Interesting article on suicide attacks

[Adrian II]

Well, just when you think nobody has anything new to add to the circular debate about who does what to whom in Iraq, in walks Professor Pape to give you a new perspective.
The New York Times
THURSDAY, MAY 19, 2005

Blowing up an assumption

by Robert A. Pape *

CHICAGO Many people are mystified by the recent rise in the number and the audacity of suicide attacks in Iraq. The lull in violence after January's successful elections seemed to suggest that the march of democracy was trampling the threat of terrorism.

But as electoral politics is taking root, the Iraqi insurgency and suicide terrorism are actually gaining momentum. In the past two weeks, suicide attackers have killed more than 420 Iraqis working with the United States and its allies. There were 20 such incidents in 2003, nearly 50 in 2004, and they are on pace to set a new record this year.

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

However, the presumed connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism is misleading, and it may spur American policies that are likely to worsen the situation.

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

The leading instigators of suicide attacks are the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, a Marxist-Leninist group whose members are from Hindu families but who are adamantly opposed to religion. This group committed 76 of the 315 incidents, more than Hamas (54) or Islamic Jihad (27).

Even among Muslims, secular groups like the Kurdistan Workers' Party, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and the Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades account for more than a third of suicide attacks.

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

Three general patterns in the data support these conclusions.

First, nearly all suicide terrorist attacks - 301 of the 315 in the period I studied - took place as part of organized political or military campaigns.

Second, democracies are uniquely vulnerable to suicide terrorists; America, France, India, Israel, Russia, Sri Lanka and Turkey have been the targets of almost every suicide attack of the past two decades.

Third, suicide terrorist campaigns are directed toward a strategic objective: From Lebanon to Israel to Sri Lanka to Kashmir to Chechnya, the sponsors of every campaign - 18 organizations in all - are seeking to establish or maintain political self-determination.

Before Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982, there was no Hezbollah suicide terrorist campaign against Israel; indeed, Hezbollah came into existence only after this event. Before the Sri Lankan military began moving into the Tamil homelands of the island in 1987, the Tamil Tigers did not use suicide attacks. Before the huge increase in Jewish settlers on the West Bank in the 1980s, Palestinian groups did not use suicide terrorism. And, true to form, there had never been a documented suicide attack in Iraq until after the American invasion in 2003.

Much is made of the fact that we aren't sure who the Iraqi suicide attackers are. This is not unusual in the early years of a suicide terrorist campaign. Hezbollah published most of the biographies and last testaments of its "martyrs" only after it abandoned the suicide-attack strategy in 1986, a pattern adopted by the Tamil Tigers as well.

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

Some have wondered if the rise of suicide terrorism in Iraq is really such a bad thing for American security. Is it not better to have these killers far away in Iraq rather than here in the United States? Alas, history shows otherwise.

The presence of tens of thousands of American combat forces on the Arabian Peninsula after 1990 enabled Al Qaeda to recruit suicide terrorists, who in turn attacked Americans in the region (the African embassy bombings in 1998 and the attack on the destroyer Cole in 2000).

The presence of nearly 150,000 American combat troops in Iraq since 2003 can only give suicide terrorism a boost, and the longer this suicide terrorist campaign continues the greater the risk of new attacks in the United States.

Understanding that suicide terrorism is mainly a response to foreign occupation rather than a product of Islamic fundamentalism has important implications for how the United States and its allies should conduct the war on terrorism. Spreading democracy across the Gulf is not likely to be a panacea so long as foreign combat troops remain on the Arabian Peninsula.

If not for the world's interest in Gulf oil, the obvious solution might well be simply to abandon the region altogether. Isolationism, however, is not possible; America needs a new strategy that pursues its vital interest in oil but does not stimulate the rise of a new generation of suicide terrorists.

Beyond recognizing the limits of military action and stepping up domestic security efforts, Americans would do well to recall the virtues of their traditional policy of "offshore balancing" in the Gulf.

During the 1970s and 80s, the United States managed its interests there without stationing any combat soldiers on the ground, but keeping its forces close enough - either on ships or on bases near the region - to deploy in huge numbers if an emergency arose. This worked splendidly to defeat Iraq's aggression against Kuwait in 1990.

The Bush administration rightly intends to start turning over the responsibility for Iraq's security to the new government and systematically withdrawing American troops. But large numbers of these soldiers should not simply be sent to Iraq's neighbors, where they will continue to enrage many in the Arab world.

Keeping the peace from a discreet distance seems a better way to secure American interests in the world's key oil-producing region without provoking more terrorism.

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

[GoreBag]

I like it. It makes sense.

[PanzerJaeger]

Very interesting analysis.

I would argue that the presence of US troops on the peninsula has been a stabilizing force on a macro scale, even though it causes problems on a micro scale.

[Papewaio]

Understanding that suicide terrorism is mainly a response to foreign occupation rather than a product of Islamic fundamentalism has important implications for how the United States and its allies should conduct the war on terrorism.

