Ray:
“Pape might not be so infallible – or corrct – after all”
I do not have the time to go through your whole article from the top-notch “Middle East Quarterly” journal. (BTW, there is a reason why I called the American Political Science Review the top Political Science journal in the country. The Journal of Citation Reports evaluates journals from around the world and ranks them. This is the authoritative source for journal rankings, and the source used by libraries around the world when deciding what to put on their shelves. APSR is number one out of 84 political science journals. There are conservative journals on the list, such as Policy Review (48), Armed Force and Society (61), Commentary (74), New Republic (77), and the Journal of Strategic Studies (79). Do you know where the Middle East Quarterly ranks? Nowhere. This journal is a complete joke, and only exists for dumbasses who can’t get anything published in a real journal. Because there are so many right-wing authors who cannot get published anywhere, Pipes and Rubin had to invent a “journal” to get these guys in print. So tell me, is the “Middle East Quarterly” even a journal? Do they even put out a hard copy? Or is it one of those prestigious online-only journals?) Because I don’t have a lot of time, I will look at a couple sentences that relate to the Pape study directly. Specifically, we were talking about the fact that most suicide bombers were secular. A fact that was determined not just by Pape, but by Gambetta and Merari as well. Your article, then, says this:
“Despite the revisionism advanced by Pape and others, the fact remains that most suicide bombings since 1980 in the world in general and in the Middle East in particular are sponsored by Islamist and not secular terrorist groups.”
Wow!!!!! This conclusion is the exact opposite of that reached by Pape, Gambetta, et al, and Merari! This is very interesting. Pape spent years with a team of researchers gathering information from every suicide bombing over a 23 year period, used sound research methods, and came up with very statistically significant results. So where did he go wrong? What was the miscalculation that Fine was able to unearth that invalidates years worth of work? It will be interesting to read the critique. And we find it in the next sentence: he “gerrymandered his data”!
Oh! Now I get it!
This is pathetic. You can only get away with this in a BS journal like Middle East Quarterly. He says that Pape gerrymandered his data so that he “does not need to include the significant numbers of suicide bombings conducted by Sunnis against Shi‘a in Iraq.” Guess what. There might be another explanation that does not involve “gerrymandering.” The data in Pape’s study goes up from 1980 to 2003, which is when the article in APSR was published. Pape did not use data from Iraq because he could not see into the future. What suicide bombing that had occurred in Iraq before the study came out was also difficult to analyze, because the identity of most suicide bombers in Iraq is nearly impossible to obtain. The experience in Iraq invalidates nothing, but only strengthens his thesis. Suicide bombing was unknown in Iraq before the US invasion. Then the US invades and occupies Iraq, and suicide bombing begins. Hmmmm. It must be their religion! It can’t possibly be the occupation!
So Fines “evidence” that “most suicide bombings since 1980 in the world in general and in the Middle East in particular are sponsored by Islamist and not secular terrorist groups” is that Pape “gerrymandered his data” because he did not include suicide bombings that occurred in the future. That Hack! How could he not include data that was going to happen? How can he exclude data like that?
Fine gives a reference after his gerrymandering statement, and points to a Martin Kramer article. Fine, let’s look at that.
Kramer begins his speech by giving his audience (this was from a debate) three reasons why they will “want to believe” Professor Pape’s theory. Kramer realizes that any logical, objective, and open-minded person will find Pape’s fact-based theory completely logical, coherent, and compelling, so he tries to counter this by giving reasons why one should ignore these judgments. Kramer claims that there are actually deeper, hidden reasons that the audience will make these conclusions, and the audience is not self-aware enough to see this. To help them, Kramer lists the mistakes that the audience is liable to make. How nice of him. Kramer’s reasons that people “want to believe” Pape’s theory are:
1. Because the theory is reassuring.
Kramer tells his audience that they are afraid to face the fact that suicide bombers are merely crazy Muslims that are out to get them. The audience wants to avoid this fear by adopting Pape’s theory that suicide bombing is related to occupation, because occupation as a cause is much easier to remedy than dealing with crazy Muslims. He even gives a Wizard of Oz analogy to try to shame the audience for not facing reality. He begins by insulting his audience, which is a strange debating tactic. But it gets worse.
