[ Yazım Kuralları | Editörler | Dergi Hakkında | İçindekiler | Arşiv | Yayın Arama | Ana Sayfa | E-Posta ]
 Bilim, Eğitim ve Düşünce Dergisi
Aralık 2008, Cilt 8, Sayı 4, Sayfa(lar)
[ PDF ] [ Editöre E-Posta ] [ Yorumlar ]
CRITIQUE ON “DYING TO WIN” & UNDERSTANDING OF SUICIDE TERRORISM
KÜBRA ÜNAL
Giriş
In my paper, I have, firstly, understand the argumentation of A. Pape who is expert on the area of suicide terrorism and proffessor in Chicago University. Then, I have tried to capture the main points of Pape by regarding on configuration and possible solution on suicide terrorism. In this context, I have tried to analyse the work of Pape by presenting critique on him. After analysing of Pape, I have focused on the alternative reading on suicide terrorism in a more broader way with my own argumentation. Then, I have afford to put the foreign policy analysis especially US in terms of combatting terrorism at the world scale. In this consideration, the issue about modernity and globalization are the theme subjects in terms of modern suicide activities. Importantly, I have tried to develop an argument on the coverage of terrorist groups through mainly stressing on the differences between anti-religious groups and religious especially Islamic groups. Because, according to my research, the new wave of jihadism in terms of suicide terrorism should not be neglected! Lastly, I have worked on the alternative solutions on foreign policies and combatting terrorism in a global context due to globalized world.

As a short, I have formed four subtitles in my paper operation: the first part is the explanation of “Dying to Win” in which I have focused on the work of Pape as accordance with the meaning of suicide terrorism then second part is the analysing of “Dying to Win” in order to understand the argumentation of Pape to present the critique on his work. The third part consists of my own argumentation as added and criticized work of Pape. In this part, I have tried to form my analysis on suicide terrorism as accordance with my research on that subject and lastly the final part is the analysing of US foreign policy, due to my critism on Pape argumentation about US foreign policy, with the possible solutions on combatting terrorism at the world scale. Therefore, this part is not only related to US, but also related to the whole world context in a general framework. In this consideration, I have marked my own hope and desire as a candidate for graduating from international relations. Therefore, in my analysis about suicide terrorism, the theory is within the practice!

WHAT IS “DYING TO WIN”?
“Dying to Win” is a book written by Robert Anthony Pape in 2005. This book is concentrated by the theme of ‘suicide terrorism' especially through the variabilities and data statistics from the Chicago Project on Suicide Terrorism. This institute is founded and directed by Pape in the University of Chicago. In there, Pape is an American political scientist as a professor whose focus is on the strategic air power and suicide terrorism.

The configuration of the book, “Dying to Win” is on the strategic phenomenon of suicide terrorism under three subtitles at the global context: strategic logic of suicide terrorism, social logic of suicide terrorism and individual logic of suicide terrorism. Then, Pape prefers to draw conclusions on combatting terrorism as under the title of “A new victory”, however, this conclusion part is only related to the American foreign policy in terms of preventing terrorism. During his book, we see the using of statistical variabilities by Pape in order to make evident his arguments especially in the context of exemplifying the terrorist organizations; for instance Hamas, Hezbollah, Tamil Tigers, Al-Qaeda and PKK with their influence on world politics. The drawing attention of the book, while analysing the terrorist organizations, are stressed on the nature of such organizations and their operations at the international level, however, while giving the solutions over suicide attacks, are concentrated on the American politics especially the military politics of US. Therefore, as a brief, the book is started with the definition of suicide terrorism, then continuing with the strategic understanding of it and lastly ended with the new strategy which is upon the American politics and its perception.

Pape concentrates on the definition of the modern suicide terrorism as “not only to die, but to use their deaths to kill the maximum number of people from the opposing community” (Pape, 2005, 9). In this sense, with the definition of suicide terrorism, Pape makes equal the time of killing other with the time of killing own self. In this consideration, Pape argues about the three founding conditions of suicide terrorism by implying the aspects of its strategic phenomenon: the strategic logic of suicide terrorism by especially referring to “why does suicide attack make political sense from the perspective of a terrorist organizations?”(Pape, 2005, 21) in this sense the theme is the questioning of the suicide attacks as working and such groups learning from each other that suicide terrorism pays; the social logic of suicide terrorism by particulary referring to “why does suicide attack receive mass support in some societies and not others?” (Pape, 2005, 21) in this sense the focus is on the socially constructed value of martrydom in order to gain support and legitimate their violence; the individual logic of suicide terrorism by referring to “what makes particular people willing to give up their lives to carry out terrorist attacks?” (Pape, 2005, 21) in this sense the main point is the link between the altruism and suicide terrorism.

