Pape-acy II
Theories should be fruitful. They should generate new hypotheses and give us new insights into existing phenomena. Pape’s theory of suicide bombing – that suicide terror is an attempt to compel the end of an alien occupation by a democratic power – involves some subsidiary claims borne out by his database. First that most suicide terror comes as part of a campaign – suicide bombings don’t for the most part occur in isolation. Second that sustainable suicide terror campaigns require substantial social support within the bombers’ community to be successful. Specifically, suicide terrorist organizers require social support to successfully recruit.
In this light we should consider, I think, the continuing lack of suicide terror campaigns within the United States by American Muslims. Even many of the militant preachers and other recruiters who have been arrested have been charged with recruiting Muslims to fight American troops abroad, in Afghanistan or Iraq. We have not, so far, had to cope with a homegrown suicide terror network, or even sustained terror campaigns of a non-suicidal nature.
That would indicate that among the American Muslim community one or more of Pape’s social conditions is missing. The American Muslim community as a whole lacks the social support for suicide terror that would enable recruiting and planning. (The American Muslim community is interspersed with the non-Muslim community, and elements of it are subject to surveillance by law enforcement. But Israeli security has maintained intensive surveillance of Palestinian communities in the occupied territories for years, and Palestinian suicide terror groups have been able to recruit members.) The American Muslim community as a whole does not identify itself with “occupied” Muslim regions enough to, as it were, “shit where they sleep.” No prospective American Muslim suicide bomber can look forward to securing the esteem of his community by “martyring” himself in an attack on his fellow Americans.
Well so far so good! The implication of “the Pape that didn’t bark in the night” is that the country best serves domestic security by abjuring policies that would alienate the American Muslim community. Theoretical gains in efficiency from ethnic profiling risk exacerbating an “us vs. them” sensibility whose endpoint is a community more likely to esteem human bomb champions.
Popping a cap – or a dozen caps – in stray brown guys in jackets is probably not indicated either.
Which brings up Britain. So far we have one spectacularly lethal attack by a single cell of bombers, followed by a demo attack by copycats. If it develops that homegrown British Muslim radicals are able to sustain a campaign of suicide terror within Britain, it would indicate that Britain has a serious social problem.
Comment by Anodyne —
August 20, 2005 @ 1:38 am
I thought of Pape’s analysis tonight when I heard Bill Maher say “It’s young Muslim men that are the problem”. Maybe that’s why I cringed.
.
Is there a counter example to Pape’s hypothesis such that a country with a large – but not majority – Muslim population occupied or was a member of an occupying military force in a predominatly Muslim country or enclave that has experienced a suicide bombing?
Comment by FMguru —
August 20, 2005 @ 2:21 am
What I find most unusual about the suicide bomb attacks that take place inside of Iraq is the fact that they occur at all. In my historical understanding, suicide attacks are weapons of the weak and desperate. Kamikazes were an end-war desperation measure, Palestinians resort to suicide bus-bombings because more conventional methods of attacking Israel are made difficult because of Israel’s tight security, and so on. They’re difficult and they’re wasteful.
The Resistance (in its myriad forms) in Iraq really has few limitations on itself. It has enough munitions to fight for a hundred years. It has lots of members. The Americans only effectively control a small portion of the country. They have plenty of space, time, personnel, equipment, and knowledge to engage in non-suicide bombings – mortar attacks, conventional car bombs, ambushes, multi-stage attacks (set off a big bomb, wait 30 minutes, set off an even bigger bomb to kill the emergency response people, etc.).
If I was a war apologist, I’d say that it was proof that the resistance is desperate and failing, and that we’re turning corners and winning this war despite what the treasonous MSM wants you to believe. But I’m not, I’m just puzzled. The resistance has the US befuddled in so many ways, they can sit back and strike at the US all day long, simply dispersing when the US launches one of its overwroughtly-named crackdown missions (Operation Throbbing Hammer, etc.).
So why the suicide bombings? Are there that many people driven to glorious martyrdom?
Comment by Anodyne —
August 20, 2005 @ 2:44 am
I suppose it would help if the counter example was stated correctly: Is there a country with a large – but not majority – Muslim population that has not occupied or was not a member of an occupying military force in a predominatly Muslim country or enclave that has experienced a suicide bombing?
Pingback by Pape-acy III: Robert Pape for Hawks § Unqualified Offerings —
August 20, 2005 @ 6:33 am
[...] #8217;s Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terror. In comments downblog, FMGuru wonders In my historical understanding, suicide attacks are weapons of t [...]
Pingback by Noli Irritare Leones » Blog Archive » Saturday links: Muslim women mountain climbers, aborted fetus mothers, infant terrorists, and more —
August 20, 2005 @ 11:09 am
[...] ing an aborted fetus for a “mother.” Unqualified Offerings has an interesting series of posts on suicide attacks. Amanda fisks Jennifer Roback Morse on contracepti [...]
Comment by sean —
August 25, 2005 @ 10:09 pm
The man the London cops shot was not particularly brown.