Poverty Does Not Terror Make
There is an article in the New York Times this morning suggesting poverty had something to do with the decision of Larbi Charef and others to blow themselves up in a suicide attack a few days ago in Algiers. This bothered Abu Muqawama, as the economist Alan B. Kreuger makes a pretty persuasive case that poverty has little to do with terror in his excellent book of lectures, What Makes a Terrorist: Economics and the Roots of Terrorism.
You should all read that book, which is on the Counterinsurgency Reading List. And if you're looking for something smart to read on the Algeria attacks, you should also read this article -- forwarded along by Charlie -- on the way in which the attacks represent a maturing terrorist organization. Emily Hunt's long piece is also good, though now dated, and it goes without saying that the French-language press is going to get into the weeds on Algerian politics better than its English-language peers. Happy hunting.
17 comments:
Marc Sageman makes a similar point in his excellent book, "Understanding Terror Networks", which is a study of terrorist biographies using social science type quantitative research methods. Sageman notes that, except for some marginal Maghreb characters, almost all of the Al Qaeda network are very rich and well educated relative to the western average, and "off the scale" relative to the Mid East.
Worth reading, if you've not already.
Yeah, Sageman's book is a favorite of this site. I am not entirely sure why it didn't make it onto the COIN reading list...
His new one looks damn good too.
I've always loved this assumption. From a very American pov there are 2 types of terrorist; the Q type and the Hizballah/Hamas type.
There is a far greater link between enlistment and poverty in the second type than the first.
AQ are driven by extremist ideology which you can brainwash into anyone eith brought up on such ideology or is suggestible to such ideology. This is why so many of AQ are Saudi or Pakistani. The particular type of Sunni Ideology AQ preach is not popular or palatable to people ouside of these extremely tribal societies.
Hizballah and Hamas are, though Islamic in tenets and basis, more nationalistic organisations. Such organisations will always draw a major influx from those in the poorest sections of society but that is probably as much down to proportional statistics as any other explanantion.
True, although i do suspect that, poverty does terror help along.
mo: I think you are a bit unprecise in your labeling: Hamas/Hezbollah/Maronites/Druze can be loosely seen as social-political bodies, while AQ is much more akin to the assasinis/ish`mailis from the crusades, religious fighters.. It again and again strikes me how much resemblance there is between the assasinis and AQ: They had a system of cells with one rafiq and several "expendables, and another layer of da`is, travelling preacher-instructors. Also, the Algerians have the exp. of the french campaign of 90/91.
Let me guess that t here are several holidayhomes for vetwrans in Sahara and the mountains. Idea: You should get Polisario some justice and hire them to hunt them.
concerning the rich and the effect of poverty: Shame and rebellion against family combined with religion makes for powerful motivation. The romatic sheik fighting for Allah against impossible odds etc. So blatant injustice like widespread poverty also affects the rich.
fnord,
Yes, social-political bodies are very much what they are; However, I was narrowing the labelling specifically to the military aspects of their operations so as to remain relevant to the topic in hand.
fnord: think that John Robbb has already picked up on the AQ / Hashshashin link.
Abu: discussing Sageman reminds me of an excellent economist (& Nobel Laureate) called Douglass North, who writes about a topic of especial relevance to COIN students: the trajectories of state development. He's totally recommended (see this paper for good e.g. -- http://www.international.ucla.edu/cms/files/PERG.North.pdf )
It's also important to be precise in what you're trying to explain: the rise of violent social movements? why an organization chooses to employ terror? or why an individual joins a particular violent group? "Poverty" will play a different role in each of those research questions.
And Charlie [hearts] Doug North. But caveat emptor: you're in for a world of institutionalist game theory pain if you go down that route.
Charlie: The issue of "terror" is relative. What is a air-raid if not terror? If we see civilian-casualties as an indicator on the terror-o-meter, I think we are sort of not in a happy position. COIN is the answer, but 4 years of gung ho doesnt disappear that quikly in the ME.
mo: But you can not separate clan/family/honour away from the playboard in the ME and think purely military, unless you are going to exterminate whole groups. Because everybody owes someone else a favour. The Mahdi Army had volunteers at Fallujah, as did propably Hezbollah. The whole region is so complex that there are always x number of vectors, many of wich you do not get.
Good deeds count double in the ME. Bad deeds are expected, but lead to resistance. The fact that you seem to have no *soft* prison camps, manned by european standard, indicates to me a deeply flawed strategy of justice. This neo-con charade has been badly constructed all the way.
Sorry for ranting, but aaargh. ;-)
Sageman recently gave a talk to the Jamestown Institute showing his research is changing his views a bit. He says that the new generation of al-Q-inspired terrorists -- regionally focused, not globally focused -- are more likely to be poor kids, as are the European Muslim recruits/self-starters. He doesn't say that poverty causes terrorism. But his new research suggests that it may not be as orthogonal as Krueger's research from years ago held.
Spencer: I was in jail with several of the muslim lads (for fighting the police in a demo). In Europe, we have a understanding with the muslims, and more and more of the police-people are understanding why it is important to have punk/autonome houses and social organisations who are anti nazi/fasci.
In jail, they supported me. We discussed society in a religious vs. political context, and they discussed quaran with me, because I was the only white man who liked to bla bla. (Prison here is killing time). But these people have a deep sense of honour, and shame (haram) and things like this. The Bush-approach is just plain wrong when it comes to COIN.
"It's also important to be precise in what you're trying to explain: the rise of violent social movements? why an organization chooses to employ terror? or why an individual joins a particular violent group? "Poverty" will play a different role in each of those research questions."
<3 man, I adore both of you bloggers so much, you make my brain happy.
Terror is a tactic, it suggests more about the inability of a group to martial enough support to confront an enemy through guerrilla warfare or direct confrontation, than it does about the group themselves.
Another relevant article was in the American Political Science review a while back, Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism, which I disagreed with, I am skeptical about the argument regarding its used as a tool to persuade democratic and semi-democratic societies.
It isn't universally applicable, what about the suicide bombings in Pakistan? or the attacks in Egypt? Neither of which are democratic societies but both have suffered terrorist attacks, but it did contribute to the discussion in an interesting way.
"Caveat emptor: you're in for a world of institutionalist game theory pain if you go down that route."
I know I'm probably a sick pervert, but we've all got to get our kicks somehow.
Hey Charlie, since you're down with institutional economics and (obviously) down with COIN, do you know of any good writers / writing drawing from both disciplines?
runescape money runescape gold tibia item tibia gold runescape accounts tibia money runescape gp buy runescape gold tibia gold tibia item buy runescape money runescape items tibia money
Post a Comment