Sunday, August 19, 2007
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Speaking of movies...
I just read an amusing article from Slate called Killer Ideas; Using Movie Plots To Combat Terrorism. I found it amusing because I love movies that use terrorism as the backdrop (does that make me sick-in-the-head?). Of course, I don't think that we can use those movie plots to combat terrorism because they use scenarios that aren't usually plausable, as the article points out. But what about that infamous quote that came out of the 9/11 investigation about having the ability to stop such an attack except that we lacked the imagination to conceive of such a plan? What's the harm in using our imaginations now? As someone interested in combating terrorism I am apt to turn my thoughts toward possible scenarios often. Recently a friend was talking about their knee replacement surgery and my mind ran on ahead and started questioning whether they'd get through a metal detector at the airport. Then I wondered if it were possible for there to be some sort of plastics explosive inserted into a pocket inside a knee replacement which could be later detonated......Outlandish thinking maybe, but maybe not. I'm quite sure I'm not the only one who allows their mind to think of possibilities; the scary thing is there are those who are trying to imagine the most plausable ones. And hey, when "Snakes On A Plane" came out it only added one more reason why I'm afraid to fly! Snakes...on a plane....who'd have thought it? But if I'm ever on a plane taken over by terrorists and they've got snakes.....they have done terrorized me twice! :)
"A Mighty Heart" and terrorist networks...
Since I view a lot of films dealing with terrorism I guess it isn't such a coincidence that this post follows a review of a documentary. I saw a "A Mighty Heart" this week; the new film starring Angelina Jolie as Marianne Pearl. All the film reviews I've read concentrate on Jolie's portrayal of the wife of journalist Daniel Pearl, as I suppose that's what most people are interested in. I just want to touch on the fact that the film makes a good point about the difficulty in tracking down terrorists. I have no idea how accurate the film was as I did not research the real story ahead of time; I would suppose that it is pretty true to what really happened, at least in how Marianne Pearl recalls the events. Anyway, as the officials are beginning their search for Pearl one of the journalists begins a large diagram on a dry-erase board, depicting the connections between the different suspects and people who had contact with Pearl the day he disappeared. This is an excellent illustration of how important it is to know the connections between suspected terrorists.
As Marc Sageman points out in his excellent book Understanding Terror Networks (University of Pennsylvania Press; 2004), the connections between players is crucial in the advancement of jihad. Jihadists work within the framework of a series of connections that create a vast network. Most Americans are now familiar with the word "cell" in the lexicon of terrorism. Most people have the image that these cells exist in and of themselves but that isn't an accurate way to think of them. Someone in that cell has a connection to someone outside of it. Only one member of that cell may have an outside connection and this is for secrecy's sake. That one member, however, has a connection to someone else and that someone else has a connection to another and so on. Sageman's theory is that these networks are held together by social affiliations. When trying to identify the actors in a terrorism event it is then important to keep these connections in mind; when one actor is identified find out who he/she is connected with and/or had contact with and follow those leads.
I digress away from the film to Sageman's theory: The common theory that members are brought into the terrorist networks through recruitment and brainwashing are dismissed in favor of a "three-prong process: social affiliation with the jihad accomplished through friendship, kinship, and discipleship: progressive intensification of beliefs and faith leading to acceptance of the global Salafi jihad ideology; and formal acceptance to the jihad through the encounter of a link to the jihad. Relative deprivation, religious predisposition, and ideological appeal are necessary but not sufficient to account for the decision to become a mujahed. Social bonds are the critical element in this process and precede ideological commitment." (emphasis mine; pg 135). Sageman believes that the development of a mutual social and emotional bond brings actors together and they develop a common identity that facilitates the adoption of an ideology. It's this internal bond that drives the group: "As in all intimate relationships, this glue, in-group love, is found inside the group. It may be more accurate to blame global Salafi terrorist activity on in-group love than out-group hate." (pg 135).
When a group like the Hamburg Cell is considered Sageman's theory seems to hold up quite well. Arab students arrive at a German University to study engineering and away from the familiarities of their native culture they group together and accept the invitation to attend prayer at the local masjid. There they find others that they can relate to and develop a bond with. As that bond grows they find themselves influenced by each other and radical ideas are invited into the group for discussion. A bit of peer-pressure creeps in; a bit of one-upsmanship too. An older person who seems to have all the answers, someone the group looks up to, encourages and challenges the group to adopt a radical ideology. A cell is born. This group will develop such a bond that they willingly go to their deaths together all in the name of jihad.
As Marc Sageman points out in his excellent book Understanding Terror Networks (University of Pennsylvania Press; 2004), the connections between players is crucial in the advancement of jihad. Jihadists work within the framework of a series of connections that create a vast network. Most Americans are now familiar with the word "cell" in the lexicon of terrorism. Most people have the image that these cells exist in and of themselves but that isn't an accurate way to think of them. Someone in that cell has a connection to someone outside of it. Only one member of that cell may have an outside connection and this is for secrecy's sake. That one member, however, has a connection to someone else and that someone else has a connection to another and so on. Sageman's theory is that these networks are held together by social affiliations. When trying to identify the actors in a terrorism event it is then important to keep these connections in mind; when one actor is identified find out who he/she is connected with and/or had contact with and follow those leads.
