I think we all agree with this. The question is whose thoughts will give you this information, the terrorists, or the moderates? Do you think it is neccessary to understand the terrorists’ motivations for their acts in order to understand the moderates’ motivations for supporting them?
Wring
I think we all agree with this. The question is whose thoughts will give you this information, the terrorists, or the moderates? Do you think it is neccessary to understand the terrorists’ motivations for their acts in order to understand the moderates’ motivations for supporting them?
I guess my response to that would be that you’d have difficulty understanding one w/o the other.
And it is a very good point. It has nothing in particular to do with further investigations into the motivations of the particular terrorists in question, though. You are certainly welcome to raise whatever points you would like to in my threads, but I do wish that you would not phrase them in opposition to mine when they are in fact functionally independent.
Indeed. Depending upon whose reports you believe, he still has widespread support. If anything, this points out the danger of discussing moderate Muslims in teh Middle East as if they were any more monolithic an entity than “radical Muslims” or “Muslims”.
Well, no, but only because of teh problems with discussing moderate Muslims of the region as if they all shared the same perceptions, attitudes, and goals. That might be a quibble, since we have not really been discussing this aspect of the problem in detail–then again, I wasn’t discussing it at all in my OP, so if we are going to shift the context of teh discussion we might as well do it right.
Yep. And after 9/11.
Are we? We have found points on which we agree. Those points are independent of the point I made with which you initially disagreed, though I suspect that you may disagree with that assessment. Agreed?
I disagree. (Come on–who didn’t see that coming? ;))
The depth and details of the terrorists’ perceptions, motivations, and ideals are absolutely irrelevant to the attitudes, perceptions, reactions, etc. of anyone who is not one of the terrorists. If we want to know how Abdul teh shopkeeper will react to an action on the part of Terrorist Omar, we need to understand how Abdul perceives Omar, not what Omar wants in his heart of hearts.
Omar might actually want personal glory, a faithful wife, 3 blocks of Afghan black, and a live sattelite feed for the Stanley Cup. But if Abdul perceives Omar as a holy warrior defending an idealized Islam from Yankee imperialists, then we had better pay attention to Abdul’s illusions, not Omar’s reality. The same holds true if the “illusion” is reversed. Omar’s actual motives are irrelevant. Only the way Omar is perceived matters to us now.
OK Spiritus* - I have just one question:
Is it not true to say that the gathering of good intelligence is about preventing this kind of attack from occurring again? And that to this end it is important to understand the motivations of the terrorists?
Other than that, I have to agree that appeasement of moderates is about understanding the moderates’ perceptions and motivations, not the terrorists. Frankly, the terrorists may have done it because they didn’t like the red jumper they got for their birthday**. Doesn’t matter. All that matters is that the moderates’ think it happened because of blah blah blah.
Oh and I thought that YOU were the daddy? So now I’m confused. Who’s the daddy?
pan
*Look wring! Not Spirtis and not Spirtus! 3 syllables! 
**This scenario would certainly make it difficult to prevent it happening again
[stupid SDMB in joke]Well, Duck Duck Goose is not the mama![/stupid SDMB in joke]
[sub]sorry[/sub]
I have some questions about this question.
Do you feel that the terrorists are largely normal people driven to do abnormal things?
Do you feel that terrorists have demands they would like met in order to avert their strikes?
Can you give an example of how understanding Hitler’s motivation would help us fight him, even in hindsight?
Can you give an example of how understanding the causes of Hitler’s motivation would have helped us fight him?
It seems people are talking around each other here. We have non-terrorist implicit support: why is that? How do they perceive terrorism, and what do they hope to gain from it? As well, how do the terrorists perceive themselves, and what do they hope to gain from it? And finally, what causes either party to think that way in the first place?
Which of those above will yield tactical information of any sort?
I, for example, can understand the motivation of communists. They say as much themselves. I cannot understand why they feel that way (why, for example, they find that complete economic equality will result in a happier life). I do not need to understand why they feel that way in order to combat communism, if that be my goal.
kabbes-my-son[sup]*[/sup] (Is this one of those top/bottom things? Modern sexual terminology confuses me. ;))
Well – if a brand new set of terrorists materializes with a brand new ideological bent and a brand new set of targets for their fanaticism, then yes. If early reports are true, though, and the attacks were the work of radical Islamic terrorists from the Middle East (and specifically Bin Laden’s organization) then I fail to see any practical benefit to further discussions, ruminations, investigations, etc. of the motivations and perspectives of these fanatics. I place the probability that we will be able to significantly alter the mindset/desires/attitudes/perspectives of these people at a generous NIL.
There are many datum which will help us fight them:
What are their logistical structures?
What is their distribution of “forces”?
What organizational and communications models/methods do they use?
How and from where do they draw their new recruits?
What methods do they use to train, indoctrinate and cull new recruits?