ANALYSING “DYING TO WIN” IN TERMS OF CRITIQUE
In a broader sense, in the strategic logic of suicide terrorism, as Pape argues, we see the strategy of coercion as an main instrument. In other words, the coercion is the way of terrorist attackers in order to “compel a target government to change their policy” (Pape, 2005, 27). They prefer coercion because, according to Pape, this is the only strategy to compansate their military weakness, otherwise they know that they couldn't accomplish any victory. For terrorist groups, as Pape states, the punishment is essential in this sense, because in this way they can veil their incapability and compel the government as accordance with their desire. This investigation is linked with the essential goal of terrorist organization as gaining the control of territory. Pape argues that the independence of the terrority that terrorist groups think as their homeland is the main purpose of all their activities, hence, he starts the theorization of terrorist attacks as in terms of nationalism, as I will mention in the part of social logic of suicide terrorism.

One of the main arguments of Pape is related to the questioning the link between the Islamic fundamentalism and suicide terrorism. In this consideration, Pape debunks the conventional wisdom about Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism by referring to only the facilitator of fundamentalism in the causal direction of terrorism. In other words, Islamic fundamentalism is not one of the causal effect in terms of terrorism, however, it is the one of the facilitator element to form the suicide attacks. For instance, in this context, Pape uses Tamil Tigers as one of the anti-religious group and PKK as with their starting strategy of Marxist-Leninist sense.

Pape argues about the strategic logic of suicide terrorism with its three pattern: the “timing” which refers to the organized structure of suicide terrorism as in terms of cohesion not randomly timed; the “nationalist goals” which refers to the desire of independence of homeland by terrorist groups and the “target selection” which implies the democracies for last two years as a target due to their more tendency to vulnerability. (Pape, 2005, 39) Additionally, Pape argues that the terrorist organizations strategically learn from their works and past experiences. In other words, coercive strategy as accordance with the punishment is related and accelerated by the acts of each other because they thinks that, as Pape states, the act of suicide terrorism pays. For instance, Hamas campaings in 1994-5 was accordance with the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza Strip and West Bank. Hence, for them, the coercion strategy works as accordance with their purposes and in terms of such strategy the terrorist groups learn from each other and experience that suicide attacks are the instruments in order to use against the opponents. For example, the Hezbollah campaings in Lebanon in terms of their success through suicide attacks which persuaded Tamil Tigers and Al-Qaeda in terms of effectiveness of attacks. Briefly, the suicide attacks for terrorist groups are important for a more effective punishment and as a last resort which in return gains victory over the traditional military campaigns. They all do such attacks for Pape “to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that terrorists consider to be their homeland” (Pape, 2005, 38)

In the social logic of suicide terrorism, Pape argues about the three probability conditions for facilitating suicide terrorism: first one; when the occupation of a national territory is done by an occupying force, second one; when the religious difference is between the occupying force and occupied territory and the third one; when the occupying force is as a democracy. In this context, again the root, for Pape it is the taproot of suicide terrorism, is the nationalism emerges as essential. Because the occupation of a national community comes to mean the rising of nationalist argument in the side of terrorits. In other words, nationalism shows the fact why local communities as against to the occupying forces in terms of resistance, as a short, for Pape, nationalism occurs as the extreme strategy for the national liberation. Hence, the argumentation of Pape is the fact that the religious difference and the targetting democracies have the secondary importance because the essential causality for suicide terrorism is the national liberation of the attackers homeland. In this context, Pape says that the main concern is the abolition of foreign power from the national community. Hence, the religious difference exists as a national sense, facilitator and the tool of the creation of “us” and “them” in order to form boundaries for nationalism. In a broader sense, the religion becomes the the principal defining boundary between the occupied community and occupying force in the national context. In this consideration, Pape argues that religious difference is crucial in order to motivate the mass for supporting, thus, there are three important signalling in terms of religious difference between the occupying and occupied: first one is the “zero-sum conflict” (Pape, 2005, 89) which refers to the conflict between occupied and the occupier as a zero-sum, hence, this is the reducing room for the compromise between both two. Second one is the “demonization” (Pape, 2005, 90) which signals the enemy as a the inferior in moral terms and dangerous in militarily therefore it is important to beat them by terrorist organizations. The third one is the “legitimacy for Martyrdom” (Pape, 2005, 91) in terms of legitimising the violence they use against opponents. In that consideration, the martyrdom as a socially constructed value in the society is crucial to deal with to gain the support of people because in return the people who organize suicide attacks become the honored people in the society with the level of martyrdom. Hence, those are important on one hand to recruit people and gain support in their violence and activities and on the other hand to legitimate themselves. In this context, Pape uses the example of Al-Qaeda in order to justify themselves in terms of martrydom by using their religion against the non-Islamic society of US, in this consideration, Al-Qaeda figures out US as the Crusader for Christian- Jewish alliance by exploiting the religion and using is as the main weapon. Briefly, the argument of Pape in the social context of suicide terrorism is mainly in terms of national context. Additionally, Pape uses religious difference as a phenomenon which is meaningful in national context especially in terms of national resistance. Therefore, Pape draws the causal direction of suicide terrorism as started from nationalism to rebellion to the terrorism and as a last resort to the suicide terrorism. For instance, in order to show the absence of religious difference as important to limit suicide terrorism, Pape uses the PKK example in Turkey. In this context, Pape concentrates on, due to the similar religion between the Kurds and Turks people, the cross-community assimilation which in return decreases the suicide attacks by increasing the integrity of Kurdish people into Turkish state. In this example, Pape analyse the diminishing internal support for the PKK in Turkey due to absence of religious difference. This is also logical when we compare the other terrorist organizations which have the religious difference with the occpying power and their national community, however, it is insufficient for Pape argumentation only concentrating on the internal support for the terrorist groups. It is also important to focus on the external support for the terrorist attacker if we analyse the social logic of suicide terrorism. Because the social context is a broader context to explain the conditions of terrorist organizations, hence, there is need for analysing both internal and external aspects of terrorist organizations in terms of their gaining support from people.

