Suicide Bombing as a Political Tactic: Effectiveness and Goals - Article Example

 Suicide Bombing as a Political Tactic: Effectiveness and Goals Suicide bombing inflicts more fear, more horror, and greater revulsion than any other tactic in modern warfare. Statistically they have been responsible for a very small fraction of the killing during this period, which includes the deaths of innocent and non-military targets. Yet, the image of a person willing to kill themselves to promote an idea, ideal, or political viewpoint is so counter to Western Judeo-Christian ideals that it gains widespread notoriety. The non-specific targets of the suicide bomber places everyone within the world of the terrorist threat at risk. Whether they are having lunch in a quiet cafe in Tel Aviv or working in a high rise building in America, the public feels an increased risk from the threat of suicide bombers. In most cases in modern warfare, a tactic is only continued if it is effective. Ineffective mission planning wastes resources and lives and will even be discontinued in the face of a damaged political image. Suicide bombers do not fit this model. Suicide bombers are driven by personal goals of self-gratification for ideals that can not be attained, and this self-centered tactic always ends in failure. To understand the goals and effectiveness of the suicide bomber, it is helpful to place suicide in relationship to modern warfare. The Kamikaze pilots in World War II perpetrated the largest mass scale suicide attacks in history. Their targets were military installations and ships and were in many cases effective at impeding the enemy's ability to attack. US military history is filled with the lore of the suicide mission where men need to enter a situation of certain death to accomplish the goal of the mission. Yet, these are military men with military objectives. The modern suicide terrorist has the goal of instilling random fear in the general public. In fact, "The word terrorism is derived from the Latin root terrere, which means "to frighten"". The issue of the modern suicide bomber becomes one of the effectiveness of fear and its ability to affect another country's foreign policy, and the motivation that would drive a person to lose their life in pursuit of a political ideal. The motivation to commit an act of suicide bombing is almost always done to draw attention to a political situation. It has no hope of being of any strategic military importance. In almost all cases of suicide bombing the goal is to highlight a real or perceived oppression by a foreign government. Robert Pape of the University of Chicago has argued that, "... every suicide campaign from 1980 to 2001 has had as a major objective—or as its central objective—coercing a foreign government that has military forces in what they see as their homeland to take those forces out" (348). Occupation of a native territory is at the core of the terrorist's motivation to commit a suicide bombing. The action has no real intent of ending the occupation, only the hope of drawing greater international attention to it. "To remind the target of their presence". The attacks on the Twin Towers known as 9/11 fall into this category as, "For Al Qaeda, the removal of Americans from the Arabian Peninsula is a strategic goal". The suicide bomber hopes that through the commission of an act so heinous as to be beyond comprehension they can draw international attention to their plight and gain some sympathy for their cause. Suicide bombers are almost always drawn into the commission of the act based on their belief that they have a religious or moral duty to sacrifice their life for the good of others. Often these beliefs are based in a religious framework where there is a concept of never ending life. This can be considered as the politics of last resort. For the suicide bomber, all other avenues are closed and their action will guarantee them a slot in their heaven. This mindset is gained after intense brain washing. According to Scott Atran, a research scientist at the University of Michigan, "Intense indoctrination, often lasting 18 months or more, causes recruits to identify emotionally with their terrorist cell, viewing it as a family for whom they are as willing to die as a mother for her child" (2). This period conditions the subject to the importance of their mission and propagandizes the enemy. While their enemies are often abstract, they are usually portrayed as satanic. "Terrorists often argue that an action they take is aimed at a particular person or place because that person or institution is somehow guilty". A suicide bomber walks into the scenario of certain death with the belief that the enemy is guilty and they are simply obeying the will of a higher power. While the plight of the suicide bomber gains widespread media attention and momentary notoriety, it does almost nothing to change the political or social landscape. Western society, whom many suicide bombers are either directly or indirectly targeting, views the attack as an aberration. The attacks gain sporadic media attention but fail in their long-term objectives. According to Pape, "...modern nation states are often willing to countenance high costs for high interests and partly because modern nation states are often able to mitigate civilian costs by making economic and other adjustments" (344). Western nations have a long standing policy of not negotiating with terrorists. There is also the solid foundation of liberty and freedom of expression that is at issue. The Western civilizations understand the risk of living in a free society. This risk is accounted for and neutralizes the effect of the terrorist activity. Americans will make sacrifices to suicide bombers without relinquishing political ground. There are those that would argue that suicide bombings succeed in their intent on drawing attention to a problem and diverting a country's resources. Advocates of the rationale of suicide bombing contend that it is not the product of a misguided follower, but is the intent of a well organized leadership with long term political goals. Robert Pape says, "If suicide terrorism were mainly irrational or even disorganized, we would expect a much different pattern in which either political goals were not articulated or the stated goals varied considerably even within the same conflict" (348). This is not the case. The suicide missions are well planned and have a focused political goal. Yet, this does not substantiate an argument that the attacks are effective. This contention only serves to bolster the point of view that the attacks are the product of an irrational obsession, whether by the followers or the leaders, for targeting an unrelenting opposition. In conclusion, suicide missions have been a part of military history and will probably be with the world for some time into the foreseeable future. Their actions scare and horrify the public and gain modest attention for a short period of time. From that aspect they accomplish the goal that, "Terrorist acts are intended to upset the normalcy of life". They do upset the norms and values of the Western civilizations, but do little to alter their political future. The most recent attacks, whether in America, Israel, or Iraq are indirectly aimed at America. It does not make a lot of difference whether the suicide bombers are acting out of a well scripted attack or a misguided zeal for religion, the Western world is willing to endure great sacrifice to neutralize the effectiveness of these attacks. The Judeo-Christian philosophy does not honor the validity of indiscriminately dying or killing for a cause. The difference is the amount of discretion that is used in the violence. Works Cited Atran, Scott. "Who Wants to be a Martyr?" The New York Times 5 May 2003, late ed.. Pape, Robert. "The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism." American Political Science Review 97.3 (2003): 343-61. Read More