The Atlantic revives the “terrorists are idiots” meme
Daniel Byman and Christine Fair bring back a pre-9/11 theme, slightly revised for a post-9/11 world: terrorists are stupid and for the most part ineffective.
The spend a lot of time mocking the Taliban’s suicide bombers for sometimes blowing themselves up inadvertently in a group hug before going off to the mission. And of course there’s the famous Christmas bomber, whom they call the “jockstrap jihadist,” whose attempt could be called “crude” in several meanings of the word. The authors also write things like this, “The United States has spent billions on port security since 9/11, even though terrorists have shown little interest in ports as targets and even less ability to actually strike them.”
It reminds me of the perception most of us had of terrorists—their expertise and goals—right up until 9/11. The 1993 attack on the WTC was widely considered to be an example of their glaring and even laughable ineptitude. Forget the fact that 6 people died, or that the original intent of the perpetrators was to bring down the towers, and that some experts even said that, if the placement of the bomb had been better, they might have succeeded. What was emphasized instead was the almost comical fact that the terrorist who had rented the van in which the bombs were placed subsequently reported it stolen and came back to claim his deposit; that’s how he was caught.
What a bunch of rubes! The Keystone Cops of terrorists—although they got the last laugh, only eight years later.
To be fair to Byman and—umm–Fair, they make the point that emphasizing terrorists’ ineptitude might be good propaganda to discredit the jihadi cause and make fewer people likely to be attracted to it. I’m not at all sure, though; it certainly didn’t work between 1993 and 2001. The terrorists were ridiculed plenty during that period, and it only seems to have caused them to step up the recruiting efforts and raise their game, culminating in 9/11.
It also might just be that efforts such as those aimed at protecting ports, which Byman and Fair see as wasted effort, have been part of the reason terrorists haven’t struck there. It’s a bit like a burglar alarm—thieves will go for the softer target, the house without protection.
Which goes to show that not all thieves are dumb. The successful ones are certainly not—as the surprisingly spectacular and previously unprecedented success and scope of the 9/11 attacks showed.
Obviously, if Muslim terrorists are a bunch of inept, bumbling, boobs then we do not need to spend any real thought on them, or need to urgently understand and combat the ideology of Islam that motivates, justifies, and gives religious approval for their terrorism, or to understand, either, their strategy, tactics, and methods, and we certainly don’t need to expend any more tax dollars on programs designed to prevent their inept and usually unsuccessful terrorist attacks, or to track the obviously incompetent nut jobs down and prosecute them because, we obviously have higher priorities, like more food stamps and unemployment benefits, and free cell phones for welfare recipients.
The refutation to this entire line of thought can be found at (http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ )
where this hour’s conservative and incomplete estimate of the total number of Muslim terrorist attacks world-wide since 9/11 stands at 17,578, and will inexorably climb higher by the hour and the day–you might pause a moment and study some of detailed reports of the results of these inept bumblers attacks, grisly, blood soaked pictures included.
Terrorist may be stupid but thats plenty sufficient with democrats in power.
All the terrorist have to be is equal to or less than as stupid as their opponents.
Genius level is not need…slightly smarter than terrorists is sufficient.
But there’s little of that exhibited by the TSA folk. Just remember the last time you were flying somewhere…
Byman is a smart guy, though perhaps too smart, as often happens with Brookings-types such as himself. I didn’t even realize until I checked that I’ve read two of his books, “Things Fall Apart” and “Deadly Connections.”
The former was an attempt at penance along with Ken Pollock for supporting the Iraq War, about how to contain a civil war in Iraq. Unfortunately for the book, it was published just as the Surge was beginning to take effect, so it was instantly obsolete. The book presupposed that Iraq was a failure, so reading it now makes for a rare moment of levity in a situation that isn’t funny.
The latter book was about the relations of states to terrorism, and it was decent – loaded with information, in any case. Still, his basic argument was (once you peeled under the surface) that the Bush notion of categorically opposing state sponsors is simple-minded, because there are what Byman calls “passive sponsors,” i.e. states that are weak and tolerate terrorists on their soil because they have no choice. Good examples of this are Albania, Mali, and Thailand.
As if Bush was considering going to war with Thailand.
