Dying to Win by Robert Pape

[Mickey]

I just started reading this study of suicide terrorism and I ran across an interesting interview with the author in the American Conservative which says of Pape, "...he knows more about suicide terrorists than any other American."

 

Here is the link:

 

Interview with Robert Pape

[Ghost of BiB]

I just started reading this study of suicide terrorism and I ran across an interesting interview with the author in the American Conservative which says of Pape, "...he knows more about suicide terrorists than any other American."

 

Here is the link:

 

Interview with Robert Pape

417737[/snapback]

 

His knowledge to the motivation and mentality may be good, but one has to question his strategic conclusions - especially with regards to terrorist use of WMD. Organized terror organizations are spending so much time and effort trying to acquire a viable weapon plus an effective delivery means that I find it hard to believe that there is any circumstance where they would not attempt to use one if it were available. Also, localized "insurgency" has a strong parallel to gang recruitment and violence in our own cities. Some folks keep missing that "suicide" operatives tend to be basically kids. Islam is definitely a factor. In Compton, you do a drive by to prove your loyalty and allegiance to the gang. But, the mark of honor is to do your time if you get caught. In Fallujah, you have a operative factor of supposedly older and wiser people that know how to manipulate by clerical means. The kids are more cranked up by their 15 minutes of fame. False ideology.

 

The suicide bombers are not the problem. They are recruited and exist because the brain trust behind them do not have the technology for anything better. Circa WW2 and the Kamikazi mindset. One has to go after the head of the serpent, and that is the "word". Therein, is an automatic problem. Because of our fanaticism over the first ammendment, even with directed informational campaigns we tend to allow radical voices in the name of freedoms.

 

I don't know that we can overcome that, in that environment, but we aren't doing a lot to help ourselves.

[Mickey]

His knowledge to the motivation and mentality may be good, but one has to question his strategic conclusions - especially with regards to terrorist use of WMD. Organized terror organizations are spending so much time and effort trying to acquire a viable weapon plus an effective delivery means that I find it hard to believe that there is any circumstance where they would not attempt to use one if it were available. Also, localized "insurgency" has a strong parallel to gang recruitment and violence in our own cities. Some folks keep missing that "suicide" operatives tend to be basically kids. Islam is definitely a factor. In Compton, you do a drive by to prove your loyalty and allegiance to the gang. But, the mark of honor is to do your time if you get caught. In Fallujah, you have a operative factor of supposedly older and wiser people that know how to manipulate by clerical means. The kids are more cranked up by their 15 minutes of fame. False ideology.

 

The suicide bombers are not the problem. They are recruited and exist because the brain trust behind them do not have the technology for anything better. Circa WW2 and the Kamikazi mindset. One has to go after the head of the serpent, and that is the "word". Therein, is an automatic problem. Because of our fanaticism over the first ammendment, even with directed informational campaigns we tend to allow radical voices in the name of freedoms.

 

I don't know that we can overcome that, in that environment, but we aren't doing a lot to help ourselves.

417891[/snapback]

The raw data he amassed and the insights it provides is helpful but I think he falls flat on what policy to make based on that data. It seems his idea is to get American troops off their soil and protect the strategic importance of the area by having the capability to insert serious force very quickly if trouble brews. At the same time, he wants a push for energy independence thereby decreasing the strategic value of these miscreant lands. It all sounds good but it falls pretty short of anything practical like, what do you do when they have WMD's as you point out.

 

I haven't finished the book, just started it so I guess I'll just have to see what else he's got.

[KRC]

Organized terror organizations are spending so much time and effort trying to acquire a viable weapon plus an effective delivery means that I find it hard to believe that there is any circumstance where they would not attempt to use one if it were available.

417891[/snapback]

 

There is no question that they would use it when viable or even remotely close to viable. Aum Shinri Kyo is an example. They developed their own WMD capabilities. When remotely viable, they used it.

[/dev/null]

that guys named at first glance looked like Robert Page

 

that made me think of Robert Plant and Jimmy Page

 

think i'm gonna go listen to some Zepellin now

[Wacka]

Is there any cowbell in Zep songs?