Okay but one flaw and it was the biggest and nastiest suicide attack of all time.

9/11 which group was looking for self determination and where?
Was the USA in Afghanistan at that point?

[ICantSpellDawg]

the terrorists in iraq are trying to achieve what?
an end to american occupation?

the US will leave when the terrorists are taken care of and when Iraq is a semi-stable democracy

so if they just gave up their arms, they would get their wish

alas - this is not their intent - far be it from me to know what the intent is, but i assume that for the sunnis it is to weaken the democracy in which they have little control and subjugate the majority of iraqis once more - that simply should not ever happen


this guy proposes that we leave all islamic countries and watch them from afar?

some of his ideas are good - but i think that the overall message is wrong
he is saying that the US is only involved for oil interests

i think that it is much more complex than this
The US is torn between "cultural relativism" and an actual belief that there is right and wrong in the world - such as allowing people to have a certain voice in their governments and not to be harrassed too much - as well as stoping leaders who idolize despotic and genocidal rulers and in turn promote a way of ruling a country that is unacceptable in an intellectual and humanitaian modern world

also - if you really think that "everything is relative", what is the problem with a western power doing what it does best? wage war for "moral" reasons
people will die under cruel regimes as well

what are you actually trying to prevent?
if it is injustice or death, i think that opposing US policy across the board is the furthest thing from that goal i nthe long run - but that is my opinion

[Fragony]

Have to agree with Tuffstuff. And what is the alternative?

[AntiochusIII]

I disagree - if everybody holds up so tightly that he is right like Tuff, the whole world will be engulfed with war by now.

It is easy for you to say that if somebody gives up his arm, he would get his wish.

I doubt the Bush administration is that honest - and no, that's not because it's Bush's...but...it's politician's. You know what I mean.

That doesn't excuse the terrorists' attacks, either, but so America have no place in coming into every country in the world declaring her self-proclaimed moral superiority.

Moral relativism is far more complex than just a "we are nothingness" that you seem to intrepet it as.

Though the presence of the US military holds some extremism from expressing, it doesn't, and will never, eliminate them. The extremism will grow and grow as moderate resentments turns to radical rage.

The US is no god-like blessed nation of superior people. Such thoughts...are racist at worst and misguided at best. It is an illusion to think that the US is campaigning in the world to establish a new "Jerusalem" as in the Bible. Such thoughts lead to blind pride. Indeed, I do not blame the US that it plays its own games for its own benefits as it is ruled by politicians and each nation is, as history proves it, always interested in themselves first.

But don't try to justify the invasions. If there is any one truth at all, then it is that imposing your so-called superiority over others is the source of conflicts and all the negativities that come with conflicts. And by you I mean nobody in particular.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I disagree - if everybody holds up so tightly that he is right like Tuff, the whole world will be engulfed with war by now.

It is easy for you to say that if somebody gives up his arm, he would get his wish.

I doubt the Bush administration is that honest - and no, that's not because it's Bush's...but...it's politician's. You know what I mean.

That doesn't excuse the terrorists' attacks, either, but so America have no place in coming into every country in the world declaring her self-proclaimed moral superiority.

Moral relativism is far more complex than just a "we are nothingness" that you seem to intrepet it as.

Though the presence of the US military holds some extremism from expressing, it doesn't, and will never, eliminate them. The extremism will grow and grow as moderate resentments turns to radical rage.

The US is no god-like blessed nation of superior people. Such thoughts...are racist at worst and misguided at best. It is an illusion to think that the US is campaigning in the world to establish a new "Jerusalem" as in the Bible. Such thoughts lead to blind pride. Indeed, I do not blame the US that it plays its own games for its own benefits as it is ruled by politicians and each nation is, as history proves it, always interested in themselves first.

But don't try to justify the invasions. If there is any one truth at all, then it is that imposing your so-called superiority over others is the source of conflicts and all the negativities that come with conflicts. And by you I mean nobody in particular.


you say that believing that you are right is what causes conflicts?
what are you supposed to do? believe that you are wrong and not fight for anything? or fight all those who believe in anything?

i just dont get it
you rebuked my arguement - you obviously BELIEVE that i am mistaken and are arguing your point

if you really believed in sitting back and "not imposing" your beliefs was a realistic option, you wouldnt have hit the reply button

i was expressing a differing opinion from the one of the guy who wrote the article and i was told that "people liek me are the ones who create wars"

we are also the ones who defend the rest of us from others who wage wars - without whom those who just "stop-trying to impose their views" would (i believe) never fight past the point at which they didnt feel they could win the fight

some of the best battles are won when all seems lost - and the only thing that keeps you fighting until then is a beleif that you are fighting for what is right

i dont necessarilly beleive that i am right - i just think that my point is a decent one and worth conscidering

