Linked here is an interesting article by Daniel Byman of Georgetown University/Saban Center for Middle East Policy on the ineptitude of most terrorists. While I personally have some issues with his discipline, I read an interesting book by him a few years ago that provided a helpful of terrorism. In this definition, he suggested that any attack on military personnel, whether on-duty or off-duty, who are in a foreign country, should not be considered terrorism. I completely agree, as this de-politicizes the terrorism label to a certain extent and helps us sift through the nationalist posturing, such as the "terrorist" attack on the US military base in Lebanon... whose soldiers were shelling Lebanon the day before.
Below are some excerpts:
In the years after 9/11, the images we were shown of terrorists were largely the same: shadowy jihadists who, even when they were foiled, seemed always to have come terrifyingly close to pulling off a horrific attack. We’ve all become familiar by now with the stock footage of Talibs in black shalwar kameezes zipping across monkey bars or, more recently, perfecting kung fu kicks in some secret training camp. Even in the aftermath of the botched Times Square bombing earlier this spring, the perception persists that our enemies are savvy and sophisticated killers. They’re fanatical and highly organized—twin ideas that at once keep us fearful and help them attract new members.But this view of the jihadist community is wildly off the mark. To be sure, some terrorists are steely and skilled—people like Mohamed Atta, the careful and well-trained head of the 9/11 hijackers. Their leaders and recruiters can be lethally subtle and manipulative, but the quiet truth is that many of the deluded foot soldiers are foolish and untrained, perhaps even untrainable. Acknowledging this fact could help us tailor our counterterrorism priorities—and publicizing it could help us erode the powerful images of strength and piety that terrorists rely on for recruiting and funding.
0 comments:
Post a Comment