[Ghost of BiB]

The raw data he amassed and the insights it provides is helpful but I think he falls flat on what policy to make based on that data.  It seems his idea is to get American troops off their soil and protect the strategic importance of the area by having the capability to insert serious force very quickly if trouble brews.  At the same time, he wants a push for energy independence thereby decreasing the strategic value of these miscreant lands.  It all sounds good but it falls pretty short of anything practical like, what do you do when they have WMD's as you point out. 

 

I haven't finished the book, just started it so I guess I'll just have to see what else he's got.

418403[/snapback]

 

The only true way to insert serious force in a hurry if trouble brews is measured in kilotons. I don't think that's the greatest idea, for a lot of reasons. Pulling American ground forces out of the M/E gives them the victory in the FIRST battle (against us, second against a superpower). That would be a bigger recruiting tool than the war we have now.

[Mickey]

The only true way to insert serious force in a hurry if trouble brews is measured in kilotons. I don't think that's the greatest idea, for a lot of reasons. Pulling American ground forces out of the M/E gives them the victory in the FIRST battle (against us, second against a superpower). That would be a bigger recruiting tool than the war we have now.

418828[/snapback]

I believe what he envisioned was something like the Gulf War where Saddam did what he did and then we came in and kicked him out. I can't beleive that our only option, should some Taliban like regime invade Saudi Arabia or some such scenario, would be to go nuclear. Maybe it is. Again, I am on like page 30 or something so I don't want to tear into Pape or sing his praises just yet.

 

Do you agree or disagree with him that the presence of foreign troops on soil the terrorists view as their own is the primary or at least a significant motivating factor, in suicide terrorism?

[Mickey]

There is no question that they would use it when viable or even remotely close to viable.  Aum Shinri Kyo is an example. They developed their own WMD capabilities. When remotely viable, they used it.

418434[/snapback]

Are they the ones with the sarin gas in the Japanese subway?

[Ghost of BiB]

Are they the ones with the sarin gas in the Japanese subway?

419370[/snapback]

 

Yes.

[Mickey]

Yes.

419536[/snapback]

What were they hoping to achieve with that attack?

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

What were they hoping to achieve with that attack?

419613[/snapback]

 

The apocylapse, basically. They were one of those screwball "the end of the world is nigh" cults (albiet a pretty big one), but the end of the world wasn't coming quickly enough for them so they tried to precipitate it with terrorist attacks. The Tokyo subway was their only successful one...but it was their seventh or so attempt. I know they tried distributing anthrax at least once; didn't infect anyone but got enough dispersal, I believe, that infectious spores were found when people finally went looking for them.

 

Chem/bioweapons is actually pretty easy (as those things go...but realistically any modern hospital or vet's office is equipped to make a crude bioweapon). It's chem/bio weapons delivery that's hard.

[Ghost of BiB]

I believe what he envisioned was something like the Gulf War where Saddam did what he did and then we came in and kicked him out.  I can't beleive that our only option, should some Taliban like regime invade Saudi Arabia or some such scenario, would be to go nuclear.  Maybe it is.  Again, I am on like page 30 or something so I don't want to tear into Pape or sing his praises just yet. 

 

Do you agree or disagree with him that the presence of foreign troops on soil the terrorists view as their own is the primary or at least a significant motivating factor, in suicide terrorism?

419367[/snapback]

 

I wish it were that cut and dried. IMO, Jihad is the motivating factor for suicidal terrorism. Otherwise, it could be a sin. Key word-Jihad. This is not viewed solely as a resistance to a foreign occupation and unless the author just didn't have time to explain, I feel he's off base maybe not in the ideological, but the strategic causes. It is a holy war called against perceived enemies of Islam. Within Iraq, a lot of the ideological lines have been blurred. This, in the long run is going to work against them. It is a contradictory doctrine. You have jihadists embracing the very operational goals, methods and tactics that they are supposedly fighting against. This particular Jihad, instigated initially through Bin Laden's '95 Fatwa was based on the idea of declaring war on the US (infidels) with a goal of removing foreign influence from the holy lands (primarily Saudi Arabia). This conflict has gone well beyond that. I think the author is taking either a simplistic, or dated view.