In addition, as I mentioned above, Pape draws his argument about suicide terrorism on the nationalism as the main root. Therefore, according to Pape, the additional goals for example to establish a religious state, that the terrorist organizations have, are like pretext. For instance, the establishing of religious state in Palestine for Hamas or the same for Al-Qaeda in Arabian Peninsula are not the essential argumentation for Pape, rather, they are the motivations for their massive supporters. In that sense, I'm dissagree with Pape in terms of simplification of all terrorist attacks into nationalism. Because, although the religious aims are not enough to claim of their reason of existence, the pure nationalism is also not a whole condition for terrorism. For instance, David Cook is also one of the critiser of Pape argumentation states that Pape reduces the Al-Qaeda aim is only to prevent the American presence in the national territories it has considered in mind, in other words, Pape reduces the Al-Qaeda's strategic goal to the US occupation of Saudi Arabia in order to make evident his thesis on the main point for suicide terrorism is to liberate their homeland. However, Al-Qaeda has much more broader goals instead of mainly concentrating on national liberation. In my opinion, the argumentation should not reduce to the nationalism, rather, it should be useful to harmonise the more than one reason, in other words, the nationalism is essential in order to explain suicide terrorism however there is also a one more essential theme exists: hegemony! The desire of hegemony should not decrease only to the religious aim or political aim; this is the combination of both! Hence, I advocate the nationalism as one of the necessary condition in terms of gaining independence of homeland however with the line of hegemony. (I will mention about the term hegemony under the title of “Alternative Reading On Suicide Terrorism in Terms of Configuration ”)

In the individual logic of suicide terrorism, Pape estalishes his concern on the link between the alturism and suicide terrorism because the altruistic suicide involves the high integration level in the society and the approving of such attacks by society as in terms of martyrdom. Therefore, the self-sacrifising is the same for the self-sacrifising of own self for the good of the community, that is why the society approves the atruism. In the suicide terrorism as accordance with the altruistic character, there is seen the high interaction of attackers and integrity to the socialization rather than any isolated or unsociability of them. In this consideration, the kill of the enemy comes to mean not only as a right but also as a duty for the sake of whole society, hence, the act of suicide is a honorable duty to perform. Pape, in order to prove his thesis on the altruism and the normality of the suicide attackers, uses the information about three important suicide attackers in the past: one of them was the attacker in Tell-Aviv as against to Isarel; another one was one of the 9/11 attackers to Twin Towers and the other one was the suicide attacker by bombing the belt against Gandhi. Pape analyses their commonality that; they had a high social integration in the society rather than being isolated and pscyhological character and they were educated people. Importantly, the attackers both the death ones and the potentials to be attackers are having a wide varity of different ideologies, hence, they have not a unique or single religious or secular minds in order to be active. They generally emerge among from the well-educated people and middle or working classes, thus, they are rarely poor or unemployed people. They all have a long-training programme in order to organize such attacks. The main point that Pape states is the political consciousness of those attackers. Rather than being isolated and unsocial character, they have their political consciousness especially with integrated to the society.

In the last part of the book, Pape concentrates on the new victory for combatting terrorism. However, Pape creates solutions on US foreign policy. First of all, Pape criticizes the US foreign policy in terms of using heavy military force which in return encourages the anti-American driving among the Muslim societies. In that sense, Pape also concentrates on the faulty of US's transformation aim of Muslim society through regime change which in return also causes to the increasing of terrorism in the future. Therefore, he stresses on two main arguments about the solution of US against terrorism: First one is the defeating terrorists who planning to kill Americans and second one is to prevent the future potentials of attackers. In order to activate such planning there are two needs for Pape; first refers to the developing friendly relations with Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran by points to the ineffectiveness of the off-shore balancing of US and second refers to the alternative to the ineffective offshore balancing is the energy independence. However, there is noting written about the contents of energy independence. Pape only mentions about the US's necessity to reduce the dependence on the imported oil. However, there are nothing mentioned about what the context of energy independence and how to imply it…

