John Quiggin

Isn't "pursuing and destroying them" what the British government tried to do to the IRA? How would you argue this improved things?

Posted by: Mark Bahnisch at September 8, 2004 04:31 PM

Pursue and destroy is what the Russians ahve been attempting to do in Chechnya for years, with astounding success, as you can see! Apparently the Israelis are just around the corner from peaceful bliss as well...

If a woman who has been driven to suicidal terrorism has nothing to tell you about the psychosocial consequences of killing someone's husband then raping them for good measure, that's a shame.

I wouldn't let them off the hook, but in terms of judging the likely effect of Putin handing out some 'revenge' (if this is a tally then I'd say the Russians are still well in front!), i'd say the black widows have plenty to tell us...

Posted by: Martin Pike at September 8, 2004 04:54 PM

English is my second language, but I thought that one kills people and destroys objects and other animals (like dogs). Are you suggesting that terrorists should not receive the treatment reserved to people? If we fall into that trap, aren't we acting like terrorists too?

Note: I certainly do not support any kind of terrorism but I do believe into bringing people to face a justice system rather than 'destroying them'.

Posted by: Luis at September 8, 2004 05:11 PM

Perhaps the Beslan incident is better characterised as revenge rather than terrorism.

The political objective, according to the captured member, was to bring war to the Caucuses. There was no intention to negotiate the release of political prisoners.

There was no intention of trying to force the Russians to the negotiating table.

Perhaps the Chechens, like Palestinians, see this as the only option available - in the face of an intractable opposition.

Posted by: Chui at September 8, 2004 06:00 PM

Pr Q makes a rash generalisation:

terrorism generally harms the causes it supposedly seeks to advance

Terrorists have some notable strategic victories under their belt, esp when dealing with the US and the UK.

Stern & Irgun terrorists bombed British military installations to force the UK to quit Israel. The Brits left.

FLN terrorists conducted a terror campaign against Algerian Pied Noir to force the French to quit Algeria. The French left.

Al Queda's stated aim in bombing the WTC was to force the US forces to quit Saudi Arabia. (I correctly predcited that the US would leave.

Hezbollah attacked US bases in Beirut, to force the US to leave Lebanon.That worked.

These counter-examples all refer to European empires, or temporary American bases, which may have been wound up in any case. Where terrorism occurs in the context of domestic political conflicts, with international retainers, then Pr Q's "terrorism is irrational" thesis appears to be true.

In the case of fundamentalist terrorism, this is evil and irrational in that it uses violent means (bombings) in the service of unattainable ends (Caliphate Sharia law).

Terrorism is the weapon of the weak. If it is contained on a domestic level it tends to peter out. The Islamacists were losing ground politically until the Intifida II, WTC & Iraq attacks. The Western reaction to these has improved their political standing, whilst making their nationalist policies ever more unttainable.

Willim Pfaff argues that terrorism can only get strong by yoking itself to the neck of the nationalist cause:

Putin is making the same mistake that President George W. Bush and the U.S. government made after the Sept. 11 attacks. Like Putin, they insisted they were merely dealing with terrorists or criminals. They were actually dealing with terrorism and crime in the service of nationalism and religion, which is entirely different. In the political circumstances of today, nationalism and radical religion have come to compete and overlap in Chechnya, as in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I agree that states should be hawks on terrorist agencies, but doves on the political disputes that terrorism springs from.

Posted by: Jack Strocchi at September 8, 2004 06:10 PM

Jack,

I had a good read of your link, and I couldn't find a statement from you predicting the withdrawal of US forces from Saudi Arabia.

While I'm being critical, could you please stop referring to "Caliphate" shariah law. Yes, some advocates of shariah law would like to re-establish a caliphate (i.e. a united Islamic state under a Khalif, or successor to Mohammad), but that doesn't describe the views of many, so you're creating a straw man when you characterise all Islamic terrorists as desirous of that goal.

Posted by: Fyodor at September 8, 2004 06:57 PM

Luis, though he didn't always practice what he preached, Clinton's general approach to terrorism was to see it as a problem of international justice. Clearly treating crimes as crimes tied to a more just international order are the two ways terrorism can be defeated. By contrast, and returning to the IRA example, the British government subjected IRA prisoners to horrific abuses of human rights and torture, and this still didn't have the effect of "destroying them". I agree with you wholeheartedly.

