Customer Reviews

Dying To Kill: The Allure of Suicide Terror

5 star:		(15)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

This is one of the major studies of suicide terrorism. Anyone interested in the subject should read this book, as well as other major sources (such as Robert Pape's work and Ami Pedahzur's edited volume). She begins by providing a brief history of suicide terrorism--which has roots going back quite a distance historically (the Zealots of Judea to the Kamikaze during World War II).

She emphasizes that, contrary to what some people say about terrorism being irrational, this is a political tactic that can make sense under certain circumstances. Early on, she notes that (page 1):

Terrorist groups appear to use suicide bombings under two
conditions: when other terrorist or military tactics fail,
and when they are in competition with other terrorist
groups for popular or financial support.

In addition, she contends that suicide bombings can only be effective when a population is supportive of this tactic. Also, she observes that history shows that harsh punitive counterterrorist tactics actually exacerbate the situation. Ham-fisted antiterrorist actions leads to more people who are "dying to kill." A kind of contagion effect has been manifest over time. Bloom says that (page 126) "As suicide terror has proven relatively successful in the Middle East or places like Sri Lanka, there has been an upsurge in the number of regions, countries, and non-state actors that utilize it as a tactic in their nationalist struggles against (real or perceived) foreign occupations."

She concludes by noting that the United States has a potential "lose-lose" in Iraq. On the one hand, if the United States stays in Iraq over time, it will be perceived as an occupying power and be subject to greater suicide terrorist tactics against it. On the other hand, if the United States pulls out prematurely, that would embolden terrorist strikes, as the U. S. appears to be a "paper tiger." This becomes another side effect of the United States' invasion of Iraq. If she is correct, another legacy of the war may be implications for future terrorist actions against the United States.

I read this book with great interest. The author discusses why suicide bombers and the organizations that send them got so popular all over the world. Further, she has included interviews with failed bombers and the leaders that send them so there is a lot of new information from an insider's perspective.
The book examines suicide bombing from all over the world, and I learned for instance, that not all groups using suicide terrorism are radical Muslims like those in Al Qaeda ... the author went to Sri Lanka and interviewed the Tigers, who committed the most suicide attacks of all the groups put together and they are Hindus. The book also examines why women become bombers, something I really did not know much about and contrasts Chechnya and Israel/Palestine and explains what went wrong in Iraq. This book was really fantastic. I recommend it enthusiastically.

This was the best book on the subject I have read in a very long time. The books presents interviews with failed bombers and the group leaders that send them. Amazing... the book gives you a glimpse inside the groups and also the mentality of the people who are drawn into this cult of martyrdom. I had no idea that there were more bombings in Sri Lanka than anywhere else but certainly, the recent growth of Islamic bombers seems to show that secular groups are not the most dangerous post 9/11. My instinct is to agree. The terrorists in Sri Lanka are not ramming planes into buildings here in this country and many people do not even consider them terrorists.
Methodologically the book appears to be a most dissimilar case comparison in which the author shows the linkages among groups and individual motivations. Instead of presenting the groups that suicide bomb as either religious or secular, the author presents a spectum along which most groups fall.
Super interesting especially the author's discussion of women bombers and how they are motivated.
I enjoyed this book immensely. I am sure you will too.

A very well written, authoritive and scholarly work. Dr. Bloom has taken the time to research this critical subject and place into a highly readable format. I teach counterterrorism to law enforcement officers at all levels and this has become one of my most valuable resources in my suicide terror classes.

Read the book after seeing the author on TV talking about women suicide bombers. Some of the people who have read the book completely misunderstood what she was saying (I read the reviews and wondered whether we had read the same book?). She is not blaming victims but analyzing what kinds of counter terrorism tactics work best. She also has an interesting counter point to this book by Robert A. Pape that suicide bombing is a response to foreign occupation. Oh by the way, who is occupying Bangladesh which has been in the news this week with attacks? So I found Dying to Kill more nuanced and based on real world information including interviews with real life terrorists to be heads and tails above some of the so called experts. She is also on point about Iraq, even rightly predicting that there is no way to impose democracy from above and identified that most of the bombers are foreigners like Saudis. This book will definitely not disappoint.