As a brief discussion, Pape uses three important conceptualization in analysing suicide terrorism; first one is the nationalism as the main argument, second one is the existence of religious difference and the third one is the targetting of democracy due to their more vulnerability. In this context, the religious difference and being democracy are the secondary importance as comparing to the nationalism because they matters mainly in the national context. Therefore, in Pape's analysis, he uses the nationalism as a broader phenomenon in order to explain the strategic characteristic of suicide terrorism, however, as James Kiras says that Pape uses the absolute and conclusive terms. In this consideration, for instance, he reduces the whole analysis into nationalism because according to Pape all the factors matters in the national context especially in the national liberation. Also, Pape uses and analyses the internal support configuration however there is no sense about the external support of the terrorist organizations in his writting. If we mention about the understanding of the terrorist organizations, we should know about both the internal and external context of them because those organizations are world-wide operation especially with the globalizing phenomenons. In addition, as David Cook states that Pape's thinking on Hamas, Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda as rational entities is too exaggeration, in other words, Pape seeks to rationalize such actors in an absolute terms, however, they are the peoples, organizations and they have their sociality and individuality except their strategic composition. Adding that, in the conclusion part, Pape uses the sentence as “US maintains permanent readiness to intervene massively and rapidly if necassary” when discussing about Gulf region. (Pape, 2005, 248) However, this is not both ethically and politically usable context. Because then the question arises: What does it mean?, What is the situation of US in the probable intervention?, What is the aspects of ‘necassary' in terms of ‘US interest'?… (I will mention about the structure and offering on US foreign policy in the last part of my paper under the title of “Alternative Reading on Foreign Policies and Combatting Terrorism”)

Importantly, my main critism to Pape is his configuration of the book; Pape starts with the analysing terrorist organizations and their activations at both national and international level by implying the modern situation of them which comes to mean the global context of the world. However, in the conlcusion part, Pape only handle the solutions over terrorist attacks only in the side of American politics especially US foreign policy. Hence, the solutions on the combatting suicide terrorism is established by Pape only by linking to the US policy. Pape establishes his conclusion part as how American policy can combat suicide terrorism. However, as I mentioned above, the conclusion part of combatting terrorism in terms of American policy has ambiguities.

ALTERNATIVE READING ON SUICIDE TERRORISM IN TERMS OF CONFIGURATION:
As we know from the argumentation of Pape, the concept of nationalism is essential in the explanation of the suicide terrorism, however, I claim that this is not sufficient to cover whole context. I'm agree with Pape that the religious difference is the facilitator element in forming terrorism by referring to martyrdom even the organization group is anti-religious group such as Tamil Tigers whose religion is Hindu or Christianity while they are fighting against the government of Sri Lanka who is Buddhist. In this context, they are not fighting for religion rather for the compelling policies as addingly with the usage of religous difference. However, when we look at those problems in a deeper sense, we can observe the main problematic: the occupied forces (terrorist groups, I mean) are opposed to those who tend to implement the aggresive policies against them. In other words, ‘they are against who against them'! Pape interprets this situation as the war to win independence in the national context, hence, Pape calls this as nationalism. However, nationalism could not be classified as the main context due to its limited configuration. In this consideration, ‘being against to whom against them' can be interpretated as in the combination of desire to make free of their homeland by regarding to remove the occupying forces; wanting to form their dominance against to whom forces the opposite dominance; searching for the visibility in the international arena due to the desire of gaining recognition in international scale. In a broader sense, the growing attention against their living conditions and values; those organizations trying to protect their own ideas, life-style and conditions in a more extremist way: by attacking the other! In other words, the counter movement against their thought, usage and etc make them situate in a more attractive way. In this consideration, the rising of radical Islamism and the changing meaning of the jihadism are essential for the Islamic terrorist organizations. I also want to add that there are different kinds of terrorist organizations that commit suicide activities such as Marxist-Leninist groups like PKK in its former period, Tamil Tigers as an anti-religious group, Al-Qaeda as the Islamist extremist group and etc. However, my focus point is that all of those terrorist groups organize the suicide activities in order to make themselves as the visible as against to the recent conditions that they dislike! Especially for the anti-religious groups, the visibility generally built up on the national context however even in this national context the problematic is formed with desire to gain an international recognition against the occupying forces as their own situation with their own values, style and dominance as an actor in international arena. Hence, the situation for the visibility comes to fore as an essential desire. When we look at the religious terrorist groups, we generally observe the national independence in the context of jihad but obviously with the spreading or exporting the gatherance of them. In other words, especially for the religious terrorist groups, the national context, as Pape argues, becomes transferring into the context of dominance and expansion, as I argue,! In other words, the nationalism in the context of Pape is limited and does not cover the terrorist organizations' aim for exporting their own values, style and etc, rather, the nationalism in Pape includes only the defensive context of those groups. In that context, my opinion is that there should be adding the element of, after establishing independence, offensive nationalism! In that consideration, I mean the factors of dominance in broader nationalism context in which I prefer using the term ‘hegemony' to cover the terrorist organizations' activities, aims and means!

Hegemony in this context should refer to the dominance of the group, organization or any situation among the others. In one sense, it marks the difference from others with their own values, ideas and especially power. As we know that, those organizations were attaining ‘suicide activities' as a last resort in the past however with this global measurement they are using suicide actions as the main instrument because of their essential influence on their hating others! Therefore, with global scale, they are now also ranging in powerful organizations in international arena who spread fear, deterrence in a sense! In other sense, they are marking to the diffusing their own characteristics in terms of dominance; in other words, they are trying to gain recognition in international context with their widespread hegemonic situation. In this consideration, they want to become a dominant group as in the global context with their own potential and abilities. Therefore, we mention about the desire to form dominance over the dominant groups who they define as the enemy or occupying forces. In this context, I advocate the term hegemony rather than nationalism; in this way, the term hegemony can contain both the defensive and offensive nationalism. Addingly, the hegemony is a term that involves both the social and political context in a sense! It is political because those organizations' main goal was to gain international recognition over the others as an agent such as Hamas and it is social because they are trying to protect their own values, ideas and life style as in social context through their afford to form their own community/state. In that consideration, the term hegemony does not signal the difference between the political and social contexts, rather, it brings the political and social together with the prevailing of political but this does not mean the political as the main and the social as the facilitator element! Rather, this comes to mean that social and political factors are equally the former elements with the political's more influencing situation.