Posted by: Mark Bahnisch at September 8, 2004 07:50 PM

Terrorism isn't usually a rational position. More ideological and emotional. But then neither is the war/War on terror.

Come to think of it, TWOT may be a rational re-election strategy, if not a rational approach to minimising terrorism.

Posted by: Jim Birch at September 8, 2004 08:09 PM

The reference to the US quitting Saudi is buried down the bottom, without much elabortion. But its all over the internet if you care to google the bolded phrase:

I believe that the forceful Regime Changing Iraq is none the less Real Politicly justified:

• strategic: to ditch the Saudis/hitch the Iraqis as US military clients in the Gulf

In the case of varieties of Arabic terrorists, I contrast sectarian "fundamentalist terrorists" eg AlQ uaeda with secular "nationalist terrorists" eg FLN. But I am glad that you think enough of my comments to keep me on my toes.

Posted by: Jack Strocchi at September 8, 2004 08:16 PM

the British government subjected IRA prisoners to horrific abuses of human rights and torture, and this still didn't have the effect of "destroying them".

Well, there's your problem right there. They kept the terrorists alive instead of destroying them.

Posted by: EvilPundit at September 8, 2004 08:17 PM

Enough died in gaol, EP.

Posted by: Mark Bahnisch at September 8, 2004 08:25 PM

Are you referring to hunger strikers, Bahnisch? And are you going to provide evidence to support your claim that the British subjected IRA prisoners to "horrific abuses of human rights and torture". And are you going to defend the IRA's own conduct towards civilians and members of the British security forces?

Posted by: Bulldog at September 8, 2004 09:34 PM

Bulldog, I'd be more inclined to answer your questions if you addressed me somewhat more politely. In short - yes but not exclusively, no, and no I would not.

Posted by: Mark Bahnisch at September 8, 2004 10:08 PM

Thanks for the clarification, John - I wouldn't have expected any different from you but you must admit that "destroy" is perhaps an emotive word to use in this context when referring to a human being. I'm still a little puzzled (this might be just my own muddle-headedness) why you seem to feel the need to adopt some sort of "take no prisoners" approach, which I feel still comes across in your reference to members of the SS or Gestapo.

I think two issues arise - one is the distinction between war and justice. In the first, it's legitimate for a soldier to kill an enemy within certain constraints of the rules of engagement and international law. After a war has finished, then members of the SS or Gestapo or whoever (and it's worth pointing out that some of these people were more akin to ordinary military personnel rather than secret police or concentration camp guards) have to be brought to justice for specific crimes, not condemned a priori for belonging to a particular group. I'm sure you recognise this, as I believe you'e argued the de-Baathification process in Iraq had a similar (though not exactly comparable) effect (stigmatising people by virtue of group membership where there were other motives for joining that group than the motives which are subject to condemnation).

The second issue is a clarification of whether "wars" against terrorists are properly speaking wars, or campaigns of internal or external pacification. If in fact they are the latter, then members of the IRA, of Al Qaeda, or the SS or whatever, I would have thought are entitled to the same legal (and human) rights as any other non-combatant who commits a criminal act. The inclusion of terrorism within the domain of war is what results in the slide towards Guantanamo bay and "wanted dead or alive", or Sharon's propensity to execute members of Palestinian organisations without any due process.

Posted by: Mark Bahnisch at September 8, 2004 10:29 PM

I should add, as no doubt someone will suggest otherwise, that I condemn absolutely any act of terrorism or any war crime, including acts of state terror as perpetrated by the British or Israeli governments and their military/security forces, or the Iraqi regime under Hossein, or any government no matter what its ideological colour.

