Why Appeasement Doesn't Work Either (was Re: OpinionJournal - Best of the Web Today - July 12, 2007)

[R.A. Hettinga]

At 4:39 PM -0400 7/12/07, OpinionJournal wrote:
>Why Appeasement Doesn't Work Either
>http://www.wired.com/politics/security/commentary/securitymatters/2007/07/securitymatters_0712
>
>
>Writing at Wired.com, Bruce Schneier makes a counterintuitive but
>fascinating argument that draws on an academic paper by Max Abrahms titled
>" Why Terrorism Does Not Work
>http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/isec.2006.31.2.42?cookieSet=1
>." As Schneier sums it up, people have a "cognitive bias" that leads them
>to an erroneous conclusion about the motives of terrorists:
>
>*** QUOTE ***
>
>Because terrorism often results in the horrific deaths of innocents, we
>mistakenly infer that the horrific deaths of innocents is the primary
>motivation of the terrorist, and not the means to a different end. . . .
>
>[Abrahms] analyzes the political motivations of 28 terrorist groups: the
>complete list of "foreign terrorist organizations" designated by the U.S.
>Department of State since 2001. He lists 42 policy objectives of those
>groups, and found that they only achieved them 7 percent of the time. . .
>. Terrorism is a pretty ineffective means of influencing policy. . . .
>
>This theory explains, with a clarity I have never seen before, why so many
>people make the bizarre claim that al Qaeda terrorism--or Islamic
>terrorism in general--is "different": that while other terrorist groups
>might have policy objectives, al Qaeda's primary motivation is to kill us
>all. This is something we have heard from President Bush again and
>again--Abrams [sic] has a page of examples in the paper--and is a
>rhetorical staple in the debate. . . .
>
>Since Bin Laden caused the death of a couple of thousand people in the
>9/11 attacks, people assume that must have been his actual goal, and he's
>just giving lip service to what he claims are his goals. Even Bin Laden's
>actual objectives are ignored as people focus on the deaths, the
>destruction and the economic impact.
>
>Perversely, Bush's misinterpretation of terrorists' motives actually helps
>prevent them from achieving their goals.
>
>*** END QUOTE ***
>
>What's really perverse, though, is the conclusion that Schneier draws from
>all this:
>
>*** QUOTE ***
>
>None of this is meant to either excuse or justify terrorism. In fact, it
>does the exact opposite, by demonstrating why terrorism doesn't work as a
>tool of persuasion and policy change. But we're more effective at fighting
>terrorism if we understand that it is a means to an end and not an end in
>itself; it requires us to understand the true motivations of the
>terrorists and not just their particular tactics. And the more our own
>cognitive biases cloud that understanding, the more we mischaracterize the
>threat and make bad security trade-offs.
>
>*** END QUOTE ***
>
>But wait. According to Schneier, terrorism doesn't work because our
>cognitive biases cloud our understanding. If we developed a clearer
>understanding, in this view, we would focus more on terrorists' stated
>goals. Surely this would, at least in some cases, lead us to accede to
>terrorists' demands so as to appease them.
>
>Result: Terrorism would have a higher success rate. Surely this would not
>escape the notice of people with political grievances, who would become
>more likely to employ terrorism to realize their goals. If indeed what
>Schneier offers is clarity, it is accompanied by the strongest argument
>we've ever heard for opacity.
>

-- 
-----------------
R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah at ibuc.com>
The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/>
44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'