understood to be something different. For those who want examples of European and American groups, how about: ETA, the IRA, the Real IRA, Orangeman militia, the Aryan Nations, the KKK and affiliates, certain skinhead groups, a (small) proportion of the militia movement, outliers among the more radical environmental groups (e.g., extreme elements within ELF), AIM, the various "Red" groups of France and Germany, etc.

[von]

Von, I'm curious: Do you have a vision for how we win the fight against radical Islamism, in the long term?

I continue to think that the Cold War provides helpful guidance: (1) Co-opt those you can by providing goods, services, and materials that terrorists can't offer (we'll see how well this works first hand on the West bank); (2) battle mostly by proxy; (3) maintain a high level of vigilence (while not losing you head); (4) apply force where it can make a difference; and (5) above all, don't lose your head.

[john miller]

"(5) above all, don't lose your head. "

I agree, and if anything, this is exactly where this administration has gone wrong in that it has promoted fear among the citizenry, which, coincidentally happens to be one of the primary goals of terrorism.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"All the liberals have been trying to say is that we need to look at what the possible underlying motivators may be, and yes, they can be several different things."

Yes, but...

There is a reflexive human tendency to use dramatic emotional things like terrorism to reinforce the things you already believe. So for many liberals, focusing on things like poverty or unequal distribution of wealth as explanations for terror makes sense because they already think that the root of most ills can be found there. Many conservatives tend to focus on things like a clash of cultures because that is the source of friction they already believe is most important.

I won't say that you should resist your conclusion, if you analyze the dramatic emotional event and the evidence fits. But you should probably examine the one that you are naturally inclined to more skeptically--because your biases already go in that direction.

[Steve]

Wasn't the whole purpose of the "Shock and Awe" part of the Iraq invasion to terrorize the Iraqis into submission?

I think it was to terrorize the regime into submission. Remember, the actual Iraqi people were sitting there waiting to greet us with candy and flowers; they didn't need to be terrorized one bit!

[Steve]

I continue to think that the Cold War provides helpful guidance...

Solid principles, von. I'll take those over magical neocon thinking any day.

[john miller]

Seb, the only thing I agrue about is your use of the word "they" in both cases. Some of each undoubtedly would fall in those categories, but hardly all.

I am sure that I am not the only liberal who thinks that poverty or unequal distribution of wealth is the root of most ills.

My brother-in-law, who is as conservative as they come, does not focus on a clash of cultures.

It would be just as correct for me to say that liberals think we need to understand and empathize with our enemies and conservatives think we just need to blow people up.

There may be a few on both sides that that description would aplly to, but not most.

In fact, most liberals have no problem with an unequal distribution of wealth. They do have a problem with the means that create that inequality at times.

[someotherdude]

The Cold War was a Hot War in poor nations...the blowback from those "sober" times gave us what we have today.

The Cold War reminded the world that it is always America Uber Alles. Or The West Uber Alles.

[togolosh]

Rand and fellow travellers are in effect arguing that jihadism exists in a vacuum, not influenced by outside factors. They hate us for our freedom because they are just plain evil. No further explanation needed. They also confuse explanation with excuse, understanding with sympathy, and self examination with weakness.

[radish]

We are winning the war on the ground, and losing it where it really matters, in the media, and political establishment. The enemy understands the nature and value of their information war, but our side remains clueless.

Amen to that, Rand ol' buddy. And thanks for providing such a sterling example.

Golly. Let's see... Problem: we deny moral agency to Muslims so we are unable to understand their motivations. Solution: regard them as homogeneous agents of an opaque and irrational ideology.

Problem: we continue to foolishly ask questions like "why do they hate us." Solution: postulate a black box labeled "jihad" and forget about it.

Problem: the enemy understands the nature and value of their information war, while our side remains clueless. Solution: abandon the information war and stick to traditional methods.

Somebody refresh my memory -- at what age do children usually figure out that covering your eyes doesn't prevent others from seeing you?

Good post, von.

[Jay Jerome]

"I don't think the same can be said about alienation, though, and alienation is a very different matter."

It's not about alienation -- it's about indoctrination. Fundamentalist religious indoctrination, based on fifteen hundred year old teachings that don't work in the modern world.

If you want to stop Islamic terrorism, you have to reform Islam ...

Good luck on that one...

[hilzoy]

Jay: I really don't think this is about Islam per se. Islam is a religion that has, as you say, existed for 1500-odd years, and during that time it has generally not involved anything like terrorism. (It has been expansionist, but imho no more so than Christianity, and largely for the same reasons.) In general, I don't think any religion that actually explicitly held that one should commit acts of terror against civilians could serve as the accepted religion of a large and stable society (as opposed to a band of murderous outlaws), and Islam certainly did not.

