''A review of 'Who becomes a terrorist and why'

''A review of 'Who becomes a terrorist and why' ''
Date: Monday, August 12, 2002 @ 04:03:36 EDT
Topic: Matthew Riemer

By Matthew Riemer
YellowTimes.org Columnist (United States)
(YellowTimes.org) – If the 1999 government report on profiling terrorists, Who Becomes a Terrorist and Why, is any reflection of Washington's insights regarding the phenomenon of terrorism or its ability to deal with terrorism, it's little wonder that the devastatingly precise and complex attacks of 9-11 not only went so smoothly, but were completely unexpected.

The report, which is followed by an extensive appendix detailing specific groups (Hamas, Kurdistan Workers' Party, Hizballah, FARC) and various group leaders (Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, Abu Nidal, Abdullah Ocalan), is ostensibly a collection of uninformative speculations by psychologists who clearly have no interest in discovering the motivations of terrorists and their organizations.

The jacket features a fairly overdramatic, front cover quote from Senator Charles Grassley, R-Iowa: "One of the most alarming indicators and warning signs of the terrorist plot of September 11." However, the fact of the matter is that the report barely mentions al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden (aside from an almost after-the-fact biographical sketch) and talks more about the group known as Aum Shinrikyo, responsible for a sarin gas attack on passengers of a Tokyo subway in March of 1995.

It should be noted though that the report does mention the use of suicide hijackings by Islamists as a known threat, raising still further questions regarding the coordinated group lying of the Bush administration in the days and weeks following September 11th. But that's another matter. On to the report.

Here's an example of one of the psychological revelations contained within:

Terrorists do not perceive the world as members of governments or civil societies do. Their belief systems help to determine their strategies and how they react to government policies. As Martha Crenshaw has observed, "The actions of terrorist organizations are based on a subjective interpretation of the world rather than objective reality."
To whom is this referring? Terrorists, police, politicians, soldiers, me, you, everybody? How absolutely universal is the "Their belief systems help to determine their strategies..." observation? And it's even more useless as a tool of understanding than it is universal.
Whose actions aren't based on subjective interpretation? I didn't know there was such a thing as "objective reality." (Surely, Einstein would disapprove.) One would imagine that the speaker (along with those they endorse and agree with) feel that they are firmly rooted in this "objective reality," while those that oppose them are subject to the delusional whims of "subjective interpretation."

Such observations are conscious choices to completely ignore the legitimate motives of others.

The report even includes information from studies as old as 1972 that sound completely hypocritical in a modern political sense, as well as directly conflicting data revealed later in the study:

Psychologist B.J.Berkowitz (1972) describes six psychological types who would be most likely to threaten or try and use WMD: paranoids, paranoid schizophrenics, borderline mental defectives, schizophrenic types, passive-aggressive personality types, and sociopath personalities.
This statement becomes quite interesting when considering that the United States led by George W. Bush has now threatened the world with weapons of mass destruction (WMD). This being declared in the context of war in Afghanistan, proliferation of military bases the world over, expanded executive power and extreme unilateralism. Perhaps the professor is right after all.
The "insanity" theme is also debunked later on in the report (though none of the other psychologists seem to take note): "Another finding is that the terrorist is not diagnosably psychopathic or mentally sick. Contrary to the stereotype that the terrorist is a psychopath or otherwise mentally disturbed, the terrorist is actually quite sane."

Then after further speculation not even worth mentioning and analysis of such obscure subjects as the age and marital status of Italian female terrorists in the 1970s, the report concludes with: "[U]nfortunately, for profiling purposes, there does not appear to be a single terrorist personality. This seems to be the consensus among terrorism psychologists as well as political scientists and sociologists," and "There do not appear to be any visibly detectable personality traits that would allow authorities to identify a terrorist."

One can only imagine the disappointment felt by those who commissioned the report after reading 100 plus pages of "maybe this, maybe that," followed by the conclusion that terrorists cannot conveniently be stereotyped.

However, even amongst the clutter of pompous and Western-centric politically inspired psychological charlatanry there are some wise words:

[Jeanne Knutson] emphasized that "terrorists are individuals who commit crimes for political reasons," and for this reason "the political system has better means to control and eliminate their activities and even to attack their root causes than do the police and security forces working alone." Thus, she considered it unwise to give various national security agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the political role of choosing targets of political violence.
This is a rare observation in a report that usually finds itself emphasizing the illegitimacy and suspect mental health of such organizations and their members. This is an outlook that is especially dangerous when it comes to separatist groups and those representing (even symbolically) repressed peoples. Though the authors of the book do manage to note that
Turkey, by its policy of demonizing the PKK [Kurdistan Workers' Party] and repressing the Kurdish population in its efforts to combat it instead of seeking a political solution, only raised the PKK's status in the eyes of the public and lost the hearts and minds of its Kurdish population.
Unfortunately though, the bulk of the report remains rutted in the limiting mentality of terrorists and terrorism as a manifestation of maladjusted or mentally imbalanced individuals and has nothing to do with how they or others are treated. The psychologists seem unaware of the United States' status as the leading terrorist state of the 20th century and, in refusing to examine such obvious evidence (or even mention it), they not only do a disservice to their profession, but their "educated" analyses are reduced to cheap and petty propaganda.
The report then highlights quite well the reluctance of not only the U.S. and other Western governments, but also of the American psyche in general to look at the actual causes of terrorism (in many cases, unjustifiable imperialist aggression). It is perhaps this condition, this pathology more so than any other that will ensure the long life of "terrorism."

[Matthew Riemer has written for years about a myriad of topics, such as: philosophy, religion, psychology, culture, and politics. He studied Russian language and culture for five years and traveled in the former Soviet Union in 1990. In addition to his work with YellowTimes.org, he's also maintaining http://www.rottenindenmark.org, as well as being in the midst of a larger autobiographical/cultural work. Matthew lives in the United States.]

Matthew Riemer encourages your comments: mriemer@YellowTimes.org

YellowTimes.org encourages its material to be reproduced, reprinted, or broadcast provided that any such reproduction must identify the original source, http://www.YellowTimes.org. Internet web links to http://www.YellowTimes.org are appreciated.

arch/ive/ief (2000 - 2005)