Terrorism and Tamarinds

I was reading a book about terrorism while eating sweet and spicy tamarind candy. The book is titled "What Terrorists Want." The author, Louise Richardson, attempts to demonstrate how, by empathizing with terrorists, we may understand how we may defeat them.

The approach is novel and dangerous. It is a promising departure from the common notion that terrorists are either too irrational or too amoral to negotiate with. Richardson argues that terrorism is rational and that terrorists at least believe their acts to be morally justified. It is also dangerous because it can be construed as loving the terrorists. Ender Wiggin said “In the moment when I truly understand my enemy, understand him well enough to defeat him, then in that very moment I also love him... It’s impossible to really understand somebody, what they want, what they believe, and not love them the way they love themselves." Governments, including and especially the one currently in power in my country, tend to be afraid of letting people understand terrorists enough to love them.

Some context for why I began reading this book.

For this term, I enrolled in a class on national security and terrorism. I hope the class will talk about strategies that we can employ to reduce and eliminate terrorism rather than merely emphasize that 'terrorism is against the law; terrorism bad.' Most law students learn about terrorism as part of their criminal law classes. As a result, most of us really only know how terrorism is defined in our penal laws, but nothing about who terrorists are, what they believe, and how they might actually be stopped. You see, these questions are policy questions, not legal questions. Some law professors try to emphasize how "neutral" laws may be unfair in practice (for example, the Anti-Mendicancy law of 1978, which punishes begging, may seem neutral at first glance, but it is actually anti-poor because the poor are disproportionately more likely to become beggars). However, this is the exception, not the rule. These professors also tend to breeze through these discussions because there are many things that also need to be covered in the session. Since the class I'm taking is just about national security and terrorism, we can talk about these policy questions in a more in depth manner.

Anyway, "What Terrorists Want." Richardson supposes that by understanding why people resort to terrorism, we may identify some crucial weaknesses. For example, a common argument that terrorists use to justify their actions is the non-existence of any other available strategy for them to achieve their political goals. Vellupillai Prabakharan of the Tamil Tigers has said that they "have no other option but to fight back." For almost forty years, the Tamil Tigers have continued a bloody campaign to seize control of Sri Lanka from the Sinhalese ethnic majority which occupies most seats of power in Sri Lanka's government and to create an independent state. The only problem is that there were always alternative means to do this. Sri Lanka is a democracy. Thus, resorting to terrorism was always far from the only available option. Even the creation of an independent state is possible. It will take a longer time frame and persistent use of propaganda and strategic mobilizations, protests, and perhaps civil disobedience. But it could work. It could undermine the state anyway. Terrorism isn't absolutely necessary.

There must, therefore, be another reason for why they exist. Richardson argues that it is because they want immediate results. It is easier to coerce a government into concessions with swift and brutal showings of force than it is to plan out decades of grassroots political work. At the same time, the fact that they cannot create changes immediately without resorting to terrorism means that the terrorist group's ideology is not widely accepted. This is because if it were widely accepted, then there would be no need to kill civilians. They could just get themselves elected and get the ball rolling. Therefore, there are three conditions for a terrorist group to exist: (1) the ideology does not enjoy widespread support, (2) the group wants immediate results, and (3) the group is willing to murder civilians.

But this also shows a critical weakness for most terrorist groups. Their weakness is in their relationships to the state and to the general public. If they do not have public support, then they cannot prolong operations. No community will harbor them. They will be turned over to the government. On the other hand, if they do have public support, then there would be no need to terrorize. Terrorist groups are, therefore, often unstable. If they get the resources needed to sustain their operations from the people, it also diminishes their "no available option" justification for existing.

I was so excited about this that I accidentally swallowed a tamarind seed! I'm scared that it's dangerous for my health, considering that doing the same for apple seeds or cherry pits could quite literally kill you. I wonder if everyone has moments when very serious work is interrupted by very silly accidents. After all, tamarinds have long been naturalized in Sri Lanka.

... Maybe it's just me.