Roots of Terrorism
 

Good Evening folks.

My name is Alex. I am a college student and a National Guard soldier. I was directed to post at this site by another member for information on a specific topic I was assigned for a class.

I am posting a question I was assigned in order to get the views and knowledge of proffessionals who have learned by experience.


Political Science Y380- Topic Terrorism

Indiana University, Purdue University at Indianapolis-IUPUI

Terrorism 2004
Paper Assignment #1
Due 12FEB2004

"The search for Roots" (this is the exact question I was assigned)
"After September 11, the news media were filled with articles about the "root causes" of the terrorist attacks. Select two possible "root causes" of the terrorist attacks of 9-11. (These need not be factors that you believe caused the attacks.) How do these "toot causes" influence what ought to be the response to terrorism? How plausible do you think these factors are as "root causes"? Why do you think we seek "root causes" of terrorism?

"This paper should be 5-7 pages. It is not an exhaustive research paper: but you should cite textual evidence for your claims. Provide concrete examples, for instance, of people who claim that "x is a root cause of terrorism."


I wish to include the views of those of you who answer this question in my paper. I will follow all opsec rules and any guidlines you impose. I will NOT list where/who/how I got this information. My intentions toward this assignment and this post are honorable and by no means liberal in any sense. I will uphold the strictest form of proffessionalism in my preparation for this paper. I am truly interested in what your views are toward this subject.

Respectfully

berdan

I would have think one of the root causes is the politico-religous indoctrine given in the madrasas for years.

Another I think is the hjatred for continuing US support of Israel.

UBL's stated cause in US presence in the Muslim Holy Land.

As far as influence, I think that if you understand the real root causes, they should be the drivers for determining the response. problem is, we rarely get to root causes that don't influence our own elections.

Candians thought...
 

2. In general, do you think that the September 11 attacks were primarily the result of ... ?
Canada
A reaction against Western domination and values - 28
The conflict in the Middle East - 25
The result of U.S. foreign policy in the Arab world - 23
Unprovoked actions taken by fanatics - 15
All of the above - 3
Other - 1
None of the above - 1
No reason/nothing *
DK/NA - 5

This is further reflected on the basis of language as French-speakers are more inclined to attribute the events to U.S. foreign policy than their English-speaking counterparts who see the
reaction to Western domination and values as the main reason (though in neither do these explanations represent a majority view).

http://www.acs-aec.ca/Polls/Poll12.pdf

http://www.irri-kiib.be/speechnotes/...roCoolsaet.pdf

Another viewpoint

http://www.globalpolicy.org/wtc/terr...2/0924asem.htm

http://www.dailygusto.com/news/septe...ot-092303.html

http://foi.missouri.edu/terrorbkgd/rootcauses.html

Do you have Erickson, Clark or Wallihan?

J. Clark

John Clark
Adjunct Professor

John Clark is Senior Research Fellow at the Hudson Institute, a think tank headquartered in Indianapolis. He is the Director of the Institute's Center for Central European and Eurasian Studies. Among the books he has written or edited are:

The Moral Collapse of Communism: Poland as a Cautionary Tale (with Aaron Wildavsky, 1990), one of the first analyses of the death of communism in the Soviet Bloc.

The Development of the Private Sector in the Baltic Countries (1993), a study commissioned by the US Agency for International Development examining the difficulties of economic transition in Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia.

Environmental Protection in Transition (1998), a collection of essays by several Polish and American legal scholars, economists, and environmentalists.

Re-Working Welfare: The Transformation of Social Policy in Wisconsin (2000), a critical assessment of the implementation and outcomes of Wisconsin's pathbreaking welfare reform.

