Jan 17, 2008

Why They Fight

by Liberty and Power

[cross-posted at Austro-Athenian Empire]

Great quote from Tom Woods today:

In the 1980s, the Ayatollah Khomeini called for a jihad against America, on the grounds that we were degenerate, had filthy movies, our women didn’t know their place – all the reasons that we’ve been told are the causes of the current attacks. The result was absolutely nothing. No one blew himself up. No one did anything. Khomeini issued the call and there was no interest. It was a total flop – no one wanted to sacrifice himself on those grounds.
Then the 1990s come along, and we have Osama bin Laden. He does not make that fundamental cultural critique – obviously, he doesn’t like those aspects of American culture, but that wasn’t his main critique.
His criticism is actually very specific. He says the U.S. is responsible for propping up police states around the Arab world; exercising undue influence over oil markets; showing undue favoritism toward Israel; supporting countries that oppress their Muslim minorities; basing American troops on the Arabian peninsula, and on and on.
This is the sort of thing he offers as a rationale. So while there may certainly be the potential for Islam to be violent, what sparks that fire? It’s the combination of practical grievances and the Islamist ideology. Some people will do battle on behalf of an abstract philosophy, but most people will only fight and die for a specific grievance. For example, when you look at the Al Qaida recruitment tapes, they don’t simply quote from the Koran. They actually show images of people killed by U.S. weapons.
Why are they making those tapes if there’s no connection between U.S. foreign policy and what the terrorists are doing? It just doesn’t make sense.

Read the rest.

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Peter G. Klein - 1/17/2008

There's an important average-versus-marginal distinction that is often lost in these discussions. Namely, while opposition to American culture and society might explain the _average_ level of anti-Americanism in the Islamic world, specific terrorists acts reflect _marginal_ decisions about expected benefits and costs, and these are strongly affected by US foreign policy. In other words, the two types of explanation aren't mutually incompatible. One explains general feelings and attitudes, the other explains actions. I wrote about this here:

http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2007/05/30/average-versus-marginal-blowback-edition/

"US culture and institutions could, in theory, account for the average level of anti-Americanism in the Islamic world. To explain a specific terrorist act, however, we have to think in marginal terms. What we call ”terrorism,” as Robert Pape has brilliantly explained, is a tactic, not an ideology. Whatever his general attitude toward the enemy, the terrorist must choose to attack this target or that, to attack now or later, to select one more target or one less. Even if exogenous US characteristics were responsible for overall terrorist attitudes and beliefs, blowback is probably still the best explanation for specific terrorist acts.

"Note that this is an application of a more general point about intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. . . . Intrinsic motivation could determine the average attitudes of employees toward their employers and occupations even while extrinsic motivation explains their marginal behavior.

"For example, I chose to become a professor not because it pays well (it doesn’t), but because I enjoy research and teaching. On the margin, however, I am more likely to teach a specific course, advise a specific student, write a specific paper, or attend a specific conference if I am paid for it. Extrinsic incentives didn’t determine my general career choice, but given that I’m in that career, they have a strong effect on my behavior at the margin."

Aeon J. Skoble - 1/17/2008

"He says the U.S. is responsible for propping up police states around the Arab world; exercising undue influence over oil markets"

Surely they don't our help for either of these two goals. They've been doing both since long ago.

"supporting countries that oppress their Muslim minorities"

They do an awful lot of this all on their own as well.

Maybe one difference between Iran and Al Qaeda is that the former is a state, and knows it could be retaliated against, whereas Al Qaeda is not.

"they don’t simply quote from the Koran. They actually show images of people killed by U.S. weapons."

But what differentiates this from images of people killed by the weapons of other muslims? Of course images of dead people is inflammatory, but the use of the US in the images (when many of their neighbors do exactly the same thing) implies that there's something double-plus-ungood about the US. The ideological animus has to be a part of it.