I generally do think it's crucial to understand one's enemy's motivations, if only because it's important if you want to see how to combat them. And in the case of Islamic terrorists, I think it matters immensely to see that nothing -- nothing -- about Islam per se dictates this sort of behavior. It needs explanation just as much as, say, the Protestant and Catholic terrorists in Ireland did -- their actions don't in any sense follow from the teachings of Christianity, though one could find the odd verse here and there in the Bible that could be twisted to justify what they did. ("I come not to bring peace but a sword", for instance.)

Specifically, I think you have to ask: first, what makes them give up on the idea that one does not kill the innocent, and/or on the idea that "the innocent" has any meaning at all? Second, what makes them do things that are both abhorrent and incredibly unlikely to achieve whatever ends they set for themselves? -- I mean, the imagined causal chain between driving your jeep into an airport terminal and the establishment of a Caliphate (or whatever) is so enormously long and improbable that I have to suppose that the people who did this were for some reason refusing to think about what their actions would actually bring about. (In the way that people who feel, "well, I've just got to do something!" sometimes do. One of many reasons why I think that one should never, never proceed without asking the question: but is this a "something" that will in any way produce your goal? Or is it just a gesture of some sort? Because killing people as a gesture is always wrong.

It's in answer to that last set of questions -- how does being a Muslim come to seem, even for an instant, as though it might require actions that are so self-evidently prima facie wrong, and so spectacularly badly suited to bring about any result the terrorists seem to be aiming for -- that I think anger and desperation have to come in, along with the feeling that you just have to do something, you can't just let X, for some value of X, go on happening without doing anything.

[radish]

P.S. I have to say though, that as tempting as the "containment" strategy apears, it's likely to fail for economic reasons. We are not in a position to undermine anti-hegemonic terrorism economically, as we did with the soviets.

Jay Jerome is right in that respect. This is about major cultural shifts, and not just in the Islamic world but in the West as well. The guiding rule for long, cool, "culture" wars is that grownups should be written off completely, and youth should always be considered reachable. Historically, youth on the "losing" side have been "reached" by occupation, immersion or annihilation more than by assimiliation. But times have changed. We have the interwebs and global telecom now, and assimilation is easier and cheaper than the alternatives.

Regardless, in fifteen years it won't matter very much what you think about whose fault it is or what to do about it; what will matter is what various teenagers are concluding even as we speak. In that regard we have done more to promote radical Islamism over the past few years than anybody besides Osama his ownself.

[Ara]

I assume that when we say "Poverty is a cause of terrorism", we are not saying something as silly as: "All terrorists grew up poor."

I assume we're saying something more like: without poverty, the social conditions for terrorist groups to thrive and freely operate without being checked by law enforcement and public disapproval don't readily come to pass. It might be then more proper to say poverty enables terrorism, even if it does not cause it. But from a policy standpoint, there is little difference. Attacking poverty still attacks terrorism.

This idea might be suspect in that it's pretty resistant to falsification. But that's quite different than challenging it because Bin Laden is rich.

[Ara]

someotherdude: Do you have any references to the colonial influence against moderating Islamic movements between 1930-1980? I've heard many smart people make casual mentions of this, but I've never found any good sources.

[Garth]

this is not a cultural shift or clash.

there is nothing inherent to American Citizens that makes them incompatible of co-existing peacefully with muslims. in fact, we have a large muslim population in America, so it's not that our cultures are incompatible.

it's that the american government finds its need for oil and world domination incompatible with notions of justice, reason and the common good. that basic incompatibility is what is producing most Muslim terrorists committing acts of terror against US. they understand on some level it won't achieve their goal, but it probably does feel damn good to feel like you're fighting back. live free or die as they say in New Hampshire.

think about it this way. generally if you are hated, maybe there are some damn good reasons!

[Garth]

rich jihadi's are like the kids in the burbs with their gangsta rap.

sure, its privilege... but it'll kill you just the same.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"I assume we're saying something more like: without poverty, the social conditions for terrorist groups to thrive and freely operate without being checked by law enforcement and public disapproval don't readily come to pass."

What about abortion bombers? I'm not at all sure you can trace that to poverty.

[Garth]

the US govenment has been funding instability in the Gulf Region for years in an attempt to find pro-America allies to keep the population in check and deliver the oil. that is when not actually invading it and warring with various Gulf States.

how many generations now have lived in misery, under totalitarian, theocratic regimes running death squads and thought police.

no wonder they hate America. we are a pretty inviting target to point the finger out and there's not a hell of a lot else to do there these days, but think about who is behind most, if not all, of the problems facing the area.

the Gulf States could have been Quakers and we would be debating with Foxy Reporters the clash of cultures and the inevitability of our fight to the death.

