Pub Philosopher lays into the “liberal apologists” who want to “address” the underlying causes of terrorism. He says: “They blind themselves to the facts and just trot out a load of senseless and illogical drivel.”
I think he’s right. The obvious, glib, “causes” of terrorism have some big holes in them. For example.
“Poverty breeds terrorism.”
No. Terrorists don’t come from Burkino Faso or Rwanda. And this study (pdf) by Alan Krueger and Jitka Maleckova has found that at least one group of terrorists – Hezbollah fighters – were better educated and richer than their non-terrorist compatriots.
“Repression causes terrorism.”
No. Take Russia. It suffered terrorism under the incompetent despotism of the Tsars, but not under the more effective repression of the Soviet Union. This, allied to the fact that terrorists generally don’t come from liberal countries (the Baader-Meinhof gang is an exception, albeit one that corroborates the above) suggests there’s a non-linear connection between repressive regimes and terrorism. Terrorism is greatest in countries that are middlingly repressive – neither extremely brutal nor liberal.
“Western support for repressive regimes breeds terrorism.”
Not always. The US didn't suffer terrorist attacks from Iranians in the 1950s, 60s and 70s, or from Chileans or East Timorese in the 70s and 80s.
If the obvious glib causes of terrorism are unsatisfactory, what does cause it? Ed Glaeser has suggested one economic model (pdf). Think of terrorism as the product of a market for hatred.
Such a market requires people who have an incentive to supply hatred – that is, politicians who see it as a way of winning support. It requires “hate stories” to be minimally plausible – that there be a demand for them. This requires people to believe that the object of hate is attacking them; for that object to be segregated from them (so they learn about it from politicians rather than personal experience); and for people to have little incentive or ability to learn the truth. It also helps if suppliers of hatred offer services to its potential customers. These could take the form of a “meaning of life”, some career, or protection services, as the IRA offered.
How plausible is this model? I don’t know. But it offers more insights than glib one-liners.
Well...
On the first one: I'd call herding people into churches and massacring them fairly terroristic; that terrorists tend to be, in this case, relatively wealthy, proves nothing about a causal link between terrorism and poverty, only that terrorists, in this particular case, are not poor - the cause of their terrorism could well have been someone else's poverty.
On the second - it might be a bit beside the point, but anyway - repression often is terroristic, so repression does breed terrorism, in the sense that it is terrorism.
On the third, well, so far as I know - which may not be far - there was terrorism in two of the three cases you mention against the state in question, if not its external support (and it's worth thinking about what happened in 1979 in the case of Iran).
The product of a market for hatred thing seems interesting though.
Posted by: Rob | July 11, 2005 at 09:34 PM
“Poverty breeds terrorism.”
That is true. It should read "frustration breeds violence".
That lots of these wackos are not from the poorest or least-educated groups says nothing about their level of frustration. They think they "should" do much better than they do. That is what counts.
Posted by: FransG | July 13, 2005 at 08:19 PM
I think the first point, is true. You can look to ur own economic model for proof. And while terrorists might not be the poor and destitute of their country, the certainly can be seen as a minority. Its ridiculous to say that they any of the reasons above are wrong. They are all thought out. Poverty is a contributing factor. Period. Repression does breed terrorism. Terroristic feelings increase in a repressed society. The difference is the display. Taking your example of Russia, under stricter repression they were unable to act out, however the sentiment was there. Your final point though, i correct. The West doesn't tolerate terrorism. They simply allow nations to govern themselves unless the (terrorits) interrupt the peace of life maintained in a country. So while they seem like "glib one liners" they are an easy way of summarizing a complex issue.
Posted by: Don | October 12, 2005 at 03:08 PM