2. Because the theory is empirical.
Kramer claims that fact-based research can’t be trusted for three reasons. First, because databases can be flawed. His speech, however, makes no accusations of flawed data in relation to Pape’s work, so this does not apply to his critique. Second, samples can be too small. This is ridiculous for Kramer to bring up in relation to Pape’s study, because Pape studies the universe of suicide bombings: every single event from 1980 through 2003. As I said above, the sample size cannot be any larger! Third, statistics can be misleading. This can certainly be true, but this usually happens when a biased individual wants to use statistics to support his point of view, and he therefore cherry-picks the ones that do support it, and ignores the ones that don’t. This is impossible to do in a properly run study. For example, Pape studies the universe of suicide bombings, and all the cases are treated equally. It is people like Kramer, however, that use misleading statistics and facts. For example, Kramer can advance the thesis that Islam is responsible for suicide bombings, and then simply ignore all cases where this is clearly false. In addition, studies like Pape’s are published in peer-reviewed journals, where the reviewers will address any evidence of bias. Misleading, cherry-picked statistics are generally found in the media, books, speeches, the internet, the Middle East Quarterly, etc, and not in comprehensive studies published in peer-reviewed journals.
Kramer in general doesn’t like empirical, fact-based research because this approach will always lead to conclusions that conflict with his analysis. (Kramer’s distrust of fact-based research also explains his involvement with Campus Watch). Kramer is much more comfortable with the approach of presenting an emotional appeal to people’s biases and prejudices, without the presentation of any facts. He tells the audience that his approach may “confuse” the audience, but in the end, it is more trustworthy than those misleading facts. So he tells the audience that if the facts seem very clear to them, it is because the truth may simply be too “[confusing]” for them to understand. He tells the audience they are not smart enough to see his “truth”. More insults for the audience.
3. Because the theory is secular.
Here Kramer comes back to the idea that his audience is afraid to confront the idea of Islam being the cause of suicide terrorism, so they prefer Pape’s theory of nationalism as a cause. Again, Kramer tells his audience that they are too scared to face the facts. The problem with this is Pape’s theory is not secular. One of Pape’s tenants is that there must be a religious difference between the occupied nation and the occupying nation for suicide bombings to occur. Islam in particular is not a cause of suicide bombing, but a religious difference is a key factor. Kramer says “the idea of religion as an independent variable is foreign to our mode of thought”. Pape’s book, however, expressly defines religion as an independent variable: “The two independent variables in the study are the existence of a religious difference and the existence of rebellion…”. Kramer should have read the book before making this statement.
Kramer concludes this journey through the psyche of the audience by saying, “So the popularity of Professor Pape’s thesis tells us interesting things about ourselves.” He is saying Pape’s thesis is popular not because it is a thorough, well-researched, and well-reasoned study, but because people, including his audience, are too stupid and too scared to realize what the real reason for suicide terrorism is. Starting a speech by telling the audience that they are stupid and scared is not the best way to win an argument in a debate. The interesting thing we learn here is not what the popularity of Pape’s theory tells us about ourselves, but what Kramer’s introduction tells us about him. We know now that Kramer does not think he can deal with Pape’s theory on an intellectual level, so instead he begins by trying to shame the audience into believing that Pape’s theory may not be correct.