[Garth]

sebastian,

people learn to hate for many different reasons and certain people will always act on them.

the best protection is a culture that encourages tolerance, peace and co-operation.

abortion bombers hate.
9/11 hijackers hated.
mcveigh hated.

the underlying pathology is hate, but it can take many different forms, but it tends to fixate on flashpoints that offer a justification for their actions. that's not to say those flashpoints don't exist and may, in fact, be genuine injustices.

[Phil]

I second what someotherdude said regarding the so-called Cold War -- which wasn't so cold for the Vietnamese and others -- and whether its guidance is really want to seek. It was, after all, von's much loved proxy fighting that led us to arm the mujahedeen against the Soviets in Afghanistan, and I don't think that ultimately worked out realy well for us. Do you, von?

[CharleyCarp]

Sri Lanka.

If there's a significant body of opinion holding that AQ is primarily caused by or correlated with poverty, I'm not aware of it. Just who exactly are the straw people being beaten here.

It has been dead-on obvious to me since the start of this thing that it's about humiliation.

[Ara]

I have to say that the Armenian terrorism that I'm familiar with had not much to do with poverty or humiliation.

And there it was: very common in the 70s and 80s. And in the mid-80s it just went away. Neither its origins nor its disappearance are things I can account for.

[matttbastard]

Hilzoy:

...I think you have to ask: first, what makes them give up on the idea that one does not kill the innocent, and/or on the idea that "the innocent" has any meaning at all? Second, what makes them do things that are both abhorrent and incredibly unlikely to achieve whatever ends they set for themselves? -- I mean, the imagined causal chain between driving your jeep into an airport terminal and the establishment of a Caliphate (or whatever) is so enormously long and improbable that I have to suppose that the people who did this were for some reason refusing to think about what their actions would actually bring about. (In the way that people who feel, "well, I've just got to do something!" sometimes do. One of many reasons why I think that one should never, never proceed without asking the question: but is this a "something" that will in any way produce your goal? Or is it just a gesture of some sort? Because killing people as a gesture is always wrong.

Olivier Roy addresses the enigma of Muslim radicalism in Europe here. His conclusion: contemporary Islamic fundamentalism (or 'neofundamentalism') is "a consequence of the globalization and Westernization of Islam".

The following passage deals with Islamist converts and contemporary social factors that Roy believes may contribute to the attraction 'neofundamentalism' holds (and IMO neatly ties into your comments in response to JJ, Hil):

In all the radical networks recently discovered, there are a growing number of converts. About a third of the Begal network, the latest to be arrested in France, were converts. Some Islamist terrorist actions in Muslim countries are apparently orchestrated in the West by converts. The terrorist attack on the synagogue in Djerba, in Tunisia, was carried out by a young Tunisian – himself a Tunisian from Tunisia, but whose whole family lives in Lyon, France. The French police have recently arrested a German citizen with a Slavonic name, a Polish name, a convert to Islam, who the police think is the man behind this attack and the link between this young Tunisian and bin Laden. Richard Reid, the man who tried to blow up a British plane, José Padilla, John Walker Lindh, the American Taliban, are all converts. It is a growing phenomenon.

We need to study these converts, because, even though they do not represent large numbers, their existence is highly symptomatic, and very interesting from an intellectual point of view. We can observe a conversion phenomenon in underprivileged neighbourhoods in France today. That is what I call the "protest conversion", for example, a youth, of French origin, leads a dog's life, as we say in France, in poverty, not only and often not even material poverty, but rather moral and psychological misery, with no job prospects, no social advancement, sometimes dealing in drugs, stealing cars, living in the small world of the underground economy, of delinquency, like a parasite. He converts and joins a group of local Islamic activists, formed by his friends, his acquaintances, the guy who lives next door, in the same apartment building, and he joins because the group is actively fighting the system.

The far left in Europe today has abandoned zones of social exclusion. This is a fact. We have good reason to rejoice in the disappearance of a violent and radical far left, but it did have a function, which was to contain and hold in check a certain revolt, often also based on the generation gap. But this is over: a 30-year-old, in France, who would have joined the proletarian left, the Maoists or Action Directe, who, in Italy, would have joined the Brigate Rosse, who, in Germany, would have joined the Rote Armee Fraktion, this young person no longer has the opportunity to join left-wing movements, and if he or she wants to fight the system, and use violence, he or she has only one role model: and that is bin Laden, or the local Islamist networks, and his or her friends. And what do they do? They do the same thing that far left radicals used to do in the 1960s: look for likely freedom fighter movements. They went to the Bekaa plains to learn how to use Kalashnikovs with the Palestinian left, and they hijacked planes with them. Today, they go to Afghanistan to learn how to handle Kalashnikovs with "Binladenists" and they also learn how to hijack planes; in the meantime, their skills have greatly improved. We are therefore witnessing a kind of quest for mythical, messianic, transnational liberation movements, all targeting the same enemy – American imperialism – that is perceived as the modern form of domination, of capitalism.