Posted by: Mark Bahnisch at September 8, 2004 10:30 PM

Terrorism counter productive-I think not.
US war of independence,fretelin in timor,the basques in spain,probably the IRA,probably the tamil tigers,one day hopefully the west irians.
All this nonsense about the deaths of children-how many dead chechen children,dead vietnamese,lao and cambodian children,dead japanese,korean and german children?
Closer to home,how many dead timorese children post 1975 on our doorstep?
Get real and ditch the propaganda,war has been raw for civilians since the german air attacks in the spanish civil war.
I read a good book about the RAF bombing mesopotamian rebel tribes with poison gas in the 1920's-its deja vu all over again,and it sells papers-get over it.
How many of your readers have contributed a dollar to save the thousands of children who die every day from preventable diseases or malnutrition?

Posted by: marklatham at September 8, 2004 10:45 PM

This is in response to Mark's post update comment, wherever that ends up.

I think you're making it too complicated, Mark. As I understand him, John is just saying that there is a sharp distinction between the justice of a cause and the justice of the methods used to pursue it. 'Pursue and destroy' was just an unnecessarily colourful way of saying 'prosecute'. The point - and this was just the first and obvious one - is that the Beslan monsters are criminals even if the cause is right. The more important point is that just because the means are illegitimate it doesn't mean the ends are too. You wouldn't believe any less in the need to save forests because some activist murdered a logging tycoon's offspring.

Posted by: James Farrell at September 8, 2004 10:59 PM

By 'Mark's post update comment', I meant, if it wasn't obvious, 'Mark Bahnisch's post-update comment'. It now seems there were two of them, and they have been succeeded by a Marklatham comment. But at least the comment in question - the 10:29 PM Bahnisch - has now been restored to this thread.

Posted by: James Farrell at September 8, 2004 11:09 PM

I don't disagree with any of that, James, and thanks for your comment. It's just that I think language is important and thus "pursue and destroy" sends the wrong signals - I've been careful to say that I don't think that's John's intention. I think it's possibly an artefact of the stock standard RWDB "but you're condoning terrorism, killing kids" whatever attack, all of us are hyper cautious about the way we can be (mis)read when we talk about these topics. But I do think that it's necessary to recognise the common humanity of even those who commit unspeakable evils, and thus we should remain within the discourse of justice. I'm trying to argue my own position as much as anything else - hanging it on John's post. Hope that makes some kinda sense!

Posted by: Mark Bahnisch at September 8, 2004 11:16 PM

So you're not going to support your own slanderous claims with evidence then, 'touchy' Mark Bahnisch? I suppose it's unspeakably rude to ask that you back up your claim that the British Army torture and murder IRA prisoners. Irritated by someone not referring to you by your full title but are happy to throw apparently baseless gross insults at others, eh? Lovely.

The inclusion of terrorism within the domain of war is what results in the slide towards Guantanamo bay and "wanted dead or alive", or Sharon's propensity to execute members of Palestinian organisations without any due process.

A policy the Israelis have only recently adopted as standard MO, pretty much as (an effective) last resort. Destroying/killing/assassinating/executing members of organisations who not only execute members of the state of Israel, and others, as often as they possibly can, but usually do so indiscriminately. Why did Yassin deserve 'due process' when he offered no such luxury to the victims of his bombings? Known terrorists and members of terrorist organisations outside of the jurisdiction of victims' states do not deserve legal protection. They are 'combatants', if you like, but who have chosen to operate outside of the norms of warfare and are not entitled to the protections associated therein.

Posted by: Bulldog at September 8, 2004 11:28 PM

Bulldog, I'm sorry if I found your request uncivil. Being somewhat old-fashioned, I rely mainly on textual evidence from books for my knowledge thus I don't have a hyperlink to hand to justify what I say. In addition, it's a fair while ago (largely under Thatcher who represented a low in this department - things were more humane both under Callaghan and Major subsequently). I also didn't say that the British army murdered IRA prisoners - aside from those who died through the hunger strikes, some died as a result of the inhumane conditions under which they were incarcerated - ie by exacerbating medical conditions. When I get time, I'm happy to dig out some references for you, if you like. Nor am I attempting to slander anyone, I'm making a point about the State policy of the UK - not suggesting that the majority of British soldiers were directly responsible - I think you'll find a hell of a lot dreaded being posted to Northern Ireland, and didn't like a lot of what they were asked to do.

