I’m waiting for the sales pitch. The Anti-Bunny Terrorism Correspondence Course that guarantees to make you the hit of your next hostage situation, rapid strike assault or mass suicide bombing.
The idea that a better armed citizenry could have made the situation better is absurd. Go back the nutjob who back in the 1960s shot a bunch of people on the University of Texas campus - Texas is one of the states where the gun culture is very entrenched and that didn’t “mitigate” the situation one bit. The reality is that most police forces in the US and elsewhere are not prepared to deal with large-scale acts like what happened in Mumbai. The same thing could happen in any US city and you are kidding yourself if you think that’s not true.
Nor is it a question of cultural passivity. When a bunch of guys show up with assault rifles and tell you what to do, you do it, even if you happen to have a 9mm pistol in your pocket. You don’t have any reason to think they are going to massacre you, so why would you risk your life?
Finally, let’s look a country with exceptionaly well-trained police, large military forces, and a citizenry with easy access to military grade weaponry because many of them are required to report for duty at a moments notice: Israel. And yet they have also had numerous terrorist acts on their soil.
If you go to the news stories, the “plan to kill 5,000” is a made up number that is based entirely on the fact that the terrorists were carrying a lot of ammunition. (link)
I don’t think it’s reasonable to assume that the terrorists were planning to utilize their ammunition with sniper-like efficiency. Firing twenty bullets at a mob and killing two people is going to scare the mob a lot more than firing two bullets. These guys may very well have been scrubs, but it’s silly to assign to them the entirely fabricated goal of “make every bullet count” and then immediately criticize them for failing to live up to that goal.
There’s interesting research that actually achieving the stated goals isn’t really what terrorist organizations push for, or why people join them or commit acts. It turns out it’s more of a social solidarity thing.
Historically, none of these solutions has worked with any regularity. Max Abrahms, a predoctoral fellow at Stanford University’s Center for International Security and Cooperation, has studied dozens of terrorist groups from all over the world. He argues that the model is wrong. In a paper published this year in International Security that – sadly – doesn’t have the title “Seven Habits of Highly Ineffective Terrorists,” he discusses, well, seven habits of highly ineffective terrorists. These seven tendencies are seen in terrorist organizations all over the world, and they directly contradict the theory that terrorists are political maximizers:
Terrorists, he writes, (1) attack civilians, a policy that has a lousy track record of convincing those civilians to give the terrorists what they want; (2) treat terrorism as a first resort, not a last resort, failing to embrace nonviolent alternatives like elections; (3) don’t compromise with their target country, even when those compromises are in their best interest politically; (4) have protean political platforms, which regularly, and sometimes radically, change; (5) often engage in anonymous attacks, which precludes the target countries making political concessions to them; (6) regularly attack other terrorist groups with the same political platform; and (7) resist disbanding, even when they consistently fail to achieve their political objectives or when their stated political objectives have been achieved. Abrahms has an alternative model to explain all this: People turn to terrorism for social solidarity. He theorizes that people join terrorist organizations worldwide in order to be part of a community, much like the reason inner-city youths join gangs in the United States.
The evidence supports this. Individual terrorists often have no prior involvement with a group’s political agenda, and often join multiple terrorist groups with incompatible platforms. Individuals who join terrorist groups are frequently not oppressed in any way, and often can’t describe the political goals of their organizations. People who join terrorist groups most often have friends or relatives who are members of the group, and the great majority of terrorist are socially isolated: unmarried young men or widowed women who weren’t working prior to joining. These things are true for members of terrorist groups as diverse as the IRA and al-Qaida.
Fun, huh?
Not that it makes the outcome of this tragedy any more palatable, the silver lining is that India will almost certainly become a safer place, and the international community might start pressuring Pakistan to do more about the radical militants hiding there.
Arming the populace probably won’t help, because law-abiding people don’t typically expect to point their weapons at other people.
As for whether or not the terrorists were successful, it depends on what they wanted to achieve. They certainly scared a lot of people and got a lot of press coverage.