(The essay, though lengthy, should be read in its entirety, as excerpts can't do justice to Roy's argument.)

[matttbastard]

Ara:

I have to say that the Armenian terrorism that I'm familiar with had not much to do with poverty or humiliation.

Not sure about poverty, but I'd contend Turkish denial of genocide could be seen as 'humiliating' (to say the very least). That said, I don't want to suggest that historical grievance is definitely the sole (or even a primary) factor behind Armenian radicalism.

(For specific examples of Armenian terror attacks directed towards Turkish interests during the period mentioned by Ara, here's a handy timeline [although I'm not too enamoured with the source;-)].)

[someotherdude]

someotherdude: Do you have any references to the colonial influence against moderating Islamic movements between 1930-1980? I've heard many smart people make casual mentions of this, but I've never found any good sources.

Posted by: Ara | July 06, 2007 at 02:20 PM

While researching different Leftists organizations in the Middle East I notice that political Islam begin to have influence until the mid-70’s and really doesn’t make it big until the late 70’s. Most of the political players, during the 1930-1980, were all over the Leftist map (hardcore Communists – Fabian Social Democrats), Monarchists, Arab Nationalists, Crypto-Fascist. The Middle East was encouraged to stagnate by Arab Monarchs and Western Imperialists.

Hamas seemed to have found support from folks who wanted to weaken the Leftist PLO and the Mujahideen found support from folks who wanted to weaken Communists (Saudi Wahabees, American interests and so on). This was the tail end of the Cold War and many “sober” folks thought religious and Godly groups were far more reliable and trustworthy and "enlightened" than Communists.

[someotherdude]

Sorry, just noticed I've heard many smart people make casual mentions of this, but I've never found any good sources.

Most of my stuff is from JSTOR and ProjectMUSE. If you want the titles and authors, give me some time.

[Ara]

First, let me say that *nothing* I say should be taken to have any bearing on Arab terrorism or any other kind of terrorism outside the group that I do know. I'm only bringing it up because the question raised was the general issue of terrorism and its causes, and this particular case might loosen up our intuitions on what is generally true of terrorism. What's more, this was a campaign of Christian on Muslim terrorism, though the conflict was not an immediately religious one.

I have to say that while "humiliation" or "powerlessness" is the kind of language I've heard Armenians use who wanted to rationalize or even justify the violence, I think that explanation is easy and convenient. Was this really cultural humiliation that drove people over the edge? Really?? These terrorist groups were run by twentysomethings who were born at least 40 years after the events in question. Does that humiliation really account for why they started to blow up embassies? I'm skeptical that it is humiliation that drives expats growing up comfortably in the Middle East, America, and Europe to not have qualms about assassinating diplomats.

What I do see, rather, is this:

(1) Nationalism and personal identity are glued together. To be a good person is to be a good member of group X, with whatever particular obligations that entails. And lots of frustrated nationalists approach political violence.

(2) Violence is just politics carried on by other means. What I suspect is that after the Soviet Union fell and America's and Europe's attitude towards Turkey (the erstwhile Cold War ally) softened, most Armenians realized that there were more effective ways of getting what they wanted than murdering people who had made unfavorable quotes in the papers.

[Josh]

Everybody on this thread should read Louise Richardson's What Terrorists Want. Makes for depressing reading when contrasted with the news, though.

[novakant]

first, what makes them give up on the idea that one does not kill the innocent, and/or on the idea that "the innocent" has any meaning at all?

I'm afraid terrorists are not the only ones who have given up on that idea. Since 9/11 US actions have resulted in at least tens of thousand, if not hundreds of thousand civilian deaths, and let's not speak of the wounded and crippled. This fact is commonly justified with recourse to intentionality (we're the good ones, trying our best to avoid 'collateral damage'), but there comes a point where one has to take a cold hard look at the death toll in evaluating the ethics of the actors involved. It's not the only factor, but the way in which this aspect is commonly brushed under the carpet is indicative of our own tolerance of civilian deaths.

[matttbastard]

Ara: ...Nationalism and personal identity are glued together. To be a good person is to be a good member of group X, with whatever particular obligations that entails. And lots of frustrated nationalists approach political violence.

Agreed. I believe this also corresponds with Roy's argument about the ahistorical nature of Islamic radicalism - and yes, I realize, as you've pointed out, that Armenians are Christian (a good point to remember when folks claim there are no relatively recent instances of 'Christian terrorism'). Armenians in Turkey are, by and large, a stateless minority living within a hostile nation. Whether legitimate or not, collective grievance can provide a cohesive foundation for a disparate minority group clinging to an ephemeral notion of collective identity and culture.

How would you compare/contrast Armenian terrorist actions and those of the IRA (another fairly recent example of an ethnic Christian radical movement)?