Posted by: Mark Bahnisch at September 8, 2004 11:39 PM

Bulldog, I would point out quickly that there was a ruling of the European Court of Human Rights in 1978 which found that interrogation practices used against IRA prisoners were "inhumane" and "degrading" and illegal in European and international law.

Posted by: Mark Bahnisch at September 8, 2004 11:46 PM

There are some extracts online from Raymond Murray's monograph on State Violence in Northern Ireland from 1969 to 1997. The parent site also contains a wealth of information which goes to substantiate what I've been saying. I should add further that the European Commission on Human Rights and the Holy See both sought talks with the British Government on conditions applying to political prisoners in Northern Ireland gaols in 1981. I think I'll stop there, though, as this discussion is perhaps tangential to the original purpose of this thread.

Posted by: Mark Bahnisch at September 8, 2004 11:53 PM

The leadership of the Mudiad Amddiffyn Cymru (Movement for the Defense of Wales - active in the 1960s and 1970s) didn't engage in terrorism because they thought it would bring about a change in the actions of the government. Rather, they believed that creating lots of high-profile emergencies would induce the British government to restrict civil liberties to such an extent that "ordinary" citizens would overthrow the government themselves in protest.

As a terrorist motive this is far more consistent and logical than simply "trying to create a change in policy", it seems to me.

Incidentally, the MAC were not interested in atrocities but in targetting civic resources such as buildings (at night time) and pipelines, but I think their motives are relevant when considering all terrorist goals.

Posted by: Gangle at September 9, 2004 12:53 AM

“That said, I don't feel any more human obligations in relation to terrorists than to, say, members of the SS or Gestapo.”

“I certainly do not support any kind of terrorism but I do believe into bringing people to face a justice system rather than 'destroying them'.”

“But I do think that it's necessary to recognise the common humanity of even those who commit unspeakable evils, and thus we should remain within the discourse of justice.”

This is the opening statement of the UK prosecutor at the trial of the major Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg. The discourse is definitely one of law and justice.

THE PRESIDENT: I will call on the Chief Prosecutor for Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

SIR HARTLEY SHAWCROSS (Chief Prosecutor for the United Kingdom): May it please the Tribunal, on an occasion to which reference has and will be made, Hitler, the leader of the Nazi conspirators who are now on trial before you, is reported as having said, in reference to their warlike plans:

"I shall give a propagandist cause for starting the war, never mind whether it be true or not. The victor shall not be asked later on whether he told the truth or not. In starting and making a war, not the right is what matters, but victory -the strongest has the right."

The British Empire with its Allies has twice, within the space of 25 years, been victorious in wars which have been forced upon it, but it is precisely because we realize that victory is not enough, that might is not necessarily right, that lasting peace and the rule of international law is not to be secured by the strong arm alone, that the British nation is taking part in this Trial. There are those who would perhaps say that these wretched men should have been dealt with summarily without trial by "executive action"; that their power for evil broken, they should have been swept aside into oblivion without this elaborate and careful investigation into the part which they played in bringing this war about: Vae Victis! Let them pay the penalty of defeat. But that was not the view of the British Government. Not so would the rule of law be raised and strengthened on the international as well as upon the municipal plane; not so would future generations realize that right is not always on the side of the big battalions; not so would the world be made aware that the waging of aggressive war is not only a dangerous venture but a criminal one.

Human memory is very short. Apologists for defeated nations are sometimes able to play upon the sympathy and magnanimity of their victors, so that the true facts, never authoritatively recorded, become obscured and forgotten. One has only to recall the circumstances following upon the last World War to see the dangers to which, in the absence of any authoritative judicial pronouncement, a tolerant or a credulous people is exposed. With the passage of time the former tend to discount, perhaps because of their very horror, the stories of aggression and atrocity that may be handed down; and the latter, the credulous, misled by perhaps fanatical and perhaps dishonest propagandists, come to believe that it was not they but their opponents who were guilty of that which they would themselves condemn. And so we believe that this Tribunal, acting, as we know it will act notwithstanding its appointment by the victorious powers, with complete and judicial objectivity, will provide a contemporary touchstone and an authoritative and impartial record to which future historians may turn for truth, and future politicians for warning. From this record shall future generations know not only what our generation suffered, but also that our suffering was the result of crimes, crimes against the laws of peoples which the peoples of the world upheld and will continue in the future to uphold-to uphold by international co-operation, not based merely on military alliances, but grounded, and firmly grounded, in the rule of law.

