Terrorism: Lessons of Terror and Iraq

I am frequently asked to comment on the war in Iraq, and give audiences hope that an easy solution will be found to bring peace to that country. I usually answer that there is no simple cause for the war(s) and there is no simple solution. My standard comment is that the tribes have been conflict for thousands of years, and that the basic issue is that of power.

Those people/family/tribe/clan/alliance with power want to keep it, and those without power want to take it away from those who do have it.

There cannot be a lasting peace between warring factions until all sides understand that continued war is NOT in their best interest.
For details, see the brilliant article by Leonard Wantchekon (2004)
"The Paradox of 'Warlord' Democracy: A Theoretical Investigation" in American Political Science Review, Vol. 98, No. 1 (February), p. 21.

Whether limited war, or unlimited war, there can be no peace until all parties agree that continued death and destruction will not help either cause.

I read today,
The Lessons of Terror: A History of Warfare against civilians: Why it has always failed and why it will fail again, by Caleb Carr.

The lessons of history seem to be ignored by those who accept that civilian death and destruction, whether intentional or "collateral", only strengthens resistance and LOSS of popular support for those who kill.

Terrorism is war because it has a political objective. Terrorism is unlimited warfare because it uses violence against civilians to cause an enemy government to weaken and to promote popular support among its support base. According to Dr. Carr, terrorism always fails because resentment and resistance grow when civilians are mistreated. And, terrorism will stop only when it is starved of support, or when its leaders (alone) are removed. When violence against terrorist actors spills over into non-combatants' lives, then support for those terrorists will increase.

Such unlimited war, according to Carr, has two distinctives:
1. refusal to acknowledge any distinction between soldiers and civilians, and
2. a willingness to target civilians.

And, "war" is when there is a de facto state of hostile international relations, rather than a legalistic one. In other words, if there is evidence of warfare, then there exists war.

In Iraq, then, acts of terror must be countered by reducing support for the terrorists by their sponsoring states or organizations, and by reducing support by their harboring communities in Iraq by increasing the benefits received for not supporting them.

Peace might be bought, but it cannot be bombed or gunned into existence.

Living here in Montgomery, Alabama, the memory of "the first widespread unlimited war" is evident. The memories include horrendous destruction of civilian life and property (apparently General Sherman claimed that of the 100 million dollars of damage done by his troops in Georgia, only 20 million "inured to our advantage" ), that did not lessen popular support on both sides, but instead strengthened the resistance and the will to overcome. And, in the 1960s, oppression of dissenters only solidified commitment to change and resistance to oppression.

  "Seek wisdom, and with all your seeking, seek understanding."

From Carr, pgs 22-23:
"...the most essential truth about warfare civilians: that when waged without provocation it usually brings on retaliation in kind, and when turned to for retaliatory purposes it only perpetuates a cycle of revenge and outrage that can go on for generations...The cruelties inflicted by the Roman army achieved only the creation and perpetuation of underlying bitterness, which could simmer and finally boil over into open support for rebellious leaders who urged a return to more traditional tribal societies."  and "...a nation must never think that it can use (and especially train) the agents of terror when convenient and then be rid of them when they are no longer needed."

page 16:  "Terrorism will be eradicated not when we come to some sort of accomodation with its agents, nor when we physically destroy them, but rather when it is perceived as a strategy and behavior that yields nothing save eventual defeat for those cases that inspire it..

safe mode