If we talk about the anti-religious terrorist groups, we can mention about the soft hegemony in a general sense because those groups concentrate on mostly the national independence which is over the occupying forces in a more defensive way. For instance, if we can think about Tamil Tigers, they are against the dominance of Sri Lankan government and they are trying to form their dominance against the Sri Lankan governments's compelling, forces and dominance. Hence, in that context, they mainly concentrate on their own target in order to form an independence. In that sense, Pape argumentation about nationalism is more available in this sample, however, even in this case the offensive nationalism is also existing in the scene because their defense is against a government whereas their offense is due to protect their values and their own abilities. The recognition is important for them because of making themselves as powerful agent against the ‘others'. However, this case, particularly the case of anti-religious groups are more related to the hegemony in a soft sense due to their less desire to claim about spreading their own style in global scale; they stress on more to establish their own state or structure less regarding of the diffusing their values into the world in order to make themselves as the hegemonic power in the world. However, they search for in a sense of soft hegemony because even those groups are searching for the visibility in order to make themselves as recognized and supported! In this sense I argue that hegemony is important because we live in the globalized world and almost everyting is internationalized with the changing meaning of institutions and organizations. Therefore, the hegemonic sense in this world conjuncture is also true word for the terrorist groups. In that sense, they use the suicide activities in order to make themselves as visible and powerful actor who is courage to influence!

If we talk about the religious terrorist groups, we should mention about the hard hegemony that they have! Because with the global scale, the word jihad has also changed! The biggest difference from the anti-religious terrorist organization is their thinking about jihad because the term jihad mainly concentrates on the offensive character with the modern times. In order to understand this changes, we can look at past history of jihad; the early Islam referred to the coming together of the Arab nomads in order to build a community which was described by its faith in God and whose essential characteristic was the caring for the poor. When we look at the jihad's meaning in eighteen and nineteen century, it was used as an imperial ideology in order to promote the military success such like an defensive mechanism against the British, French and Russian expansionism into Islamic states. In this sense, the generosity and the public welfare was so important however in contemporary Islamic states, few of them recognize the state responsibility to care for poor and give importance to the social reform and welfare which in return lead to the crisis in Muslim world. In the case of jihadist suicide terrorist organizations; one is al-Qaeda whose leader is Bin Laden for instance uses the term ‘jihad' ,as Rashid states, in order to obtain influence and political power. In this sense, jihad as a tool to form offensive weapon which is important for accelerating martyrdom. However, the term martyrdom was used as a last resort in past. Now, in modern Islamic terrorism the term martyrdom has become like a license in order to start the establishment of the organizations, says Rashid. Especially, after 9/11, for al-Qaeda, the term jihad means the one thing: suicide bombing! As we see that there is a link between Islamic extremism and the suicide terrorism as contrast to the Pape argument who advocates no connection between Islamic fundamentalism and suicide terrorism with his data basis. However, in the jihad meaning, we can see the connection between jihad (with its changing meaning) and terrorism as Rashid indicates. However, we should say that this is not the whole context for the suicide terrorism because the term jihad is available for religious groups whereas for the anti-religious groups we see the martyrdom as replaced with jihad in a sense more visibly! In other words, martyrdom is important to receive support from the mass as Pape argues. Differently from Pape, espcially for the anti-religious groups the context of nationalism contains the martyrdom in order to make people sacrifize themselves for the independence however in that context the soft hegemony comes to fore as with the independence to gain visibility in international context. Their aim is not much more concentrated on the spreading their ideas, opinions and etc but concentrated on the desire to show their power weight like an hegemon in the international context due to make themselves as visible! In the Islamic terrorist groups, we observe more the hegemonic situation especially within a hard context. Because in this ense, jihad becomes so important for both fighting against the ‘other' and export their difference with their own characteristics to the world. They try to build a hegemonic situation against the current hegemons! In this sense, the modernization is so essential because with the modernization effects on sameness; the extremist religious groups form their difference and declare the occupying force as the ‘other' and want to spread their difference at the world scale in order to protect their ownship! In other words, as Göle says, the radical extremist groups have built their own values, ideas, structure as against the other through using the tool of others! In this consideration, 9/11 is the concrete example that Islam hit the ‘other'due to their desire to make themselves different from the others/modernized because their style is different from them, however, as unintendently, they have become so close to each other! Now, in our times with globalization, the Islamic discourse is transferred into the global public space as Göle says. In this global space, Islam encounters with modernity by changing the meaning of jihad as Rashid argues. Therefore, as I argue, with this encountering of Islam and modernity in this transnational public space; the fighting of Islam against such closer ‘enemy' could continue to its victory over it, in other words, the terrorist activities especially by the basis of new jihadism could maintain unless its hegemony over the world. That is why I name the term ‘hard hegemony' for the religious terrorist groups. The Islamic terrorist groups want for promoting their difference from the other and have desire to built their own world against the current world. Addingly, we can observe the transformation of current terrorist groups with the changing of jihad understanding among them when we compare them with the past terrorist groups. In this context, as Kepel says that the Cold War terrorists were fighting for the better conditions and did not really focuces on the Islamic values whereas today's terrorists are fighting for hitting the West by becoming like Western which especially refers to the usage of Western style in the means like internet, technology and etc. They are actually focusing on the Islamic context by making it as de-traditionalized as Göle says! In this sense, we can observe the changing position of ulama in Islamic conjuncture which comes to mean the religious hierarchy for interpreting religious texts like Qor'an has become to be disregarded with facing the erosion “because of democratization cum-vulgarization of religious idiom” (Göle, 342). Therefore, the term nationalism is insufficient to define those relation with Islam and modernity which in return lead to the changing context of Islam by affecting the modern Islamic terrorist groups. Hence, the main argument for the current situation of terrorist groups is to discuss over hegemony whether in a soft or hard character which refers to the promoting of their own values, style and dominance against the ‘other' in a more extremist context. For instance, the jihad with modern Islamic terrorist groups comes to mean as sacrifizing themselves which is suicide bombing! As we know that, Qor'an prohibits the suicide acts, however, with the de-traditionalization of religion, we can observe the reinterpretation of texts which in return adopting for the aim of hegemony over the other! This is hard hegemony with the new wave of jihadism for the Islamic terrorist groups whereas for the others the context martyrdom refers to the both offensive and defensive situation with the soft hegemonic context as I argue, above.

