A tale of two viewpoints

Throughout this month, I will be posting excerpts of my lengthy paper "The War on Terror and the Fire Paradox", as mentioned in this post. Here is one such excerpt...

From the White House press briefings to the Mujahideen spin machine, there’s one thing both sides have in common, besides exploiting their own people’s fears and insecurities and irrationality: propaganda.

Jihad for the masses: Mujahideen
The following is an article called "Fundamentalism" from a jihadist website of a group who call themselves Harkat-ul-Mujahideen. This Mujahideen group was active at its inception during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan that spurred the Taliban, which the US meddled in, and in the India-Pakistan conflict over Kashmir. The groups advocates jihad and that Muslims do their duty and fight against the menace — whether it be Zionist or western satanic groups.

We are under threat from the Fundamentalists!
The Fundamentalists are a threat to the worldwide peace mission!
We should unite in our efforts against [the] Fundamentalists!
There is no existence of such a thing in Islam called Fundamentalism!
If the wave of Fundamentalism is not stopped,
nobody will be saved from becoming it’s next target.
…
The word terror has been mentioned which is used today as a swear against Muslims. Therefore, those Muslims who have gained Islamic strength are branded as terrorists. What need is there for the Muslims to be ashamed of this swear? Allah (sw) has ordered the Muslims to terrorize their enemies, who are also the enemies of Allah (sw). Whosoever will fulfill this obligation will be classed as a terrorist. So to be a terrorist is a source of blessing and not shame. To cast terror upon the enemies of Allah (sw) is an act of worship and not an act of crime. Muslims should not be hesitant in fulfilling this obligation.
…
In conclusion, Muslims are not being branded as Fundamentalists because of a major change, they are being branded because of returning back to the roots of their Religion and this title is a blessing for the Muslims.

Political statement in the aftermath of terrorist attack
The following is an excerpt from a statement by President George W. Bush following the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and in Pennsylvania on the morning of 11 September 2001.

Good evening. Today, our fellow citizens, our way of life, our very freedom came under attack in a series of deliberate and deadly terrorist acts. The victims were in airplanes, or in their offices; secretaries, businessmen and women, military and federal workers; moms and dads, friends and neighbors. Thousands of lives were suddenly ended by evil, despicable acts of terror.

The pictures of airplanes flying into buildings, fires burning, huge structures collapsing, have filled us with disbelief, terrible sadness, and a quiet, unyielding anger. These acts of mass murder were intended to frighten our nation into chaos and retreat. But they have failed; our country is strong.

A great people has been moved to defend a great nation. Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America. These acts shattered steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve.

America was targeted for attack because we're the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world. And no one will keep that light from shining.

See also "Why are we obsessed with terrorism?"

technorati tags: Mujahideen, press, communications, bush, fundamentalism, jihad, 9/11, terrorism, muslim, united+states

Counterterrorism, counterinsurgency, counterintuitive

Throughout this month, I will be posting excerpts of my lengthy paper "The War on Terror and the Fire Paradox", as mentioned in this post. Here is one such excerpt...

Persuasive essay
To-the-point: counterterrorism, counterinsurgency, counterintuitive
Why do many current counterterrorism, and counterinsurgency, policies only make it all worse? US Global War on Terror and the proliferation of the radical, fundamentalist Islamic ideology in a terrorist insurgency relate to and feed on each other. One of the main causes of insurgent terrorism — modern and historical — may well be the fight against terrorism: counterterrorism and counterinsurgency. Battles launched in the name of terrorism or against the name of terrorism often have the same affects: causing both sides to recruit for their pro- or counterterrorist causes.

One of my main doctrines, if you will, of the Middle East and elsewhere is that vengeance leads to vengeance. An eye for an eye is a ludicrous notion; why would one what everyone to be blind, including one’s self? This all relates to something called the fire paradox. This paradox is often used to describe how the fight against naturally reoccurring wildfires just leads to more of them — in greater number and voracity. I also apply it to counterterrorism, especially in the Middle East. Not to say we should not try to slow the rise of terrorism at all, but the way countries like the United States and Israel go about their anti-terrorism efforts is self-defeating and creates more destruction on both sides.