i try to follow logical paths until they dont seem logical - and coming from 2 thousand years of increasing humanitarianism and benevolence i dont want to see it flushed down the toilet because others have stopped believing in these ideals when we have so much power and are so much closer than we have ever been to at least making the playing field fair

the only reason i want to see america stay powerful is because i beleive that it is a force for good in the world

not because i want to wear thousand dollar watches and screw as many girls as i want in a mansion - but because i believe that our wealth - if in the hands of the right peopl can make the world better

when people attack the US after losing site of what they were supposed to be fighting for, it makes me frustrated - people beleive that the US is the most internationally dangerous nation on earth? there go my ideals and the entire concept i have believed in

i see petty warring nations as a step backwards and would like to see the planet on a similar ethical level

anyway - those are some fragmented thoughts
my headache is raging
sleepytime

[AntiochusIII]

you say that believing that you are right is what causes conflicts?
what are you supposed to do? believe that you are wrong and not fight for anything? or fight all those who believe in anything?No, I said: hold up so tightly. In other words, intolerance.


i just dont get it
you rebuked my arguement - you obviously BELIEVE that i am mistaken and are arguing your pointYes, I believe you are mistaken and I am here to listen to your argument and take it into account.


if you really believed in sitting back and "not imposing" your beliefs was a realistic option, you wouldnt have hit the reply buttonDiscussion and imposition are two different things. Discussion is when you present your ideas (and you certainly have the right to believe and present your ideas anywhere) and discovers other's. Imposition is when you *force* your ideas upon others. This forcefulness can be both conscious and unconscious, intentional and unintentional.


i was expressing a differing opinion from the one of the guy who wrote the article and i was told that "people liek me are the ones who create wars"I was expressing my own opinions that some of the reasons of your arguments are 'wrong' as I should put it (keyword: opinion), and you are entitled to your opinion as well - I won't force you to follow me, don't worry.


we are also the ones who defend the rest of us from others who wage wars - without whom those who just "stop-trying to impose their views" would (i believe) never fight past the point at which they didnt feel they could win the fight? Please elaborate.


some of the best battles are won when all seems lost - and the only thing that keeps you fighting until then is a beleive that you are fighting for what is rightHonorable idea, but, the worse comes far too often than the better. The terrorists believe they are fighting desperately for what is right, by the way. Not that I agree with them...

[Papewaio]

Lawrence of Arabia 'Kill, Kill them all.' circa 1915

Post modern Lawrence of Arabia
'Suicide, Sucide Bomb them all.' circa 2005

[ICantSpellDawg]

No, I said: hold up so tightly. In other words, intolerance.

Yes, I believe you are mistaken and I am here to listen to your argument and take it into account.

Discussion and imposition are two different things. Discussion is when you present your ideas (and you certainly have the right to believe and present your ideas anywhere) and discovers other's. Imposition is when you *force* your ideas upon others. This forcefulness can be both conscious and unconscious, intentional and unintentional.

I was expressing my own opinions that some of the reasons of your arguments are 'wrong' as I should put it (keyword: opinion), and you are entitled to your opinion as well - I won't force you to follow me, don't worry.

? Please elaborate.

Honorable idea, but, the worse comes far too often than the better. The terrorists believe they are fighting desperately for what is right, by the way. Not that I agree with them...

what do you believe in?
what is worth fighting for?

in war - do you only fight until the enemy is pushed beyond your borders?
or is that shortsighted as they will come back and defeat you?

it is tough - you cant just say - "dont impose yourself"
people impose themselves constantly - in many aspects of life
and in many ways a good result comes out of it

look at de-segregation - or the war in the balkans
what "right" did we have to enter into either one of those conflicts? we did - and we are all the better for it

we all inhabit this planet - if you believe that something is wrong - fight it
period

we all die - why not attempt to change things as hard as you can

[AntiochusIII]

what do you believe in?
what is worth fighting for?Against imposition, a form of dictatorship. Or should I say, dictatorship is a form of imposition? Since it imposes one's authority above all others.


in war - do you only fight until the enemy is pushed beyond your borders?
or is that shortsighted as they will come back and defeat you?There is one big question though: must there be war? But if there is one, I would not be the one to fight, but, rather, mediate.


it is tough - you cant just say - "dont impose yourself"
people impose themselves constantly - in many aspects of life
and in many ways a good result comes out of itMore bad comes from it. Censorship is imposition; conflicts often, if not always, comes from one party's imposition of its/his/her ideas on others; war and conquest is imposition, as you impose your rule over another. (Again, you is not pointing at Tuff, but "you" as an abstract pronoun).


look at de-segregation - or the war in the balkans
what "right" did we have to enter into either one of those conflicts? we did - and we are all the better for itGood example, but not the case so for Iraq. I would argue that the invasion of Iraq ruins the country and left it vulnerable for a radical theocracy. Saddam Hussein, an evil bastard as he is, is an enemy of these radical theocracies. The fall of Milosevich (sp?) is replaced by a strong peacekeeping force of the NATO, an international organization in its root and nature. The fall of the dictatorial Iraqi regime opens the once-closed gates of radicalism. Yes, Hussein should be deposed, but not by a foreign invader, but within the Iraqi population. A foreign aid, yes, but not imposing outright invasion. The Balkan peoples, on the other hand, were fighting already but losing.


we all inhabit this planet - if you believe that something is wrong - fight it
periodThat is why there is conflict.


we all die - why not attempt to change things as hard as you canWhy do so at the cost of so much lives, and probably saving very few, if none at all? Why do so just because you did not try to see from others' eyes before? Why do so just for the sake of it?

