Why do terrorists stop?
posted at 9:30 am on March 24, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Michael Jacobson asks why some high-profile terrorist attacks didn’t happen, and relates how defections and resignations plague even the most extreme terror organizations — and the petty reasons why. One terrorist quit the follow-up to the 9/11 attacks because he tired of the extremism. Another al-Qaeda terrorist quit because Osama bin Laden wouldn’t pay for his wife’s C-section. Jacobson wants us to find a pattern that we can use to defuse the biggest weapons AQ and other terror groups have:
Why do some terrorists drop out? We rightly think of al-Qaeda and other jihadist groups as formidable foes, but the stories of would-be killers who bail give us some intriguing clues about fault lines that counterterrorism officials should exploit. The reasons for a change of heart can be strikingly prosaic: family, money, petty grievances. But they can also revolve around shaken ideology or lost faith in a group’s leadership.
It’s become a truism of counterterrorism that we must understand how and why individuals become jihadists in the first place. But almost nobody is studying the flip side of radicalization — understanding those who leave terrorist organizations. We’d do well to start. Figuring out why individuals walk away from terrorist groups can help governments predict whether an individual — or even a cell — is likely to go through with a plot. Understanding the dropouts should also make it easier for governments to determine which terrorists might be induced to switch sides, help stop radicalization and craft messages that could peel away people already in terrorist organizations. The more we know about why terrorists bail, the better we can fight them.
So where to start? Despite al-Qaeda’s reputation for ferocity and secrecy, plenty of wannabes wind up dropping out from it and its affiliates[.]
One obvious point comes from Jacobson’s essay, although Jacobson doesn’t offer a way to capitalize on it. AQ handlers impress on their suicide jihadists to keep from contacting their families. Jacobson notes that Ziad Jarrah, who piloted United 93 on 9/11, almost dropped out of the plot because of his relationship with his German fiancée. Ramzi Binalshibh had to talk him into staying in the plot, but another potential member dropped out when he returned to his family in Saudi Arabia after leaving the training camp in Afghanistan. Family ties, therefore, should provide a means to negating the attraction to the nihilistic strain of Islam.
But how could the US leverage that? We can’t. Even though it is the most effective manner in disarming the human time bombs produced by terrorist training camps in Pakistan and Afghanistan, the US has little influence on whether jihadists contact their families, or even whether the families would want to disarm their brainwashed members if they made contact. That leaves us with other methods of squeezing the terrorist groups, especially financially but also operationally.
Here we can have some direct impact. The loss of funds makes it harder for AQ and other organizations to pay their people, and that creates dissent. One early AQ member “fumed” over the lack of compensation he received and began embezzling from Osama. When Osama demanded restitution, Jamal Ahmed al-Fadl — who at one point tried to acquire uranium for AQ — went on the run, fearing for his life. L’Houssaine Kerchtou wanted to kill bin Laden when he got turned down for the $500 reimbursement for his wife’s C-section in Morocco.
Others have left over tactics and lack of success. Osama’s own son Omar left after 9/11, asking what good the mass murder had accomplished, telling a journalist that the organization consisted of “dummies”. Another AQ leader left during the Afghan jihad, resentful that people with less military experience than himself were in command and botching the job in late 2001. Failure breeds resentment and a lack of confidence in leadership.
Jacobson wonders whether we can learn from these lessons, but in fact we already have. It shows that terrorists don’t stop when people surrender; rather, they stop when they start losing. The myth that fighting terrorists breeds more terrorists ends with Jacobson’s essay. If we cut off their funds, kill them on the field, and stop their attacks before they begin, terrorists get the message. It won’t stop the Osamas and the Baitullah Mehsuds, but it eventually cuts them off from their recruiting base and their experienced underlings. It takes longer than some attention spans can handle, but that is the path to victory for the West.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Stress caused by the unknown whereabouts of Predator drones and their Hellfire missiles can wear on ya.