The fire paradox can be applied to the Middle East situation. The Gaza and West Bank problems will not go away until Israel and the US stop trying to destroy what they see as the problem, thus elevating the real problem. It is like with wildfires. Scientific data shows that the more people try to stop and put out wildfires, the greater in extremity and number those fires will be. The term — which I just found out existed after I wrote it down as the title a blog post — "fire paradox" was coined by European scientists launching a project to work on the ecological problem related to fires. This paradox applies to aspects of the situation in the Middle East, especially to what is going on in Iraq and Israel-Palestine. What Israel's decades-old policy does is destroy "terrorists", but the way they go about doing so creates a greater number of these "freedom fighters" who fight harder than ever. In fact, Israel’s policy directly affects perception in the Muslim world of America and, thus, relates to the so-called war on terrorism. The policy also spawns more terrorist movements and support for Islamic extremism.

The Israel-Palestine issue is a central fissure between the Muslim world and the West (i.e. N America and Europe) and connects policy to perception — especially since the US strongly supports Israel in an open manner — to terrorism, then resulting in counterterrorism/war on terror policy and more terror. One thing people can agree on is that "perceived threats to Islam create support for terrorism" (Fair, Haqqani "Think Again: Islamist Terrorism"). Because of the preemptive doctrine of the GWOT, nations and their peoples are even more apprehensive over American military action.

In discussing terrorism and the war on terror, one must also mull over insurgency, especially in areas tied politically to the war on terror, i.e. Iraq and Afghanistan. Those two countries are now hotbeds for terrorist recruitment. Between the sectarian militias fighting each other and the US in civil war-stricken Iraq and the resurgence of the fundamentalist Taliban in Afghanistan who knows how long the battle with insurgent terrorists will last — whether local to where the insurgency is, or even carried by a movement abroad. A notable article on counterinsurgency, which is directly related to counterterrorism and the fire paradox, is "Dead End: Counterinsurgency warfare as military malpractice" by Edward Luttwak.

True, there are the alternative methods and tactics of counterinsurgency warfare, but do they actually work? Insurgents do not always win, but their defeats can rarely be attributed to counterinsurgency warfare, as we shall see.
...
[There's an] essentially political nature of the struggle against insurgents. ... amid the frustrations of fighting a mostly invisible enemy
...
a necessary if not sufficient condition of victory is to provide what the insurgents cannot: basic public services, physical reconstruction, the hope of economic development and social amelioration. The hidden assumption here is that there is only one kind of politics in this world, a politics in which popular support is important or even decisive, and that such support can be won by providing better government. ...many people prefer indigenous and religious oppression to the freedoms offered by foreign invaders [in Iraq or Afghanistan].
…
Instead, they obeyed…who summoned them to fight against the ungodly innovations of the foreign invader. ...That was all that mattered to most…not what was proposed but by whom it was proposed.
…
The vast majority of Afghans and Iraqis naturally believe their religious leaders. The alternative would be to believe what for them is entirely unbelievable: that foreigners are unselfishly expending blood and treasure in order to help them.

Altruism isn't something people can easily be convinced of, especially if the source is a long time 'enemy'. Contrary to popular belief, support for terrorism and jihad may not correlate with poverty as much as previously thought (see Fair, Haqqani), although education and willingness to believe things other than what religious or political authorities tell people does matter.

...
[Insurgents] must have at least the passive cooperation of local inhabitants. …out of sympathy for their cause or in terror of their vengeance...
…
The essentially political advantage of the insurgents in commanding at least the silence of the local population cannot be overcome by technical means no matter how advanced.
...
All its best methods, all its clever tactics, all the treasure and blood that the United States has been willing to expend, cannot overcome the crippling ambivalence of occupiers who refuse to govern, and their principled and inevitable refusal to out-terrorize the insurgents, the necessary and sufficient condition of a tranquil occupation.