- Alan
Before I post this, be clear, I am not saying Republicans are anything like these terrorists. I do find a couple of paragraphs interesting as an explaination for why a group of people can be convinced to do these evil and self destructive things.
College kids who join a conservative fraternity move to the right during their four years in college. Liberals from Boulder asked to discuss some issues of the day, such as global warming and gay marriage, are more liberal at the end of their discussion than before. Racists brought into a room to discuss race grow more intolerant.
Social psychologists have conducted scores of these “group polarization” experiments since the '60s, and they all come to the same finding: Like-minded people in a group grow more extreme in the way they are like-minded.
Social scientists have proposed several reasons for why like-minded groups tend to polarize. Two have survived scrutiny. The first is that homogenous groups are privy to a large pool of ideas and arguments supporting the group’s dominant position. Everybody hears the arguments in favor of the group’s belief, and as they’re discussed, people grow stouter in their beliefs.
The second reason like-minded groups polarize has more to do with how we see ourselves. We are constantly comparing our beliefs and opinions to those of the group. There are advantages to being slightly more extreme than the group average. It’s a way to stand out, to ensure others will see us as righteous group members.
“It’s an image-maintenance kind of thing,” explained social psychologist Robert Baron. Everybody wants to be a member in good standing, and though it sounds counterintuitive, the safest way to conform is to be slightly more extreme than the average of the group.
This is social psychology as old as the Bible. Recalling his days as a devout Jew, before his conversion to Christianity, Paul said, “Beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it.” Paul realized that his extremity paid dividends, that he “profited in the Jews’ religion above many of my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.” (Galatians 1:13-14)
Or, as Holly Golightly put it in Breakfast at Tiffany’s, “It’s useful being top banana in the shock department.”
Experiments confirmed Paul’s and Golightly’s conclusions. "An extreme communicator on one’s side of an issue tends to be perceived as more sincere and competent than a moderate," social psychologist David Myers wrote.
I can see where extreme beliefs get thrown into a social spiral where, for whatever reason - Kashmir, religion, tribalism, desire for fame - whatever. Becomes the groups driving force and this attack becomes the logical (from their perspective) action. Furthermore, trying to talk sense, to reduce the number of “innocent” victims, or actually make demands that could be met (if any) is seen as a weakness.
I know this is just bullshit pop psychology and maybe the truth is that this was not a relatively spontaneous stateless group. But, for me, it provides some clue as to how groups* of people can get to a place where psychotic behavior is possible.
*As opposed to mass murder committed by individuals.
Oh, it absolutely could happen. Of course, the last time a guy tried to shoot up a public place that I remember, it was a mall a year or two ago… and he was gunned down. ;P
Because when someone points a gun at you, there is absolutely no expectation that they won’t use it? Have you ever seriously considered someone pointing a weapon at you NOT a threat of using it?
Let’s put it this way: After what happened, what do you think a typical Indian person would assume would happen if a group of people weilding AK47s showed up and told him what to do?
Right. And how do those usually work out when there are armed citizens present?
Cute story, particularly with the little winking nyeh emoticon, but your memory stinks. Plenty of people have tried to shoot up public places more recently than “a year or two ago” and weren’t gunned down. I can link you the news stories when you’re ready to be disabused of your fantasies.
-Tom
To be sure, there is a lot of investigation still to be done, of which only a select percentage will be made public. It’s still not clear from what I have seen whether the resignations and media criticism of the police force is more than a falling on swords and jump to conclusions kabuki play.
I would not be surprised if the police end up shouldering a great deal of the blame. Still, I would point the finger much higher than them, because unless there has been some massive overhaul of their police force I missed out on (entirely possible), it seems to me that they’ve been allowing the traditional corruption and ineffectiveness to fester in a political situation that no longer allows for such lax conduct. So by “they” I mean the actual decision makers, not the guy in the uniform taking the heat from the press.
