[2nd EDITION] IS “ISLAMIST” SUICIDE BOMBING IN THE MIDDLE EAST REALLY MOTIVATED BY RELIGION?
BY: DAN PETERSON
He continues: “Rather, what nearly all
suicide terrorist attacks have in common is a specific secular and strategic
goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory
that the terrorists consider to be their homeland. Religion is rarely the root
cause, although it is often used as a tool by terrorist organizations in
recruiting and in other efforts in service of the broader strategic objective.”
Even in the Middle East, at least half of
the suicide attacks between 1980 and 2003 had little, if any, link to Islamic
fundamentalism; indeed, many such attacks were undertaken by Communists,
secular nationalists and even Christians. The motivations were this-worldly,
tied to national liberation. Those who carried them out weren’t impelled by
poverty, alienation, psychological dysfunction, hopelessness or a pathological
desire for death. On the contrary, by a very wide margin, suicide attackers
turn out to have been relatively prosperous, exceptionally well-integrated
within their communities, healthy and in no conventional way suicidal. Their
acts were oddly altruistic and idealistic, however depraved others outside
their community might judge them to be.
Why have we so misunderstood what’s going
on? For one thing, we’ve paid disproportionate attention, in a sense, to
suicide attacks in the Middle East; after all, the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka
target that nation’s Sinhalese Buddhist majority, not us. The West has no vital
interests there, and little representation, and we seldom hear reports about
Sri Lanka on the nightly news. So our sample is skewed. Moreover, although
they’ve spoken openly, we’ve paid curiously little attention to what suicide
attackers have actually said about their motives and goals.
The fundamental point of Robert Pape’s
argument is strikingly congruent with the entirely distinct case made by Graham
Fuller in his brilliant 2010 book “A World Without Islam.” We’ve summarized
that 2010 book in a previous column: Fuller observes that today’s divisions
between the (Islamic) East and the (Christian) West regularly trace the same
geographical and other lines that divided East from West long before the rise
of Islam in the seventh century (see “Is Islam a primary cause of international
violence?” published Sept. 6, 2014).
In other words, what we typically
understand to be a fundamentally religious conflict in the Middle East may, at
its root, have relatively little to do with religion. And that, if true, has
major ramifications for — among many other things — the way in which the United
States and the West should conduct their foreign policy in and about the
region. “It isn’t what we don’t know that gives us trouble,” Will Rogers once
quipped, “it’s what we know that ain’t so.”
Comments
Post a Comment