An extreme way of dealing with terrorism
On this dark anniversary, let's talk about terrorism - more specifically, the possible ways of defeating terrorism, or at least suffocating it. Which of course passes through detecting the root cause for terrorism, and hitting it where it would hurt most. In other words, extinguishing the very reason for terrorism.
Many have argued that the best way to defeat terrorism is to educate the populace from which it draws its energy. Bring prosperity to a people, keep them occupied with entrepreneurship, business, social life - and they wouldn't think of getting radicalized. Include them in the political life of their society, do not marginalize them, and they won't have a reason to hate people, want to kill people, and want to even sacrifice themselves for hurting people.
Others have argued that in the most extreme circumstances, like the ones existing today in the ISIS-controlled territories, this wouldn't really work.
It's evident, though, that bombing the shit out of stuff is more likely to generate more extremism and terrorism than not - this has become patently evident in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. As they say, in the place of every dead terrorist, two more pop up. Still, most governments keep following this approach: conduct air raids, send spec op units, blow some stuff up, or arm some friendly groups to defeat other hostile groups - only to take their place in turn.
What, then? Well, I came across the 1st episode of the new season of Through The Wormhole, a documentary series starring Morgan Freeman as a narrator that I've thoroughly enjoyed in recent years (I especially like their physics and astronomy episodes; the ones about psychology, like this one about terrorism, seem more defocused, but anyway). There in the last part of the episode, the show featured an Israeli psychologist called Eran Halperin, who made some really intriguing social experiments in his endeavors to find the "cure" to terrorism. Basically, he argues that instead of trying to counter terrorism with either violent or peaceful means, your best option is to... agree with it (?!)
This tactic is called "extreme reasoning". The point is this. When you argue with people who hold views different from yours, you have your opinions and they have theirs - and it's very likely that by countering their position with yours, the reaction would rather be the further entrenchment of their views. Instead of convincing people of the superiority of your view, you'd end up making them even more convinced in their own correctness. That's how the human mind usually operates. So this researcher argues that we should agree with people's opinion, instead. Or more precisely, create the initial impression that we agree with them. And then take it to the next step, and bring their own view to a new extreme. The example he used was with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. His team of researchers chose a town mostly inhabited by conservative Israelis who were convinced they were in their right in that conflict - and he started bombarding them with messages that were essentially preaching to the choir, but then brought their view one step further. He told them that not only were they in their right in that conflict, but that the conflict was actually necessary for Israel, because it brought social cohesion to the Israeli society, and demonstrated their moral superiority. He displayed the ugliness and stupidity of their own argument to them by presenting an even more extreme version of it.
The result was shocking. After the initial confirmation bias stage, the respondents actually started to review their own convictions, and showed tremendous proneness to question their own beliefs. Seeing the new extremes that their own worldview could get to, they became gradually repulsed by it, and at the end of the experiment, they were more open to peaceful solutions and compromise in that conflict than before it.
I'm not sure if this could translate into a similar outcome with radical extremists like ISIS, or any other terrorists - but he basically argues that this tactic should be used on them, too. Appear to agree with their Jihadist views, then bring it to the extreme.
Another proposal that was made in that episode was to disengage from the war with ISIS. As shocking and defeatist as that may sound, because leaving them on their own and just containing them there, and allowing them to do their "thing", would have dire consequences for the people who happen to inhabit the territories they control, that may actually be the best option at this point. For the same reasons stated in the beginning of this post: because simply bombing terrorists and killing terrorists is only dealing with the symptom. And even trying to dig a bit deeper, by engaging the terrorist base through education and "bringing reason" to them essentially, you'd likely encounter the above-described proneness of people to respond with hostility to any attempts to change their mind, even in the most reasonable and constructive way. You'd just encounter a wall of "frozen" minds.
So just disengage. Pack your things and leave. Turn your back on them completely. Stop feeding the troll. Except, of course, they'd likely try to follow you home, and try to hurt you in your own backyard (Paris, Brussels, and yes, 9-11 too, are good examples). But that may seem like the best option right now, anyway. Because all other options are more likely to cause more shit-storm than there already is.
