Lankford's core conceit is that suicide terrorists are essentially little different from other suicidal people, having similar background characteristics such as depression, troubled childhoods, and social isolation (Lankford Reference Lankford2013c). He argues that screening of individuals for suicidal thinking and monitoring of those at risk would be useful counterterrorism strategies. While we consider that all approaches to this difficult issue should be welcomed, we do not feel that it is a complete account of the phenomenon and nor do we think it is fully supported.
The Myth of Martyrdom focuses mostly upon Islamic suicide terrorism, although Lankford does seek to generalize his claim to all suicide terrorists. He notes that within Islamic communities suicide is regarded as immoral, but martyrdom is not. Martyrdom thus provides a way out for some suicidal Muslims, and this can be exploited by terrorist organizations. Data on suicide within Islamic countries would have given some perspective to this argument. Lester has looked at what data there is and found that although percentage suicide rates are notably lower in Islamic countries, attempted suicides rates are equivalent to those in other countries. Moreover, he notes various inadequacies in the way in which deaths are reported in Islamic nations (Lester Reference Lester2006). While this does not directly falsify Lankford's claim, it does suggest that Muslims can overcome religious and legal stipulations about suicide. If this is so, what other factors might lead to suicide terrorism rather than suicide?
Lankford bases his thesis on a large sample of more than 130 suicide terrorists, published in Appendix A, who, he argues, presented risk factors for conventional suicide. However, the majority of these cases have very minimal information, and the factors identified, such as loss of family members, personal victimization, and so forth, are at least as likely to make an individual angry and vengeful as they are to make that individual suicidal. Indeed, the factors he claims motivate the suicidal urge have a lot in common with the factors identified as motivating people into terrorism in general (McCauley & Moskalenko Reference McCauley and Moskalenko2008; Moghaddam Reference Moghaddam2005), which muddies the water a little. The notion of suicide terrorism achieving certain socio-political ends is largely ignored by Lankford, as are the potential personal motivations of the suicide terrorist. This would seem to be one point of possible differentiation between the suicidal in general and the suicide terrorist.
For Lankford, the socio-political ends are embodied in the terrorist organizations that isolate the loners at the mosque and turn them into terrorists. It is interesting that someone who is suicidal can be convinced to do this. Presumably the recruitment officers present the proposed suicide attack in terms of punishment and retribution for perceived wrongs inflicted by an enemy. Punishment is about realigning behaviour or changing it totally in order to produce something that is acceptable according to some ideology, in this case. But what would induce someone to do this when the effect will be post-mortem, should it occur? There has to be some method of tying the suicidal terrorist act to a future stake.
One possible future stake might be a notion of kinship. During the discussion of heroes who throw themselves on grenades, and the like, to save others, the claim is that this is a product of training. Close protection work is likely to engender feelings of a strong social bond and we suspect will play on general kin level psychology very effectively. This would account for a willingness to take such a great risk with one's direct fitness – it would be worth it if the person believed they were increasing their indirect fitness. This kind of behavior is typical in kin because of high relatedness, but we rely on a variety of proximate mechanisms to establish relatedness and identify kin (Lieberman et al. Reference Lieberman, Tooby and Cosmides2007). Such mechanisms are blunt instruments, and when employed among non-kinship groups, can lead to the adoption of kin-type relationships. For example, unrelated children growing up in close proximity within kibbutz structures treat each other as siblings, and this appears to reduce marriage and sexual contact between unrelated individuals, while increasing altruism between them (Lieberman & Lobel Reference Lieberman and Lobel2012). The mechanism here is simple familiarity, which mimics natural kin relations. Isolated individuals may be eager to be incorporated into a kinship-like group, and the underlying psychology of this desire, and the associated mechanisms of bonding, will potentially enable a suicide terrorist to claim a benefit for kin post-mortem, and engage in what has been termed costly altruism (Qirko Reference Qirko2009; Reference Qirko2013). More straightforwardly, Qirko (Reference Qirko2013) notes that suicide terrorism relies upon organizational structures that replicate natural kin structures, use uniforms to achieve greater phenotypic similarity, and use language laced with kin referents. To simply claim that close protection personnel are trained into this behavior misses a great deal of complexity – why would people be capable of such learning? It also misses a point of potential similarity between Lankford's heroes and suicide terrorists: they are strongly bonded and those bonds are established through well-designed training. They are functionally brothers (and sisters) in arms.
To conclude, Lankford focuses upon the individual suicide terrorist and does not address the social context within which these terrorists operate. Within certain communities there are direct teachings and exhortations to such “martyrdom” activities, and this, combined with a strong sense of kinship, which is often a characteristic of religions, will make the costs seemingly bearable when set against future gains. Lankford's focus on the individual ignores the importance of social context and the complexity of the mechanisms required to obtain the necessary commitment for suicide terrorism, and as such, it is not a complete explanation.