The facets of terror

Throughout this month, I will be posting excerpts of my lengthy paper "The War on Terror and the Fire Paradox", as mentioned in this post. Here is one such excerpt...

Perspectives
The facets of terror
How can a rogue group or ideology commit acts of terrorism with major state reaction, but state terrorism yields no such reaction? Is fighting in something you genuinely believe in a crime? How is Islamic extremist recruitment for terrorism different from recruitment to a state military?

Whether fighting the foreign occupiers in Iraq, fighting the western menace from within its own borders, or abroad, there is a new kind of terrorism and no one seems to know what to define it as. Call it an insurgency against the West, call it a rebellious movement, call it pure terrorism.*

They fear the west; westerners fear them. The middlemen? The governments of the West, namely of the US, and the extremist Islamic groups. Terror, terror, terror; fear, fear, fear; counterterrorism, counterterrorism, counterterrorism; fear, fear, fear; terror, terror, terror... We usually think of the extremists as the terrorists; the western governments as the fighters of terrorism.

[What the 'terrorists' (supposedly) do] — [what the US 'war on terror' response is].
They want to invoke fear with their terror — I invoke your fear to fight their terror.
They use terrorism to take away our freedom — I use (counter)terrorism to actually take that freedom away.
They use acts of insurgency against us (e.g. in Iraq) — we shall stay (e.g. in Iraq).
They use terrorism to scare you — I use fear-mongering to my gain to scare you using their terror as an excuse.

Political science expert John Mueller says the terrorist threat has definitely been hyped up since 9/11, no doubt to the political gain of the Bush administration. Not only that, but the endeavors in Iraq and Afghanistan that followed inflamed feelings in the Muslim world even more. Mueller calls the lack of terrorist response on US soil, in which reality has contradicted what those in the White House keep stating, a "myth of the omnipresent enemy". He starts his article, "Is There Still a Terrorist Threat?: The Myth of the Omnipresent Enemy", with:

Despite all the ominous warnings of wily terrorists and imminent attacks, there has been neither a successful strike nor a close call in the United States since 9/11. The reasonable -- but rarely heard -- explanation is that there are no terrorists within the United States, and few have the means or the inclination to strike from abroad.

Mueller boldly concludes his article with:

Although it remains heretical to say so, the evidence so far suggests that fears of the omnipotent terrorist…may have been overblown, the threat presented within the United States by al Qaeda greatly exaggerated. The massive and expensive homeland security apparatus erected since 9/11 may be persecuting some, spying on many, inconveniencing most, and taxing all to defend the United States against an enemy that scarcely exists.

The Bush administration dumbs down all terrorism by labeling it as the evil, generic masses of Islamic extremists that are against the United States in every way. Al Qaeda is seen as a great terrorist enemy, a diabolical organization with cells all around the world. In reality, many experts disagree with the Bush administration view; al Qaeda is more of a movement, an ideology even, than an organization (see Burke in "Think Again: Al Qaeda").

* For the sake of keeping things simple, I will keep the assumed label of 'terrorist' for the extremists — in this case the radical Islamic insurgent terrorists. However, both sides, whether led by George W. Bush or Osama bin Laden, are using fear tactics to garner political support for their respective causes. The ultimate definition of terrorism I will lead up to the reader. However, that is not to say I will not present my clear views on the subject.

See here for a look at terrorism from two different viewpoints: that of the White House and that of the jihad movements.

Multi-voice poem on terrorism...

Throughout this month, I will be posting excerpts of my lengthy paper "The War on Terror and the Fire Paradox", as mentioned in this post. Here is one such excerpt... A multi-voice poem relating to the psychological and personal effects of terror.

'For a minute there, I lost myself'
They attack
I am scared
My government will protect me,
They say.

He felt scared
He felt afraid.
How could his great country,
The most powerful on the face of this heavenly earth,
Be attacked; brought to its knees?

Will I be next?
Will the terrorists kill me?
Why do they hate us?

Who is really threatening my way of life?
Is it the government, those claiming to fight the terrorists;
The terrorists themselves, the evil;
Or me —
Could it be me?
Could I be caving in to the politics of fear?