This proposal was made by another researcher (historian) on that show, who argued that warfare and continuous conflict between two or more groups tends to "harden" them, and the group that emerges victorious, becomes very coherent, capable, competent, and viable. It survives, and becomes either a nation-state, or another form of long-lasting force. The examples are many. ISIS is one - it emerged after a prolonged period of chaos in Iraq and Syria, where various groups were competing against each other. And in result of all this conflict, the toughest and most adaptable group, the one that was most ruthless and which could use their resources most efficiently, emerged victorious, and stronger than ever: ISIS. So the best way to pull the rug from under the feet of such groups would be to deprive them of their main source for evolvement: conflict. Pack your things and go home. Let them rot from within on their own, like any empire usually does, especially when war is followed by a long period of stability. Let them try to actually manage a territory with people in it - let the local people see how well they do. And the problems will start appearing, the cracks will start opening. Because so far they've relied on total war, constant conflict, to keep themselves afloat. Allow them some space to destroy themselves from within - because it's one thing to conquer, it's quite another to rule. They've been on the rise ever since they're at war. Let them to slide back down into oblivion by actually giving them peace.
Of course this sounds insensitive, inhumane, sociopathic, cruel even. Millions of people will have to live in a ruthless oppressive Caliphate for many years (although fewer would likely die and suffer under ISIS rule than during ISIS expansion, granted). The problem is, there's no guarantee that ISIS wouldn't evolve in some way yet unforeseen, and adapt to the new realities, and prove more viable than anticipated - and become impossible to defeat by any means, both military and economic, once it has cast deeper roots. But it's at least an idea worth considering - especially given the fact that the options currently available are even worse. Perpetual full-out war would only bring the continuation of terrorism, and fuel it until no end. And half-assed efforts would only occasionally stir up the nest, as opposed to achieving anything meaningful against ISIS.
So these are the two ideas that stick out from that episode, and made me think. One, disengage from terrorism, just contain it where it is (while protecting yourself at home, of course), and allow it to rot from within under the pressure of its new responsibilities. And two, use extreme reasoning to get under the skin and into the minds of the base from which terrorism draws its energy: convince them that you agree with them at first, but then bring their own radical views to new extremes, and rub them into their own faces for them to see how ridiculous they are. And hope that it works.
Alternatively, it could create a monster even more horrible than the ones we've already created.
You can watch Through The Wormhole: Episode 1 What Makes a Terrorist here:
The really interesting part starts at 34:10.
Many have argued that the best way to defeat terrorism is to educate the populace from which it draws its energy. Bring prosperity to a people, keep them occupied with entrepreneurship, business, social life - and they wouldn't think of getting radicalized. Include them in the political life of their society, do not marginalize them, and they won't have a reason to hate people, want to kill people, and want to even sacrifice themselves for hurting people.
Others have argued that in the most extreme circumstances, like the ones existing today in the ISIS-controlled territories, this wouldn't really work.
It's evident, though, that bombing the shit out of stuff is more likely to generate more extremism and terrorism than not - this has become patently evident in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. As they say, in the place of every dead terrorist, two more pop up. Still, most governments keep following this approach: conduct air raids, send spec op units, blow some stuff up, or arm some friendly groups to defeat other hostile groups - only to take their place in turn.
What, then? Well, I came across the 1st episode of the new season of Through The Wormhole, a documentary series starring Morgan Freeman as a narrator that I've thoroughly enjoyed in recent years (I especially like their physics and astronomy episodes; the ones about psychology, like this one about terrorism, seem more defocused, but anyway). There in the last part of the episode, the show featured an Israeli psychologist called Eran Halperin, who made some really intriguing social experiments in his endeavors to find the "cure" to terrorism. Basically, he argues that instead of trying to counter terrorism with either violent or peaceful means, your best option is to... agree with it (?!)
This tactic is called "extreme reasoning". The point is this. When you argue with people who hold views different from yours, you have your opinions and they have theirs - and it's very likely that by countering their position with yours, the reaction would rather be the further entrenchment of their views. Instead of convincing people of the superiority of your view, you'd end up making them even more convinced in their own correctness. That's how the human mind usually operates. So this researcher argues that we should agree with people's opinion, instead. Or more precisely, create the initial impression that we agree with them. And then take it to the next step, and bring their own view to a new extreme. The example he used was with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. His team of researchers chose a town mostly inhabited by conservative Israelis who were convinced they were in their right in that conflict - and he started bombarding them with messages that were essentially preaching to the choir, but then brought their view one step further. He told them that not only were they in their right in that conflict, but that the conflict was actually necessary for Israel, because it brought social cohesion to the Israeli society, and demonstrated their moral superiority. He displayed the ugliness and stupidity of their own argument to them by presenting an even more extreme version of it.