What are their spedcific operational objectives at this time?
I just don’t see any place for “What makes them tick?” on that list. I don’t care why a timebomb ticks. I just need to know that it does, and that I do not want to get caught in the explosion.
[sup][/sup][sub]It’s really to bad that you aren’t a woman, because I really wanted to get into a “Momma Kabbes” riff. Sigh[/sub][sup]
Don’t disagree with 99% of your message. But I do disagree that understanding what makes the terrorists tick won’t help with the datum I have left in the quote.
The methods they employ to attract recruits, to indoctrinate them and what they are looking for in a recruit is intimately tied up with what makes the terrorists tick. And if you have no idea what makes the terrorists function, how can you identify any specific operational objectives?
Eris, my chaotic pal:
How can I know, without understanding what makes them tick?
How can I know, without understanding what makes them tick?
My knowledge of WW2 is appallingly sketchy. However I am aware that there was that whole obsession with Russia Hitler had going on. Understanding that would have been very useful (and maybe was - as I say, I’m no scholar on it).
This is more tricky for me, since (a) I know little about WW2 and (b) even less about military matters. However didn’t that Chinese guy Sun Tzu say something about needing to know your enemy? Again, knowing that the idea of invading Russia was a big motivating factor of Hitler would almost certainly have helped us break up his early alliance with Stalin, I would have thought.
I do agree that knowing why someone wants to kill you is of less import than knowing what to do about it and how to stop others joining in. But I can’t help feeling that if you want to do this, it helps to know what your enemy is going to do before they do it. To this end, understanding motivation might be key.
pan
kabbes - don’t I get half credit for attempting to self correct the spelling? Spiritus
and I agree w/your post (you’ve explained what I’ve been trying to).
I do understand the point that (pause, look up again for correct spelling) Spiritus was making (ie, looking at the motives of the moderates - as a matter of fact saw that as I was typing up my last explanation). But the ‘more’ that kabbes posted was what I was trying to get at (admittedly not very well).
Just thought I’d say I’ve been using the word moderate meaning “opposite to extreemist”, not “opposite to fundamentalist”. Not all fundamentalist muslims are extreemists or terrorists. Pretty obvious I guess.
Okay–you’re only 1% wrong, then. Well within tolerance levels.
Intimately? I would say tangentially. We know that they recruit through appeals to certain values/perceptions within certain populations. How they draw recruits==how they transmit their message, not what teh message contains. From where they draw recruits does include an element of “populations responsive to message X”, but do we really require more intimate knowledge of the motivations behind message X to identify those populations? I submit that the answer is no. Can you provide a reasonable case for yes?
This is a tactical requirement, not a strategic one. I see 2 purposes to this information:[ul]
[li] It allows for identification and targetting of training facilities for both surveillance and tactical strikes.[/li][li] It assists in the preparation of infiltrators/moles.[/ul][/li]Only the second of those is informed at all by information on the motivations and perceptions of teh terrorists. Again, if we were operating in an informational vaccuum I would agree that this would justify additional intelligence. We are not, and it does not. We already know enough about the message to anticipate that element of the indoctrination. It is the operational detail, not the motivational fervor, which should concern us.
Through infiltration, surveillance, observation, consultation with foreign intelligence agencies, etc. Unless you think that their drives are so specific that they will allow us to predict, for instance, that the Chrysler building is a potential next target but the World Series is not. We already know the broad stroles of their intent. We will not determine the operational specifics by psychological or sociological analysis.
Hey Spiritus what if Bin Laden was going for pure financial gain? There’s some investigation into that now.
If it should be shown to be true, I’d suspect that his followers who’ve espoused the religious furvor that he’s vocalized, would have the bottom fall out of their world.
Of course, this would only happen if we looked for his motives. 
But religion produces some spectacular rationalizations. If even that revelation were spun the right way, his followers would be even more comitted than ever.
Lib’s right; most Muslims would probably consider it sinful to spend hundreds of dollars at titty bars the night before you murder thousands of innocents, but the hijackers didn’t seem to have a problem with it. I doubt they’d find stock fraud too high a moral hurdle. bin Laden’s financial gain could merely be seen as another weapon against the infidels.
I think Lib and xeno have pretty well answered this, but allow me to add my own cynical observation: our ability to convince people that Bin Laden has base motives is independent of both Bin Laden’s actual motives and our understanding of Bin Laden’s motives.
and please forgive me for the cynical answer -
and we ‘know’ his real motives, how?
we ‘know’ how his followers would respond, how?
I am not advocating ‘warm fuzzies’ and hot chocolate served at group therapy sessions for him. I’m advocating finding out as much as possible about him, which includes him motives, both verbalized openly and what we may unearth.
I am not advocating taking zero actions. However. Those actions would be, what? I remember reading those threads ages ago about the bad Taliban, and what to do, and the thoughtful, reasoned postings by folks here who seemed to have studied the region.