If he knew fear,
He knew irrationality.
He knew terror,
He knows terror.

In the wake of the attack,
I lost my rationality
I lost my mind,
I was scared
I let fear rule me.
I let the government rule me,
Using my fear of the terrorists and creating their own.
For a minute there, I lost myself.*


* The climactic point of the Radiohead song, "Karma Police".
See also "Why are we obsessed with terrorism?"

American rationality, RIP

Throughout this month, I will be posting excerpts of my lengthy paper "The War on Terror and the Fire Paradox", as mentioned in this post. Here is one such excerpt...

This is a mock obituary lamenting the loss of sense in America. However, as blogged about here, there seems to be more of a loss of sense in those who take part in politics; the general population in America is fairly politically apathetic, and are actually gaining rationality in some instances. However political intelligence is not up too much.

I must have a fancy for fake or fictional obituaries — a while back I mourned the loss of habeas corpus with a song.

Obituary
In memoriam: American rationality
Born ?, died 11 September 2001 in Washington DC, United States. Rationality, RIP.

In between the Cold War — when so-called communists were threatened and persecuted under a blanket of pseudo-security and patriotism by the government — and the 'war on terror', America enjoyed a relatively good dose of rationality. Whenever wartime came around, the government's ears perked up; the powers and freedoms of the people dumbed down.

Whenever those in the corridors of American power declared some type of war against a largely undefined enemy for the sake of some undeclared goal, rationality was on the scene, defending sense and sensibility — and freedom. Rationality stood for that freedom, and she was violently attacked by politicians who's only duty was to themselves and their false premises for their actions.

Why was she persecuted so? Rationality allowed people to think clearly, even about hyped-up matters. Special interests, inflamed causes, strong powers limiting freedom, lies, and especially fear were her worst enemies. She hated the 'us against them', 'with us or against us' mentality that often surrounded her, but fought until the end for the principles that defined her. Her friends — some of which died, in part, when she did — remember her hopes for governmental transparency, her clear, fluid, logic, and the spirit of common sense she carried with her wherever she went.

Rationality was the ultimate patriot; she stood up for her country, even if that meant standing up against her countrymen. The George W. Bush administration is suspected of her murder. International Islamic extremist terrorists are wanted in connection of conspiracy of her murder. No matter how hard they try, however, she will live on.

Terrorism, and often the fallout of terrorism, is the enemy of rationality. Fear presents as an adversary of rationality. At the time of her death, she was uttering the lyrics of "Won't Get Fooled Again" by The Who, and fighting, intellectually of course, the hordes of ignorant pawns praying for her demise. Rationality was and is like a phoenix. She may die out, but some day she will come back. Let's hope that day comes soon.

Defining 'terrorism'...

Throughout this month, I will be posting excerpts of my lengthy paper "The War on Terror and the Fire Paradox", as mentioned in this post. Here is one such excerpt...

We spend so much talking about terrorism — including on this very blog — yet the word itself has many definitions. What are they? Which do we follow? Which should we follow? Before we delve further into the hotbed that is terrorism, maybe we should examine what terrorism is.

Definition
'Terrorism', 'terror', 'terrorist'...
The term 'terrorism' originated from the state-led Reign of Terror following the French Revolution. It is commonly applied to political violence by insurgents, that is, unless the terrorism is perpetrated by the state, in which case it is state terrorism. However, terrorism is a generic word with many applications of acts wishing to incite fear, hence my usage of "terrorist insurgents", "insurgent terrorists", or the like, even if the movement is not concrete (most aren’t).

In addition to its practical usage, the philosophical meaning of 'terrorism' is disputed. One delves into semantics and linguistics, as well as politics and psychology. The Oxford Companion to Philosophy's entry for "terrorism" states it as "a highly emotive, pejorative label" (Gilbert). There are two sides to the broad label. Terrorism can be considered as an "unjust war model", like that of 'freedom fighters' or militant rebels, neither as state actors, for a justified reason, or as a crime that is unique only in the fact that it is politically motivated — to cause fear.