ALTERNATIVE READING ON FOREIGN POLICIES AND COMBATTING TERRORISM:
As Pape argues about the American foreign policy about combatting terrorism with especially offerings about the heavy military forces' withdrawal and the giving up the transformation of the Muslim society by US are available elements. In a broader sense, the deployment of US forces in many places of Middle East facilitates the anti-American drive among those people who are against US. Therefore, in that sense, for instance, Pape concentrates on developing friendly relations with Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran. In this consideration, I really want to broaden this argumentation through adding the current and possible future conditions about the dialogue of US with those countries. However, first of all, the neoconservative building in US with Bush administration is the main problematic about both the terror and aggressive activies. In other words, the search for American hegemony has developed with Bush administration especially his main politics of unilateralism, preemption and military hegemony! In this consideration, Bush administration tends to dominate the regions by using the pretext of bringing freedom and democracy which in return caused to the caotic and distrupting war among the US and others. In that sense, the fear has shaped the US policy as Leffler argues about! In this consideration, with Bush adminisration we observe the dissappearance of diplomatic relations by pursuing the aim of unilateralism. In other words, as Leffler states that Bush administration combines the democratic idealism with the preemptive power exercise which in return creates the counter hegemony against their potential hegemonic structure. In this context, this counter hegemonic creation is mainly against the US by the US and its allies. In that context, we can give the name of such terrorist organizations: al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and etc. Therefore, the discourse of balance of power with its modified form in Bush administration has created the potential threat which could come from any place that caused to the interventionist policies of US in the world context. In other words, as Leffler says the new thing in the balance of power configuration with Bush administration is the preponderance of preemption policy as the fundamental which in return leads to the aggressive situation in international relations. Leffler critizes Bush administration in terms of balance of power because this in turn causes to the more dangerous world due to its calling for arm races in order to defeat a potential security threat. Thus, Leffler mentions about the community power policy which is defined as the use of US power with the spreading of US values as reconciliated with needs of friends, well being of community as accordance with the pursuit of national security. This is available to reduce the hegemonic understanding of US in some senses!

As ı mentioned above, we live in a global context, thus, almost all the configurations are pursuing by the multilateral structure. Even in the case of terrorist groups, the composition of them as internationalized / modernized / globalized. They have tried to build themselves as the powerful against the ‘other' by providing themselves as the new hegemon! In this world context, the most important theme is the cooperation or the compromising among the states or in a sense among the hegemons! For instance, as *Soli Özel says, the Iraqi war by US and its aggressive politics has caused to the changing the balances at the world politics: in this consideration Iran through its front as opening, it is rising not only as a regional power in the Persian but also as the power in Middle East whose politics has to be taken into account now! In this consideration the possible world politics in the future may not be favor in US side, rather, it would be in the side of Iran in terms of favouring! In this consideration, Iran could provide the funds or suspension for the terrorist groups against Israel and US. As we know that, the internal support is important for terrorist organization however the external support at the same time is essential to recruit the new terrorists / suicide bombers or to form the budget for the new attacks / operations against the ‘other'. Therefore, as Göle says that, with the globalization, there is seen the multistructural level for all the organizations and states, especially for the terrorist groups it comes to mean the increasing number of suicide bombers or terrorist supporters with the changing meaning of jihadism for Islamic terrorist groups or the broadening contends of the anti-religious groups' understanding about the martyrdom as the globalized martyrs. Hence, in my opinion, this is difficult to solve the problematic of terrorist organizations merely changing the US foreign policy as contrast to Pape! In this consideration, there has to be the cooperation and collaboration at the world level. There has to be ‘no hegemony in order to make dissappear the hegemonic search of the terrorist groups'!