My concern is that whatever action should be taken, we need to learn as much as possible so that we can track down all who were responsible. For example, once you’ve bombed the shit out of a target, it’s more than a tad bit difficult to search for other information in the rubble. Bin Laden personally may in fact be taken out by such actions, however, his minions and legend would live on.
While Bin Laden may be the focal point currently, may be the main perpetrator here, may even be the head cheese, he ain’t the only one left. And it’s entirely probable that the rest of his minions (and other terroristic groups, 'cause remember, that’s what this ‘war’ is about) aren’t in Afghanistan, so we need information to track them down. And, yes, to me, that includes his motives.
If you know his motives, you may be able to identify those who would be attracted to them. If we had a list of those who followed him, yea, what made him tick wouldn’t be as crucial. But we don’t have the list ya know?
We can infer some of his motives from public pronouncements that he has made. That is sufficient for all practical matters right now. As I have said repeatedly–we don’t need to know any more.
His followers? It would be foolish in the extreme to proceed under any presumption except that his followers will continue to prosecute Bin Laden’s campaign against America and American citizens using all means at their disposal for so long as each of them shall live.
It would be dangerous in the extreme to seek an understanding of his followers that relaxed that presumption in any way.
I know what you are advocating. I do not know why you do so. I have seen no support for the position that is more pointed than a general sense that increased understanding is always better.
Now, I am a firm believer in knowledge for knowledge’s sake, but time, insight, and emotional strength are all limited resources. I can see absolutely no practical value in spending one iota of additional effort seeking rgeater understanding of the perceptions and motives of these particular murderous bastards. Can you offer me a single, specific practical consideration of the US response to these acts which would benefit from expending resources to gain the understanding for which you call?
What actions? That is broadening the scope of our discussion a bit, isn’t it? I don’t think I can follow you there. If you would like to start another thread in which people discuss hypothetical response scenarios based upon either individual or shared assumptions about present capabilities and predictable reactions, I would read it gladly. Perhaps I will even undertake a scenarion or two of my own, but I don’t think they belong in this discussion.
I will say, as I have before, that I cannot think of a single scenarion for US response that would benefit from an increased understanding of teh motives and perceptions of the terrorists. If you care to provide one, I will examine it with an open mind.
These are logistical and operational elements, which have nothing to do with the perceptions and motives of the terrorists. I agree, as I have before, that we need to pursue operational and logistical intelligence.
Absolutely. These are matters of material fact. Who are the members of each cell? How do they communicate? How are funds transfered between elements? Where are members based?
Why? Which of the questions above do you see as being specifically informed by knowing Bin Laden’s motives?
No.
If you know the message he transmits you may be able to guess the populations who would be receptive to that message. We already know the messge he transmits. We also know, in broad strokes, the populations who have proven receptive to that message. Unless we are fools, we will also assume that he has “allies of opportunity” who care nothing for his mesage but will assist him for reasons of their own.
Yes, I do. Can you tell me how knowing what makes him tick will provide us with a list of his followers?
OK Spiritus - to put it in corporate-speak, you want SMART* goals to rationalise why we need to understand their motives. That’s difficult to argue with. In particular, it’s difficult for me to argue with due to my poor knowledge of military strategy.
Nevertheless, pouring over data in search of patterns is what I do for a living. And I know that just sometimes it’s the data you never would have thought relevant that has the biggest impact. Knowledge really is power in this way. Any advantage you can get is worth its weight in A4 paper.
I just can’t believe that it wouldn’t aid the planners to be able to get into the mindset of the terrorists. But I have no SMART plan to back me up on this belief. Sorry.
In other news, I’d like to pin a half-credit on wring’s bosom for attempting to spell “Spiritus” correctly.
I’d also like to say that recent events have forced me to smell the roses on the path a little more. In that vein, I wish to point out that being able to join any thread with Spiritus, wring, erl, Lib, Jodi and xeno in it, not to mention those such as Shayna, RickJay and Cranky who I don’t interact with so often but enjoy reading, is a pleasure I am extremely thankful for. And now I expect to get my butt kicked by Alphagene for being nice in the pit.
But Spiritus? You really need to get that “teh” typo problem sorted dude.
pan
*To those who don’t include corporate-speak amongst their languages, this means “Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic and Tangible” or “Specific, Measurable, Action oriented, Result-based, Time bound” depending on who you are forced to listen to.
No, no, a thousand times no!
Would you have Quasimodo rid himself of his hump? Should Jeanne d’Arc have grown her hair back long? Should Gaudere speak to the point of an analogy rather than its irrelevant flaw? Should Jab wag a civil tongue?
Nay, I say, nay!
Spiritus, you keep up teh good work, my man!
[sup]sorry… couldn’t help it…[/sup]