zenpundit.com

THE CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS OF TERRORISM

Dave Schuler of The Glittering Eye, one of the key members of my personal “ koinonia of blogdom” has initiated an important cross-blog debate to look for the critical success factors of terrorism. Conveniently, I’ve been having a discussion on and off with Collounsbury on Islamist terrorism where Col rejected the parallel with fascism but suggested the 19th century anarchists like the People’s Will and the Left Socialist Revolutionaries who were ardent practitioners of terrorism ( for the literary types out there, think of the Peter Verkhovenskii character in Dostoyevskii’s novel The Possessed ). An excerpt from Dave’s post:

“So here’s what I propose: let’s see if we can come up with the critical success factors for a terrorist attack on the United States. The level of abstraction we’re seeking is something between the level that Vanderleun went after (quantities of explosives, maps of the subway, etc.) and the level that the root causes discussions have taken (poverty, human nature, the will of God). We’re only looking for real critical success factors—factors that are really necessary.”

The first critical factor would be the existence of terrorists. I am not trying to be amusing in pointing out the obvious but modern terrorism is framed by a very special kind of mentality. Surprisingly, despite all the talk about unlimited numbers of jihadi terrorists, in practice most terrorist groups including Islamist ones are selective organizations. Al Qaida is highly selective, comparable to the Mafia in limiting the number of ” made” men. Nor are members of most terrorist organizations delusional, most mentally ill terrorists are ” lone wolves” and not part of tightly-knit secret networks.

Terrorism in various forms has existed throughout history as Walter Laqueur’s recent tome on the subject indicates. At different points in American history, particularly for the Revolutionary War generation, some historical terrorists like Brutus and Cassius had a certain patriotic cachet. This attitude of backhanded admiration more or less disappeared with the assassination of Abraham Lincoln ( where John Wilkes Booth yelled ” Sic Semper Tyrannis” in homage to Ceasar’s murderers). It retreated still further after a series of madmen and half-educated anarchists assassinated (or attempted to) a number of American presidents, a Russian Tsar, an Austrian Empress, a few Prime Ministers and wealthy industrialists like Henry Clay Frick. Most of these terrorists had only vague ideas of what they were trying to accomplish, even the anarchists whose motivations resemble the intensity of the fanaticism seen today did not have a very well thought out program.

It would seem that the recipe for producing modern terrorists would be the combination of a certain alienated psychology with a potent, closed-system, radical ideology the acts to change the prospective terrorists value-set, deaden his natural human empathy and close his mind to empirical evidence that contradicts his new worldview. The process here is a change of an individual’s worldview, something that requires a complex, persuasive and emotionally satisfying set of ideas. Something seen in both cult groups and totalitarian movements that functioned as ” political religions”.

Even so, you still need the right kind of person. That target demographic though is exalted by such things – they become psychologically addicted and from this comes the fanatical will to pursue ideological ends even to the point of self-destruction . Millions of people were exposed to horrible ideologies without becoming active participants in formenting violence, terror and genocide.Most Japanese, even most ultranationalist Japanese before and during WWII did not become assassins or kamikazes. Most Germans, even most Nazis did not become members of the Einsatzgruppen and SS Death Camp guards. Most Northern Irish Catholics and even Sinn Fein supporters did not join the IRA .Most Muslims, even most Salafists, do not join al Qaida. .

The difference between the latter two examples and the former is that terrorism, unlike totalitarian political movements, requires the active adherence of only very few people to be a success.

H. H. GAFFNEY ON GLOBALIZATION AND PROLIFERATION

The invited contributors to the NRSP newsletter keep getting better. Dr. H.H. Gaffney is a frequent consultant to the U.S. Defense and Intelligence communities and is part of the CNA Corporation. More importantly, Dr. Barnett credits Gaffney with teaching him ” how to think horizontally”. Here is an excerpt from H. H. Gaffney’s ” Globalization and Proliferation “:

“Are globalization and proliferation in some kind of symbiotic relation, growing with each other? Is the process of globalization as it makes technology, education, etc., available to more and more countries—and even individuals or private organizations—stimulating proliferation? Is proliferation in some kind of race with globalization to make it all break down somehow? I don’t think so. Rather, the next steps in proliferation—by North Korea and Iran—are being taken by the least globalized countries in the world. Proliferation is so incidental that it is hard to connect to globalization in general. It has only been a very small part of the unfolding of the world system as we have witnessed it. Any use of WMD would be catastrophic, of course, but across the long history of proliferation it hasn’t happened yet—except for the first and only use of nuclear weapons by the United States in 1945. It is probably a good thing the U.S. did that, for the awesome effects then have probably deterred further use more than anything else”

Read the whole thing !

ON THE LIGHTER SIDE

A little while ago, Dan of tdaxp suggested in jest that I ought to start an “Ask Mark” advice segment on Zenpundit which I found quite amusing. Then suddenly, my email box rang with an inquiry from Rutgers historian Judith Klinghoffer ( also posted on her HNN blog Deja Vu) posed to her by a reader:

“A few months ago, I made a new friend who is an activist for numerous progressive and left-wing causes (I live in Nevada, where he runs a statewide advocacy group which focuses primarily on environmental and social issues). My friend and I have agreed to disagree about politics, and although we occasionally engage in friendly little debates, the tone and content of these debates is always civil and respectful, and they usually end with one of us saying that we hadn’t thought about the issue that way before. As you might imagine, though, most of my friend’s friends, relatives, and coworkers are very far left politically.