Truly an excellent piece of research and coherent explanation of suicide bombing. Nuanced and based on field research, I respect what the author did to get the information to write this explanation of the unexplainable as the cover says. High risk field work always generates more interesting accounts and first hand reports deliver a punchier analysis.
The author's language skills and willingness to take risks also impressed me.

I had to read this book for a class and really enjoyed it. Unlike so many other books on the subject or in political science generally, this was an easy read with tons of additional information at the back for additional research. The main points were that suicide bombing happens under specific conditions and, if you can "shift the preferences of the people" they say they represent, you can make terrorism less "alluring" than more peaceful methods. I thought it made good sense. Bloom shows how targeted assassination may open up a Pandora's box and differentiates between long term and short term strategies. The chapter on women was my favorite by far. So before all these women started participating in attacks she has predicted this in the book by showing how several of the muslim fundamentalist leaders had started to allow women to be bombers and that Al Qaeda would eventually follow suit. She also explained how more than one group can use bombings to influence an audience, something no one else discusses to show how groups compete using violence as a "litmus test"... The book is sooo interesting, written well, presented clearly and if you want to understand how complicated suicide bombing and terrorism is, this is definitely the book for you. No simple answers, but simply put. It was my favorite book last semester.

Interesting and much needed alternative viewpoint on the history of terrorism about different regions of the world affected by terrorism. How these conflicts started helps us understand what we can expect in the future.
This author obviously has a strong command of the material and a deep understanding of the roots of the conflicts. She offers a fresh take on the policies and positions needed to reduce the scourge of terrorism.
One can only hope that policy makers in washington are paying attention to an expert working on terrorism for over decade rather than the numerous instapundits who clog the airways and have no understanding of the phenomenon. The book is full of interviews with real terrorists and based on her travels to several countries. Fantastic book, I highly recommend it to anyone wanting to understand the insider's viewpoint.

Chapter one was interesting and hinted at a book with potential. Chapter two, for me, was the last chapter.

Exploring the Palestinian take on suicide bombing--a subject that should serve as a foundational element for her entire thesis--Bloom revealed an unsupported and undeclared anti-Israel bias as well as an unfortunate reliance on cliched thinking and a notable lack of rigorous fact checking.

For instance, it is commonly assumed in the academic community--bar not Bloom--that there can be no military solution to problems of this nature. Any military component of any solution is instinctively dismissed as compounding factor and, to put it in Bloom's words, something that "will encourage rather than discourage future attacks." (p35) She cites no evidence for this, demonstrates no logic leading her to this conclusion, and apparently did not check to see if Israel's military operations have had any demonstrable effects. Five minutes of research would have showed her the dramatic reduction in attacks and casualty figures after Israel's Operation Defensive Shield (which she mistakenly called Operation Protective Shield), facts which do not jive well with cliched assumptions about the inutility of military operations. This is not to say, in my opinion, that force alone can solve the problem, merely that it can often do a great deal of ultimate good.

Bloom fails to fact check in other areas too. In one case she implies that the PLO removed the clauses in its charter calling for Israel's destruction in 1998 because the Palestine National Council voted to do so. While this is true, she neglects to mention that the clauses were never actually removed--more than a minor sticking point and an indication of sloppy research. In another case she states "[Authors Shaul] Mishal and [Avraham] Sela note that the Israelis did not block [Hamas] nor did they arrest any of its members, and in turn the organization did not perpetrate any attacks against Israel for the first two years of its existence." This refers to the commonly-held belief that Israel cultivated Hamas to be the PLO's rival--divide and conquer. I checked her reference in their book, The Palestinian Hamas, and they made no such claim on the noted page, nor did they imply it.