Perhaps I was raised under Buddhist ideology that I am so open to some Western ideas like "freedom of..." and "right to..." of humanity. Interesting.

[bmolsson]

what do you believe in?
what is worth fighting for?

in war - do you only fight until the enemy is pushed beyond your borders?
or is that shortsighted as they will come back and defeat you?

it is tough - you cant just say - "dont impose yourself"
people impose themselves constantly - in many aspects of life
and in many ways a good result comes out of it

look at de-segregation - or the war in the balkans
what "right" did we have to enter into either one of those conflicts? we did - and we are all the better for it

we all inhabit this planet - if you believe that something is wrong - fight it
period

we all die - why not attempt to change things as hard as you can

I don't think that we could call the war against terror an idealistic war. Neither do I think we could call the suicide bombers for freedom fighters or insurgents. It's more police versus criminal thing. The terrorists are criminals who needs to be detained......

[Adrian II]

Okay but one flaw and it was the biggest and nastiest suicide attack of all time. 9/11 which group was looking for self determination and where?Ever heard of a group called Al Qaida? They're Saudi's looking to get the U.S. to withdraw from the peninsula.
so if they just gave up their arms, they would get
their wishOh yeah, that's a sure Nobel Peace prize winner.

Sjeesj, why do I bother?

[Somebody Else]

I dunno - but if I someone were to start dictating how I live my life, enforcing it with brute strength - I very much doubt I'd be too happy about it, and I'd probably give someone a good ol' thump.

Example - I drink, sometimes too much - and I know that. But if someone were to come along and slap me every time I touched alcohol, I'd get really rather annoyed, and still not stop. It's something that I'll have to cut down on myself, and I will, in time. Changing people is not something that can be done from outside - it has to come from within.

Now, expand that to America telling people that democracy is the best form of government. I'm sure it is, but nothing changes overnight, and there could have been so many better ways to effect a change of government - not through war, not through funding terrorist rebel groups. Ideas, suggest the right ideas to people, and they'll change themselves, without feeling resentful.

[econ21]

Okay but one flaw and it was the biggest and nastiest suicide attack of all time.

9/11 which group was looking for self determination and where?
Was the USA in Afghanistan at that point?

My interpretation of 9/11 was that it's immediate origins stemmed from the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia[1]. That fits with the thesis of original article, which seems cogent to me.

[1]This interpetation is based on the statements and personal history of Osama Bin Laden, and the fact that most of the 9/11 attackers were Saudis, I believe under his direct control.

[Proletariat]

Does a US base in Saudi Arabia for the purposes of defending Kuwait constitute an occupation? Sounds like a stretch to me...

[Adrian II]

Does a US base in Saudi Arabia for the purposes of defending Kuwait constitute an occupation? Sounds like a stretch to me...Is it really news to anybody that throughout the entire region the Saudi Monarchy has always been perceived as a foreign construct, propped up by British and then U.S. support? In that sense, the fall of the Twin Towers was geostrategically symbolic as well as in other ways. The Shah was one pillar, the House of Saud is the other.

[Papewaio]

During the 1970s and 80s, the United States managed its interests there without stationing any combat soldiers on the ground, but keeping its forces close enough - either on ships or on bases near the region - to deploy in huge numbers if an emergency arose. This worked splendidly to defeat Iraq's aggression against Kuwait in 1990.

If AQ is attacking the US because they have a base in Saudi Arabia then Professor Papes stance is not going to reduce terrorism against the US.

US was attacked using the stance Professor Pape sanctions. His strategy does not stop the largest terrorist suicide attack in history.

Hence the gaping flaw in his arguement.

[Adrian II]

US was attacked using the stance Professor Pape sanctions.U.S. was attacked using Saudi soil as massive invasion spring board & desecrating holy land. Hence the gaping flaw in Papewaio's argument.

[Proletariat]

So what should the US have done, according to Professor Adrian? Since the big mistake was 'occupying', lol, Saudi Arabia.

Just let Kuwait go?

[Proletariat]

Btw, are we occupying Germany? Or S. Korea? I never thought we did, but hey. They might be readying some suicide planes up for NY and we'll have never seen it coming.

[Papewaio]

U.S. was attacked using Saudi soil as massive invasion spring board & desecrating holy land. Hence the gaping flaw in Papewaio's argument.