The result was shocking. After the initial confirmation bias stage, the respondents actually started to review their own convictions, and showed tremendous proneness to question their own beliefs. Seeing the new extremes that their own worldview could get to, they became gradually repulsed by it, and at the end of the experiment, they were more open to peaceful solutions and compromise in that conflict than before it.
I'm not sure if this could translate into a similar outcome with radical extremists like ISIS, or any other terrorists - but he basically argues that this tactic should be used on them, too. Appear to agree with their Jihadist views, then bring it to the extreme.
Another proposal that was made in that episode was to disengage from the war with ISIS. As shocking and defeatist as that may sound, because leaving them on their own and just containing them there, and allowing them to do their "thing", would have dire consequences for the people who happen to inhabit the territories they control, that may actually be the best option at this point. For the same reasons stated in the beginning of this post: because simply bombing terrorists and killing terrorists is only dealing with the symptom. And even trying to dig a bit deeper, by engaging the terrorist base through education and "bringing reason" to them essentially, you'd likely encounter the above-described proneness of people to respond with hostility to any attempts to change their mind, even in the most reasonable and constructive way. You'd just encounter a wall of "frozen" minds.
So just disengage. Pack your things and leave. Turn your back on them completely. Stop feeding the troll. Except, of course, they'd likely try to follow you home, and try to hurt you in your own backyard (Paris, Brussels, and yes, 9-11 too, are good examples). But that may seem like the best option right now, anyway. Because all other options are more likely to cause more shit-storm than there already is.
This proposal was made by another researcher (historian) on that show, who argued that warfare and continuous conflict between two or more groups tends to "harden" them, and the group that emerges victorious, becomes very coherent, capable, competent, and viable. It survives, and becomes either a nation-state, or another form of long-lasting force. The examples are many. ISIS is one - it emerged after a prolonged period of chaos in Iraq and Syria, where various groups were competing against each other. And in result of all this conflict, the toughest and most adaptable group, the one that was most ruthless and which could use their resources most efficiently, emerged victorious, and stronger than ever: ISIS. So the best way to pull the rug from under the feet of such groups would be to deprive them of their main source for evolvement: conflict. Pack your things and go home. Let them rot from within on their own, like any empire usually does, especially when war is followed by a long period of stability. Let them try to actually manage a territory with people in it - let the local people see how well they do. And the problems will start appearing, the cracks will start opening. Because so far they've relied on total war, constant conflict, to keep themselves afloat. Allow them some space to destroy themselves from within - because it's one thing to conquer, it's quite another to rule. They've been on the rise ever since they're at war. Let them to slide back down into oblivion by actually giving them peace.
Of course this sounds insensitive, inhumane, sociopathic, cruel even. Millions of people will have to live in a ruthless oppressive Caliphate for many years (although fewer would likely die and suffer under ISIS rule than during ISIS expansion, granted). The problem is, there's no guarantee that ISIS wouldn't evolve in some way yet unforeseen, and adapt to the new realities, and prove more viable than anticipated - and become impossible to defeat by any means, both military and economic, once it has cast deeper roots. But it's at least an idea worth considering - especially given the fact that the options currently available are even worse. Perpetual full-out war would only bring the continuation of terrorism, and fuel it until no end. And half-assed efforts would only occasionally stir up the nest, as opposed to achieving anything meaningful against ISIS.
So these are the two ideas that stick out from that episode, and made me think. One, disengage from terrorism, just contain it where it is (while protecting yourself at home, of course), and allow it to rot from within under the pressure of its new responsibilities. And two, use extreme reasoning to get under the skin and into the minds of the base from which terrorism draws its energy: convince them that you agree with them at first, but then bring their own radical views to new extremes, and rub them into their own faces for them to see how ridiculous they are. And hope that it works.
Alternatively, it could create a monster even more horrible than the ones we've already created.
You can watch Through The Wormhole: Episode 1 What Makes a Terrorist here:
The really interesting part starts at 34:10.