[magistra]

As for the success or otherwise of terrorism, let's misquote Sir John Harington: 'Terrorism doth never prosper, what's the reason? For if it prosper none doth call it terrorism.' Or in other words, the terrorists who achieve their aims can then stop being terrorists, from the Stern Gang to the IRA.

I think it's also misleading to suppose that terrorism is unsuccessful just because it doesn't achieve its stated political aims. It normally achieves one specific aim: it gets a group's grievances noticed. And in a world where not a lot of attention is paid to most people's grievances, that's a definite advance. If the alternative to starting a terrorist movement is the situation in Tibet, where a commitment to peaceful resistance just means the international community will ignore the problem, I can see the temptation of terrorism.

[Jon H]

Africa isn't exporting terrorists?

Really?

I guess Egypt, Algeria, and Libya are part of New Zealand now?

Where do you think Zawahiri hails from?

[Jon H]

von wrote: "Moreover, it should be no surprise to find that terrorists motivated most by ideology -- and those most dangerous to us -- can be quite educated. "

I think it's a mistake to chalk it all up to 'ideology'. The desire to return to the gold standard is an ideology, after all. Ideologies are cheap, a dime a dozen, and don't necessarily represent a reaction to the real world.

Martin Luther King was a New England-educated PhD, not a black woman on a bus in the South, or a Memphis garbage man.

Was he motivated to forgo a comfortable life in less-racist environs by mere ideology, or was he motivated by the knowledge that wrong was being done to his people?

[Jon H]

mattbastard writes: "Whether legitimate or not, collective grievance can provide a cohesive foundation for a disparate minority group clinging to an ephemeral notion of collective identity and culture."

Especially when it's illegal to suggest that there ever was a grievance, as it is illegal in Turkey to say the Turks committed a genocide against the Armenians.

[someotherdude]

Here is some stuff.

Civil Society Debate & New Trends on the Arab Left

Uprisings and betrayals: a brief history of the left in Iraq

CAUSES OF ANTI-AMERICANISM IN THE ARAB WORLD: A SOCIO-POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE

Anti-Americanism">http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jah/89.2/makdisi.html">Anti-Americanism in the Arab World: An Interpretation of a Brief History (You need a subscription)

[someotherdude]

OT but,

"Promoted to the rank of general, and proclaimed a Hero of Socialist Labour, Kalashnikov was honoured by Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Yeltsin and Putin, collecting the Order of the Red Star, the Stalin Prize First Class, and three Orders of Lenin. He is still alive, subsisting on a modest pension in Izhevsk, and though proud of his invention he describes it as a golem, an imp with a life of its own... In 1982, the Israelis gave the Kalashnikovs they had captured from Palestinians to the CIA, which shipped them via Pakistan to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan to fight the Russians. Osama bin Laden's first AK was a Palestinian gun supplied by the Israelis and given to him by the Americans."

More:

Weapon">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2007/06/28/bohod123.xml">Weapon of choice for children, rebels and soldiers

[Ara]

mattbastard: What is fascinating is that Armenians still living in Turkey are comparatively apathetic towards the same issues that moved the diaspora to terrorism -- so much so that there is frustration and misunderstanding between them and the diaspora. Part of it can be attributed to political repression: if you speak out in Turkey, you are facing prosecution or worse.

Is the IRA a Christian radical movement or a radical movement that happens to be Christian? That is, I take it that -- except for some fringe groups -- the IRA was not radical because of its Christian ideology.

[Ara]

someotherdude: Thank you so much! I owe you one!

[Stuart]

Not to pick nits, Von, but the African terrorism tends to stay in Africa for the same reason that most wars tend to be fought between people who are near to each other. The enemy who is closest usually is hated most. (By "African" here I'm intending sub-Saharan, non-Arabic Africa). Yes, it crosses international boundaries, but in most of Africa those are fairly artificial and in any event they don't cross from region to region. People in Sierra Leone might have issues with Liberia but they give no more thought to Zimbabweans than to Luxembourgeois.

What is unique about the Islamic terror groups is that they are avowedly imperialist. Their stated aim - and I see no reason not to take them at their word - is to dominate and topple other cultures, not merely to struggle over resources or control of a government (which is generally what drives the African terrorists). This is a philosophical difference with practical implications. The notion of a war on terror is a category error, because unless there is cultural change, the conditions that breed terror (culture + religion + others doing well + sense of entitlement + refusal to self-criticize + a host of other factors) will not go away by themselves. Killing the bad guys is not a bad thing, and it's necessary but it's not sufficient.

My own prescription is to come up with some way to generate energy without petroleum. If we did that it would solve many of our problems pretty quickly - the cultures creating the terror would have to become productive by mining their population's talents instead of pulling stuff out of the ground that they neither discovered nor earned. A productive population doesn't become terrorists.

