![\"Photo](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/608\/2016\/07\/children-of-war-1172016_640.jpg\")
<\/a>With the recent string of tragedies in Brussels, Paris, San Bernardino, Orlando, and now Istanbul, the world is once again reeling from what is becoming an all too familiar cycle of violence and calls for forceful response. Yet whether the event springs from a \u201clone wolf\u201d or an coordinated organizational effort, there is confusion and controversy around understanding and responding to such events.<\/p>\n
After the initial shock and horror, there may follow an outrage that prompts a strong, even violent response. When confronted with a threat, there is a natural reptilian-brain reflex to \u201csmash\u201d back. Accordingly, we\u2019ve seen increased military action in regions thought to foster terrorism, and now grapple with escalating tensions for Muslim, immigrant, and other minority populations at home.<\/p>\n
While the Conservative response generally centers on force, the more reasoned Progressive response also tends to focus on simplistic, single-factor solutions like gun control. Though there may be little legitimate need for guns in modern society beyond law enforcement and private citizen hobbyists, does anyone believe that the only problem is the availability of weaponry? If we remove the guns, is the problem truly and entirely solved?<\/p>\n
The psychology and geopolitics behind terrorism pose complexity of a degree that may confound current analysis and understanding. Simply succumbing to an impulse to smash it (military response) may feel emotionally gratifying in the short term, but to date has been ineffective at eliminating such occurrences. In fact, it may well exacerbate them. On the other hand, simply suppressing a symptom (private gun ownership) does not eliminate the underlying disease (the fear, weakness, and insecurity that requires augmentation with a weapon).<\/p>\n
Who? What? How?<\/strong><\/p>\n After the initial shock, natural questions arise: Who did this? How could it happen? What did they hope to accomplish? How can we protect ourselves in the future? Most of us cannot relate such acts to personal experience or impulse, so there is a tendency to apply labels like \u201cinsane\u201d, \u201cfanatical\u201d, \u201cbarbaric\u201d, \u201csenseless\u201d. Or to come up with simplistic explanations like \u201cthey hate our freedoms\u201d. In the absence of any plausible, rational explanation, such violence ends up being dealt with as just another tragic force of nature, like hurricanes and earthquakes \u2014 a fact of life that simply must be endured and factored in to our planning.<\/p>\n Yet if we fail to understand such event\u2019s originating cause, we are doomed to an endless cycle of suppressing or responding to seemingly random outbreaks of violence. It\u2019s like fighting a fire by chasing down all the sparks without first shutting off the fuel supply.<\/p>\n The Why Question<\/strong><\/p>\n Perhaps the key question, often asked but insufficiently explored, is \u201cwhy?\u201d. Why would someone be motivated to do this? Suicide bombing \u2013 why? In one sense, it is comforting to conclude that these are the senseless acts of crazed fanatics, because then we are relieved of responsibility to search further for causes, and to then consider whether our own policies and actions at home and abroad might contribute in any way to the conditions from which such acts arise.<\/p>\n However, despite its apparent senselessness, no volitional action is performed without some<\/em><\/strong> rationale. The reasoning may be misguided, delusional, poorly informed, or otherwise in error, but some sort of thought process precedes action. If we hope to understand and eliminate terrorism, this is the point at which to intervene.<\/p>\n So, what kind of thinking, what kind of analysis, what kind of conclusions about life and world might lead to such actions?<\/p>\n Are Terrorists Made or Born?<\/strong><\/p>\n Several relevant observations came out of a 2004 Aurora Forum colloquium \u201cWaging Peace\u201d<\/a> at Stanford University. One presenter was James Gilligan, of Harvard Med School faculty and a prison psychiatrist. Gilligan found that, after interviewing scores of inmates, a commonly expressed motivation for their violence was a need to maintain or regain \u201crespect\u201d. The need to avoid shame and diminution was in some cases more compelling than life itself.\u00a0 Interestingly, many also expressed a fantasy of \u201csuicide by cop\u201d \u2013 that is, to end their lives in a gun battle with police. This appears eerily resonant with the suicidal aspects of terrorism. When all other hope is lost, to go out in a noble blaze of glory may seem like redemption.<\/p>\n Another presenter, UC Berkeley professor emeritus Michael Nagler, described religious fundamentalism \u2013 especially as seen in the last 150 years \u2013 as being essentially \u201cthe last way-station before oblivion\u201d. This perhaps sheds light on the desperation and fanaticism with which some cling to their ideology.<\/p>\n What is the basis of this fundamental need for respect or glory? At the outset of psychoanalyst Eric Fromm\u2019s 1973 book \u201cAnatomy of Human Destructiveness\u201d, Fromm suggests that the most primal human drive is to make a \u201cdent\u201d in the world \u2013 to show that the fact of one\u2019s existence counted for something; made a difference; that it mattered in some way that one was here. While some may then be content to carve their initials on a tree or in fresh cement, most of us would ideally like to be known, acknowledged, and remembered for doing something great. \u201cGreat\u201d is usually thought of as something of benefit; something that leaves the world better off for our efforts. Unfortunately, failing that, it seems \u201cgreat\u201d can also mean \u201cgreat evil\u201d. (The Milton quote: \u201cIt is better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven.\u201d)<\/p>\n Foreign Policy<\/strong><\/p>\n If the loss of respect and dignity are prime causes of violence, one can readily see that current policies in the Middle East and elsewhere are pretty much antithetical to achieving any peaceful resolution. The philosophy and strategies exemplified by campaigns like \u201cShock and Awe\u201d, \u201cDesert Storm\u201d, the actions in Gaza, prisons like Guantanamo and Abu Grahib, all appear intended to brutalize a people with such terrifying, overwhelming force that any spirit of resistance will be broken; whereafter they will be rendered docile and compliant for a lifetime. While this may be effective with house pets or performing circus elephants, humans generally don\u2019t sit well with such treatment. The ethnic conflicts that rage on for decades, even centuries, make this clear.<\/p>\n Further, the above commonly occurs in the context of support for repressive regional leaders who will then keep a population subdued, by whatever means necessary, so that foreign interests can pursue their private agenda \u2013 mineral extraction, strategic bases and the like \u2013 without regard to the costs and harm imposed on the local population or environment.<\/p>\n All of the above seeds the ground for violence.<\/p>\n \u201cNothing More Dangerous Than a Man With Nothing to Lose\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n Apart from issues of respect and dignity are the needs of basic survival. The practical effect of many Western interventions in the Middle East has been to destroy livelihood for vast numbers of people. Post-Saddam Iraq for example was put through a process of \u201cde-Baathification\u201d<\/a> which saw 20,000 party members removed, several ministries with their hundreds of thousands of employees disbanded, and later, 28,000 suspected Baathist teachers fired. What did we expect these people to then do?<\/p>\n