Does or Does not Professor Pape state the following:


During the 1970s and 80s, the United States managed its interests there without stationing any combat soldiers on the ground, but keeping its forces close enough - either on ships or on bases near the region - to deploy in huge numbers if an emergency arose. This worked splendidly to defeat Iraq's aggression against Kuwait in 1990.

[Adrian II]

So what should the US have done, according to Professor Adrian? Since the big mistake was 'occupying', lol, Saudi Arabia.

Just let Kuwait go?I don't give a hoot what Pape advocates. I think his analysis of suicide-bombing is a hell of a lot more relevant than much of what I have seen elsewhere, and so far no one here has shot a hole in it. And it might help people help understand why Iraqi's aren't cheering their liberators but fighting them, even if they lose their lives in bomb attacks. Do you have an alternative explanation apart from helpless oneliners about psychopaths and flushed Qurans?

[Papewaio]

I don't give a hoot what Pape advocates. I think his analysis of suicide-bombing is a hell of a lot more relevant than much of what I have seen elsewhere, and so far no one here has shot a hole in it. And it might help people help understand why Iraqi's aren't cheering their liberators but fighting them, even if they lose their lives in bomb attacks. Do you have an alternative explanation apart from helpless oneliners about psychopaths and flushed Qurans?

I ripped such a large whole in it that it makes the Beriut Marine Barracks Bombing look like a nose bleed.

The single largest suicide attack in history occured while the US employed the strategy that Professor Pape advocates. Professor Pape advocates bases such as those in Saudi Arabia which defended Kuwait.

Professor Pape is against the occupation of Iraq. What he fails to point out is that 9/11 occured while the policy was the same as which he advocates.

What he suggests does not stop the likes of 9/11.

[PanzerJaeger]

U.S. was attacked using Saudi soil as massive invasion spring board & desecrating holy land. Hence the gaping flaw in Papewaio's argument.

Wow. Someone's had too much cool-aid. ~:eek:

[Proletariat]

I don't give a hoot what Pape advocates.


Why'd you post it?




I think his analysis of suicide-bombing is a hell of a lot more relevant than much of what I have seen elsewhere, and so far no one here has shot a hole in it.


When I asked a question concerning the premise, I was condescended to.


Is it really news to anybody...



And it might help people help understand why Iraqi's aren't cheering their liberators but fighting them, even if they lose their lives in bomb attacks. Do you have an alternative explanation apart from helpless oneliners about psychopaths and flushed Qurans?

I still maintain what I argued (with myself) here. (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?p=783692#post783692)

It's a systemic problem with a whole culture.

[Adrian II]

Does or Does not Professor Pape state the following:He writes that the U.S. stayed on in the region after 1990 and was therefore seen as an occupying force:
The presence of tens of thousands of American combat forces on the Arabian Peninsula after 1990 enabled Al Qaeda to recruit suicide terrorists, who in turn attacked Americans in the region (the African embassy bombings in 1998 and the attack on the destroyer Cole in 2000).You can check various websites about how and why Al Qaida started its armed strategy against U.S. interests in the Gulf after 1991. You can also check their manifestos and see they direct their efforts toward a U.S. withdrawal from the peninsula.

[Grey_Fox]

It is the fact the US troops are visible marching around Saudi Arabia (which is holy ground to Muslims) that is bothering the fundamentalists. In the First Gulf War, the Saudi's were extremely irritated to see female soldiers and they requested that the chaplains did not wear insignia while there.

By keeping troops on boats or in Turkey (a member of NATO and more progressive than Saudi Arabia, which is what I believe Pape means by "bases near the region" - not in the Middle East, but near it), they are removing the visible presence of troops in a volatile region while reassuring the governments of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait that troops are nearby.

After the first Gulf War, many Saudi's protested against the US presence in Saudi Arabia, that their presence defiled their holy lands, and demanded that they be sent home. These demands were not addressed and the house of Saud is seen by too many Saudi's as being traitors.

Muslims dislike the presence of Western troops in the Middle East as they invoke memories of Crusaders.

It does not matter what Bush says about withdrawal, they do not believe him as they have been lied to by the Americans before, and they still remember with disgust and hatred the shooting down of an aircraft full of Iranians by the USS Vincennes.

[Adrian II]

It's a systemic problem with a whole culture.What culture? Tamil culture? Tamil Tigers aren't even religious, yet blow themselves up in a fight against occupiers. So the thesis that suicide bombing is a systemic problem of Muslims might not be adequate. Correlation points in a different direction: occupation is a systemic problem that provokes suicide tactics.

[Adrian II]

Wow. Someone's had too much cool-aid. ~:eek:No, I was mimicking Papewaio's telegram style. ~;)

[econ21]

Hence the gaping flaw in his arguement.

I am sorry, I don't see the flaw here. He said near the region, not in the region.


Does a US base in Saudi Arabia for the purposes of defending Kuwait constitute an occupation? Sounds like a stretch to me...

