Male Warrior Factor

Male Warrior Factor

Someone in class asked me about the effects of groups on male behavior.  I just read an article.  Please look up: http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/09/09/warrior.effect.reut/index.html.

These findings are consistent with other research in various branches of social sciences and social psychology.  Men seem to be genetically more prone toward responding with force when faced with any kind of threat.  Therefore, men tend to be more militaristic, chauvinistic, and macho patriotic.  

AndyS commented on m

AndyS commented on my lecture note and provided an interesting observation based on a perverted logic.  He asks, why the American government doesn’t say what it really means: “acts of ‘terrorism' are actions that seek to terrorize U.S civilians?”  He says that may be we should not seek a global definition.  What are your thoughts?

Lecture Notes 82906

Lecture Notes (8/29/06)

Defining “terrorism” is problematic.  This is because the term has a strong pejorative connotation.  No group today claims to be “terrorist.”  Yet, until about 1940s, many groups would welcome this epithet as a badge of honor.  

Alex Schmid studied over 100 different definitions of terrorism given by national governments, intelligence specialists and academics.  He found that most of these emphasize the i) use of force against non-combatants, ii) having a political goal, and iii) aiming at creating an atmosphere of fear among civilian population.  We may also add to it, iv) non-governmental agent (a group, as opposed to a state).

Why is it difficult to define terrorism?  It is basically a political term used to describe activities that “we” don’t like.  If we liked it, we would not have called it so.  Take for instance, use of force.  All organized countries use military against their adversaries in warfare.  On the process many innocent civilians die.  Is that terrorism?  

Or, consider the attack on the USS Cole.  Since it did not involve civilian population, was it a terrorist attack?

Having a political goal is important.  This distinguishes a “terrorist” action from a criminal act.  While the former carries political goals, the latter only the motivation of making money.

What happens when a civilian target is chosen by a government to instill fear?  For instance, should we call the firebombing of Desden during the WWII or the dropping of the atomic bombs on civilian population acts of terrorism?  

Finally, if we only call actions taken by a non-government group as “terrorism,” what about our support for the Contras in Nicaragua or the Mujahideens fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan?  What about the downing of the Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland by the agents of the Libyan government?

However, it is important to define terrorism, if we are to call it “illegal” and wish to fight it.  Unfortunately, as of now, the United Nations has failed to come up with a definition, which would satisfy all the governments, including our own.  At the end, “terrorism” like beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

Questions from Parvda

I was asked the following questions by a reporter of Pravda, a Slovak newspaper.  I thought I would share it with you.  Please post your comments.

What are the most visible changes in al-Qaeda organization from 9/11 till
today?

The most visible change is in the personnel of its old organizational structure.  Most of the top echelon is either dead or captured.  As a result, there are new faces.  Unfortunately, not much is known about the current organizational hierarchy.  Judging for the steady stream of media releases of bin Landen and al Zawahiri tapes, it seems that the infrastructure pipeline is still intact.  

Why we are still no able to catch Osama bin Laden?  

It is not unusual for a fugitive to evade arrest for a very long time, when a large segment of the population and the government apparatus protect him.  For instance, the NATO forces have not been able to capture Radco Mladich and Radovan Karadich from the heart of Europe.  How can we the expect to capture OBL from a very protective custody of the Poshtun population?  Also, I strongly suspect that within the Pakistani administration there are two groups.  The first one is happy to look the other way and seriously hope that OBL not be caught within the Pakistani territory for the following reasons:

1. Given his stature among the common people, no ruler of a Muslim country can be seen as a party to OBL’s capture.  In that happens, the first casualty will be Parvez Musharaff himself.


2. Judging from past history, there is every reason to believe that the US has no long-term interest in Pakistan.  As long as the threat of an enemy looms large and Pakistan is seen as a useful ally, the US will be interested in the country.  

Then there is another faction within Pakistan, perhaps headed by their intelligence agency, the ISI, which is actively supporting OBL for ideological reasons.

Therefore, given the popularity of OBL and complicity of the Pakistani government, it is not at all surprising that he has not been caught yet.

How significant is his role in al-Qaeda organization in present time? Is he now only a symbol?

He is still a very large symbol of Islamic resistance against the West.  To test it, all you have to do is to go to most Islamic countries and see whose pictures the street vendors are selling.

I know it is very hard to say but what could be the most imminent terrorist
threat?

Nobody knows.  However, it seems that attacks on mass transit systems still dominate their imagination.

Do you think finding real solution of israeli-palestinian conflict could have some real impact on militant Islamist groups like al-Qaeda?

NO.  There are several reasons for that.

1. There is no unanimity among the Islamist militants when it comes to the nature of a “real solution” to the Israeli-Palestinian problem.  Is it a two-state solution or the total destruction of the Jewish state?  


2. What about other parts of the world where there are Islamic resurgences, such as in Kashmir, Chechnya, the Philippines, western China, etc.?  Don’t they have to be solved as well?


3. One of the main reasons why folks like OBL took up arms was because they felt that Islam was being threatened.  To them, the threats not only come from the “far enemy’ (the West in general and the US in particular), but also from the “near enemies” (the “apostate” governments of Saudi Arabia and Egypt).  Regardless of the resolution of Israeli issue, these will still be causes of war to the jihadis.

Are we losing or winning war against global terrorism? By the way do we really have war against global terrorism?

I am not sure if there is a “global terrorism.”  It is much too complex to think of it as one single force.  We may be able to manage one group or one set of ideas, but others will surely come up. Therefore, the question is not one of “winning,” it is more of “managing.”  If we disregard the deaths from 9/11 attacks as an aberration, the average death rates from international terrorism for the past 40 years is holding steady at about 370 per year.  In other words, the world has always lived with threats of terrorism and it will continue to do so in the foreseeable future.