 

Bin Laden and his associates have essentially never lost. They removed a superpower from Afghanistan (with a heck of a lot of help, but they take the credit) and the only other superpower (us) they have pretty well pushed around like a scrappy kid getting the better of the playground bully. This in no small way has given the a realistic hope for establishing the Caliphate. As we have discussed over the last few years, and I think we agree, that is the current goal of the "affiliated radical islamic terrorist organizations" (another half hour to explain that one). They have been emboldened. Bin Laden (rightfully) figured he could definitely provoke an actual response out of the US by the 9/11 attacks, he was quite surprised he hadn't gotten one before then. What he did do was underestimate the response he got. So, the jihad army he had spent years forming was essentially chewed up in Afghanistan.

 

They do not feel beaten in the least. They are smart, and learn fast (even though they still do some really dumb stuff). Now, through our invasion and occupation of Iraq, they have a "secular" cause to fold into the primary jihadist mission. Their strategy reflects accordingly. Certain other islamic terror groups have aligned with AQ and have basically been chartered, much like franchises, to create mayhem within their own spheres and venues. AQ Central primarily provides funding and other logistical support for approved schemes (not necessarilly actual attacks, more like blanket venues - targets).

 

Anyway, now you have the jihad guys piggybacking on what some would have you believe is Iraqi nationalism (if you watch our TV) and using that to muddy the water in order to convince highly impressionable young people to strap on semtex vests or drive C-4 audis. Purpose? Create havoc and prevent organization in Iraq. All one has to do is read this board to know what it is doing in so far as American public opinion. The pen is mightier than the sword, is it not?

 

This is a barfight, a brawl. Invading Iraq was a hell of a lot easier than invading Iran. Plus, there weren't any justifications for it, much less "UN resolutions". Pulling out of Iraq will keep American soldiers from getting killed in Iraq. That will make everyone in the here and now happy. No one likes to see it, but it would be very shortsighted. The people who have declared themselves our enemies have no intention of ever stopping their war against America, as long as we are strong they will always have our shadow on their shoulder. You have people planning attacks on our soil as we write, and if we were to pull out of Iraq tomorrow, it wouldn't change a thing in that regard. The best hope for the fragmented jihad alliance is with Iran, and with a strong US presence in the region, even if it's through a proxy like a new Iraq it will be very difficult for the "Caliphate" to gain steam. If you think the idea of a Pan-Islamic state is a boogieman, look at the idea of the European Union.

 

The kingpin to the region is Saudi Arabia. Yes, oil is a big part of it. Not just our economy, but the world economy depends on it. That's why we did Gulf One. Now, the enemies are from within, not without.

 

Walking away from this fight now, would make us look truly beaten. Our regional allies would either capitulate or moderate to the "new" islamic view. We would be attacked on our own soil with little recourse as far as retaliation. The balance of power in the world would shift to the guys on the big beach. Once they can dictate how we should live, then maybe the bombs will stop.

 

I regret that this is more complicated than this, and hard to put into a message board post. But, this is essentially the gist of what's up, and what's at stake.

[Wacka]

Thank you for a very good and concise overview of what is going on. As Bush said (and a lot of people ignore) this is a world war against terror and there will be many battles . Afghanistan and now Iraq are just battles in this war. We won't know of many of the battles for years because they are being done in secret as you have alluded to. As Bush said, it will take many years to achieve victory.

 

If we don't 9/11 will look like a firecracker.

[KRC]

I know they tried distributing anthrax at least once; didn't infect anyone but got enough dispersal, I believe, that infectious spores were found when people finally went looking for them.

419650[/snapback]

 

They also have been working with VX and botulism. They own a helicopter (Russian, IIRC), so that may be one way they plan on dispersing any agent.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

They also have been working with VX and botulism. They own a helicopter (Russian, IIRC), so that may be one way they plan on dispersing any agent.

420418[/snapback]

 

"Own" or "owned"? I thought the Japanese pretty much broke them up.

 

They worked with a lot of stuff, I know; anthrax was the only one I distinctly recalled. But Aum Shinryko (for those who don't know) had a $2B war chest and one of the better bio labs in Japan. One would assume it wasn't just for anthrax.

[/dev/null]

"Own" or "owned"?

420433[/snapback]

 

or pwn3d?

[KRC]

"Own" or "owned"?  I thought the Japanese pretty much broke them up.

 

They worked with a lot of stuff, I know; anthrax was the only one I distinctly recalled.  But Aum Shinryko (for those who don't know) had a $2B war chest and one of the better bio labs in Japan.  One would assume it wasn't just for anthrax.

420433[/snapback]

 

They were "disbanded" but not outlawed. The Japanese government thought that they would just disappear.

