Published on 10-22-2010
Source: Washington’s Blog
Everyone knows that only Muslim-lovers and left-wing peaceniks want to stop the wars in Afghanistan and other Muslim countries, that terrorism is caused by Muslim ideology, and that we’re fighting them “over there” so we don’t have to fight them here.
In fact, as University of Chicago professor Robert A. Pape – who specializes in international security affairs – points out:
Extensive research into the causes of suicide terrorism proves Islam isn’t to blame — the root of the problem is foreign military occupations.
Wait, what? That can’t be right!
But as Pape explains:
Each month, there are more suicide terrorists trying to kill Americans and their allies in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other Muslim countries than in all the years before 2001 combined.
New research provides strong evidence that suicide terrorism such as that of 9/11 is particularly sensitive to foreign military occupation, and not Islamic fundamentalism or any ideology independent of this crucial circumstance. Although this pattern began to emerge in the 1980s and 1990s, a wealth of new data presents a powerful picture.More than 95 percent of all suicide attacks are in response to foreign occupation, according to extensive research [co-authored by James K. Feldman - former professor of decision analysis and economics at the Air Force Institute of Technology and the School of Advanced Airpower Studies] that we conducted at the University of Chicago’s Project on Security and Terrorism, where we examined every one of the over 2,200 suicide attacks across the world from 1980 to the present day. As the United States has occupied Afghanistan and Iraq, which have a combined population of about 60 million, total suicide attacks worldwide have risen dramatically — from about 300 from 1980 to 2003, to 1,800 from 2004 to 2009. Further, over 90 percent of suicide attacks worldwide are now anti-American. The vast majority of suicide terrorists hail from the local region threatened by foreign troops, which is why 90 percent of suicide attackers in Afghanistan are Afghans.
Israelis have their own narrative about terrorism, which holds that Arab fanatics seek to destroy the Jewish state because of what it is, not what it does. But since Israel withdrew its army from Lebanon in May 2000, there has not been a single Lebanese suicide attack. Similarly, since Israel withdrew from Gaza and large parts of the West Bank, Palestinian suicide attacks are down over 90 percent.
Some have disputed the causal link between foreign occupation and suicide terrorism, pointing out that some occupations by foreign powers have not resulted in suicide bombings — for example, critics often cite post-World War II Japan and Germany. Our research provides sufficient evidence to address these criticisms by outlining the two factors that determine the likelihood of suicide terrorism being employed against an occupying force.
The first factor is social distance between the occupier and occupied. The wider the social distance, the more the occupied community may fear losing its way of life. Although other differences may matter, research shows that resistance to occupations is especially likely to escalate to suicide terrorism when there is a difference between the predominant religion of the occupier and the predominant religion of the occupied.
Religious difference matters not because some religions are predisposed to suicide attacks. Indeed, there are religious differences even in purely secular suicide attack campaigns, such as the LTTE (Hindu) against the Sinhalese (Buddhists).
Rather, religious difference matters because it enables terrorist leaders to claim that the occupier is motivated by a religious agenda that can scare both secular and religious members of a local community — this is why Osama bin Laden never misses an opportunity to describe U.S. occupiers as “crusaders” motivated by a Christian agenda to convert Muslims, steal their resources, and change the local population’s way of life.
The second factor is prior rebellion. Suicide terrorism is typically a strategy of last resort, often used by weak actors when other, non-suicidal methods of resistance to occupation fail. This is why we see suicide attack campaigns so often evolve from ordinary terrorist or guerrilla campaigns, as in the cases of Israel and Palestine, the Kurdish rebellion in Turkey, or the LTTE in Sri Lanka.
One of the most important findings from our research is that empowering local groups can reduce suicide terrorism. In Iraq, the surge’s success was not the result of increased U.S. military control of Anbar province, but the empowerment of Sunni tribes, commonly called the Anbar Awakening, which enabled Iraqis to provide for their own security. On the other hand, taking power away from local groups can escalate suicide terrorism. In Afghanistan, U.S. and Western forces began to exert more control over the country’s Pashtun regions starting in early 2006, and suicide attacks dramatically escalated from this point on.
The first step is recognizing that occupations in the Muslim world don’t make Americans any safer — in fact, they are at the heart of the problem.
But surely Pape and his team of University of Chicago researchers are wrong. Surely other security experts disagree, right?
The top security experts – conservative hawks and liberal doves alike – agree that waging war in the Middle East weakens national security and creates increases terrorism. See this, this, this, this, this and this.