[liberal japonicus]

interesting stuff. My own personal opinion is that Islam is no worse than Christianity or Buddhism, but it has reached a stage at the same time as technology allows for such destructive power to be delivered by individuals and small groups. I imagine this sort is what animates people who push the Brights theme.

[Carleton Wu]

I agree with the others- good post von. One thing in particular:
The explanatory options aren't "Jihad" on one hand or "why do they hate us?" on the other, with nothing else (or in between)

Among individuals, we easily understand that if I pay someone to kill my enemy both I and the assassin are guilty. I am no less guilty for not having pulled the trigger, and the assassin is no less guilty for not having any personal animus.
For whatever reason, on the world stage some people seem to feel that assigning blame to one party necessarily absolves other parties. If we understand why they hate us (ie if there's a reason, even a bad one, that we can recognize), it somehow makes OBL less guilty.
I can't really wrap my mind around that way of thinking, but it seems necessarily to understanding much that is written on the WOT.

[Carleton Wu]

Randy,
And it makes no sense to say that the West somehow is responsible, unless you have a way to explain those in different parts of the world who are in similar situations and don't resort to violence as a way to express their frustrations and grievances.

You seem to be saying that, because the Middle East is different somehow, it's impossible for us to be at fault (ie 'it makes no sense to say we're responsible). I mean, the ME is obviously a unique part of the world with it's own cultures, history, etc.
You walk down them street calling everyone an @sshole. Sooner or later, you find someone who takes a punch at you. Maybe they were having a bad day. Maybe they're unstable. Would you conclude that 'it makes no sense to say I am responsible for the result' just because most of the passers-by didn't react violently?
[nb Im not taking on the underlying case of dividing responsibility, bc I think that's mostly pointless. Just saying that the unique response of the ME doesn't mean we can't be responsible in principle].

[Carleton Wu]

von,
A lot of countries may have, from time to time, used methods that are shared with what we would today call a "terrorist." But, a terrorist group is generally understood to be something different.

Of course, a lot of whether these groups are governments or NGOs(?) is dependent on regional history. That is, Im not sure that it's a good idea to draw that line between NGO terrorism and governmental 'terrorism' if we're trying to understand the roots of the phenomenon.
Maybe these two things have different roots, in which case neither sheds light on the other. But that's not clear- if we're going to hear arguments about how the ME is special, ignoring governmental 'terror' might be ignoring useful counterexamples outside of the region.

[Imagining a world where there was no European colonialism in the ME- we probably wouldn't have Western-supported dictators in place, particularly after the Cold War. So maybe Osama becomes the King of Saudi Arabia- and uses 'terror' to advance his goals. Is that fundamentally different than today? Would it need to be analyzed as such- or could we understand the roots of it as being similar to the NGO terrorist urges of today?]

[matttbastard]

Ara: How much of that divide between Armenians in Turkey and the diaspora would you say also has to do with the Marxist-Leninist background of many involved with the international radical movement, along with its distance (both literally and figuratively) from people and events on the ground (and also served to motivate its often deadly fervency)? As you said, the effects of Turkish repression were and are, obviously, far more apparent to the Armenian-Turkish population who had to face the wrath of Turkish nationalists in response to the terrorist activities of Armenian radicals. I'm sure the international movement's willingness to place its supposed ethnic brethren in danger--all in the name of historical posterity--wasn't exactly endearing.

re: IRA, I didn't mean to imply that Armenian or Irish radicals were directly inspired by a literalist interpretation of Christianity. From what I've read, most Armenian terrorists were radical leftist ideologues, not religious fundamentalists. The nationalism underpinning Irish republicanism, not religion, was obviously the primary stated motivation (at least initially) behind the utilization of terror tactics (further similarity: the most dedicated and radical Armenian and Irish radicals lived outside their respective ethnic homelands).

That said, I would contend that Catholicism married with nationalism was (to some degree) inextricable from the cultural identity of the IRA and its supporters, serving as a bridge between the radical 'true believers' who planted bombs, and the largely passive masses who claimed solidarity with them.

That the IRA and Armenian groups were fighting for a concrete goal (the IRA for right to national sovereignty, unity and self determination for the; Armenian radical groups purportedly for Turkish acknowledgment of the 1915 Genocide), rather than an abstract, idealized Utopian 'Caliph' (among many, many other stated justifications), is in further contrast to many practitioners of transnational Islamic radicalism.

Again, Von's initial point about divorcing analysis of individual events from a conveniently simplistic overarching narrative is well taken.

[matttbastard]

'Caliph' s/b 'Caliphate'.

[von]

It was, after all, von's much loved proxy fighting that led us to arm the mujahedeen against the Soviets in Afghanistan, and I don't think that ultimately worked out realy well for us. Do you, von?