When we look at the world context, step by step we can range the possible things that can be implemented in order to prevent the terrorism. Of course, in this consideration, the main part within this role will be belonged to US. In this way, we can look at the Economist Report which implies the possible better administration after Bush; firstly, the new government in US should give up the defense policy especially under the title of “war on terrorism” because this has created the highest level of national security structure with the empty fulfillment of its meaning. (Economist Report, 2008) Rather, there has to be afforts in order to reduce the aggressiveness. The Iraqi war is like a dark trace as US burdens because the withdrawal from US will possibly injury the institutions as the Americans supported in Iraq whether it is low or high level however the presence of US troops in Iraq will also strength the opinion in the world as US hostile position in their mind. Therefore, the main offering is to protect and promote such institutions even US may withdrawal from Iraq. Form this context, we can argue about the providing and promoting the democratic institutions and the civil society configurations in those countries where they have the highest possibility of feeding terrorist groups such as Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Africa and etc. In a broader sense, Rashid points out that since 9/11, the US aid has given “80 percent of 10 billion dollars aid to Pakistani army”; US military spends “1 billion dollars in Afghanistan” for one month; “8.9 billion dollars in Iraq” for the same period whereas small amount for the reconstruction, civil society institutions and nation building (Rashid, 2008). In the election times, the essentially new institutions for a potential democratic configuration for a state such as political parties, parliament, justice system and local governments are supported insufficiently and hence have failed to promote local services.

We can see the US officials' desire to enlist the moderate Muslims in order to make them as in their side; however, as Rashid states, this is so difficult to define a moderate position because now for Muslims even lots of them as Western-educated or liberal in their sense are against the US policy in Middle East. Rather, according to Rashid, the policy of Western governments and US should tend to the encouraging civil society and democratic institutions and also should concentrate on the secular schools with better teachers; more available situation for students in terms of educational system and more schools rather than funding for madrasas which is generally asked for Pakistani. authories. “The Western countries say they want to find moderate Muslims, but they avoid giving adequate and intelligently conceived subsidies for economic development and education” (Rashid, 2008)

Importantly, as Rashid offers about the future American policy two books: one book called The Five Front War: The Better Way to Fight Global Jihad by Daniel Byman's and another book called Winning the Right War: The Path to Security for America and the World by Philip Gordon. In this context, Byman is a counterterrorism expert whereas Gordon was a former National Security Council staff member and both of two concentrate on the failure politics of Bush administration; the possible changes with the new administration in terms of jihad conjuncture on US foreign policy. As Byman states that the main aim of al-Qaeda is to establish a global caliphate by taking over step by step some governments such as Afghanistan (this I termed as hegemony in a broader sense). Byman also adds that the Iraqi war presented a ground for the jihadist which in return can not be attained as a victory for US. As Gordon points out that the waging war of US was a wrong one and criticizes the Bush administration who defines the war on terror as too simplistic form which draws the figuration of evildoers who obviously hate from US, US values, structures and etc. “He argues that just as the US won the cold war through containment of the former Soviet Union and a multipronged strategy, a similar strategy is needed to deal with jihadism. It's a long war that needs ideas, not a short war of the kind US Special Forces are trained to fight” (Rashid, 2008) In this context, there is a need to conduct on an intensive diplomacy in Middle East; such as closing Guantanamo, spending more on homeland defense for security, reestablishing of US information services and reducing the dependence on oil in Middle East by US. Addingly, there is a growing need in order to withdraw from Iraq by starting cooperation with Iran and essentially as a need for Ameria to provide and promote Israeli-Palestine conflict. As a result, as Rashid, Leffler and Economist Reports concludes, the policy of America as called war on terrorism brings the strengtening of the conveying of jihadist messages and spreading the al-Qaeda with its new battlefield in Europe and else. For the suicide bombing, there is no quick solution, rather it will take a long time. However, in order to provide the succession against such terror; despite of its difficulties and long prolongation, there has to be done of reshaping US diplomacy, improving aid and nation building in terms of the new policies.

Combatting terrorism is not only the duty of US; however, it is mainly the work of US because in the global scale, US especially with monetary terms contains the large measure which in return the terrorist organizations have opportunity to find the funding. In this consideration, Western governments and US under the title of terror should come together and decide to give up the external support for those internationalized terrorist organizations as in terms of governments cooperation. As I mentioned above, the term cooperation and the compromising are the essential themes for the world politics because now almost every thing is upon to each other like the states especially in economical terms through export and import dependent on each other due to the global economy. As **Soli Özel says, the phenomenon of globalization should not be ignored in the terrorist activities because they have used the globalized weapons.