Also, it would seem to me that any number of the contractor military services we’ve bred in Iraq, training and otherwise,are likely falling over each other to pitch the Indian “market”. Lot of potential there for some entrepreneurial secondhand military types to make a buck, and I’d be impressed if this doesn’t prove a watershed moment for them.
I couldn’t say, I don’t know that much about the area and I expect that even someone that did would have trouble with that one. I don’t know exactly what prompts “mob violence” of the sort you are describing, but I think the means are the least of the issues. My impulse would be to avoid adding potentially destabilizing elements to the mix (eg mass shipments of guns for civilians or something) and work with what you already have, focusing on intelligence and political approaches. That seems to be where India is headed, particularly with respect to Pakistan, and that’s positive I guess.
As you realized, I wasn’t offering a proposal so much as a clarification of the underlying reasoning behind some of the madness here so far. Jason summed it up nicely on page 2, and I imagine we could just recycle any of a million other gun threads in this very forum, perhaps in a different font or something, rather than everybody concentrating really hard on making India squeeze into what is largely an American and occasionally (tragically) Euro vs American argument.
Erm, has everyone forgotten Virginia Tech already? You know, the highest death toll by a single shooter ever? VT has a huuuuge gun culture. Most Virginia Tech students I talk to either have guns, or have practiced on the free student gun range right on campus. Lot of help that did.
As Tom pointed out, your memory stinks. Just as an example, a guy pulled out a gun and shot two people in a crowded mall in Seattle a few weeks ago. People ran in all directions and the guy got out of the mall and wasn’t captured until a few days later. And that’s a small-time incident where I don’t disagree that armed citizens could have an impact, assuming they didn’t end up shooting innocent people in a chaotic situation. But if you think that one or two bad guys with handguns equals 10 guys armed with assault rifles, a few citizens armed with pistols would be insane to even try. Even trained cops will not engage in those circumstances; they will wait for better armed tactical or military forces to arrive. Go look at what happened in that famous LA area bank robbery about ten years ago where two guys in body armor and armed with assault rifles caused all kinds of cop and civillian injuries before they were taken down. And LA is a city that has experience with gang violence and other big issues.
Because when someone points a gun at you, there is absolutely no expectation that they won’t use it? Have you ever seriously considered someone pointing a weapon at you NOT a threat of using it?
Sure it’s a threat, but in most cases you are better off just going along with whatever is demanded of you because most of the time the perpetrator isn’t planning to kill anyone. From the standpoint of most of the victims in Mumbai, they had no reason until it was too late to think these guys were simply out to kill people. If your approach to having a gun aimed at you is to act like you are about to die, you are more likely to die than if you submit to the situation and do what you are told.
Right. And how do those usually work out when there are armed citizens present?
So you’re saying that Israel should be happy with all the civillian deaths they’ve had as a result of terrorist acts because it “could have been worse”? Besides, terrorists adjust. Even if every citizen is trained and carries a firearm, you are still going to have terrorist acts if you have an enemy that is willing to die to kill a bunch of people to make a political statement. As Israel proves.
Yes, that is exactly like what happened in India. Exactly the template we need for the discussion to advance. Moreover, we can regard that as a shining example of how gun ownership actually leads to being shot! I have it on good authority that every single mass gun homicide is a direct consequence of a concealed carry permit and legal guns being owned by someone, somewhere. In fact, yesterday I was cleaning my rifle and the very act of touching a legally owned weapon caused an entire kindergarten to drop dead 400 miles away as a result of the Brady Butterfly Effect. It’s true, I saw it on TV.
The most immediate consequence of the attack will be increased cooperation from the Pakistanis with regard to U.S. military operations within their borders.
In the spirit of “not wasting a crisis,” this is a perfect lever for the U.S. to use to pry open better access to the Pakistani countryside for the purpose of targeted airstrikes and commando operations.
This will have some obvious happy consequences, as well as the added bonus of possibly placating the understandably-pissed Indian government. If the U.S. and Pakistan can jointly assure the Indians that Americans are on the ground in stronger numbers, it could go a long way toward obviating a need for any ratcheting-up of military tensions between the neighbors.