Hmm. This is a difficult one to answer, because of the fear that I'll be perceived as weighing two sets of evil against one another and adjudging one eviler than the other (which I'm not doing). I'll plunge on nonetheless:

I can't say for certain that arming the mujahedeen was worth it, in retrospect. I do know, however, that we don't make decisions in retrospect but at the time and, at the time, it was a sound policy. I'm also willing to venture that, given the relative risk posed to the US and the world from the Soviet Union and the contribution to Afghanistan to felling the USSR sooner rather than later, it may still have been the right policy even with the benefit of hindsight.

[von]

What is unique about the Islamic terror groups is that they are avowedly imperialist. Their stated aim - and I see no reason not to take them at their word - is to dominate and topple other cultures, not merely to struggle over resources or control of a government (which is generally what drives the African terrorists). This is a philosophical difference with practical implications.

Stuart, that's another very thoughtful criticism, and I really must concede -- for I can't dispute -- much of it. But there is one minor point: It's certainly true that AQ and related entities are avowedly imperialist in the broadest sense of the term. But, as dangerous and pernicious as these terrorist groups are, the majority of terrorist groups are no imperialistic, or are imperialistic in a very narrow sense of the term. Hamas and Hizbollah, for instance, are two of the largest terrorist groups and they are not "imperialistic" save to the extent that they wish to take over and destroy the Israeli state.

We're right to oppose these groups, and to support and ensure the security of Israel against them and their state-enablers, but it's wrong to lump these groups in with the imperialistic Islamist terrorists you're referencing. You wage "war" against Hamas very differently than you do against AQ, and you may, at the end of the day, even manage to coopt Hizbollah (yes, I am occasionally an optimist on this Levant). By contrast, a good way to suffer setbacks is to treat it all the same -- as US government policy once did and as many in the blogosphere still do.

Now, to be fair, Sec. Rice is starting to pursue a much smarter policy in this area. Pity that it took more than four years to get there. Pity, too, the bloggers who criticize her for it. They truly do not know what they do.

[Ara]

mattbastard: As to your question about the influence of Marxism, my answer would be: a whole hell of a lot. You linked to a page on ASALA. Twenty years later, there is still not a whole lot of certainty as to who they were, with many thinking that they were a KGB-backed. ASALA was like a scourge that came and went. Most changes in Armenian politics can be traced to the major historical parties. Not so with these guys. There presence is no longer felt. They were a covert organization that infiltrated established political groups. As the link mentions, most people detested them, and yet they somehow defined the Armenian reputation for that period. This makes it, I think, qualitatively different from terrorism that does enjoy broad popular support in some community.

That being said, they weren't the only Armenian terrorists at the time. The groups I'm most familiar with were much more mainstream (still killers though).

[radish]

this is not a cultural shift or clash.

Sure it is.

there is nothing inherent to American Citizens that makes them incompatible of co-existing peacefully with muslims. in fact, we have a large muslim population in America, so it's not that our cultures are incompatible.

No, but so what? There's nothing inherent to any group of people that makes them incompatible with any other group, with the possible exception of some sort of genetic psychopathology. Aside from economics and resource scarcity the only things that make groups of people "incompatible" have to do with the sensitivity to "other-ness" that's hard-wired into us.

The "war" between Islamist terrorists and Western nation-states isn't religious. It has nothing to do with theology or fashion or manners or jurisprudence per se, and much to do with economics and social identity. It's not just us who have been pouring gas on this fire either -- alienation is also the primary mechanism by which many Middle Eastern leaders retain control.

Furthermore, the cold hard fact is that there's nothing psychologically or culturally exceptional about intentionally targeting civilians. The reason we haven't been in the habit of doing so lately (except through proxies of course) is not because it's morally inconceivable to us. It's because we haven't had any reason to. If you're raining death from above you might as well try to get the people who are dangerous, and before 9/11 hostile civilians weren't considered to pose much of a threat. That's changed of course. Now we've decided that civilians do pose a threat, and if you don't think we've been killing (and incarcerating) people indiscriminately as a result of that change then I have just the bridge you've been looking for.

By the same token we make a big show of being flummoxed and scandalized by the motivations of suicide bombers, when there's nothing psychologically exceptional about giving your life to protect your tribe, once you conclude that that's what it's going to take. Ask any soldier whether he'd die to protect his buddies. Ask any mother whether she'd die to protect her children.

[magistra]

On the motives of terrorists, it's also worth considering whether there may be different motives for the terrorist leaders and some of the foot-soldiers who actually carry out the attacks. It certainly sounds like some of the lesser figures in UK attacks were radicalised by events in Iraq, Afghanistan and also Chechnya. Whatever the strategic plans of OBL et al, at the sharp end terrorists may be motivated to 'hurt them the way they've hurt us', which is why driving a burning car into an airport seems 'justified'. (That this reaction is not unique to Islamists may be seen from some US reactions to the Twin Towers attack). In that case, if Western governments refrain from attacking other countries, torturing people, recklessly killing civilians etc, it can surely only help to reduce the numer of angry young men willing to follow the terrorist leaders, even if it won't make any difference to the hard core of those who want a universal caliphate.