In the context of foreign policies, the need is to avoid being aggressive because the aggressive policy makes the terrorist organizations aggressive as well. In addition, the preference should be the compromise rather than fighting against each other and as Rashid says the information system of all governments as accordance with their same aim on terrorism should be directed to the same point: what to do for combatting terrorism, in other words, combatting terrorism should be the global theme for all global world, in this context, the disappearing of the external support is essential. Therefore, the purpose of all states should be tended on the same point: to finish terrorism and to provide the democratic, especially the representative democratic, institutions to every where in terms of education, local services, political institutions and etc.

I see that the term nationalism is not the sufficient term to explain the whole suicide terror causes, however, Pape develops arguments to reduce all those activities into nationalism. In this consideration, I prefer using the term hegemony especially due to today's hegemonic fighting. I differenciate the soft hegemony from the hard hegemony because where the anti-religious groups have mainly the defensive nationalism in a sense, their aim is to establish their recognition through gaining their independence against the occupying power by building their hegemony against the forcing hegemonic power in order to escape the other's dominance over them. In this context, I use soft hegemony for generally the anti-religious groups. However, for the Islamic terrorist organizations, there is an important difference; the term jihad has become the essential due to desire of spreading their ideas, values, dominance with the changing meaning of jihadism within global scale! In this consideration, I prefer using hard hegemony due to their both establishing the international recognition as an actor / agent and the making spreading of their hegemony over especially the others. Against the hegemony of other, they in a forceful way but by referring to the legitimate way which marks the martyrdom due to using themselves as different from the others try to built up their hegemony with their own values, style, dominance. Therefore, in this consideration, we see the combination of political and the social element with the political's much more influence. In that sense, I prefer using hegemony as the combination of social and political context for the terrorist organizations in order to explain their world conjuncture…

*** As Martin Luther King says that “I've a dream”; I also have a dream for the world: democracy and peace together. This was actualised by the imagination of Kant a few decades ago: Cosmopolitan Democracy which was the main goal of Kant for the international arena as the basis of international relations. Cosmopolitan Democracy in Kantian meaning is the system which covers the Cosmopolitan Assembly ( with one citizen one vote principle) and Assembly of States ( with one state one vote principle) which in return cosmopolitan law as the coverage for the state law with international law is implemented in this configuration. In this way, there is no need fighting for hegemony or search for hegemony due to the absence of forcefully situation for any one else, hence, there is no compelling, no force and no hegemony. In addition, all the citizens under the title of world citizen by drawing together which in return focuses on the protecting of citizens rights and provides the communication and solves the problems. Hence, this offered system prevents any hegemonic situation by the confederal link of each state under cosmopolitan law enforcement and implementation.

Cosmopolitan Democracy is waited to be established… The problem is the existence of hegemonic powers which in return causes to the hegomonic struggle at the world context. The problematic should be the finishing of hegemonic struggle with the possible implementation which will take a long time however this does not come to mean as impossible; within this possible implementation the Cosmopolitan Democracy could be the effective solution for the sake of whole world!

BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Cook, David “A Critique of Robert Ppae's Dying to Win”, Journal of Strategic Studies, (2007) 30:2, 243-254

Daniele Archibugi. “Models of International Organization in Perpetual Peace Projects” in Cosmopolitan Democracy: An Agenda For A New World Order, Cambridge: Polity Press, 1995.

Göle, Nilüfer. “Close Encounters: Islam, Modernity and Violence” in Understanding September 11, 332-344

Kepel Gilles. “Introduction” in Jihad: The Trail of Political Islam. Harvard University Press, 2002. 1-20

Kiras, James D. “Dying to prove a point: The methodology of Dying to Win”, Journal of Strategic Studies, (2007) 30:2, 227-241

Leffler Melvyn. “9/11 and the Past and Future of American Foreign Policy”, International Affairs, 79:5 (October 2003)

Pape, Robert A. Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism, New York: Random House (2005)

Rashid Ahmed. “Jihadi Suicide Bombers: The New Wave” in New York Review of Books, Volume 55, Number 10. June 12, 2008

(http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21473)

The Economist Report: “After Bush: A Special Report on America and the World” March 29, 2008

* Soli Özel'in 1 Haziran 2008 Sabah Gazetesinde “Türkiye – Ortadoğu İlişkileri (II)” başıklı yazısı kastetilmektedir.

** Soli Özel'in Ortadoğu Politikaları başlıklı ır 422 kodlu dersinde yaptığı 22 Haziran Tarihli Lecture'ı kastetilmektedir.

*** Soli Özel'in “Dünya Politikaları I” başlıklı IR 305 kodlu dersinde yaptığı 1960-1970ler Amerikası sosyal durumun tartışıldığı Lecture'da, Martin Luther King'in “I have a dream” adlı konuşmasının You Tube'dan izlenişi kastetilmektedir.

  • Başa Dön
  • Giriş
  • [ Başa Dön ] [ PDF ] [ Editöre E-Posta ] [ Yorumlar ]
    [ Yazım Kuralları | Editörler | Dergi Hakkında | İçindekiler | Arşiv | Yayın Arama | Ana Sayfa | E-Posta ]


    tarafından geliştirilmiştir