Arnold Kling: The Terrorism Funnel

This recent controversy in Israel concerned whether the metaphor of a barrel or a spring best describes the phenomenon of terrorism. The two metaphors have very different implications for assessing Israel's security situation.

For the Islamist terrorist threat to the United States, the metaphor that I prefer is a funnel. The top part of the funnel (the broad end) is all of the people who might potentially become terrorists. The bottom part of the funnel (the narrow end) is trained terrorists on their way to commit acts of murder.

The top of the funnel consists of frustrated, disaffected individuals, primarily Arab men. Because many of them are well-educated and affluent, their disaffection would appear to be political rather than economic. Living in autocratic societies, they cannot compete for office or participate in a democratic process. They have no peaceful political outlet. There seems little escape from corrupt governments and backward systems. These disaffected young men are Stage One of the funnel.

Some of these men find their way further down the funnel, into radical Islamic mosques and organizations. They buy into anti-American propaganda and jihadist rhetoric. Radical clerics, journalists, and propagandists are Stage Two of the funnel.

Further down the funnel, some of the radical sympathizers join terrorist networks and receive training. The terrorist organizations and their leaders are Stage Three of the funnel.

When individuals reach the bottom of the funnel, they attempt terrorist acts. That is Stage Four of the funnel.

Bear in mind that I am not a terrorism expert. Perhaps I have got the process that produces terrorist acts completely wrong. In that case, this metaphor is misleading. However, for now it is the framework for my views on terrorism and on strategies for dealing with it.

One strategy for fighting terrorism is to focus on Stage Four, the terrorists in the process of carrying out attacks. That is, try to anticipate and intercept terrorists who are in the process of planning and executing their missions. The funnel metaphor is meant to suggest that this strategy is bound to fail. No matter how many terrorist attacks that you foil, more will keep coming, and eventually the terrorists will be able to inflict heavy casualties. While it is absolutely necessary to attempt to thwart attacks, this defensive strategy is not sufficient.

Another strategy for fighting terrorism is to focus on Stage Three, the organized terrorist units. The idea is to strike at the terrorist infrastructure, including leaders, state sponsors, funding sources, and training camps. Opponents of the war in Iraq argue that it distracted us from pursuing a Stage Three strategy.

Israel's campaign of assassinations of terrorist leaders can be viewed as a Stage Three strategy. As the article quoted above indicates, there is disagreement over whether it has been successful. Avi Dichter, who heads what might be considered Israel's equivalent of the FBI, believes that by removing Stage Three terrorist leaders they can close off the funnel. Aharon Ze'evi, head of Israel's equivalent of Pentagon intelligence, disagrees, arguing that new leaders and new terrorists keep coming down the funnel.

Another strategy for fighting terrorism is to focus on Stage Two, where the incitement to terrorism takes place. Schools, mosques, and media all portray a demonized view of America, and this propaganda helps keep the funnel of terrorism working. Some, including the 9-11 Commission, have suggested that we can combat this by doing a better job of "telling our story" to the Arab world. However, I am afraid that it will take more than counter-propaganda to win the Battle of the Mosque. I believe that those who stock the arsenals of hatred must be treated as targets for espionage and military efforts.

Finally, there is the strategy of focusing on Stage One of the funnel. The Administration's goal of encouraging democracy in the Arab world is an example of such a strategy. The thinking is that if there were open political competition in Arab countries, then Arab men seeking a voice in the affairs of their countries could use political parties and the ballot box as outlets, rather than turning to terrorism.

Another strategy that attempts to deal with Stage One is appeasement. There are those who believe that by changing American policy to be less supportive of Israel and more restrained about spreading American culture, we could alleviate the hostility of Arab Muslims.

In my view, the Israeli experience demonstrates the failure of appeasement that leaves the Stage Two incitement in place. In the decade following the 1993 Oslo accords, the Palestinian Authority kept up an unremitting campaign of anti-Israel hate propaganda in schools in the media. This campaign made it possible -- and perhaps even inevitable -- for the Palestinians to reject a generous peace offer and instead launch the second Intifada.

I would like to see strategies employed against all four stages of the funnel. My sense is that everyone agrees about trying to fight Stage Three and Stage Four. It seems as though almost no one agrees with me about the importance of fighting Stage Two. President Bush's approach to Stage One seems controversial, with the Democrats not buying into the strategy in Iraq and apparently seeking an early exit there instead.

In fact, I would like to see a clarification of the Democrats' position regarding Stage One and Stage Two. If they really favor appeasement as a way of dealing with Stage One, then I think that the country should know this. If they do not favor appeasement, and instead they take the same view as the Administration on the importance of democracy, then the differences between the two parties would seem to be more rhetorical than substantive. Finally, if the Democrats favor a Stage Two strategy, that would appeal to me, making me inclined to vote Democratic in November.

I believe that as of now, we are left to guess as to how the Kerry Administration would approach the terrorism funnel. This is unfortunate. In this election, it would be better for the electorate to be making conscious choices than blind guesses.

Interesting article PING.

This ping list is not author-specific for articles I'd like to share. Some for perfect moral clarity, some for provocative thoughts; or simply interesting articles I'd hate to miss myself. (I don't have to agree with the author 100% to feel the need to share an article.) I will try not to abuse the ping list and not to annoy you too much, but on some days there is more of good stuff that is worthy attention. I keep separate PING lists for my favorite authors Victor Davis Hanson, Lee Harris, David Warren, Orson Scott Card. You are welcome in or out, just freepmail me (and note which PING list you are talking about).

Mohammedan terrorism (AKA Jihad) is a bottomless well due to high Islamic birthrates. They are always punching out new Jihadists in their mosques, their terror training camps and madrassas. Jihadists have much easier access to weaponry (nukes some day) and can communicate much better due to the Al Jezeera type TV stations and the internet

This doesn't mean that Mohammedanism cannot be defeated. Just that Jihad is never ending in this day and age unless unconventional means are taken such as wasting Mecca-Medina.

I agree with the author that the threat containment needs to be on different levels and many directions at the same time.

But the biggest problem the West has now I think is still in the West's mind: it is denial by the very big part of the west's population, denial of the nature of the threat or even the existence of the threat. When we are talking about Europeans (and a good number of Americans, not even mentioning the Third World) considering US and Israel as bigger threats to the worlds security than Saddam's Iraq, Iran or North Korea, I am afraid that it will take much more to wake West up. 9/11, Bali, Madrid bombings, new info about London being scouted long before 9/11... Who cares, I want my sports and soaps mentality shrugs all this off.

Iraq's project is attacked as unpredictable. And it is. It will take many-many years to learn if the seeds will have grown well. Wasting Mecca-Medina is a cataclysmic event. I hope it will never come to that, because the results are as well unpredictable.

The paradox is that indifference of so many "enlightened" in the West to the existences of the Jihadist threat and their inaction resulted from this indifference, only embolden the Jihadists, and their more daring actions with catastrophic results for the West, may one day give us no choice but indeed destroy Mecca and Medina (even conventional bombs can do it, no need for nukes).

So, if one opposes such catastrophic actions, he must open the eyes to the threat now, and help to eradicate the Jihadists and all their support infrastructure now.

There are only three choices exist:
1. Convert to Islam
2. Fight the Jihadists now
3. Leave to our kids or grandkids to deal with even bigger problem later with unpredictable and even more catastrophic results.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.