[Jon H]

Nevermind the Armenians, the Turks really need to pay for this atrocity.

[hilzoy]

Ara: did I ever mention to you that when I was travelling in eastern Turkey, a number of people, generally quite poor, asked me whether I could send them a metal detector from the US. I said no, but after the fourth or fifth request, I asked: why do you want one? The answer was, basically, that they suspected that the Armenians thereabout had hidden their money before the genocide, and if they hadn't come back by now, it was presumably just sitting in the ground unclaimed.

Fwiw, they were all very sheepish about wanting to find the money of genocide victims (Not that they used the word genocide, but I didn't encounter anyone who so much as suggested that something truly horrible hadn't taken place.) They were all dirt poor, though, and I think the idea that there might be perfectly good money just sitting there beneath the ground was, um, frustrating to them.

[Phil]

Fair enough, von. Suffice to say I disagree strenuously, partly for the reason that I am generally a pessimist, so if forecasting into the future shows endpoints that would be as disastrous as some of ours have proven to be, I say look for another course of action. But your reasoning is certainly sound as far as it goes.

[double-plus-ungood]

Von: Stuart's right that Islamism is that ideology most likely to export terrorists from one part of the world to another -- it's a prime mover. (Today, at least: yesterday, the leader in the field was communism.)

I'm trying, in vain, to recall specific instances that would support this contention, keeping in mind that "terrorism" is a very specific tactic, and should not simply be applied to whomever wishes to overthrow an established political order. IE - terrorists are those who apply spectacular public, and often random, violence against civilian targets in order to terrorize the population and achieve certain political ends.

I think the extreme right wing was the previous leader in the field, not the communists. But I'm willing to be proved wrong.

[russell]

Great post, and thanks.

I continue to think that the Cold War provides helpful guidance

I disagree here. In a nutshell, there is a world of difference between organizations like Al Qaeda and the Soviet Union.

I think there's a limit to what can be achieved through financial "co-opting". What are we going to offer? Folks who are, at all, inclined to support terrorist organizations are most likely going to see through attempts to buy their support pretty readily.

If you want to win hearts and minds, you need to treat people with genuine, selfless respect. That's actually about 180 degrees away from "co-opting".

I'm not sure how "proxy war" plays out in this context, either. Who is our enemy, exactly? Who is their "proxy"? What army do they field, and what "proxy" force do we sponsor to oppose them? This always seems to turn into us sponsoring some kind of brutal generalissimo crushing some kind of local, homegrown domestic opposition.

I think the best historical analogy for what we face now is the international anarchist movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

You won't defeat things like that with an army. You won't defeat them at all, they'll just go away when their reasons for existence become obsolete.

What you can do is limit the damage they can do. The way you do that is through good intelligence and solid police work.

Thanks -

[Ara]

hilzoy: No, you never had told me that. Wow.

I imagine that at the time there might have been more awareness of those events among dirt poor Turks than among urbanized well-educated Turks. After all, if there was a campaign of revisionism and if that campaign had permeated Turkish educational texts, then the dirt-poor would be just the those people outside the reach of the state's ideological control.

If there is anyone who grew up in Turkey listening on this thread, I'd love to know.

[hilzoy]

Ara: these were people in very small towns and villages where their families had lived for generations, and what had happened to the Armenians was part of the oral history. They were Kurds, and in some cases (e.g., my ex), part Armenian. (His grandfather had bought an Armenian wife, apparently. -- There were a lot of moments when I was taken aback by something, and thought: I am in another world. The ex was a university student, but even he had never e.g. left the country, although he wasn't sure whether while herding animals to market when he was a kid he might not have strayed across the Iraqi border unknowingly; he hadn't even left his tiny corner of SE Turkey until he got a scholarship. To most of his friends and relations in SE Turkey, the known universe seemed not to extend beyond Diyarbakir, the distant, remote metropolis.)

[hilzoy]

Ara: these were people in very small towns and villages where their families had lived for generations, and what had happened to the Armenians was part of the oral history. They were Kurds, and in some cases (e.g., my ex), part Armenian. (His grandfather had bought an Armenian wife, apparently. -- There were a lot of moments when I was taken aback by something, and thought: I am in another world. The ex was a university student, but even he had never e.g. left the country, although he wasn't sure whether while herding animals to market when he was a kid he might not have strayed across the Iraqi border unknowingly; he hadn't even left his tiny corner of SE Turkey until he got a scholarship. To most of his friends and relations in SE Turkey, the known universe seemed not to extend beyond Diyarbakir, the distant, remote metropolis.)