Guys like Byman – and his colleague Pollack – are the sorts that cannot abide any actual policy once it gets going, even if it’s one they advocate, because the execution will inevitably be messy, fraught, and rife with error and miscalculation.
See, we just don’t understand the complexity and nuance of every situation down to the curves of every fractal, we don’t understand that the civil war in Iraq is upon us, we don’t understand that we shouldn’t articulate a line of opposition to state sponsors, and we don’t understand that terrorists are for the most part just Rabelaisian buffoons.
There’s a word for people who think like this: Pettifoggers. And the eternal problem with pettifoggers is that they are prone to drawing holistic lessons from specific, partial truths – e.g., it IS true that most terrorists are incompetent morons; but absolutely nothing follows policy-wise from this, except, of course, that we should concentrate our resources where the biggest threats are, which everyone knows already. In philosophy we have a term for pettifogging logic that sums parts into wholes: “the mereological fallacy.”
It’s the same deal with materialist types who note that dopamine spikes in certain receptors associated with eating chocolate also occur when one feels “in love.” They then conclude, as the Satan did in the Devil’s Advocate:
“Love? Overrated. Biologically no different from eating large quantities of chocolate.”
Byman is in effect saying:
“Terrorism? Overrated. In practice no different from taking a bunch of retards and handing them weapons.”
It doesn’t follow from neurochemistry that love is just as valuable as eating chocolate simply because the brain activities of the two are similar. And it certainly doesn’t follow from the moronism of most terrorists that the threat of terrorism is laughable. For it is so much more than a terror problem.
Terrorism is symptom of a sick culture and a sick ideology, and that is the principal problem we are dealing with. The sickness infects the mind, and terrorism (laughable or not) is a sign that the process is far advanced. No laughing matter, that.
http://www.pettifoggersinternational.com/search.asp
We are fortunate that al Qaeda has been interested in the big, splashy headline catching terrorist strikes. Khobar Towers, USS Cole, 9/11, London and Madrid subway, and Mumbai attacks.
They could have had us twisted into knots if they had struck at the interstate highway system and our rail infrastructure. But no, that’s not splashy enough, not enough blood.
A dozen sniper pairs, spaced around the country like the D.C. shooters, would have shut our entire economy down as people would have been afraid to leave their houses.
People like Byman and Fair are beyond idiotic. They are actually dangerous to Western Civilization. They seem to be unaware of the tactic of “razzia” which has been in use for over 1000 years. If each jihadi kills just two infidels along with himself, eventually the Earth will be cleansed of infidels.
I was living in N. VA during the DC sniper attacks. They were not only effective at killing people for weeks while eluding authorities, they managed to make fools out of all of the so-called experts and the media.
We were told again and again that this must be the act of a lone, white male, former military, with a grudge against the government (i.e. McVeigh II). No one would consider the possibility that this was the act of a lone Muslim-convert jihadi and his illegal immigrant apprentice with the unfortunate characteristics of being non-white.
Oh, and the experts and the media bent over backwards to not call it terrorism after they were captured (they used the excuse that this was not coordinated w/AQ, so it couldn’t be terrorism). Having experienced the terror firsthand, I can assure you it was terrorism, and these guys were not clowns.
I will probably take some flack for this, but this reminds of Bill Maher’s comment about the 911 terrorist being brave-or not cowards-which is one of few times I actually agreed with him.
I also think the Japanese Zero suicide pilots were brave in their own way also.
Both brave, but also wrong (especially the 911 guys).
I dont think aknowledging an enemies bravery is the same as agreeing with his goals.
Rather it is a necessary part of understanding your enemy, in order to defeat him.
Same with GWBs lie that Islam is a Religion of Peace.
An honest assesment of our enemy shows that Islam is not a peaceful religion. Just ask Christian missionaries in the middle east, or converts from Islam what their families often do…
I think it is fair to say terrorists are idiots. Even the ones who perpetrated the attacks on 9/11. Don’t forget there was a fourth plane. The passengers of UA flight 93 self-organized within a matter of minutes and likely prevented an attack on the White House or the Capitol. The terrorists were stopped a mere few hours after the first plane hit the WTC. To me that ability to adapt quickly is genius and shows just how stupid the terrorists were by comparison.
terrorists are stupid and for the most part ineffective
No wonder liberals identify with them.