Lankford's core conceit is that suicide terrorists are essentially little different from other suicidal people, having similar background characteristics such as depression, troubled childhoods, and social isolation (Lankford Reference Lankford2013c). He argues that screening of individuals for suicidal thinking and monitoring of those at risk would be useful counterterrorism strategies. While we consider that all approaches to this difficult issue should be welcomed, we do not feel that it is a complete account of the phenomenon and nor do we think it is fully supported.
The Myth of Martyrdom focuses mostly upon Islamic suicide terrorism, although Lankford does seek to generalize his claim to all suicide terrorists. He notes that within Islamic communities suicide is regarded as immoral, but martyrdom is not. Martyrdom thus provides a way out for some suicidal Muslims, and this can be exploited by terrorist organizations. Data on suicide within Islamic countries would have given some perspective to this argument. Lester has looked at what data there is and found that although percentage suicide rates are notably lower in Islamic countries, attempted suicides rates are equivalent to those in other countries. Moreover, he notes various inadequacies in the way in which deaths are reported in Islamic nations (Lester Reference Lester2006). While this does not directly falsify Lankford's claim, it does suggest that Muslims can overcome religious and legal stipulations about suicide. If this is so, what other factors might lead to suicide terrorism rather than suicide?
Lankford bases his thesis on a large sample of more than 130 suicide terrorists, published in Appendix A, who, he argues, presented risk factors for conventional suicide. However, the majority of these cases have very minimal information, and the factors identified, such as loss of family members, personal victimization, and so forth, are at least as likely to make an individual angry and vengeful as they are to make that individual suicidal. Indeed, the factors he claims motivate the suicidal urge have a lot in common with the factors identified as motivating people into terrorism in general (McCauley & Moskalenko Reference McCauley and Moskalenko2008; Moghaddam Reference Moghaddam2005), which muddies the water a little. The notion of suicide terrorism achieving certain socio-political ends is largely ignored by Lankford, as are the potential personal motivations of the suicide terrorist. This would seem to be one point of possible differentiation between the suicidal in general and the suicide terrorist.
For Lankford, the socio-political ends are embodied in the terrorist organizations that isolate the loners at the mosque and turn them into terrorists. It is interesting that someone who is suicidal can be convinced to do this. Presumably the recruitment officers present the proposed suicide attack in terms of punishment and retribution for perceived wrongs inflicted by an enemy. Punishment is about realigning behaviour or changing it totally in order to produce something that is acceptable according to some ideology, in this case. But what would induce someone to do this when the effect will be post-mortem, should it occur? There has to be some method of tying the suicidal terrorist act to a future stake.
One possible future stake might be a notion of kinship. During the discussion of heroes who throw themselves on grenades, and the like, to save others, the claim is that this is a product of training. Close protection work is likely to engender feelings of a strong social bond and we suspect will play on general kin level psychology very effectively. This would account for a willingness to take such a great risk with one's direct fitness – it would be worth it if the person believed they were increasing their indirect fitness. This kind of behavior is typical in kin because of high relatedness, but we rely on a variety of proximate mechanisms to establish relatedness and identify kin (Lieberman et al. Reference Lieberman, Tooby and Cosmides2007). Such mechanisms are blunt instruments, and when employed among non-kinship groups, can lead to the adoption of kin-type relationships. For example, unrelated children growing up in close proximity within kibbutz structures treat each other as siblings, and this appears to reduce marriage and sexual contact between unrelated individuals, while increasing altruism between them (Lieberman & Lobel Reference Lieberman and Lobel2012). The mechanism here is simple familiarity, which mimics natural kin relations. Isolated individuals may be eager to be incorporated into a kinship-like group, and the underlying psychology of this desire, and the associated mechanisms of bonding, will potentially enable a suicide terrorist to claim a benefit for kin post-mortem, and engage in what has been termed costly altruism (Qirko Reference Qirko2009; Reference Qirko2013). More straightforwardly, Qirko (Reference Qirko2013) notes that suicide terrorism relies upon organizational structures that replicate natural kin structures, use uniforms to achieve greater phenotypic similarity, and use language laced with kin referents. To simply claim that close protection personnel are trained into this behavior misses a great deal of complexity – why would people be capable of such learning? It also misses a point of potential similarity between Lankford's heroes and suicide terrorists: they are strongly bonded and those bonds are established through well-designed training. They are functionally brothers (and sisters) in arms.
To conclude, Lankford focuses upon the individual suicide terrorist and does not address the social context within which these terrorists operate. Within certain communities there are direct teachings and exhortations to such “martyrdom” activities, and this, combined with a strong sense of kinship, which is often a characteristic of religions, will make the costs seemingly bearable when set against future gains. Lankford's focus on the individual ignores the importance of social context and the complexity of the mechanisms required to obtain the necessary commitment for suicide terrorism, and as such, it is not a complete explanation.