Suicide Terrorism - nothing new to see here folks, move along...

Is there anything new, after the many (many) papers, studies and books over the last 8 years, to say about the tactic of suicide terrorism?

Judging by this recent article, http://www.terrorismanalysts.com/pt/index.php?option=com_rokzine&view=article&id=71&Itemid=54
on the Perspectives on Terrorism site (www.terrorismanalysts.com/pt/) , the answer is “No, not really”.

The authors state:

The strategic goals most often associated with suicide operations are the following:
1. Expulsion of foreign occupying forces;
2. Obtaining national independence;
3. Destabilization or replacement of a political regime;
4. Intensification of a violent conflict in progress;
5. Interruption of some process of peaceful solutions for a political, ethnic or religious conflict.

Strange, but don’t those goals fit a lot of conflicts that never had a single suicide attack ?
(N Ireland; Rhodesia; Mozambique; Angola; Palestine – no, the earlier one, by Jewish terrorists; the Balkans; etc.)

Then, they go on to look at advantages to the terrorist groups using the tactic:

High lethality. Well… er, possibly, but many attacks have few fatalities (second bomber in Jakarta the other week got two victims – he would have been better off with a baseball bat and a screwdriver). And some have none (anyone remember the idiots who attacked the US consulate in Algiers a couple of years ago? See http://www.nzherald.co.nz/algeria/news/article.cfm?l_id=466&objectid=10434500 )


Facilitates access to certain well-protected and high value political, military or symbolic targets. “For example, political leaders or public buildings.” – Yeah. Maybe. But if you can get close to the target with explosive and blow yourself up, doesn’t it follow you can get close to the target and, well, not blow yourself up ? Like, throw the damn bomb ? Place it under the table and walk out [Valkyrie, anyone ?], or just shoot or stab the target(s) ?

Precision guaranteed by means of the attacks. Sound reasonable? Strange, then, that they contradict it by saying “Even if the suicide bomber would be stopped by a security force, he/she could still activate the explosive and cause some damage.” Hmm, some damage. Mortars, missiles and large-calibre rounds (I’m meaning from HMG up to light artillery) don’t get "stopped by security". That’s real “guaranteed precision”.

Simplification of the attacks and risk reduction. Really ? How many attacks have been detected, due to the high stress on the operative(s); how many detonated to no effect (see Algiers, above); and how many simply changed their minds and walked or ran away ?

They then present a neat little diagram on ‘motivational processes' that looks pretty much like the factors for terrorism in general, and further go on to rehash long established views on ‘martyrdom operations’.

Have to take issue with one throwaway line in that latter part tho’: in Higher contrast of identities between insurgents and their adversaries and targets, they say “indeed, that is the reason why suicide attacks against military personnel or senior officials gain a stronger social support that those attacks carried out against civilians”.
Does that seem unusual to you? Don’t we also feel differently when we hear that airstrikes in Afghanistan have actually killed Taliban or AQ fighters, rather than ordinary men, women and children at a family gathering ? That’s a perfectly natural response, so why comment on it ?

It gets worse.

In the appealingly-titled Defensive Measures section [well, I had high hopes when I saw it], we get: “Defensive measures try to keep suicide bombers from reaching their targets. These include the erection of physical barriers, the installation of cameras and surveillance systems …” – my emphasis. Going by the number of CCTV videos we’ve seen of “martyrs” detonating, cameras and all don’t mean a hell of a lot to a suicidal bomber !

And then, in the next section on military measures: “using firearms to repel the approach of car-bombs..” Really ? Kill the driver, knock the vehicle off-course, detonate it if you get a lucky hit - those I can see. But "repel" ? Not so much. If I’m driving a big bomb to kill you infidels, and it’s going to kill me also, then being “repelled” by your decadent Western bullets isn’t gonna happen, believe me.

Okay, unless someone has something really new on suicide terrorism, or - better yet - on how to combat it, can we all just shut up about it please?

That’s it. Rant over.
(you want to rant ? get your own blog – it’s very therapeutic :-)

Only a few days into this blog and I’m beginning to feel that us non-academics may just have something useful to contribute to (practical) debate about terrorism.
(There’s probably a good PhD thesis in examining the growth of the academic study of terrorism since 9/11, and how much real value has actually accrued as a result. As opposed to, say, metrics like: how many papers produced, theses written, degrees gained, book advances secured, TV interviews given, etc., etc.)

Not that there isn't a place for Ivory Towers...