 

I cannot imagine that they have gone away.

[KRC]

I wish it were that cut and dried. IMO, Jihad is the motivating factor for suicidal terrorism. Otherwise, it could be a sin. Key word-Jihad. This is not viewed solely as a resistance to a foreign occupation and unless the author just didn't have time to explain, I feel he's off base maybe not in the ideological, but the strategic causes. It is a holy war called against perceived enemies of Islam. Within Iraq, a lot of the ideological lines have been blurred. This, in the long run is going to work against them. It is a contradictory doctrine. You have jihadists embracing the very operational goals, methods and tactics that they are supposedly fighting against. This particular Jihad, instigated initially through Bin Laden's '95 Fatwa was based on the idea of declaring war on the US (infidels) with a goal of removing foreign influence from the holy lands (primarily Saudi Arabia). This conflict has gone well beyond that. I think the author is taking either a simplistic, or dated view.

 

Bin Laden and his associates have essentially never lost. They removed a superpower from Afghanistan (with a heck of a lot of help, but they take the credit) and the only other superpower (us) they have pretty well pushed around like a scrappy kid getting the better of the playground bully. This in no small way has given the a realistic hope for establishing the Caliphate. As we have discussed over the last few years, and I think we agree, that is the current goal of the "affiliated radical islamic terrorist organizations" (another half hour to explain that one). They have been emboldened. Bin Laden (rightfully) figured he could definitely provoke an actual response out of the US by the 9/11 attacks, he was quite surprised he hadn't gotten one before then. What he did do was underestimate the response he got. So, the jihad army he had spent years forming was essentially chewed up in Afghanistan.

 

They do not feel beaten in the least. They are smart, and learn fast (even though they still do some really dumb stuff). Now, through our invasion and occupation of Iraq, they have a "secular" cause to fold into the primary jihadist mission. Their strategy reflects accordingly. Certain other islamic terror groups have aligned with AQ and have basically been chartered, much like franchises, to create mayhem within their own spheres and venues. AQ Central primarily provides funding and other logistical support for approved schemes (not necessarilly actual attacks, more like blanket venues - targets).

 

Anyway, now you have the jihad guys piggybacking on what some would have you believe is Iraqi nationalism (if you watch our TV) and using that to muddy the water in order to convince highly impressionable young people to strap on semtex vests or drive C-4 audis. Purpose? Create havoc and prevent organization in Iraq. All one has to do is read this board to know what it is doing in so far as American public opinion. The pen is mightier than the sword, is it not?

 

This is a barfight, a brawl. Invading Iraq was a hell of a lot easier than invading Iran. Plus, there weren't any justifications for it, much less "UN resolutions". Pulling out of Iraq will keep American soldiers from getting killed in Iraq. That will make everyone in the here and now happy. No one likes to see it, but it would be very shortsighted. The people who have declared themselves our enemies have no intention of ever stopping their war against America, as long as we are strong they will always have our shadow on their shoulder. You have people planning attacks on our soil as we write, and if we were to pull out of Iraq tomorrow, it wouldn't change a thing in that regard. The best hope for the fragmented jihad alliance is with Iran, and with a strong US presence in the region, even if it's through a proxy like a new Iraq it will be very difficult for the "Caliphate" to gain steam. If you think the idea of a Pan-Islamic state is a boogieman, look at the idea of the European Union.

 

The kingpin to the region is Saudi Arabia. Yes, oil is a big part of it. Not just our economy, but the world economy depends on it. That's why we did Gulf One. Now, the enemies are from within, not without.

 

Walking away from this fight now, would make us look truly beaten. Our regional allies would either capitulate or moderate to the "new" islamic view. We would be attacked on our own soil with little recourse as far as retaliation. The balance of power in the world would shift to the guys on the big beach. Once they can dictate how we should live, then maybe the bombs will stop.

 

I regret that this is more complicated than this, and hard to put into a message board post. But, this is essentially the gist of what's up, and what's at stake.

419735[/snapback]

 

 

Nice job!!

 

You hit in something that seems to be lost on some here. The fact that if we were to pull out now, it is not going to stop attacks against Americans. In fact, it will just make organizations like AQ more powerful. As you mentioned, they "beat" the Russians. If we leave, they "beat" us as well. Two superpowers, two defeats of superpowers.