No, it does not constitute an occupation in my eyes. But what I think is irrelevant. It is clear from his writing, that Osama Bin Laden thought it was. And from what I can pick up, this was the spark that turned him to attack the US.

I agree with AdrianII, the primary interest of the Professor's piece is its analysis of the causes of suicide attacks. The issue of what it implies if true is another question, but has no bearing on the validity of the Professor's analysis.

As it happens, I think the Professor's inference is surely right - avoid stationing US troops where it enrages the locals. Maybe it was inevitable that some stationing had to be done in Saudi temporarily to free Kuwait. But if the Professor's analysis is true, letting them stay there for years was - with the benefit of hindsight - an awful miscalculation. [I seem to recall the US bases in Saudi are now going, thanks to alternative Iraqi sites.]

[Papewaio]

What culture? Tamil culture? Tamil Tigers aren't even religious, yet blow themselves up in a fight against occupiers. So the thesis that suicide bombing is a systemic problem of Muslims might not be adequate. Correlation points in a different direction: occupation is a systemic problem that provokes suicide tactics.

Is the US occupying Saudi Arabia? Seriously?

Is Australia occupying Indonesia?

[Adrian II]

The single largest suicide attack in history occured while the US employed the strategy that Professor Pape advocates.Nope; after 'desecrating' holy Saudi soil (in the eyes of orthodox Muslims) the U.S. kept patrolling and stationing soldiers all over the region. This presence reinforced notions that the already highly impopular Saudi monarchy had completely succumbed to U.S. power and dictates. No holes there, my friend.
Professor Pape advocates bases such as those in Saudi Arabia which defended Kuwait.No again, he advocates wirhdrawal from the region and observance from a certain distance. That is his conclusion, but it doesn't interest me much. It is his numbers and analysis that I find refreshing.

[Proletariat]

I hope not, because we may be subject to suicide attacks from Germany or S. Korea and no one here will see it coming. We're still using definition for occupation 1.0.


My main beef is that it's such a stretch to say the US is occupying Saudi, that none of this makes sense to me.

I'm thinking Germany in France, 1940s. France in all over, 1860s. Britain in India, early half of this century. You know, occupation.

[Papewaio]

Before Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982, there was no Hezbollah suicide terrorist campaign against Israel; indeed, Hezbollah came into existence only after this event. Before the Sri Lankan military began moving into the Tamil homelands of the island in 1987, the Tamil Tigers did not use suicide attacks. Before the huge increase in Jewish settlers on the West Bank in the 1980s, Palestinian groups did not use suicide terrorism. And, true to form, there had never been a documented suicide attack in Iraq until after the American invasion in 2003.

Aren't all these suicide attacks limited to the region of occupation.

So where does 9/11 fit in as it is not local to the region that is tenously under occupation.

[Adrian II]

Is Australia occupying Indonesia?You are on Cool-Aid! ~D

Seriously, if Australia had a long history of intervention in the region, if it had so many troops stationed in Indonesia at one time that they dwarfed the Indonesian army, if they had given the impression (to put it mildly) that they supported some Indonesian political dynasty over others in their own interest, and if Australia had massively occupied some neighbouring country of Indonesia lately, if the Australian Navy ostensibly controlled all waters around Indonesia, etcetera - yes, then Indonesians might start to think Australia effectively occupied their land.

[Adrian II]

So where does 9/11 fit in as it is not local to the region that is tenously under occupation.Were all Palestininan airplane hijackings in the 1960's and 1970's in Palestine?

[econ21]

Is the US occupying Saudi Arabia? Seriously?

At the risk of repeating myself, what matters is the perception of the suicide bombers and their leaders. Osama dresses up a lot of his rhetoric in terms of Palestine and a wider jihad, but a lot of commentators think it was really the US troops in Saudi that sparked him off on his campaign. Here he is in 1997:

REPORTER: Let's go to the bombings of United States troops in Riyadh and Dhahran. Why did they happen and were you and your supporters involved in these attacks?

BIN LADIN: We ask about the main reason that called for this explosion. This explosion was a reaction to a US provocation of the Muslim peoples, in which the US transgressed in its aggression until it reached the qibla of the Muslims in the whole world. So, the purpose of of the two explosions is to get the American occupation out (of Arabia). So if the U.S. does not want to kill its sons who are in the army, then it has to get out.

Full transcript here:

http://www.anusha.com/osamaint.htm

[Papewaio]

You are on Cool-Aid! ~D

Seriously, if Australia had a long history of intervention in the region, if it had so many troops stationed in Indonesia at one time that they dwarfed the Indonesian army, if they had given the impression (to put it mildly) that they supported some Indonesian political dynasty over others in their own interest, and if Australia had massively occupied some neighbouring country of Indonesia lately, if the Australian Navy ostensibly controlled all waters around Indonesia, etcetera - yes, then Indonesians might start to think Australia effectively occupied their land.

Well then can you explain the Bali Bombing in which 88 Australians got murdered.

