|
|
Monday, July 7, 2008
July 6, 2008 — If You Meet a “Terrorism Expert”…….
There’s saying in Buddhism that goes “If you meet
a Buddha on the road, kill him”—In other words, do not over-idealize an enlightened being or religious figure.
On the other hand, if you meet a “terrorism expert,” please don’t kill him or her. We need all the help
we can get. But you might run the other way. Or, at least, listen to him or her very critically.
Why do I say this? Contemporary terrorism is an exceeding
complex, multi-dimensional, multi-determined phenomenon. No one person can be an “expert” in all that is involved
now. Perhaps in the 60’s and 70’s when most terrorist groups (in the West at least) were politically oriented,
local, tightly and hierarchically organized, relatively compact, and possessing primarily small arms — like the Baader-Meinhof
Gang and the Red Army Faction in Germany, the Red Brigades in Italy, and perhaps the Weather Underground in the USA and IRA
in Ireland — a person could really be a “terrorism expert.” Twenty-first century, religiously
motivated, global, internet driven terrorism seeking WMD’s is another matter. For example: now we need experts in physics,
biology, and public health who are also knowledgeable about international relations to help us assess the chances of nuclear
or biological attack and how to prevent it. As well as how to screen cargo arriving in our ports. But such experts will not
help us figure out how to deal with al-Qaeda in Waziristan and the tribal areas of Pakistan. Experts on strategy and tactics,
with on the ground experience in the Middle East, can advise us on military planning. But they will not be much help to local
police figuring out the role of community policing in counter-terrorism. And, if counter-terrorism now really is a “war
of ideas” (as President Bush said in a speech right after 9/11), then we also need those who understand our opponents’
ideas and how to counter them effectively. My advice is this: Today,
beware of the person who claims a generalized “terrorism” expertise. Beware of the person who claims that he or
she has discovered the one key that will unlock our knowledge of contemporary terrorism. Pay attention
to the person who is knowledgeable but also humble about the limits of what he or she knows and who is willing to listen to
others as well. In addition to experts in the fields most directly
related to contemporary terrorism, counter-terrorism planning should also include input from smart people
whoever they are — physicians, English teachers, amateur historians, etc and etc. I don’t like the cliché
“thinking outside the box.” What box? But we need people who can see an issue from many different perspectives
and can point out what is being ignored and overlooked. I read somewhere that wartime Britain’s strategic planning included
people from a wide range of fields who were able to think with flexibility and imagination. Thus Britain remained relatively
responsive to changing circumstances and more supple than if all her policies were dictated by top-down layers of narrow or
ideologically driven “expertise.” If that’s
true, there is a lesson here.
4:35 pm edt
|
|
May 30, 2008 - "Understanding"
Religious Terrorism
James W. Jones, Psy.D., Ph.D., Th.D.
How
much do we really know about terrorism? The short answer is "a lot" and "a very little." "Terrorism"
- as the cliché about one person’s terrorist being another’s freedom fighter suggests - is more often used
as an epithet or a bit of propaganda than a category useful for understanding. There is general agreement that terrorism is
not an end in itself or a motivation in itself (except perhaps for a few genuinely psychotic individual lone wolves). No movement
is only a terrorist movement; its primary character is more likely political, economic, or religious. Terrorism is a tactic,
not a basic type of group.
The first step in clarifying this topic of "understanding terrorism"
is to become clear about the purpose of our attempts to understand terrorism. Part of the confusion over the understanding
of terrorism results from the more basic confusion of not knowing what we want our explanations of terrorism to do for us.
Before we undertake to "explain" terrorism, we should be clear as to what we want this "explanation" to
accomplish? Many hope that understanding terrorism will help predict future terrorist actions. Others hope that it will help
devise effective counter-terrorism strategies. Will a psychological, or political, or military, or religious understanding
of religious terrorism aid in those goals?
I know from my work in forensic psychology that predicting violent behavior
in any specific case is very, very complicated and very rarely successful. And dramatic acts of violence that change the course
of history - the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand that lit the match on the conflagration of World War I, the taking
hostage of the American Embassy in the Iranian revolution, the 9/11 attack - are rarely predictable. We can list some of the
characteristics of religious groups that turn to violence and terror. I have studied some of the themes common to Muslim,
Christian, and Buddhist groups that have turned to terror. We can also outline the steps that individuals and groups often
go through in becoming committed to violent actions. The NYPD has done exactly that in a recent study. But I remain skeptical
that any model will enable us to predict with any certainty when specific individuals or groups may turn to terrorism. There
are warning signs we should be aware of. But these are signs, not determinants or predictors.
As for counter-terrorism,
it is an important strategic principal that one should know one's enemy. We succeeded in containing the expansiveness
of the former Soviet Union in part because we had a detailed and nuanced understanding of the Soviet system. Understanding
some of what is at stake religiously and spiritually for religious groups that engage in terrorism can help devise ways of
countering them. So a religious-psychological understanding of religious terrorists' motivations can be an important part
of the response to them.
In the months following 9/11 I often heard demagogues on the radio say that psychologists
(like me) who seek to understand the psychology behind religiously motivated violence simply want to "offer the terrorists
therapy." The idea that one must choose either understanding or action - that one cannot do both - is an idea that itself
borders on the pathological and represents the kind of dichotomizing that is itself a part of the terrorist mindset. Such
dichotomized thinking, wherever it occurs, is a part of the problem and not part of the solution. I worked for two years in
the psychology department at a hardcore, maximum security prison. But I never thought of that as a substitute for just and
vigorous law enforcement. Understanding an action in no way means excusing it; explaining an action in no way means condoning
it.
There is, however, a deeper issue here. Understanding others (even those who will your destruction)
can make them more human. It can break down the demonization of the other that some politicians and policy makers feel is
necessary in order to combat terrorists. The demonization of the other is a major weapon in the arsenal of the religiously
motivated terrorist. Must we resort to the same tactic - which is so costly psychologically and spiritually – in order
to oppose terrorism? Or can we counter religiously motivated terrorists without becoming like them?
|