Much more, well worth reading, and very timely, in my view.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/12-04-45.htm

Posted by: Tom Doyle at September 9, 2004 05:02 AM

Winds of Change has an excellent report on the background to the atrocities, including an apparently authoritative breakdown of the Chechen militant groups and their command and histories.

The problem with Chechnya, more or less, is that the Russians tried to surrender after their failure to bring the rebellious republic back into the fold in the first Chechen war and it didn't work. The country was taken over by a mixture of international terrorist organizations, Wahhabi theocrats, drug cartels, and other criminal organizations that subsided more or less on generous funding from Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states.

Davids Medienkritik has a satirical piece, Beslan, Russia: A Liberal Guide to Better Understanding Freedom Fighters, with points such as:

At this very moment it is too early to know the precise number of hostage takers killed or captured. In any case, it is important to keep some simple liberal rules in mind just in case one or more freedom fighters survived the attacks by the Russian police and were taken into custody: 1. We may not condone their killings - if there were any at all -, but we have to look for the root causes for a better understanding of their behavior. Were they inconvenienced in practicing their religion? Delays during rush hour in Chechnya? Election losses? Only if we know exactly what drove these young men and women to their somewhat regrettable actions can we make a final judgment.

Posted by: Tony Healy at September 9, 2004 06:42 AM

In seeing the condition of the countries (or places)of Palestine, Algeria, Vietman, Northern Ireland, etc. If that is winning, I would just as soon lose.

Posted by: Lynne at September 9, 2004 07:21 AM

Jack,

I honestly do enjoy your comments. I disagree with a lot of what you say, but you're well-informed and I'm often amused by the idiosyncratic way you express yourself. Keep it up. [P.S. that's not sarcasm - I'm being genuine here]

Re: the link, you predicted that the USA would "ditch the Saudis/hitch the Iraqis as US military clients in the Gulf". Besides the fact that this hasn't happened - the USA and Saudi Arabia are still (publicly at least) close military allies - it is vitally different from the withdrawal of troops from that country. It was the presence of US military force in the holy land of Mecca and Medina, and his homeland, that so irked OSL, and you haven't demonstrated that you predicted the US withdrawal of their troops from Saudi Arabia.

Posted by: Fyodor at September 9, 2004 09:14 AM

As to whether terrorism is effective or irrational, depends in part on what you think its purpose is.

If you accept that argument that it's a tactic or a form of communication, it's certainly effective from the view point of reaching an audience.

There aren't a lot of studies on this, but the few that do exist suggest that the response by the 'audience' is mostly negative. Hardly surprising.
So there is effectiveness in gaining attention, but not necessarily in achieving goals. Clausewitz's propostion seems to have some relevance here. If his advice is heeded, the terrorists could be viewed as acting quite rationally.

The general trend seems to be that spectacular acts of terrorism are used in early stages and that if political legitimacy approaches, violence is abandoned. But this can also lead to the formation of splinter groups that vow to continue attacks, eg. the 'Real IRA'.

So while terrorism can be rational and effective, there are plenty of examples were it isn't.

Posted by: michaelh at September 9, 2004 12:31 PM

Fyodor at September 9, 2004 09:14 AM wants me to connect all the dots:

you haven't demonstrated that you predicted the US withdrawal of their troops from Saudi Arabia.

Well Fyodor, I dont always spell things out in mind-numbing detail because I have a weakness for metre & rhyme. However I think the meaning of ditch Saudi/hitch Iraqi is clear enough. And its key predictions have been confirmed in apalling detail.

After the Shah was deposed in 1979 the US needed another Gulf Oil client state, and buffer to contain Iranian radicalism. So Regan made Saudi Arabia the lynchpin of the US security in the ME and a vital interest initself. This was called the Reagan codicil to the Carter Doctrine (ie Monroe Doctrine of the ME).