While at Hudson, Dr. Clark has written papers and articles on topics ranging from organized crime in the former USSR to Northeast Asian international security, from Polish political economy to the decay of civic engagement in the United States, from the roots of the crisis in Kosovo to the future of the welfare state in Europe. He is currently writing "The Disintegration of Eurasia?" a study of the impact on US foreign policy of future ethnic and social conflicts in Russia, China, Indonesia, and India

In addition to teaching Russian and Chinese politics at IUPUI, Dr. Clark is an Adjunct Professor of Political Science at Butler University, where he teaches courses on political philosophy, European politics, and Asian politics.

http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuse...TOKEN=33747456

Doubts and Opportunities


Fall 2002 Issue




by John Clark

ecollections and commemorations of September 11 often emphasize Americans’ claustrophobic sense of vulnerability: the world must be much smaller than we recently imagined, when the World Trade Center can be laid low by disorder in Afghanistan and discontents in Saudi Arabia. In the weeks following September 11, Americans’ feelings of helplessness only increased. The anthrax mailings—the still unidentified perpetrator(s) could easily have killed a hundred times more people than the five unfortunates who died—revealed that regardless of whether one works in a skyscraper or the Pentagon, everyone is at risk of a terrorist attack.

Even the reassuring initial outpouring of sympathy from around the world was replaced by televised images of flag-burning, anti-American demonstrations in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. In this disturbingly small world, no one seems to like us very much, and those who don’t like us can inflict enormous amounts of damage without warning.

Less discussed, however, has been a dizzying expansion of opportunities for America to change this world. Pre-September 11 discussions of the dangers facing America seem naïve and innocent today. Likewise, foreign policy debates before October 7, when the surprisingly easy military campaign in Afghanistan was launched, now seem to have been hampered by a seriously constricted vision. In Afghanistan, the United States demonstrated much more than the fact that its military is greater than all other armies in the world combined:




Before the American bombing began, more than three-and-a-half million Afghans lived in wretched refugee camps in Iran and Pakistan (the Taliban emerged from these camps); today, more than two million of these refugees have returned to their homes, and almost all should be able to return by the end of 2003.


Even the four thousand Afghan civilians who were killed in the past year should be viewed in context. It cannot be emphasized strongly enough: Afghan civilian deaths are a tragedy. Those people did nothing to deserve their fate, and they should not have died. But it is a fact that during the prior twenty-two years of Afghan civil war, on average more than fifty thousand civilians died every year. So long as the United States and the web of international organizations that now, with the defeat of the Taliban, are able to work in Afghanistan remain engaged in relief and reconstruction, the number of civilian casualties should dwindle to almost zero.
A year ago, who would have expected an American president to promise, as President Bush did in his commencement address at Virginia Military Institute, to keep American troops in Afghanistan until minefields are cleared, roads are rebuilt, medical care is available, and the Afghan economy can feed its people without growing opium poppies? A year ago, who would have expected this same president to have committed the nation to securing around the world what he calls “the nonnegotiable demands of human dignity . . . the rule of law; limits on the power of the state; respect for women; private property; free speech; equal justice; and religious tolerance”? Societies and cultures now are viewed as plastic and pliable, able to be molded according to our “nonnegotiable demands.”

In the 1990s, many analysts doubted that American military action could bring order—to say nothing of real democracy—to places like Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo. Today many of those skeptics are in the White House arguing that an American invasion of Iraq will not only topple Saddam Hussein and bring democracy to Baghdad, but also create pressures on our friends (Saudi Arabia and Egypt) and foes (Iran and Syria) to embrace democracy themselves. Presidential advisers argue about how to redraw international borders and what sorts of political institutions to establish in countries without any recent history of liberal democracy. Witnessing such a dramatic shift in policy perspectives is dizzying indeed, especially in an avowedly conservative administration.

In spite of our power, we Americans are still far from perfect in our understanding of this complex world. Perhaps we social scientists and policy analysts are to blame for this. A decade after the wave of democratization in Latin America, Africa, and the formerly communist countries, we still are not quite sure what ingredients go into a successful transition. We still are not certain whether particular actions will exacerbate or defuse Islamic extremism. At this time of previously unimagined opportunities, of boundless confidence in America’s power, and of the persistence of very real threats, the United States is engaged in an overdue process of rethinking its assumptions about what it can hope to achieve in the international arena. The world may not have changed on September 11, but it certainly changed on October 7.



John Clark is the director of the Center for Central European and Eurasian Studies for Hudson Institute.

Right - a lib.

I like the class and the Professor makes it even more interesting. He knows what he teaches.

http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuse...details&id=987

September 21, 2001

Rethinking a Too-Narrow Foreign Policy

by John Clark

During its first 233 days, the Bush Administration seemed to abdicate America’s role as global leader for rea-sons that were hardly noble or serious. It now has a rare opportunity to recreate its bobbled foreign policy.