Akzed on March 24, 2008 at 9:36 AM
What are you saying Ed, a sit down chit-chat with the terrorists isn’t the answer?
Obama wants equal time for a rebuttal.
fogw on March 24, 2008 at 9:51 AM
Hey, I have an idea. Why don’t American citizens stop using illegal drugs which create a large part of terrorist cash flow? Would that help?
a capella on March 24, 2008 at 9:52 AM
To me, it seems that there is no “honor among thieves”. These are wicked folk, & they can rebel or betray one another for the most petty of reasons.
jgapinoy on March 24, 2008 at 9:55 AM
kill every jihadist we come across, then negotiate…..sounds like a reasonable plan to me
pmoshields on March 24, 2008 at 9:55 AM
That won’t happen in the future if Obama or Clinton get their way in nationalizing healthcare! Imagine having to quit one’s job just because the employer won’t pay for basic health coverage. I can just imagine the terrorist hitting the campaign trail for Hillary talking of his woes. ;-0
highhopes on March 24, 2008 at 9:56 AM
I say “kill’em all and let Allah sort’em out!”
kcd on March 24, 2008 at 10:03 AM
your options are,
A; ‘Martyr yourself’
B; ‘Die in the streets for your cause’
bright side, lots of room for advancement
DaveC on March 24, 2008 at 10:05 AM
i blame bush
jp on March 24, 2008 at 10:12 AM
strangle the funding enough that the families get their ‘remittance’ check cut out so that AQ can still make their budget..
If the word gets out that AQ isn’t making the payments to the widows and orphans anymore, that should make someone think twice for the ‘Final Recruitment’ if he thinks his family wouldn’t get any money..
that would require a GWOT on the banking level..
DaveC on March 24, 2008 at 10:15 AM
“Know thy enemy.”
During WWII, an American analyst correctly predicted Hitler’s self imposed seclusion and eventual suicide if a German military defeat was imminent. I would think the more insignificant OBL becomes the more desperate he will get and perhaps get a splodey-belt of his very own… Nah, on second thought, cowards like these tend to let others do the dying for “the cause”. Must be ‘killing’ him though to be so negligible.
Swinehound on March 24, 2008 at 10:26 AM
B. H. Liddel Hart’s Strategy is based on historical studies showing that defeat lies in the enemies mind, not his bodies.
See Sun Tzu, also.
N. O'Brain on March 24, 2008 at 10:27 AM
Great idea! Let’s legalise them so we can produce our own!
LimeyGeek on March 24, 2008 at 10:39 AM
My thought exactly :) As long as there’s demand, you won’t get rid of the supply by making it illegal. But you CAN lower the price by increasing the supply, and you can easily create a monopoly on sales if you criminalize non-approved sources. Simple economics, really.
c6gunner on March 24, 2008 at 10:55 AM
This is an extremely significant point. I’m surprised that haven’t been more comments. When we think about the war with Islam, we need to take into account the social dynamics of terrorist organizations.
thuja on March 24, 2008 at 10:56 AM
Like jihadi cookouts? Dhimmi knitting circles?
LimeyGeek on March 24, 2008 at 11:00 AM
I was sorta referring to the sacrifices folks made in World War II. Liberty gardens, food item, clothing, and tire rationing,..stuff like that. Doing without. Guess I was suggesting too much of a sacrifice,..to quit breaking the law and financing the enemy. That could be done immediately if we had the will. Oh well.
a capella on March 24, 2008 at 11:12 AM
Ending Islamic terrorism is pretty much all conservatives ever think about.
…But this is apparently the first time it’s ever ever even crossed a liberal’s mind. That’s because iberals consider such thinking defeatism.
logis on March 24, 2008 at 11:19 AM
When they meet implacable resistance and gain only death, they stop.