When Reagan became president, he added what became known as the "Reagan Codicil" to the "Carter Doctrine," declaring at a press conference that "we will not permit" Saudi Arabia "to be an Iran." The codicil did not represent new policy, but merely made explicit what had always been policy.

The upshot of this was that SA became a gigantic US airbase, worth more than $200 billion. A bonanza for Arms Sellers and Oil Riggers alike, as share holders in the Carlyle Group can attest to their pecuniary joy.

In 1991, the Saudi Arabians not only let the US use Saudi Arabia to kick Hussein out of Kuwait, they paid them to do it. In 2003, the Saudi Arabians refused the US permission to use Saudi Arabia to bomb Iraq. And they politely asked the US withdraw their bases.

The US military alliance with SA exists now only in form. In substance, the US has picked up new client state in Qatar which seems hospitable for the time being. And it is trying, without much success, to estabish Iraq as a client state/buffer against Saudi & Iranian fundies.

The DS/HI theory presumed that Saudi Bases & Oil Wells could be replaced with Iraqi ones. This is playing Clauewitzian politics for countries where the appropriate guide should be Mao Tse Tung.

Before the war, the neo-cons thought that the US could rebild Iraqi oil industry. This would break OPEC and weaken Saudi Wahhabists & Iranian Shiites.

a new Iraq oil boom could begin within two years of the war's end...Once production reaches its full capacity, they say, the enormous increase in supply could weaken OPEC, the oil producers' cartel led by Saudi Arabia, lower international oil prices for the foreseeable future and shift the balance of power among the world's major oil producers.
"It would definitely diminish the Saudis' influence (over the United States) and would cause the Iranian regime a lot of trouble."

Cheney's Oil Commission (2001) recommended that US lift the sanctions on Hussein. The Republicans werent willing to play ball with Hussein in power because they did not trust him. Ergo, he had to go.

The Saudi switch has been hit and the Iraqi fix is in. The US has abandoned its Air Bases in Saudi Arabia. It is constructing 14 military bases in Iraq.

The Iraqis will only have a 40,000-man army with no air force. Since Iran or Syria could get frisky and overrun this force, Iraq will be set up as an American protectorate and then I think we will be there until the end of time.

The US also tried to parachute its preferred Iraqi leaders, Chalabi & Allawi, into positions of Irqi political power so that a pro-US Iraq could be formed. That is why it delayed direct elections, which would otherwise have returned the pro-iranian Sistani as leader.

But we are now viewing that rosy scenario though a glass darkly. The US is trying to restore Iraqs production capacity, but it is still below pre-war levels. The Terrorists are winning.

Mike Ameen, a Houston-based oil executive, is not optimistic about the future of Iraq's oil economy....
Ameen says that by targeting the oil infrastructure, the insurgents are making it far more expensive for oil field contractors to do business in Iraq. They are also preventing any major oil companies from even considering new investments in Iraq. "It's a gloomy picture -- it really is."

The DS/HS theory was beautiful in theory. Unfortunately, it relied on the US invading another country. As War Nerd says, invasions are rarely popular with the home-boys and almost always more trouble than they are worth to the aliens - Duh!

Posted by: Jack Strocchi at September 9, 2004 03:13 PM

Jack,

Thanks for the history lesson, but the withdrawal of US troops from Saudi Arabia doesn't constitute a ditching of the alliance. They mostly moved closer to Iraq, into the welcoming lands of the Kuwaitis. Where was your prescient contribution, Nostradamus?

Also, as a point of clarification, Iraq is not likely to be seen by the USA as a reliable military ally, for the obvious reason that it will remain politically unstable for the foreseeable future. It is a protectorate of the USA, not an ally, and talk of 14 permanent military bases is premature.

I think it's obvious that the gulf states, Kuwait and Qatar in particular, are much more valuable to the USA than Iraq. The Kuwaitis in particular are, for historical reasons, much more wecoming than the Saudis, and have plenty of land and infrastructure to support US expeditionary forces into the region. Iraq has become a painful burden for the USA, and will never be a reliable ally.