Republicans spent much of the 1990s criticizing the Clinton Administration for overextending America’s mili-tary forces around the world. Vital American interests were being neglected, it was said, as US troops were sent to keep peace in the Balkans or to create order in the chaos of Haiti.

During its first months in office, the Bush Administration seemed eager to “go it alone.” Its number one prior-ity was to erect a National Missile Defense that would violate the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, for three decades the foundation for nuclear arms control. Our allies in Europe and Asia that while protecting America, missile defense would diminish the security of the world as a whole. Rivals such as China and Russia con-demned the plan as proof that an arrogant America would do anything to cement its military dominance as the sole superpower.

More troubling than its concern only with America’s national interests at the expense of those of our allies or of the planet was the Bush Administration’s apparent willingness to allow special interests in the US to dictate its foreign policy. It scuttled seven years of negotiations to establish enforcement measures to the 1972 Bio-logical Weapons Convention, abandoning efforts to add teeth because they “would put national security and confidential business information at risk.” In other words, critics said, the Administration sacrificed the pre-vention of germ warfare and bio-terrorism to protect the patents and profits of American biotechnology corporations.

In July, the Bush Administration watered down proposals to limit illegal international trafficking in light weapons by threatening to withdraw from the United Nations Conference on Small Arms. The reason: it might interfere with Americans’ Second Amendment rights to bear arms. Rather than address a problem that contrib-utes to a thousand deaths per day around the world, claimed critics, the Administration chose to placate the National Rifle Association.

Everything changed last Tuesday. The Administration’s immediate response was to assemble a broad anti-terrorism coalition whose purpose would go beyond apprehending those responsible for the attacks in New York and Washington. The US-led effort would uproot other terrorist organizations across the globe and pun-ish the countries that harbor and promote terrorism.

The Bush Administration thus accepts an immense responsibility that will force it to rethink and reverse its previous approaches to foreign policy. It will have to heed the demands and fears of its coalition partners. This requires wisdom and caution since many of our bedfellows define “terrorism” differently than we do. We should not refrain from criticizing the Russians’ brutal abuse of Chechnya, even though these inhumane poli-cies are in the name of combating terrorism.

America’s anti-terrorism policy must be based on more than vengeance, more than protecting ourselves from future attacks. Some of the potential partners in the Muslim world risk terrorist attacks and insurrection by extremists at home if they join our coalition. Every country in Europe, in fact, possesses large Muslim minori-ties. But Muslims will not be the only ones to protest if it appears that innocent civilians are being killed only for revenge or, worse, to preserve the Bush Administration’s political credibility.

We may bomb Iraq and Afghanistan, we may capture Osama bin Laden or topple Saddam Hussein or “take out the Taliban.” If at that point America declares victory and walks away, we will leave behind a wasteland of chaos and anarchy that will breed even more terrorism and instability in the future. If we are serious about leading, we commit ourselves to much more difficult peacekeeping and state building than anything in Bosnia or Kosovo.

If they feel they are contributing to a safer world for all, our allies and coalition partners could be willing to sacrifice much. But if we seem to care only about our own narrow national interests, who will support us after the next terrible attack? And if we seem only to seek revenge, another more terrible attack is certain.

A chance for a truly fresh start is a rare and precious thing in foreign policy. Let’s not bungle it, because we won’t get another.

John Clark is the director of the Center for Central European and Eurasian Studies for Hudson Institute.

Cool name though. When you give him your paper, tell him you do it "Without Remorse". LOL

LOL, I was thinking the same thing.

Seems to me (without thinking about it for very long -- take this all with a rock of salt) that your guy is looking for you to discuss the supposed hopelessness and despair of the oppressed muslim world. He wants you to buy in to what he says in his article -- that we shouldn't just kill all the terrorists, we should understand them, love them and stop doing the things that made them angry with us. That's why you look for "root causes" -- to treat the disease rather than the symptoms. So we stop oppressing these poor people and let them be. Ask questions about whether it is right for us to support Israel given its oppression of Palestinians. Ask about whether access to oil justifies our presence in the Middle East.