After he’s done insulting the audience, Kramer begins with his actual critique. First, Kramer says he does not have a competing theory that can address all cases. Instead, Kramer thinks that suicide terrorism has “…different origins and [achieves] different purposes in different contexts”. This may be so. People can have different reasons for carrying out the same act. But as most scientists will tell you, the simplest theory that fits the facts is usually the right one. So let’s see whose explanations fit the facts better; Pape’s simple, all encompassing theory, or Kramer’s individual explanations for each case. Kramer also explains that he will only be addressing suicide bombings from three different groups: Hizbullah, Hamas, and al-Qaeda. (This is not a surprise. It’s hard to address suicide bombings by the LTTE and blame it on Islam, so Kramer ignores cases like these. It’s what Kramer likes to call using “too small” of a sample. Kramer cherry picks his cases, but brings up the technique in relation to Pape, who addresses all cases. Funny) Therefore, we will only be able to compare theories for these three cases. Isn’t it funny how Pape “gerrymandered” his data, but people like Kramer won’t consider anything that doesn’t fit his pre-conceived worldview? Pape looked at EVERY suicide bombing within a 13 year time period. Kramer only cherry-picks the ones he likes.
At this point, Kramer again brings up how Pape only reluctantly introduces the idea of religion into his theory. Kramer says that “…Pape lets religion into his formula through the back door…” and that he “…clearly casts religious difference as a subordinate factor…” Once again, this is ridiculous. Pape’s model has two independent variables, and a religious difference between the occupier and the occupied is one of the two. Religious difference is not a “subordinate factor”, but is one of two independent factors in Pape’s study! In addition, Pape talks about the importance of religious difference throughout his book. Again, the factor in Pape’s analysis is a religious difference and not Islam specifically, and this is what Kramer has a problem with. Kramer thinks that Islam is the critical factor, and not a religious difference in general, and he says that Pape shows “…the usual academic reticence about fingering Muslims or Islamists”. Kramer is saying that Pape is as afraid as the audience is about not facing the fact that Islam is the real problem. However, maybe it is not fear that causes Pape to bring up religious differences instead of Islam. Maybe it is the facts that cause him to make this distinction. Religious difference explains why the LTTE uses suicide bombing against Sri Lanka, when they are a secular/Hindu group. How can Kramer blame this on Islam? He can’t, so he ignores it. The lack of religious difference explains why the LTTE discontinued their use of suicide bombing when India occupied their land, even though India’s occupation was even more oppressive than Sri Lanka’s. Kramer cannot explain this, so he ignores it. Kramer also cannot explain why over half of suicide bombers are secular. This does not fit his theory of blaming Islam, so he ignores the fact. And if the Muslims are simply attacking the West because they are unbelievers, I would expect all Muslims worldwide to be attacking all Western countries pretty much randomly. Why is it that only occupied Muslims are attacking only the nations that occupy them? Even though the US supplies Israel with all the weapons, bulldozers, helicopters, and political support that they possibly can, still the Palestinians only attack Israel. Why don’t Palestinians attack the US as well? Pape would say it’s because Israel in the country that is occupying Palestine, and not the US. Kramer ignores this. Why does Al-Qaeda concentrate its attacks against the US? Why don’t they attack Israel as well? Pape explains this by pointing out that it is the US that is occupying the Arabian peninsula, and not Israel. (Al-Qaeda has also targeted countries allied with the US in the occupation of Iraq, but the reasons are the same). Kramer ignores this. Pape’s theory explains all of the facts. The motive behind Kramer’s theory is to demonize Islam, and he conveniently ignores all facts that do not fit his view.
The first case that Kramer addresses is that of Hizbullah in Lebanon. Kramer admits that Islamists did not commit all of the suicide bombings that occurred in Lebanon in the 1980’s, and that their “secular competitors” also committed attacks. Kramer, however, does not state how many of the attacks were committed by each group. I showed above that it was the vast majority that was committed by secular groups.
Kramer’s task, then, is to find a way to blame suicide bombing in Lebanon on Islam, even in the face of this data that clearly shows Islam is not a key factor. So how does he do it? He says that even though Islam was “not present in all suicide bombings” (an interesting way of putting it when, in fact, Islam was “not present” in 73% of the suicide bombings), it “had to be there at the creation”. Kramer’s way of blaming Islam is to claim that it doesn’t matter how many attacks were actually carried out by secular groups or individuals, but what counts is who carried out the first attacks. This is the “he started it” defense that you normally hear on the playground in the third grade. It is quite hilarious that a supposed “expert” would try to make this argument. The idea that the religious affiliation of the first suicide bomber is to take the blame for all subsequent suicide bombings is completely insane on a number of levels. Kramer justifies this stance by saying that it is unlikely that secular groups could have come up with the idea of suicide bombing on their own. Only fundamentalist Muslims and their distorted morality are capable of originating this idea. But even if we adopt Kramer’s insane logic, is it true that Hezbollah invented suicide bombing?
First of all, even within the Israel-Palestine conflict, the suicide attacks by Hezbollah in 1982 were not the first. Several occurred in the 1970’s, and all of those were committed by secular organizations (See Ricolfi, Luca “Palestinians, 1981-2003” in “Making Sense of Suicide Missions”, Diego Gambetta, editor, 2005, page 81). For example, on 12 April 1974 three members of the Palestinian Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command attacked a settlement in Kiryat Shmona. When Israeli soldiers stormed the building they were in, the three blew themselves up (See “Arab Guerillas Raid Israel Apartment House, Shoot 34 – 18 Die Before Three Attackers Blow Selves Up”, Los Angeles Times, 11 April 1974, page 2. Also “2 Arab Terrorists Massacre 18 in Raid on Israel Border Town”, Los Angeles Times, Harry Trimborn, 12 April 1974, Page A1. And “Arab Guerillas Kill 18 in Israeli Town, Then Die in Blast at Apartment House”, New York Times, 12 April 1974, page 65). Ahmed Jibril, the founder of the PFLP-GC, said at the time, “I’m persuaded that other organizations can only imitate us and follow this difficult and painful path.” (See “Arab Terrorist’s Goal-Crush Israel”, Los Angeles Times, Jocelyn Saab, 12 March 1975, page B6).If we are to follow Kramer’s third grade logic and blame whoever started suicide bombings, then in reality it is secular groups that should really get the blame. Islamic groups were only able to “imitate [the PFLP-GC] and follow [the] difficult and painful path [of suicide bombing]”.
It is possible to follow the history of suicide bombing (or suicide attacks) much farther back than this, however. Vietnamese soldiers used the technique against the US in Vietnam (For example, see “Suicide Attack Described”. New York Times, 26 February 1969, page 7 and “Reds in Suicide Attack on US Infantry Camp”, Chicago Tribune, 19 April 1969, page S8). At this point maybe Kramer wants to blame Communists for all suicide attacks, since “they started it”. But suicide attacks go back even further, as I stated earlier. The first known suicide attack was from the Zealots two thousand years ago. If we use Kramer’s “they started it” logic, that means we can blame suicide attacks on the Jews!
Kramer recommends the book “In the Path of Hizbullah” (see geocities.com/martinkramerorg/Sacrifice.htm).
Here’s a couple quotes from that book:
Ayatollah Khamanai:
“Hizbullah is the front line of the Islamic world in its fight with the Zionist enemy. The liberation of occupied Palestine is the prime goal for the jihad against the Zionist entity.
Nasrallah reply:
“As you are wali amr al-Muslimin (guardian of the Muslims), the resistance will continue its path of jihad until the liberation of all occupied land.” p. 146
Occupation!
Kramer also recommends Saad-Ghorayeb. Here’s some quotes from that book:
“Occupation of one’s land by Israel or any other foreign power emerges as a principal determinant of oppression and, like all oppressed people, those whose land is occupied will be afforded Hizbu’llah’s ‘automatic’ support.” P.21 (quoting Fnaysh)
“It is the right and duty of all people [whose land is occupied] to resist occupation.” Nasrullah p.126
“Hezbollah does not pursue martyrdom as an end in itself, but as a means of achieving victory.” Nasrullah p.133
“the [military] operations are only linked to the issue of occupation.” Nasrullah p.109