We are fortunate that al Qaeda has been interested in the big, splashy headline catching terrorist strikes. Khobar Towers, USS Cole, 9/11, London and Madrid subway, and Mumbai attacks.
Hollywood. Hollywood has to be a primo target. Taking out the Academy Awards ceremony would generate a gargantuan splash, and pose a profound dilemma for me.
Occam:
There was a saying here in Berks County, PA during World War II.
“If the Luftwaffe comes to bomb Pennsylvania…head for Berks County….they won’t bomb their friends and allies.”
Same thing holds for Hollywood…Al-Q won’t harm their friends and allies.
You don’t have to be smart to be deadly.
If they were smart, they’d be far more dangerous– a part of why 9/11 worked was because of the incredibly stupid belief that not attacking the terrorists was the best way to survive. Look at Norway– what kind of mindset puts a crud ton of people in a place WITHOUT any defense on site in this day and age?! (The same sort that make “gun free zones” here, actually….)
Some of what we see as “stupid” when looking at the terrorists is just a different set of goals– if my husband were in charge of a terrorist group, it would be terrifying and effective, but it wouldn’t make the type of impact that the terrorists are looking for. Sort of like the discussion a week or two back on the effects of a well-thought-out attack on a military base, or– since the ten year anniversary is coming up– the strategic worries we discussed in bootcamp after 9/11, when we realized that a smart terrorist would strike the supply chain of the military, people are the #1 supply, and security SUCKED.
(A lot of this stuff has been fixed, thankfully– you can’t get away with walking up to a place and leaving a backpack, you can’t walk in the back of Navy bootcamp anymore, janitorial staff has ID, etc.)
After 9/11 I was designated as a regional first responder (radiation safety ‘expert’) by my employer. (Lucky me.) As a member of the team I learned of the various scenarios being gamed at the time by FEMA & DOD. Teams of suicide bombers, snipers along interstate highways, and saboteurs of rail lines and ports were considered the ultimate threat beyond what could be achieved by dirty bombs, bio-warfare, or hijacking airplanes to serve as missiles.
I continue to think these sorts of attacks would have the greatest potential of paralyzing the country. So far we have been lucky because the jihadists are focused on the ‘big one’. Sooner or later they will bring to us what the Israelis live with everyday.
Speaking of Israelis…
I’m reminded very strongly of ‘the concept’, which was the name given (circa 1970) to Israel’s contempt for the fighting prowess and intelligence of Arab armies.
Israel can be forgiven for feeling this way — she had just won the Six-Day-War, after all, in which a very real existential threat was turned around, Israel’s territory quadrupled in size, and Jordan, Syria, and Egypt all went from trumpeting Israel’s destruction to suing for peace, all in six days.
(And, as is often forgotten, during those six days Israel sustained a high percentage of casualties — twice the percentage the United States would lose during the entire Vietnam War.)
So ‘the concept’ was perhaps understandable, but it cost Israel dearly. The result was a surprise attack in 1973 that caught Israel completely off guard, cost several times the number of casualties of 1967, and left Israel within a hair’s breadth of losing everything, more than once.
So far as I know, Israel has not forgotten the hard-learned lessons of 1973. We would be wise to follow their example. If we assume that all terrorists are idiots — just because most of them are — then we are ripe for the handful who are not idiots, who will no doubt see 9/11 as a starting point.
respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline
I can’t decide: are they urging complacency to justify Obama gutting the nation’s defense, or are they urging complacency in the hope that it will help terrorists attack us?
Parker,
“Sooner or later they will bring to us what the Israelis live with everyday.”
It will not be to your credit, just as it is not to our (Israeli Jews’) credit that we are living so today.
A certain Jewish religio-political figure in Israel had the idea of removing the terrorist threat by removing (forcibly relocating) the population from which 100% of the instances of that threat comes. He was banned from public participation in politics, together with his very idea, on the charge of (drum roll, please) “racism.”
I see the rest of the free world going the same way, and that doesn’t bode well.
brownstone boom ny ayers…
The Left are allied with the Islamic terrorists. Why wouldn’t the Left attempt to lower the awareness level on the domestic side. It would benefit both sides of their alliance.