I would read his articles. Notice how he doesn't take firm positions on anything -- he has views, but he expresses them in a very wishy-washy, feminine way. Everything is in "how should we feel about this" format -- I'd try to mimic that a bit.

Oh, if it isn't already obvious, I'm just trying to help you get a good grade. I think all of the above is a load of &^$#. :D

RL's last post gets to the point of something that is important. The "root cause fallacy" which many copnservatives and others speak of is not that there are no root causes, but that the root causes do not absolve one of responsibility for one's own actions.

The root cause fallacy manifests itself when one looks at a criminal and bemoans that he or she is a victim of his or her circumstances. Just today I was watching Ebert and whoever the otehr guy is, and Ebert started making excuses for this serial killer about whom a documentary had been made - about how abused she was as a child, how she was homeless and lived in the woods, etc. - which to him made executing her a travesty.

Those who don't understand this meaning of the root cause fallacy called the Bush Admistration hypocritical when it began talking about the importance of democracy and human rights in the Middle East. The critics said "see, here they are talking about addressing root causes!"

To get onto a soap box, this is about a larger issue, which is what the gift of reason means to human beings. We are products of our circumstances; we are not captives to them.

Late to the party
 

Let me preface this by saying that this may be one of the worst assignments ever given out.

Here's a hint, if you can't write a question without relying on paranthetical phrases you need to find another line of work.

OK- with that out of the way: One cause of the attacks is that it was viewed by the terrorists as a military action in their declared war against the US

Click here if this is news to you

Another cause is, well...since we wrapped up what the real cause was with the first response, I choose to use the rest of the 5 pages of the paper to make a profound statement: Screw Flanders, Screw Flanders,Screw Flanders,Screw Flanders,Screw Flanders,Screw Flanders,Screw Flanders,Screw Flanders,Screw Flanders,Screw Flanders,Screw Flanders,Screw Flanders...

What's the root cause of the declaration of war?

Was that the question? No. That is why it was a crappy question. I imagined Lawyer-boy would have done better with it.

So as Frog says, "We're going to pull the wings and legs off the fly one at a time."

Are you going to answer or just pick fights?

I took it as a compliment. I'm going to buy Jimbo a bunch of drinks one day and it will be all good. ;)

he probably intended it that way. But he didn't answer the question - maybe he doesn't know the answer?

Depends on what theory you buy into:
1) Arab humiliation
2) A kind of Islamic Manifest Destiny
3) One man's desire to become the next caliph
4) A leader motivated by power needs to perpetuate his cult of personality
5) Bad men do bad things
6) Prior to having nuclear weapons, Iran needed a way to asymmetically counter American power.
7) They actually think that is the right thing to do.
8) The supreme being is actually on their side
9) Bush senior created thsi situation so that his son would get re-elected.

There's all kinds of theories out there. Without knowing the answer, it is mere mental masturbation to come up with some way to address the 'root cause'. So...

Now we're getting somewhere. Did you list them in order of your preference?:D

Rum and cokes.

The Empire
 

Would terrorists viewing the United States as an Emperial power be a logical reason for thier declaration of war? Looking at the United States in this viewpoint, could this explain the animosity and hate towards America?

Re: The Empire
 

What do you think?

If they viewed the United States as an Emperial Power, they would truly believe thier way of life is threatened. If they believe they don't need western influence to live, they would view anything western as a threat. If thier way of thinking is "the United States Empire, you will be assimilated" they would truly believe thier culture's existance at risk. To ensure the continual pure existance of thier culture they would force anything western out of the area and look on any western thoughts, ideas, products, and especially occupation as the oncoming doom to thier way of life.

Most Americans do not think of the U.S. as an Empire and truly believe that everyone is happy to get american stuff and american ideas, or to have the american dream. Western Ideas are being force fed to cultures that have thousands of years without new or revolutionary ways of thinking.

Maybe the terrorist actors truly believe they will be conquered one day and thier way of life is at risk.

Just my uneducated thoughts. I am truly interested in what all of you have to say.

Flame Away

NDD:

Berdan would like someone to proceed. I have teed this up for you. Over.