The United Nations, the global body, offers several definitions for terrorism on their UNODC website:

The question of a definition of terrorism has haunted the debate among states for decades. A first attempt to arrive at an internationally acceptable definition was made under the League of Nations, but the convention drafted in 1937 never came into existence. The UN Member States still have no agreed-upon definition. Terminology consensus would, however, be necessary for a single comprehensive convention on terrorism, which some countries favour in place of the present 12 piecemeal conventions and protocols.

The lack of agreement on a definition of terrorism has been a major obstacle to meaningful international countermeasures. Cynics have often commented that one state's "terrorist" is another state's "freedom fighter".
...
4. Academic Consensus Definition:
"Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought" (Schmid, 1988).

The standard dictionary definition for "terrorism" is the use of force or violence to accomplish political motives of change, often against an authority; or the state of fear from the use of terrorism. There is disagreement between the dictionaries — whether it be Webster or American Heritage or Oxford or Random House or WordNet — over the status of 'terrorism' as a criminal act. One issue is that conventional militaries and insurgent forces (the most common use for "terrorist") both use violence as a method of change and to create fear in the enemy, or otherwise.

Terrorism is not of conventional war as we think of it, which defies the premise of a ’war on terror’, which is a political term, even more. By definition, there cannot be a war on terror; and if there is, you cannot fight an ideology. You can fight a specific group or movement of individuals, though using the term ’war’ in that case would still be a big stretch, misleading at least. Justification — not legitimacy — defines how we see terrorism, and how the word is used.

Wikipedia's "Definition of terrorism" entry quotes some convenient texts:

Few words are as politically or emotionally charged as terrorism. A 1988 study by the US Army...counted 109 definitions of terrorism that covered a total of 22 different definitional elements. Terrorism expert Walter Laqueur in 1999 also has counted over 100 definitions and concludes that the "only general characteristic generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence".
...
The Oxford English Dictionary defines terrorism as "a policy intended to strike with terror those against whom it is adopted; the employment of methods of intimidation; the fact of terrorising or condition of being terrorised."

Webster's New International Dictionary defines terrorism as the "act of terrorizing, or state of being terrorized; specif.: a The system of the Reign of Terror. b A mode of governing, or of opposing government, by intimidation. c Any policy of intimidation."

The definition of the term in the Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics (2nd edition) begins: "Term with no agreement amongst government or academic analysts, but almost invariably used in a pejorative sense, most frequently to describe life-threatening actions perpetrated by politically motivated self-appointed sub-state groups."

The American Heritage Dictionary defines terrorism as "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

The Online Etymology Dictionary refers to terrorism as the "systematic use of terror as a policy" and describes the word's origin in the specific sense of "government intimidation during the Reign of Terror in France".

Random House via Dictionary.com:

ter·ror·ism –noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
[Origin: 1785–95; terror + -ism]

Encyclopedia Britannica defines "terrorism" as:

the systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective. Terrorism has been practiced by political organizations with both rightist and leftist objectives, by nationalistic and religious groups, by revolutionaries, and even by state institutions such as armies, intelligence services, and police.

Image is everything? Perception and the 'war on terror'

Throughout this month, I will be posting excerpts of my lengthy paper "The War on Terror and the Fire Paradox", as mentioned in this post. Here is one such excerpt...

Image is everything? Perception and the 'war on terror', in their eyes
How do human rights and other abuses committed in the name of the war on terror tie into the terrorism? Perception: how the world sees the United States and, most importantly, how the moderates in the Muslim world view the US. Instead of just angering moderate Muslim communities — in the US and abroad — the United States should choose policy decisions that limit the perception that the US is after (all) Muslims, which is exactly what the radicals want the moderates to think. In addition, tying ventures like the one in Iraq to any counterterrorism operation only increases the confusion and gives all counterterrorism a bad name.

Sadly, because the United States failed in its plans to bring stability to Iraq following the 2003 invasion, which was under false pretenses, there is now more than ever a need for counterterrorism in Iraq and the wider Middle East. Radicals have been able to garner more popular support from the majority-moderate population. The United States' occupation and perceived targeting of Islam is their scapegoat and rallying cry; the US's scapegoat are the extremists and allegedly extremist-supporting states like Iran.