 

That will do more for recruiting into organizations like AQ than Bush could do by invading Iraq.

[cromagnum]

I wish it were that cut and dried. IMO, Jihad is the motivating factor for suicidal terrorism. Otherwise, it could be a sin. Key word-Jihad. This is not viewed solely as a resistance to a foreign occupation and unless the author just didn't have time to explain, I feel he's off base maybe not in the ideological, but the strategic causes. It is a holy war called against perceived enemies of Islam. Within Iraq, a lot of the ideological lines have been blurred. This, in the long run is going to work against them. It is a contradictory doctrine. You have jihadists embracing the very operational goals, methods and tactics that they are supposedly fighting against. This particular Jihad, instigated initially through Bin Laden's '95 Fatwa was based on the idea of declaring war on the US (infidels) with a goal of removing foreign influence from the holy lands (primarily Saudi Arabia). This conflict has gone well beyond that. I think the author is taking either a simplistic, or dated view.

 

Bin Laden and his associates have essentially never lost. They removed a superpower from Afghanistan (with a heck of a lot of help, but they take the credit) and the only other superpower (us) they have pretty well pushed around like a scrappy kid getting the better of the playground bully. This in no small way has given the a realistic hope for establishing the Caliphate. As we have discussed over the last few years, and I think we agree, that is the current goal of the "affiliated radical islamic terrorist organizations" (another half hour to explain that one). They have been emboldened. Bin Laden (rightfully) figured he could definitely provoke an actual response out of the US by the 9/11 attacks, he was quite surprised he hadn't gotten one before then. What he did do was underestimate the response he got. So, the jihad army he had spent years forming was essentially chewed up in Afghanistan.

 

They do not feel beaten in the least. They are smart, and learn fast (even though they still do some really dumb stuff). Now, through our invasion and occupation of Iraq, they have a "secular" cause to fold into the primary jihadist mission. Their strategy reflects accordingly. Certain other islamic terror groups have aligned with AQ and have basically been chartered, much like franchises, to create mayhem within their own spheres and venues. AQ Central primarily provides funding and other logistical support for approved schemes (not necessarilly actual attacks, more like blanket venues - targets).

 

Anyway, now you have the jihad guys piggybacking on what some would have you believe is Iraqi nationalism (if you watch our TV) and using that to muddy the water in order to convince highly impressionable young people to strap on semtex vests or drive C-4 audis. Purpose? Create havoc and prevent organization in Iraq. All one has to do is read this board to know what it is doing in so far as American public opinion. The pen is mightier than the sword, is it not?

 

This is a barfight, a brawl. Invading Iraq was a hell of a lot easier than invading Iran. Plus, there weren't any justifications for it, much less "UN resolutions". Pulling out of Iraq will keep American soldiers from getting killed in Iraq. That will make everyone in the here and now happy. No one likes to see it, but it would be very shortsighted. The people who have declared themselves our enemies have no intention of ever stopping their war against America, as long as we are strong they will always have our shadow on their shoulder. You have people planning attacks on our soil as we write, and if we were to pull out of Iraq tomorrow, it wouldn't change a thing in that regard. The best hope for the fragmented jihad alliance is with Iran, and with a strong US presence in the region, even if it's through a proxy like a new Iraq it will be very difficult for the "Caliphate" to gain steam. If you think the idea of a Pan-Islamic state is a boogieman, look at the idea of the European Union.

 

The kingpin to the region is Saudi Arabia. Yes, oil is a big part of it. Not just our economy, but the world economy depends on it. That's why we did Gulf One. Now, the enemies are from within, not without.

 

Walking away from this fight now, would make us look truly beaten. Our regional allies would either capitulate or moderate to the "new" islamic view. We would be attacked on our own soil with little recourse as far as retaliation. The balance of power in the world would shift to the guys on the big beach. Once they can dictate how we should live, then maybe the bombs will stop.

 

I regret that this is more complicated than this, and hard to put into a message board post. But, this is essentially the gist of what's up, and what's at stake.

419735[/snapback]

Yes that was a good post. I am finally starting to find some justifacation to the war in iraq....I did not support the iraq war,because to me the some of the reason's for the war were untrue,enough for me not to support it. I think your post changed my perception of the iraq war,and the administration has to do better job of promoting the war...Thank's again for the insight