His memory stinks? Everybody’s does when we take political arguments and pretend we are addressing them in a tactical context.
Sure it’s a threat, but in most cases you are better off just going along with whatever is demanded of you because most of the time the perpetrator isn’t planning to kill anyone. From the standpoint of most of the victims in Mumbai, they had no reason until it was too late to think these guys were simply out to kill people. If your approach to having a gun aimed at you is to act like you are about to die, you are more likely to die than if you submit to the situation and do what you are told.
Lots of people are unhappy with that as a solution, no matter what is more likely. It’s not your fault you feel one way and I do another, but it’s not something you are going to convince across the aisle. The only option that works is to find compromises that can be dealt with by both kinds of people (or separate into radically different state laws and the like, as has occurred in the past), and as a corollary I would suggest not turning every exceptional crime or act of terrorism into a valuable precedent setter. The second phase is (by all that is holy) not acting like stuff that blossoms in America’s situation is in any way relevant to how most other countries do business. Because it’s not.
So you’re saying that Israel should be happy with all the civillian deaths they’ve had as a result of terrorist acts because it “could have been worse”? Besides, terrorists adjust. Even if every citizen is trained and carries a firearm, you are still going to have terrorist acts if you have an enemy that is willing to die to kill a bunch of people to make a political statement. As Israel proves.
Israel doesn’t “prove” that. All you’ve managed to prove is that you’re willing to take your argument ad absurdum without a shred of self consciousness. You’re right, in the face of adaptable terrorists the correct answer is absolute passivity because you are still going to have terrorist acts. This is so productive.
You’re probably thinking of the one in Salt Lake city:
But… the guy that had the gunner pinned down with his concealed pistol was a cop!
Thank goodness. I mean, I disagree with you that using this “perfect lever” to engineer that outcome would be wise or really desirable for Indians, Pakistanis, or Americans in the long term, but at least you’re on track.
I think if anything American foreign policy needs to stop being predicated on a crisis->solution no one would have agreed to before crisis mentality. We’ve got enough to dig ourselves out of as is because of that approach.
To me, ideally Mr. President will sit on his hands through this one and do his best to listen to what both parties propose and offer American assistance where requested. But I suspect he would disagree. A few questions:
Why would Pakistanis be any less hostile to American intervention? We’ve managed to destabilize the country to the point where even Musharraf with all of his tricks couldn’t stay in charge with exactly those kinds of moves. Why would the government cut off its head to cure a headache?
Indians want heads on spikes, I assume. If anyone other than the Pakistanis deliver them, we have an American controlled outcome that everyone resents at some level and does not serve to advance the cause of India-Pakistani relations. Wouldn’t cooperation between them, with the crisis as a facilitator of something that everyone agreed was necessary beforehand but lacked the political capital vs a means of strengthening the American hand against all local instincts in the short run, be an ideal outcome? That seems to me exactly the kind of thing American should be brokering, or the EU, or anyone that wants a piece of this action.
Massive invasions and genocidal actions have far reaching consequences.
I think you’re misunderstanding Scrax’s point. He’s refuting the argument, put forth earlier by Anti-Bunny, that North Hollywood and Columbine weren’t prevented because California and Colorado are supposedly more hostile to gun ownership. VT was smack dab in the middle of gun culture country, yet it didn’t seem to play any role in thwarting the gunman.
-Tom
Won’t all parties be sitting on their hands for a bit longer? I’m just assuming – perhaps incorrectly – that there will be some unraveling done in terms of the Pakistan’s role in the attack that could make the situation worse or better. Or are we getting pretty much all we’re going to get in terms of information about ISI’s involvement, or lack thereof?
-Tom
There’s no question that the conflation of tactical, cultural, and legal issues goes much farther than just that post. But thanks for clearing that up, I tend to skim when I see this argument already in full swing.