Not only has the failure in Iraq created more Mid-East instability, it has allowed countries like Iran, a Shia-majority semi-democratic, semi-theocratic country, to enjoy an unprecedented power and hand in their neighbors affairs. At the same time, America is seen as an occupier — a true statement — but also a source of great evil. Islamic extremists see the US as evil; the US sees the Islamic extremists as evil.

Overall, the US has generally refrained from using terrorism — i.e. fear of violence in opposition to gain political power and control — in its efforts to 'win over' the support of the Iraqi people, or scare them into submission. However, things like secret CIA prisons and detention centers like the one at Guantanamo Bay, and the torture tied to many related operations, has hurt the American image abroad and diminished political capital at home.

There have been numerous polls analyzing the popularity of the US. One such poll was created by the BBC, GlobeScan, and PIPA. The global view of the United States is not very positive, and support is eroding. The overall average, from 25 countries polled, resulted in a negative outlook of US influence of about 50 percent; positive outlook was only a bit over 30 percent.


The survey raised some questions, as the BBC's Marcus Jonathan wrote the day the poll's results were released — following President Bush's annual State of the Union address.

This poll underscores conclusions drawn from several other surveys - that anti-Americanism is on the rise, and the more the US flexes its hard power - the more it deploys troops abroad or talks tough diplomatically - the more it seems to weaken its ability to influence the world.

Maybe Washington will bounce back. America's image improved markedly in the post-Vietnam era. But then there was still the Cold War to keep America's allies on-side.
…
Comparable surveys suggest that there is still strong support around the world for the values enshrined in US society. But it looks as though America itself is seen to be living up to those values less and less.

As a result, America's soft power - its ability to influence people in other countries by the force of example and by the perceived legitimacy of its policies - is weakening.

And in a turbulent, globalising world, where the US - rightly or wrongly - is associated by many with the disruptive effects of globalisation, soft power matters more than ever.
…
At root is the problem of legitimacy.
…
It is the Bush administration's handling of the issue that is reflected in this BBC poll; not the policy options themselves. These are complex.
...
The US undoubtedly has an "image-problem", and there are worrying signs that this is having an impact upon the administration's ability to get the policy outcomes that it wants.

One of the wisest writers on these issues is Joseph S Nye, now Dean of the John F Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. He is in many ways "Mr Soft Power", having written and theorised about the phenomenon for many years.

He has long-argued that Americans need to better understand how their policies appear to others.

"To communicate effectively," he has written, "Americans must first learn to listen."

This opinion poll, then, represents a powerful argument for those seeking to make the case that Washington should listen more and try to win over its friends as much by persuasion and force of example as by firm actions and tough rhetoric.

The US government turns a blind eye to regimes that contradict what Bush administration defines as American values (freedom, etc.), and, at the same time, disown democratic countries who disagree with the US's views in their self-gratifying crusade for 'freedom' and against 'terrorism'. This is similar to the politics of the Cold War: 'us against them', 'with us or against us'; having a general, evil enemy at home, which garnered political capital, and supporting regimes with contradictory policies abroad. These foreign policy contradictions, coupled with America striving for authority in any area it think relates to terrorism, make some very angry.

During the Cold War, America was battling 'communism'; nowadays it is fighting 'terrorism'. They could say it is sunny on a cloudy day (or vice versa) and, sadly, many people would believe them. Unconditional support for Israel has not helped others' perceptions of the United States either, not least in the Muslim world, where the terrorist insurgents we are talking about come from.

All of the aforementioned tie into how others view America. A negative PR has strong implications for how US policy affects others. Ultimately, a poor image allows terrorist insurgents to recruit more, or at least get more public support, at a time when too many in the Muslim world think the US is against them — there is, in their eyes at least, little evidence to the contrary.

See also "Why are we obsessed with terrorism?". And a post on the 'fire paradox'.