The rest is soothing and distracting psychobabble.
profitsbeard on March 24, 2008 at 11:20 AM
Beat me to it!
mymanpotsandpans on March 24, 2008 at 11:35 AM
As they are concerned about their families and/or do it for family honour, what if the family are made to suffer if they succeed? They(jihadis) seem to like leaving behind martyrdom videos/letters, what if they knew that killing infidels would cost them their parents, wives, kids and/or siblings?
I know, I know, this sounds really nasty to our PC civilization, but direct repercussions would eliminate the “Honour” of what their doing by being directly responsible for the elimination of their entire family. It might piss them off but they would sure think 2,3,4,5 times before committing to a “martyrdom” operation if the entire family got martyred at the same time. Just a thought.
cdn.infidel on March 24, 2008 at 11:50 AM
We could do much the same thing when torturing captives too. Drag the wife in and pulverise her before his eyes.
Refer to Saddam for handy tips’n'tricks.
LimeyGeek on March 24, 2008 at 12:10 PM
I have a feeling an assload of iPhones might do the trick.
Chuck Schick on March 24, 2008 at 12:29 PM
The Israelis are kinda doing that: suicide bombers get their houses demolished. This is a known policy, so when Ahmed puts on the dynamite belt, he knows that he’s not just making his wife a widow and his child an orphan, but he’s also making them homeless. Sadly, it hasn’t been a very effective deterrent. Perhaps it’s because the community feels that the punishment is unfair (usually the wife is not privy to the suicide bomber’s decision) and they step in to take care of the family.
factoid on March 24, 2008 at 1:04 PM
Entelechy on March 24, 2008 at 1:13 PM
If you really love your wife and children, wouldn’t you consider it a bonus if you could take them along on the fast track to Paradise? Under the current system the deal is, you blow yourself up and get to dine at the right hand of the Prophet (PBUN) while the wife and children are left destitute, without a man to take care of them. Under the system you are proposing, you would earn a family trip to the happy afterlife.
factoid on March 24, 2008 at 1:14 PM
Do you really think so? I ‘m of the mind that these freaks have some weird relationship with their mommies. And if the parents, sibling and children were taken out they’d really be hesitant cause it would mean listening to mommy complaining for eternity.
cdn.infidel on March 24, 2008 at 2:04 PM
Gee, I wonder why the Left in the US constantly tries to reduce parental rights (abortion on demand for 13 yr old girls without parental consent, teaching the use of condoms to middle school kids without parental consent…)
Nothing like reducing the bonds of family to create a controlled membership to a cult.
Montana on March 24, 2008 at 2:45 PM
Remember when Hezbollah used to carry out suicide bombings? As soon as Israel was driven out of Lebanon, the suicide bombings stopped. Stop the occupation, the suicide bombing stops. Same works in reverse. Suicide bombing was unknown in Iraq and Afganistan before the US occupation. Now there are plenty of suicide bombings in both those countries.
How simple.
dave742 on March 24, 2008 at 2:58 PM
It really is simple isn’t it? What do we do if they try it here? Oh, that’s right,..they already did. With airplanes.
a capella on March 24, 2008 at 3:28 PM
“Eh, I just don`t feel like going on jihad today.”
ThePrez on March 24, 2008 at 4:21 PM
First of all, there is absolutely no evidence that OBL was responsible for 9/11. Remember when Powell promised to come out with a “white paper” outllining the evidence against OBL? Never happened. The UK government did put out a paper outlining the evidence. Ever see it? Take a look:
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1579043.stm
It’s a joke. There is no evidence. OBL would be acquitted in 3 days in a fair trial. But let’s say OBL did do it, the answer to your above question would remain the same. Stop occupying other countries, and stop giving unconditional support to Israel to do the same. Still simple.
dave742 on March 24, 2008 at 4:28 PM
I thank Bush.
ocbrat on March 24, 2008 at 6:03 PM
b/c they’re dead
ocbrat on March 24, 2008 at 6:03 PM
Ahoooga…ahoooga…!
9-11 conspiracy moonbat - terrorist apologist alert!
Liberty or Death on March 24, 2008 at 6:19 PM