Saturday, April 22, 2006

Islamist Terror Is More Than Academic

Is Islamist terrorism the result of occupation?

As Islamist terrorism both in Israel and elsewhere continues, defining the enemy is becoming more than academic. Last year, Robert Pape came out with Dying to Win : The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism. Labeled as "One of the world’s foremost authorities on the subject" of suicide terrorism, University of Chicago political scientist Robert Pape's book is summarized by Amazon.com as follows:
FACT: Suicide terrorism is not primarily a product of Islamic fundamentalism.

FACT: The world’s leading practitioners of suicide terrorism are the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka–a secular, Marxist-Leninist group drawn from Hindu families.

FACT: Ninety-five percent of suicide terrorist attacks occur as part of coherent campaigns organized by large militant organizations with significant public support.

FACT: Every suicide terrorist campaign has had a clear goal that is secular and political: to compel a modern democracy to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland.

FACT: Al-Qaeda fits the above pattern. Although Saudi Arabia is not under American military occupation per se, one major objective of al-Qaeda is the expulsion of U.S. troops from the Persian Gulf region, and as a result there have been repeated attacks by terrorists loyal to Osama bin Laden against American troops in Saudi Arabia and the region as a whole.

FACT: Despite their rhetoric, democracies–including the United States–have routinely made concessions to suicide terrorists. Suicide terrorism is on the rise because terrorists have learned that it’s effective.
Pape's main point that is being widely quoted is that the current wave of terrorism is a response to occupation. Gateway Pundit writes about former Democratic Senator Jim Abourezk's reaction to the suicide bombing in Tel Aviv in CounterPunch:
I am realistic enough to know that, because the Congress is pretty much reliant on money from radical Zionists, stopping the flow of American taxpayers' money to Israel will not come soon. But the sooner it does end, the sooner the violence will stop...Racism against people of Arab descent is getting worse...Terrorism does not exist in a vacuum. It does not come from thin air. It is a result of people who believe that their lives cannot be improved by occupation and that there is nothing left for them to do except to commit acts of terrorism.
The attempt to blame the current wave of Islamist terrorism around the world on 'occupation' in general--an on Israel and the US in particular--does not hold water.

Some points to keep in mind:

o According to Religion of Peace, in 2005 alone, 6991 people were murdered and 12,382 people injured in Islamist attacks in Afghanistan, Algeria, Bangladesh, Chechnya, Dagestan, Denmark, Egypt, Ethiopia, France, India, Indonesia, Ingushetia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kabardino-Balk., Kosovo, Kuwait, Lebanon, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Palestine (Jebaliya and Gaza City), Philippines, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Scotland, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Thailand, UK, and Yemen--and the majority of those countries do not fit Pape's model of democracies occupying Moslem territory. (For numbers on Islamist attacks thus far this year see here)

o According to TigerHawk:
there have been a great many foreign occupations and counterinsurgencies in the world that were not resisted with suicide bombings. Other than Japanese kamikaze (who in any case confined themselves to military targets), why are Muslims the only people who resist occupation with suicide bombings if Islamic fundamentalism is not the main cause of suicide bombings? Is this because moderate Muslims become suicide bombers? What, precisely, is his point?
o Bernard Lewis, in The Crisis of Islam, notes the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in late December 1979, which finally brought a watered-down condemnation from the UN General Assembly "strongly deploring the recent armed intervention in Afghanistan"--Syria and Algeria abstaind, South Yemen voted against, Libya was absent, and the PLO observer defended Russia. In the end:
it was left to the United States to organize, with some success , an Islamic counteratack to Soviet imperialism in Afghanistan. [p. 91-92]
Where was the resistance to foreign occupation--and the suicide bombers?

o Why is Pape forced to hedge? In an interview, Pape claims:
the facts are that since 1980, suicide terrorist attacks from around the world over half have been secular. What over 95 per cent of suicide attacks around the world [are about] is not religion, but a specific strategic purpose - to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland or prize greatly and this is in fact a centrepiece of Al Qaeda's strategic logic, which is to compel the United States and Western countries to abandon military commitments on the Arabian Peninsula. [emphasis added]
Besides insisting on limiting his model to modern democracies--letting Russia's invasion of Afghanistan off the hook--he applies his model to territory that is 'viewed' as homeland or 'prized'. Papes odd articulation avoids dealing with the history of 'Palestine' that was never a country of a Palestinian people. But it also allows any imagined right by Islamist terrorists as justification for murder. For example, the model would give legitimacy to the Moslem claim to the Taj Mahal. Another example: Dhimmi Watch quotes an article in the LA Times, commenting:

At least the article is honest enough to acknowledge the traditionalist basis of the jihadist claims to Spain:

Unfortunately for Spain's Muslims, the militants who swear loyalty to Osama bin Laden are history buffs too. In claiming responsibility for the March bombings, they cited the loss of "Al Andalus" as motivation.

"We will continue our jihad until martyrdom in the land of Tarik Ben Ziyad," they said in a communique issued after the massacre, alluding to the Moorish warrior and original Islamic conqueror of the Iberian peninsula.

o In A War On Jihadism -- Not 'Terror', Jonathan Rauch quotes Islamic Imperialism: A History by Efraim Karsh who writes that "The Islamic imperial dream of world domination has remained very much alive in the hearts and minds of many Muslims" and that "Declaring a holy war against the infidel has been a standard practice of countless imperial rulers and aspirants since the rise of Islam."

If Pape, Mearsheimer, and Walt are any indication, academics and supposed experts are ready to tell us 'provocative' and 'radical' explanations about who the real enemy is, who is really to blame, and what really needs to be done.

In the face of such academicians, it is more necessary than ever to have the facts.

Technorati Tag: and and and and .

No comments: