No Such Thing as a "Successful Suicide"
A generation ago I attended a clinical presentation on suicide.
Now, this was not about political suicide, like we have today with suicide bombers, but rather the behavioral abberation. Some great observations:
1. "Successful suicide" is an oxymoron. Suicide cannot, by definition, be a successful act by any rational reckoning.
2. Suicide is used by a person who perceives themself as powerless to influence others, to assert an unfair control. Think of the unsuccessful suitor who commits suicide because he cannot have the one he loves. He can only accomplish making the object of his "love" feel bad - and even that actual "success" is questionable.
3. Suicide bombers hope to kill more people than themselves, but cannot rationally hope to kill or defeat the entire enemy. Thus, as Robert Pape observes in his recent book, "Dying to Win : The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism," the suicidal act can only hope to function as "eye for an eye" defensive responses to unacceptable acts. It's all about payback, but the score can never be evened up. The suicide bombers cannot hope to humble their targets. And Pape's analysis is correct in that regard.
The more poignant question Pape raises is our best response to their "strategic logic." If we are aggressive, we will just see more of this aberrant behavior. If we occupy other countries, more of these impulses to "justice" will be seen there. We learned that in Vietnam and other places as well.
Honestly, we should examine ourselves. We justified invading Iraq by at least two different premises: protecting ourselves from nonexistent WMDs, and installing a stable, democratic regime in a region we regarded as strategically important.
But let's be honest for a minute: the emotional energy behind this, and Afghanistan, was an American demand for payback. We wanted Osama. Short of that, we wanted some other people to die because our innocent people died on 9/11. Our own thirst for an "eye for an eye" had to be slaked. By that cynical analysis, we're no different than a suicide bomber. No worse, but no better.
The only remaining question is rhetorical: when will our unmet demand for justice be satisfied?
Now, this was not about political suicide, like we have today with suicide bombers, but rather the behavioral abberation. Some great observations:
1. "Successful suicide" is an oxymoron. Suicide cannot, by definition, be a successful act by any rational reckoning.
2. Suicide is used by a person who perceives themself as powerless to influence others, to assert an unfair control. Think of the unsuccessful suitor who commits suicide because he cannot have the one he loves. He can only accomplish making the object of his "love" feel bad - and even that actual "success" is questionable.
3. Suicide bombers hope to kill more people than themselves, but cannot rationally hope to kill or defeat the entire enemy. Thus, as Robert Pape observes in his recent book, "Dying to Win : The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism," the suicidal act can only hope to function as "eye for an eye" defensive responses to unacceptable acts. It's all about payback, but the score can never be evened up. The suicide bombers cannot hope to humble their targets. And Pape's analysis is correct in that regard.
The more poignant question Pape raises is our best response to their "strategic logic." If we are aggressive, we will just see more of this aberrant behavior. If we occupy other countries, more of these impulses to "justice" will be seen there. We learned that in Vietnam and other places as well.
Honestly, we should examine ourselves. We justified invading Iraq by at least two different premises: protecting ourselves from nonexistent WMDs, and installing a stable, democratic regime in a region we regarded as strategically important.
But let's be honest for a minute: the emotional energy behind this, and Afghanistan, was an American demand for payback. We wanted Osama. Short of that, we wanted some other people to die because our innocent people died on 9/11. Our own thirst for an "eye for an eye" had to be slaked. By that cynical analysis, we're no different than a suicide bomber. No worse, but no better.
The only remaining question is rhetorical: when will our unmet demand for justice be satisfied?
posted by John Bernat @ 8:53 PM
1 comments