I’d appreciate any thoughts you’ve got on this matter!”

I responded in email:

“ Dear Judith,

Your friend’s friend the writer strikes me as being afflicted with the self-referential stupidity of the incurious. Or at least the grating combination of self-absorbtion and ideological certitude. The problem isn’t that this writer is left-wing but that they are an overbearing boor.

I find humor to be helpful coupled with taking one of their points to the ridiculous logical extreme in pointing out that they may be in, fact, stretching things.

Of course they might very well lack a sense of humor too but usually the demonstration that you understood their point better than they did is usually enough of a shocker to make them think twice about what they are saying.”

There you have it. My first ( and most likely last) installment of Zenpundit posing as Ann Landers.

CHIROL’S BLOGOSPHERIC EMPIRE

” All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what
have the Romans ever done for us?”
– John Cleese, The Life of Brian

“Deos fortioribus adesse “
– Tacitus

Link Preface:

“History of Empire Part I.” by Chirol of Coming Anarchy

” History of Empire Part II” Ibid

“Response to Chirol on 2nd Generation Empires Part I” by Dan of tdaxp

“Empire” by The Jewish Blog

“Empires!!!” by Dr. Daniel Nexon of The Duck of Minerva


Chirol at Coming Anarchy has set off an a very interesting discussion with his series on 2nd Generation Empires and a full post is required for a critique ( you hit gold as a blogger when you write something and your comment section is not enough for your readers). I’m going to touch on some points here and I ecourage you to click the above links for the thoughtful responses Chirol’s post has already accrued.

1. Empires as a positive phenomenon:

I tend to agree with Chirol and Nexon here. The reflexive attitude floating in the culture is to presume ” imperialism” is a bad thing having been used as a perjorative for most of the previous century but you have to ask – relative to what ? What preceded the empire before it subjugated the ” other”. Often times what preceded empire was less than admirable.

For every straightforwardly avaricious and retrogressive colonial regime like the one in French Indochina you have numerous others stamping out headhunting, the suttee, slavery and other aspects of barbarism while building modernity and connectivity. Like most forms of governance, the historical moral record is mixed for empire but regimes that are not capable of non-zero sum outcomes are not likely to be sustained for any length of time. You also need to compare that record with what would have prevailed in the empire’s absence. A medieval Jew was far better off living under the Caliphate of Cordova or in Muslim Granada than in the petty duchies of backward Germany at the time. Or under Ferdinand and Isabella’s monarchy that came after the Moors.

The Belgians were among the worst of the lot of the European colonizers exceeding in cruelty even the Germans in Southwest Africa – and this is saying a lot. Yet prior to the arrival of the Belgians the Congo basin was dominated by Afro-Arab slavers from Zanzibar and cannibal chiefdoms of the interior that built fortified towns lavishly decorated with human skulls. A culture that is on a moral par with the Aztecs but without the astronomy and fancy architecture frankly deserves to lose.

Empires that disprove the rule by being phenomenal paragons of physical destruction and looting rather than economic order – Tamerlane’s, Attila’s, The Third Reich, the Soviet Union – were all exceptionally short-lived. Ah, but Alexander’s empire too was short-lived ? Yes, but he ushered in the Hellenistic Age and his successors all founded dynastic states.

2. What is ” Empire”? Are there generations of Empire ?

Classical empires on the Roman model built by conquest and annexation define the common understanding of the term. J.A Hobson and Lenin by critiquing modern European capitalist states and their economic relations with their colonial possessions redefined imperialism for the Left to include. eventually, normal transactional market relations as a form of coercive
” imperialism”. A politically self-serving and economically illiterate argument but one with remarkable longevity. For some writers today, an ” empire” is simply a large and powerful polity engaged in policies the author vehemently opposes.

Chirol has defined his 2GE as:

“Simply put, a second generation empire is one that increases its “network coverage” by means other than military force. They include economic, political, legal and cultural forces. The power to increase or decrease network coverage is also not completely one-sided as both partners tend to have the ability to create, adjust or sever ties, though as usual, the stronger states tend to set the rules and have considerable advantages over smaller ones.”

In other words, a 2GE is a dynamic civilizational network system greater than the sum of its parts. A 2GE could have a hegemonic dominant power or a set of powers where some are more equal than others but the ” empire” is the overarching system itself and not a particular state. Dan of tdaxp asked if a state could be 2GE and 1GE simultaneously ? It would seem that logically a 2GE could have a 1GE or several cohabitating within it fairly harmoniously since the 2GE is primarily an economic and soft power associational grouping.

Is there any logical tie between Chirol’s 1GE and 2GE concepts that merit referring to the latter as an ” empire”. The fundamental quality the two entities share in my view is that they are both strong centripetal geopolitical forces – they both attract or pull outside political entities into their system, albeit by different means. Calling the 2GE an ” empire” per se is a bit of a typological romanticization and is, politically speaking, unhelpful assuming that you support the establishment and growth of such entities because the term invites hostile ideological attention and opposition.

But substantively, the networking phenomena described by Chirol as “2GE” exists as a subset of globalization. The transnational characteristics of 2GE groupings like the EU and NAFTA are challenging traditional conceptions of the scope of national sovereignty under international law and shifting decision-making power over economic policy from national leaders to market forces and to international rule-set making institutions. It’s a discernable process and one that is apt to accelerate so long as globalization is allowed to continue progress to deeper and deeper levels of connectivity.