Posted by: Fyodor at September 9, 2004 04:57 PM

Fyodor at September 9, 2004 04:57 PM lets me in on a big geo-political secret:

Iraq is not likely to be seen by the USA as a reliable military ally, for the obvious reason that it will remain politically unstable for the foreseeable future.

Well, that figures, we invaded them - Duh!

Fyodor also thinks that the US/SA alliance is still as solid as a rock:

the withdrawal of US troops from Saudi Arabia doesn't constitute a ditching of the alliance.

Maybe. But this surely indicates that things aint what they used to be:

In 2003, the Saudi Arabians refused the US permission to use Saudi Arabia to bomb Iraq.

Or, if that does not grab you, try this:

Since the Sept. 11 attacks, Saudi Arabia has been a reluctant ally, refusing to let the U.S. use Saudi bases as staging areas for military operations in Afghanistan.

There is plenty of evidence that US security agencies now regard the Saudi nation as a de facto enemy, a sponsor of fundmentalist madrasses and a bad long term bet.

Americans still want to make money off Saudi oil, but they don't trust Saudis politics. Not surprising given that more than half of Saudis think Bin Laden is a good guy.

How many one-industry countries do you know of that still bear the name of tribal land-lords?

Posted by: Jack Strocchi at September 10, 2004 12:16 AM

Which reminds me. How can Pr Q devote two posts to the causes of sectarian terrorism and not mention Saudi or Paki Fundamentalism?

Those states are the major sponsors of militant Islamacism throughout South West and Central Asia. Even if all Westerners left their territory, it is likely that they would continue to propagate their doctrines and support jihad.

So his "irritated nationalism" theory of terrorism is right as far as it goes, but it does not go nearly far enought. Nationalism is a necessary part of the explanation of sectarian terrorism, but it is not sufficient.

There is something about the conluence of pre-modern theology with modern technology that poses a deadly threat to post-modern societies.

Posted by: Jack Strocchi at September 10, 2004 12:25 AM

Today's perhaps not the right time, but eventually Q will have to respond to this isssue encapsulated by this Quote from today's Age, rather than continually avoiding the point:
Quote of Parkinson

"This business of attributing culpability to the targets of terror, directly or indirectly, is obnoxious. Worse, it leads into a metaphysical funk: paralysis via analysis.

Much of the debate since the Russian massacre has focused on whether this atrocity was the work of Chechens, foreign jihadis or both. What is more germane, surely, is the overarching narrative: the ultra-violent religious fanaticism in pockets of the Arab and Islamic worlds, Chechnya included."

Posted by: d at September 10, 2004 08:40 AM

d, I already responded to these points here and here. I don't plan to debate the issues further for a few days.

Posted by: John Quiggin at September 10, 2004 08:56 AM

Jack,

Come on now. You knew those links were worthless. Why did you pretend? The link you provided to the Washington Post even categorically refutes your assertion, with a quote from Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke:

"Saudi Arabia is a long-standing friend and ally of the United States. The Saudis cooperate fully in the global war on terrorism and have the Department's and the Administration's deep appreciation."

Yes, the relationship has gotten rockier after more than a decade of US military presence in Saudi Arabia, but you haven't provided any real evidence of the US "ditching" the Saudis.

Posted by: Fyodor at September 10, 2004 09:14 AM

getting back to question of whether terrorism is effective, it can depend on your criteria. Bus bombs in Israel deter negotiation, but if you've given up on negotiation and are looking at the long term then they deter Jewish immigration to Israel and diminish foreign investment. Not by as much as they diminish Palestinian economic growth, but if you belief nationalism is more fundamental than prosperity you wouldn't mind.

Posted by: Chris Borthwick at September 10, 2004 01:46 PM

Fyodor refuses to see the SA/US Alliance-itching writing on the wall:

The link you provided to the Washington Post even categorically refutes your assertion, with a quote from Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke

If, after the record of duplicity over the past two years, you still believe what Pentagon spokespersons say then you will believe anything.

Even the US government does not trust the some parts of the Pentagon these days.

Posted by: Jack Strocchi at September 10, 2004 06:06 PM

Come off it, Jack. Just admit you were wrong.

Posted by: Fyodor at September 10, 2004 06:26 PM