However, it is the symbol that is important, in an ideological realm, because ideology does not require material affirmation to survive. Ideology can inspire suicide bombers from now until any kingdom come, for any variety of reasons–not solely limited to any western academically inspired notions of “rationality” or “strategy”.

I agree with Jen06 wholeheartedly, in the West we often ignore the subtle aftermath of suicide terrorism: the newly sparked atmosphere of anxiety, the self-reflective behavior of the target, the implosion/isolation that inevitably follows. The United States embarked upon an almost predictable reaction to 9/11. We came out swinging–at anyone, any state or group who dared contest the assertion of the American will. The result was an almost six year long engagement, which intensely drained the US of physical, political, and psychological capital.

Still, the impression of the event drew the world’s attention and resources to the Middle East–that may have been the primary purpose to begin with. All eyes were redirected toward a part of the world, as well as protracted struggles, that the West has willfully obscured for some time…

It’s no surprise that elements of Islam and some of its more extreme motivations, vis-a-vis terrorism, don’t fit into Western models of analysis or theoretical prescription. We’ve been trying to keep our true motivations for the area under wraps since the Cold War…

Some researchers suggest that to understand terrorism it is more important to study what terrorists do rather than what they say.[1] University of Chicago political scientist Robert Pape argues, for example, that Islam has little to do with suicide bombing. Rather, he suggests, that suicide bombers, wherever they are in the world, are motivated much more by tactical goals. He juxtaposes the suicide terrorism of the (non-Islamic) Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) with Islamist suicide bombing to demonstrate that a desire to end occupation is the common factor rather than religion. Therefore, he suggests focus upon religion is a distraction and that policymakers seeking to stop the scourge of suicide attacks should work instead to address root causes, which he sees as the presence of troops or interests in disputed or occupied lands.[2]

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. Pape avoids this conclusion by gerrymandering his data so that he does not need to include the significant numbers of suicide bombings conducted by Sunnis against Shi‘a in Iraq.[3]

Middle East expert Martin Kramer suggests that Pape’s theses may be comforting to Western readers who want to believe that if only the United States were to pull its military forces from the Persian Gulf and if only all occupation in the Middle East would end, that there would be no more suicide bombings. Western thinking admires empirics, metrics, and pie charts. The secular emphasis of Pape’s theories also comforts. But comfort does not correlate with reality. Islamism is an ideology, and that it does not fit neatly into existing political theory should be beside the point.[4]

http://www.meforum.org/article/1826