Demosophia

Suicide Terrorism: The Logic of Totalitarianism

Martin Kramer takes on Robert Pape's argument that suicide terrorism is a rationally motivated strategy to pressure liberal democracies into territorial concessions. Kramer observes that Pape's reference to him as a foil, in his APSR article, is inappropriate. He doesn't claim that terrorism is "irrational." However he does take issue with Pape's rationale. An excerpt:

In sum, Pape has not told us much we didn't know anyway, and his data inspire less confidence than earlier data-based studies. We already knew that suicide bombings were strategic choices. Even in Lebanon, and without the example of the Tamil Tigers, we knew that secular groups could embrace the method with fervor. (In Lebanon in the mid-1980s, pro-Syrian secular groups did three attacks for every one launched by Hizbullah. In Pape's data, all of these attacks are inexplicably attributed to Hizbullah.) What happened in Lebanon has been repeated in the Palestinian territories, where secular groups have jumped on the bandwagon of Hamas and Islamic Jihad. What begins as a strategic campaign is often driven forward by organizational and Islamist-secular rivalry.

I agree with Kramer's conclusion that Pape's recommendations don't follow from his conclusions, but I'm not sure I agree with the premise that it's all about territorial concession. I think it's all about power.

I should think that the strategy employed by suicide terrorists, or at least those who launch the bombers on their mission, is roughly equivalent to the strategy employed by any cult: increasing the influence and power of the group and its leaders. And that is only "irrational" in the sense that, for instance, Hizbollah's strategy may not coincide with the interests of Palestinians in general. They serve their constituents, but aren't about to work themselves out of a job. They seek to optimize their own influence, which would coincide with the interests of Palestinians imperfectly, at best. And I think that if one corrected Pape's dataset, as Kramer suggests, the pattern would demonstrate as much. At the start of any Israeli peace initiative Hizbollah or IJ launches a suicide campaign, the objective of which is only partly to obtain concessions. The other "rational" element is that if there is ever a settlement Hizbollah's influence would plummet, and people would begin commerce and trade and would quickly develop an interest in quelling disturbances. Hizbollah would became a group of outlaws..

So if the issue has to do with the influence of *ideology* vs. *rationality* it's a false comparison. Clearly the Tamil Tigers have an ideological objective relating to the influence of their group and its leaders that is as rational as any group. What they lack is an ethic that transcends the ideological blinders that make it a coherent group in the first place. Their so-called "rationality" has limits, that don't extend beyond the group's sphere of influence. So they are obviously both ideological *and* rational.

And the most straightforward thing one can say about any of these groups is that terrorism, including suicide terrorism, is simply a strategy employed by totalitarian groups who either happen to be out of power, or are on the verge of losing power. Once they have secured regime power they employ terror, but not necessarily terrorism. Their model is no longer the Kamikaze or the Palestinian suicide bomber, but the KGB or the Mukhabarat. And clearly the Ba'ath in Iraq have gone full circle. Not rational? Of course it's rational. It's just not enlightened. And I think that's really the false attribution that Pape manages to make in his article, without, of course, realizing it.

Thanks to Oxblog for pointing out the Kramer article. Good stuff.

Posted by Demosophist at October 1, 2003 01:06 AM | TrackBack