I digress away from the film to Sageman's theory: The common theory that members are brought into the terrorist networks through recruitment and brainwashing are dismissed in favor of a "three-prong process: social affiliation with the jihad accomplished through friendship, kinship, and discipleship: progressive intensification of beliefs and faith leading to acceptance of the global Salafi jihad ideology; and formal acceptance to the jihad through the encounter of a link to the jihad. Relative deprivation, religious predisposition, and ideological appeal are necessary but not sufficient to account for the decision to become a mujahed. Social bonds are the critical element in this process and precede ideological commitment." (emphasis mine; pg 135). Sageman believes that the development of a mutual social and emotional bond brings actors together and they develop a common identity that facilitates the adoption of an ideology. It's this internal bond that drives the group: "As in all intimate relationships, this glue, in-group love, is found inside the group. It may be more accurate to blame global Salafi terrorist activity on in-group love than out-group hate." (pg 135).
When a group like the Hamburg Cell is considered Sageman's theory seems to hold up quite well. Arab students arrive at a German University to study engineering and away from the familiarities of their native culture they group together and accept the invitation to attend prayer at the local masjid. There they find others that they can relate to and develop a bond with. As that bond grows they find themselves influenced by each other and radical ideas are invited into the group for discussion. A bit of peer-pressure creeps in; a bit of one-upsmanship too. An older person who seems to have all the answers, someone the group looks up to, encourages and challenges the group to adopt a radical ideology. A cell is born. This group will develop such a bond that they willingly go to their deaths together all in the name of jihad.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
"Diameter of the Bomb"
I just finished watching a documentary that was truly a masterpiece. "Diameter of the Bomb" tells the story of the suicide bombing of bus 32A on June 18, 2002, in Israel. I've viewed several documentaries and films dealing with suicide bombings but this one is by far the best. Interviews with survivors, family members of the victims, the bomber's driver (who is now in prison), the bomber's parents, responders, forensic scientists, and Israeli counter terrorism officials make this a complete analysis of the event. Video footage of the bomber's martyrdom tape are included. It's excellently put together to give the viewer a look at the terror that is suicide bombing that they are sure not to forget.
Something I try to keep is an openness to the concept of terrorism versus freedom fighting. All terrorism analysis students spend time debating the terms with the emotional connotations and political biases attached to each. So far I've done quite well, I think, maintaining a rather even balance. This is especially true when it comes to the issue of the Arab/Israeli conflict. But it's hard to keep any semblance of impartiality when you are viewing scenes of a bombing just minutes after it has occurred; bits of body parts splattered on the street, bodies still sitting in their bus seats minus their limbs, the face of the bomber laying on the pavement like some discarded mask after it was literally ripped from his head (an image I promise you I will never forget). These are the images that are not shown on American television newscasts because they cross the line of decency, quite like the videos of people jumping to their death after the planes hit the Trade Center Towers that were never shown. Do I have an appetite to view such gruesome things? Sometimes; because they are the images that jolt me back into reality and remind me that although I believe analysts should maintain some amount of objectivity I believe too that we Americans are much too squeamish for our own good. I believe this documentary, "Diameter of the Bomb", and others like it should be shown more often to keep us reminded that martyrdom operations are hideous, evil means to try and achieve an end.
Something I try to keep is an openness to the concept of terrorism versus freedom fighting. All terrorism analysis students spend time debating the terms with the emotional connotations and political biases attached to each. So far I've done quite well, I think, maintaining a rather even balance. This is especially true when it comes to the issue of the Arab/Israeli conflict. But it's hard to keep any semblance of impartiality when you are viewing scenes of a bombing just minutes after it has occurred; bits of body parts splattered on the street, bodies still sitting in their bus seats minus their limbs, the face of the bomber laying on the pavement like some discarded mask after it was literally ripped from his head (an image I promise you I will never forget). These are the images that are not shown on American television newscasts because they cross the line of decency, quite like the videos of people jumping to their death after the planes hit the Trade Center Towers that were never shown. Do I have an appetite to view such gruesome things? Sometimes; because they are the images that jolt me back into reality and remind me that although I believe analysts should maintain some amount of objectivity I believe too that we Americans are much too squeamish for our own good. I believe this documentary, "Diameter of the Bomb", and others like it should be shown more often to keep us reminded that martyrdom operations are hideous, evil means to try and achieve an end.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
By the sea....
I'm on vacation in Florida right now, so my posts are just to get this blog up and running. Usually I am glued to the news or counterterrorism blogs at home at some point during my day, but here at the beach - no way. I brought my Arabic software to work on my language learning while I was here, but that has fallen by the wayside while I sit and stare at the sea and scheme for the year ahead of me. *Sigh* (That's a happy sigh, btw).
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
A place to keep my thoughts in order
"The Last Great Debate" does not refer to my debating skills in any way, shape, or form. My debating skills suck. For me, the title refers to what I believe may be the last important debate we may face as a nation: What we, as Americans, are going to do about terrorism. I intend to use this blog as a place I can lay out my own opinions, thoughts, and analysis of events as they unfold. In the next year I plan on working on a academic paper covering female suicide bombers, and this will be a place I post my ideas as I work through them.
Friends not interested in terrorism issues may find my blog quite boring. Sometimes I'll digress to a little personal information in posts, but hopefully I'll stick with issues relevant to the biggest debate of our time.
Friends not interested in terrorism issues may find my blog quite boring. Sometimes I'll digress to a little personal information in posts, but hopefully I'll stick with issues relevant to the biggest debate of our time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