The targeting of the Australia International School in Jakarta. Yeah I know school kids are an occuping force.

The targeting of the Embassies of Australia in both Singapore (thwarted) and Jakarta.

[Papewaio]

So we should appease the terrorist organisations and withdraw from the middle east, while we are at it no tourists should go to Muslims countries (even the non-Muslim regions) as this is enough of a reason to have terrorists attack?

[Adrian II]

Well then can you explain the Bali Bombing in which 88 Australians got murdered.My dear Papewaio, 'Bali' was not a suicide bombing. Let's keep our eye on the ball here.

[Adrian II]

So we should appease the terrorist organisations (..)Now you've lost me.

[econ21]

Well then can you explain the Bali Bombing in which 88 Australians got murdered.

Well, suicide attack or not, the Bali bombing was on the second anniversary of the bombing of the USS Cole and the perpetrators have been linked to Al Qaida. The Bali bombers may not have been attacking occupiers of their own country (Indonesia), but they do seem to be aligned with Bin Laden's campaign against what he perceives as the occupation of Saudi Arabia..

[Adrian II]

Well, suicide attack or not, the Bali bombing was on the second anniversary of the bombing of the USS Cole and the perpetrators have been linked to Al Qaida. The Bali bombers may not have been attacking occupiers of their own country (Indonesia), but they do seem to be aligned with Bin Laden's campaign against what he perceives as the occupation of Saudi Arabia..And even if it were a suicide attack, it would not invalidate the general conclusion from the much larger sample that occupation is a strong stimulus to suicide tactics. Indeed nearly all suicide attacks I looked more than superficially in to took place in the land of the perpetrator, as if the spillig of blood somehow confirms his tie to that land.

And if anyone takes that observation to be some sort of defense for suicide bombing, they can sort out their own nonsense, I'm off to bed.

[Papewaio]

My dear Papewaio, 'Bali' was not a suicide bombing. Let's keep our eye on the ball here.

One of the terrorists was a suicide bomber.

[Papewaio]

Well, suicide attack or not, the Bali bombing was on the second anniversary of the bombing of the USS Cole and the perpetrators have been linked to Al Qaida. The Bali bombers may not have been attacking occupiers of their own country (Indonesia), but they do seem to be aligned with Bin Laden's campaign against what he perceives as the occupation of Saudi Arabia..

And the attacks on the Australian embassy and the listing of the school?

[Papewaio]

At the risk of repeating myself, what matters is the perception of the suicide bombers and their leaders. Osama dresses up a lot of his rhetoric in terms of Palestine and a wider jihad, but a lot of commentators think it was really the US troops in Saudi that sparked him off on his campaign. Here he is in 1997:



One of the problems is what do we need to do to be considered not occupying 'their' lands.

Since a base is normally not considered occupation.

So how far away do we need to go?

Do we need to leave the North of Australia just to be 'safe'?

[econ21]

One of the problems is what do we need to do to be considered not occupying 'their' lands.

Since a base is normally not considered occupation.

So how far away do we need to go?

I am just saying we need to pick our fights and fight smart. I am not sure basing troops in foreign countries is necessary or desirable, especially if there is an element in the local population violently opposed to the idea. However, to an extent, the issue of US bases in Saudi Arabia may be a bygone. It was the original casus belli for OBL but things have gone beyond that now. (Athough certainly they should be abandoned if they have not already been.)

The more immediate implication is regarding Iraq - the Professor's thesis strengthens the case for a quick exit for Coalition troops there and that suggests that the idea of waiting until things are stable before exiting may be self-defeating. Again, the current facts on the ground - escalating attacks - seem consistent with this line of reasoning.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I am just saying we need to pick our fights and fight smart. I am not sure basing troops in foreign countries is necessary or desirable, especially if there is an element in the local population violently opposed to the idea. However, to an extent, the issue of US bases in Saudi Arabia may be a bygone. It was the original casus belli for OBL but things have gone beyond that now. (Athough certainly they should be abandoned if they have not already been.)

The more immediate implication is regarding Iraq - the Professor's thesis strengthens the case for a quick exit for Coalition troops there and that suggests that the idea of waiting until things are stable before exiting may be self-defeating. Again, the current facts on the ground - escalating attacks - seem consistent with this line of reasoning.


this line is all good from a defeatist - but i am not convinced that this situation will not resolve itself over time in our favor

the whole - "give in to terrorist demands" is so much more dangerous than it sounds

if we do it once - more people will see that it really works to accomplish their aims

and i dont believe that is a good idea

Plus - if foreign bases werent "necessary", why do you think we have them?

[Adrian II]

this line is all good from a defeatist - but i am not convinced that this situation will not resolve itself over time in our favorI think it's not going to be resolved at all. And I'm not altogeter unhappy at that prospect.