As one of the top counter-terrorism experts (the former number 2 counter-terrorism expert at the State Department) told me, starting wars against states which do not pose an imminent threat to America’s national security increases the threat of terrorism because:
One of the principal causes of terrorism is injuries to people and families.
(Take another look at the painting above).
And its not only war in general as an abstract concept. The methods we’re using to wage war are increasing terrorism.
As one example, torture reduces our national security and creates new terrorists.
Unfortunately, we are continuing to indiscriminately kill civilians using drone strikes, and we are continuing to torture innocent people (see this, this and this).
This is not a question of being a “Muslim-sympathizer”. I am not a Muslim (personally, I and the rest of my family go to Church, albeit a non-dogmatic one). This isn’t about religion at all.
Its all about being practical in protecting our national security.
It might feel good to have guns a blazing. But unfortunately, instead of doing what will protect us, we keep shooting ourselves in the foot.
And in doing so, we are bankrupting our country.
PackBots roam the streets of Iraq defusing bombs. Remote-controlled SWORDS robots shoot rifles and rocket launchers with deadly accuracy. Predator drones piloted by soldiers in Nevada drop missiles on Iraq and Afghanistan. The Wasp robot flies over neighborhoods full of insurgents, recording what’s below with a camera as small as a peanut.
If this sounds like a futuristic science fiction story, it’s not. As of today, over 12,000 robots are working in Iraq, up from zero five years ago.
The military is driving the cutting edge of the robotics industry, so forget about Isaac Asimov’s Three Laws as laid out in his seminal science fiction book I, Robot: a robot may not injure a human being, a robot must obey orders given to it by human beings, a robot must protect its own existence. We’re already living in a strange new world.
P.W. Singer, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute, has written Wired for War, in which he’s interviewed a motley crew of people involved with the robotics industry: CEOs of robotics companies, 19-year-old drone pilots, four-star generals, refusenik roboticists who won’t build for the military, people in the Middle East on the other end of the bullets and missiles, and science fiction authors who consult for the Pentagon.
Robots do see better than humans, shoot straighter and faster than us, and never get tired, but is it only a matter of time until, as any reader of Western science fiction knows, the robot “wises up and then rises up,” as Singer says?
I spoke to Singer about what he found out in his journey into the heart of the robotics industry, and what’s to come.
How much did you know about robots before you started on this project?
I could claim I knew a lot in that I grew up playing with Star Wars action figures and sleeping in Battlestar Galactica bedsheets, but the reality is that I’m not an engineer, I’m a social scientist, so the chapter “Robotics for Dummies” was about how I was a dummy, learning everything I could about robotics so I could explain them to a layman, where the field is and where it’s headed. There’s a wide ignorance — I mean that in the true meaning of the term, not the slur meaning — about the exciting and fascinating and sometimes scary things going on with robotics today. It’s seen as mere science fiction but it’s not. And it’s a lot further ahead than most people have a sense of.
Could you talk about the connection between science fiction and what’s actually being designed?
It was startling how open people were about talking about science fiction and their use in the real world. The Marine colonel talking about, ‘Oh, yeah, I got the idea for building that system from The Empire Strikes Back with my kids.’ The people at the Air Force research lab talking about how, “Oh yes, we decided to call it the Phaser because we knew it was more likely to get funding if it had a sci-fi sounding name.”
[Science Fiction Museum director] Donna Shirley says, “Science fiction isn’t so much about how to build the bomb but what happens if.” If you build the bomb you get Dr. Strangelove, and that’s the part that interests me. That’s really what the book is about. All of the dilemmas that come out of having science fiction come true, having science fiction play out on our modern battlefields.
I went to Human Rights Watch and was asking them about accountability coming out of drone strikes in places like Afghanistan and Pakistan and two of the senior leaders there get in an argument in front of me as to which legal system we should turn to to get the answers, to who do we hold accountable when the drone kills the wrong person, and one says, “the Geneva Convention,” and the other says, “No, no, no, it’s the Star Trek Prime Directive.”
And it shows to me: one, the influence of science fiction in the oddest of places, but two, it also shows the challenges when you enter into this sci-fi-turned-real-world, where suddenly we’re really grasping at straws because our current laws just haven’t caught up yet.
There are a series of open questions right now: Where is the code of ethics in the robotics field? What gets built and what doesn’t get built? Where’s the answer to the question of who gets to use these technologies? Who doesn’t get them? They’re the kind of questions that you used to only talk about in science fiction conventions, but these are very real, live questions right now.