The original 'fire paradox'

Throughout this month, I will be posting excerpts of my lengthy paper "The War on Terror and the Fire Paradox", as mentioned in this post. Here is one such excerpt...

The original 'fire paradox'
From the Fire Paradox project website:

The fire paradox is visible on every continent. … In Europe, a few years later than North America, it became apparent that a systematically implemented policy of fire exclusion in fact often produces the opposite of the desired effect. It aggravates the overall fire risks, due to an increase in the "protected", accumulating biomass. Based on the experience of a few practitioners and the results of past fire ecology research, the aim of this project is to develop new policies for fire management and forest fire risk reduction, adapted to European constraints.

Many counterterrorism/counterinsurgency efforts just lead to the spread of terrorism and the movement’s growth, much like how the efforts against natural fires only worsens them in the future. Osama Bin Laden is not a tree; but you get my point. Also, the real fire paradox sometimes calls for intentional fire-starting; prescribed burning, if you will. In no way am I saying we should promote terrorism, but many counterterrorism efforts do just that.

While one might be able to lessen the chance and extremity of future wildfires by not using counterintuitive preventative measures, the fight against terrorism is different — and, albeit, more complex. If one does not try to fight (per se) terrorism at all, the terrorism could be about just as bad. That’s why measures other than the ones being used by the Bush administration are needed. Nonetheless, many counterterrorism or moderate counterinsurgency efforts end up feeding into the basic premise of the fire paradox: the counter- efforts only make the original enemy, the thing being countered, worse.

Want a rough background on the paradox? See my first post on it.

Why are we obsessed with terrorism?

Throughout this month, I will be posting excerpts of my lengthy paper "The War on Terror and the Fire Paradox", as mentioned in this post. Here is one such excerpt...

One underlying cause for the terrorism/counterterrorism culture is the public’s obsession with terrorism.

Do you want the ultimate in political change tactics, whether it is terrorism or counterterrorism that causes that change, using fear as a tool? To be able to do so, one must first understand why people are so drawn to terrorism.

Global health, the environment, climate change, poverty, AIDS, water, and other issues are far more pressing than terrorism. It kills relatively few and should be minor in the eyes of the public, right?

Like plane crashes, terrorism is unpredictable, sporadic, spontaneous, sudden, often human-caused, mysterious-seeming; and, unlike plane crashes, unscientific. It has no rationale — or so observers think.

People's obsession with terrorism helps explain why politicians use it against their own people — whether in original terrorism or a spin on the original (i.e. some form of counterterrorism) — and why extremist rebels use it in the first place.

Here is a (partial) list of why people, and their news media, are so attracted to terrorism:

Abstract in nature (like politics and religion);

People cannot grapple with terror like other health/sociological threats;

It is political; ties into human emotion and politics;

Violence and fear (like some crime stories);

Personal attachments (could this happen to me?);

Some sort of sexiness (from all the hype);

Shocking, spontaneous;

Deep connection to inner-psyche (exact cause is unknown, explaining speculation);

Does not develop (like a disease or something like that), unpredictable (things that happen suddenly produce more attraction, coverage);

Human interest (goes psychologically deep);

Accomplishes motives of fear and attention, like martyrs do;

The act of understanding why people use terrorism, or trying to leads to more obsession with terrorism itself;

Superficially evil, perfect villain, but more layers lie beneath (like with an onion);

The change it creates, human obsession with change or lack thereof;

I.e., deals with change — a constant source of human interest;

Unlike many other crimes;

I.e., often committed with no specificity (can have a target, but no intent on target like with a common murder, for instance, in which which the killer has a reason for the death of the specify person they kill);

Just the word "terrorism" is extremely political and emotional, holding strong connotations depending on one's subjective, often political view of the word and the related semantics.

Chart of the fire paradox

Throughout this month, I will be posting excerpts of my lengthy paper "The War on Terror and the Fire Paradox", as mentioned in this post. Here is one such excerpt...

Here is a simplified chart showing the cycle of the fire paradox.




See posts relating to...

terrorism

the fire paradox

the war on terrorism