Until very recently I used to think democracy might get a chance in Iraq whilst at the same time its very limited success in Iraq would cause Washington to think twice about similar lonely exercises of power in the near future. But the situation in Iraq seems too messed up for anything good to come of it and Washington is constantly speculating about new wars instead of evaluating its mistake.

The U.S. ignored the rest of the world and started this war in Iraq alone, now it's alone out there and the rest of the world ignores its plight. That's what bad leadership does for you. The U.S. has now killed, wounded or detained a hundred times more victims than died on 11 September, 2001, and we are nowhere near a decisive confrontation with islamist terrorism. America's allies in the region are fostering new terrorists by the thousands, Iraq is their training ground. The event of 9/11 is long past its expiry date as an excuse. And the drive toward war with Iran -- which would be a mistake bordering on clinical insanity -- is far too serious to be allowed any latitude if we can help it.

It's time for Europe to dissociate itself from this rogue Presidency. I wouldn't be surprised if European capitals, including London, would rather see the U.S. remaining bogged down in Iraq for years. It prevents the country from doing even more damage elsewhere (particularly Iran) whilst slowly bleeding the present trend of militarism in U.S. affairs to a more tolerable level.

[Kraxis]

I doubt many people in governments want the US to be bogged down. Firstly for a simple humane point of view it is expensive in lives. Secondly if the US is bogged down we would not see it able to help us much if the need arose. And that it can.

Now I can agree that many would like to see the US become a bit more calm, but not at that cost.

Btw, thousand time the losses of 11/9 (Americans are so wrong with their calendars ~;))... So America has caused 3 million losses? Even the most pessimistic and America bashing grous claim no more than 150,000 in Iraq and another perhaps 50,000 in Afghanistan. And detained numbers so few that they might not even make the list (compared to 3 million).

[Adrian II]

So America has caused 3 million losses? My bad, it should be hundred, not thousand. ~;)

EDIt
And by the way, the rule of thumb is 3 to 4 wounded for every dead, which would raise your number to 600.000 to 800.000 victims. But I'll leave the body count squabble to others if you don't mind. A hundred times more seems fine to me.

[econ21]

this line is all good from a defeatist - but i am not convinced that this situation will not resolve itself over time in our favor

Hopefully it will resolve in favour of the Iraqi people. Like you - and probably most honest people - I am also not sure how it will be resolved. I'd be surprised if US military occupation proves sufficient. At some stage, I think it will have to be Iraqi security forces and perhaps more importantly Iraqi politicians that have to resolve the conflicts in the country. While US military forces may provide direct benefit in the short term, the Professor's analysis at least points to an indirect cost in terms of their presence inciting further insurgency.


the whole - "give in to terrorist demands" is so much more dangerous than it sounds

Absolutely, but there is a difference between giving in to a demand from existing terrorists and doing things that create more terrorists. There's no way you can buy off OBL, Al-Zarqawi etc now and directly responding to their demands would be foolish. But I think there's a lot to play for among the disaffected who might be drawn to their cause - the students in Kabul, the Sunnis in Iraq, the Palestinians etc etc. I'm talking prevention, not cure.


Plus - if foreign bases werent "necessary", why do you think we have them?

You are assuming government decisions are always based on necessity and smart calculation. The US bases in Saudi were necessary to free Kuwait, yes, but I don't think they were necessary to contain Saddam after that. Talking with the benefit of hindsight, I think the US administration did not realise the incendiary effect their presence had.

[Kraxis]

My bad, it should be hundred, not thousand. ~;)

EDIt
And by the way, the rule of thumb is 3 to 4 wounded for every dead, which would raise your number to 600.000 to 800.000 victims. But I'll leave the body count squabble to others if you don't mind. A hundred times more seems fine to me.
Agreed, but remember that most of those groups also blame the current suicide attacks on the Americans. Is it fair when somebody across the street kills somebody, for you to then turn on the guy behind you yelling: "MURDERER!!!!!"
Hardly!

Also I believe that wounded are indeed counted in in those numbers.

[bmolsson]

Well then can you explain the Bali Bombing in which 88 Australians got murdered.

The targeting of the Australia International School in Jakarta. Yeah I know school kids are an occuping force.

The targeting of the Embassies of Australia in both Singapore (thwarted) and Jakarta.

It is not clear that there ever been any suicide bombings in Indonesia. The bombs where the bomber been killed (Australian Embassy and Marriott) where remote controlled. The driver was most probably not aware that he was about to die.

Most targets for terrorist attacks in Indonesia is government (Indonesian) buildings. This mostly due to more relaxed security and the fact that organisations like GAM (Aceh) and the Papua insurgents are behind them.

Further more Australians where targetted during the Timor crisis, but the latest was actually Malaysians due to the "island" incident. There are groups that would target any foreign group, regardless where they are from......

[Papewaio]

BTW any idea why terrorist in Indonesia get lighter sentences then drug mules?

[Tribesman]

BTW any idea why terrorist in Indonesia get lighter sentences then drug mules?
The Government is still pissed at Australia over East Timor ~;)