I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean by this. Could you explain?

re-written
 

I meant that maybe they believe that the United States is an expantionist/imperialist country and the Middle East is a future goal to occupy/control.

Re: re-written
 

Thank you for the clarification. I wondered if you were implying defeatism.

Re: re-written
 

Where do you get these questions from? And who are “they”?

Had we been of that mindset we would owned/controlled the world with the invention of the A-Bomb.

The next time some friggen idiot tells you the USA is “expansionist/imperialist” country ask them where we’ve expanded to?

I’ll give you a root cause, they are muslim, the USA is predominately Christian we’ve been at odds for about 2500 years. Their ideology and ours is different. They don’t like ours and they’re bent on changing it. Their religious teaching does not allow for “being different” and does not teach religious tolerance. We’ve introduced freedom to parts of the world and that in its self scares the shit out of them. Freedom will destroy their religion/power base. They know it and it’s the very reason they severely limit “Western” influence in their countries and control the media on a national level. Their religion/power base grows daily but the populations they target are usually 5th world and rather uneducated populations.

I’d keep writing but you get the point. The root cause to many conflicts is ideology.

The Team Sergeant

Re: Re: re-written
 

I think it may be even easier than that. People need someone to blame for their own miserable existance. How many healthy, happy, prosperous terrorists do you hear about? Even the idiot college children from the United States who go over to the Middle East and work with the Palistinians or Al Qaeda are miserable regardless of the kind of family they come from. They have no purpose to their lives, no moral compass or boundries of right and wrong. In short, their lives suck.

The Jews were the cause of misery in Germany not the Great Depression. America is the cause of the problems in the Middle East not their leaders. God caused the Dust Bowl not marginal farming.

Actually, most terrorists, especially leaders, come from prosperous families. Happy, I doubt it, but they are not poor. The myth of poverty causing terrorism has been disproven so many times as to not even be on the table as far as I'm concerned.

Maybe a better why to say it would be "Leaders of terrorist groups with their own agendas point to continuing poverty, blaming it on outsiders or other factors, as a means of targeting hate at the desired group and avoiding having their own failures brought into the light."

NDD-
Concerning the originators of the movements/leadership of the terrorist organizations that it true. However, don't you consider extreme poverty as a contributing factor in the mindset of a "potential" new member. IMO, that has to contribute to the psych necessary to be able to carry out attacks against innocent civilians or suicide activities. The feeling that more is to gain by death of oneself or a few innocents than can be obtained by other more peaceful methods. Do you think it is a completely separate issue with no relationship to terrorism at all?

**you edited that comment somehow without my seeing it while typing. Yet it shows no edited statement. Damn this is tuff to argue with you having supreme matrix powers. LOL

Each person's motives for joining a group are generally different. Therefore, I am sure if we take a given group, we can find some that joined because of abject poverty.

If you are speaking specifically of homocide bombers in the ME, my impression is its not so much the poverty as it is the leaders blaming the poverty on the US through the Israelis.

My own opinion is that poverty leads people to steal and rob, not committ acts of terrorism.

Lack of hope and a feeling of being "left out" leads to terrorism.

If poverty is the cause, why aren't thre terrorists in Appalachia, Bombay and Rio? Why isn't there a "United Starving People of the World" terrorist group? Most poverty stricken people do not form or join terrorist groups. They steal food and rob money.

Terrorism is a political act. Some terrorist may claim to do it on behalf of the poverty stricken, but I don't see the poverty stricken in the groups. Why isn't every person in Gaza a member of HAMAS?

What do you mean by "member"? Guerilla? Auxiliary or better? Polls show that Hamas has very substantial popular support in Gaza.

Israeli posters, please chime in if you want.

I mean a card carrying homocide bombing HAMAS son of a bitch, that's what I mean by member. From reports I've seen, Gaza has some of the poorest people on earth.

Who controls Gaza? The radio stations, the posters put up, the speeches in the street? Of course there is substantial support for HAMAS, the people only know one side of the story. Plus, pollsters go into an area controlled by one of the worst terrorist groups on the planet and ask people on the street "Do you have substantial support for HAMAS?" What the hell do you think they're going to say "No, I have much love for Israel in my heart."