She makes several qualitative, moral judgements about Israel's use of force being "excessive", but she neither explains what the appropriate amount of force should be in particular situations, or how she envisions Israel using less force without a) losing the military objective and b) increasing risk to its soldiers. Her repeated use of the term "excessive force" is reminiscent of the many international bodies, government, and media figures which "excessively" used the term in 2002 and 2006 without a) explaining what the appropriate amount of force is for various situations or b) having any military expertise themselves. When Bloom does turn to what she believes the Israeli calculus to be (in this case for targeted killings), she makes sure to couch the Israeli logic as "perverted", and makes sure the readers know it is so by showing Israel to be the lone nation openly employing it. "Targeted assassinations, renounced by almost every other democratic government and by international law, has been a standard operating procedure for Israel..." We are offered no explanation for why it is morally wrong--we are simply expected to agree with the obviously correct viewpoint that so many others hold--or any anecdotal or quantitative evidence showing it to be more problematic than effective. We are simply to believe, once again, the cliche that fighting terrorists simply makes more terrorists.

Perhaps this is because Bloom truly believes that "...Israel has stepped up attacks on civilians...." In most scenarios this would probably contribute to an insurgent problem, but--once again--Bloom offers no evidence for this claim other than an equally uneducated and unqualified quote from a rather apologetic journalist, Joyce Davis: "Under Sharon's government, Israeli soldiers have bombed Palestinian cities, sent tanks into Palestinian villages, assassinated Palestinian leaders, killed Palestinian youths... [etc.]" Is it possible that Bloom is doing a disservice to her analysis by claiming that Israel wantonly attacks so-called civilians without cause or qualification? That they--apparently--"bomb cities", perhaps in a manner reminiscent of WWII attacks on Dresden and Tokyo? That they routinely shoot Palestinian youths? That is that? No mitigating circumstances or qualifying context? Is this academic rigor?

Bloom's logic stumbles in several areas. In one case she writes, "Most suicide bombers are not undereducated religious zealots who blindly follow the commands of the religious leadership; rather they come from a middle or upper class background and have comparatively high levels of eduction." It apparently escapes Bloom that these things, whether they are true or not individually, are not mutually exclusive. A great many religious zealots have been highly educated, especially by Arab-Muslim standards. Let us not forget that some of our most destructive jihadist suicide bombers have been so educated. Moreover, it is safe to say that at some point any jihadist suicide bomber--whatever his or her background--makes a de-socializing transition after which he or she is clearly following someone's religious command and that they are then blind to broader social and political points of view. Thus, Bloom appears lost here.

Additionally, she does not display an in-depth understanding of the differences between Western, i.e. Judeo-Christian just war theory and Muslim, i.e. Hamas' just war theory. While discussing suicide bombings launched by Hamas ostensibly in reaction to Israeli transgressions, Bloom correctly states that these are in accordance with Islamic law and defensive. This aspect of defensive jihad is indeed analogous to Western just war theory, but Bloom fails to note the more pertinent elements of Islamic just war theory, i.e. those that are arguably responsible for exacerbating and continuing the war until all Israel is "nullified", as the Hamas charter states. In Islam, defensive wars as the West understands them are just, but so are all wars launched in the defense of Islam itself, that is, until the Globe is unified under the control of one religion and Allah's "Truth" is no longer "persecuted." Thus, under this construct Israel cannot escape violence through any number of concessions or modified policies; it must simply cease to exist.

So for me, Bloom fell on her sword early (chapter 2), and at the very least, saved me the trouble of reading the rest of the book. She makes some good observations and good points, but this chapter was shoddy enough to ensure the collapse of her thesis, no matter good the following ones.

In a relatively compact volume Mia Bloom details the rational behind why people are so willing to blow themselves up for a cause. There are the standard religious terrorists who blow themselves up in the name of a God, but there are also those who blow themselves up because of devotion to a non-religious cause like the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, persons who blow themselves up because they've lost family members and loved ones, which leads to them having no place in society like Chechnya. What separates Blooms work from other works in my view is that it actually manages to put suicide terrorism into a historical context. If one considers the actions of the Assassins and other medieval and revolutionary organizations that have conducted terrorist operations for hundreds of years before the so called modern wave of suicide operations, we discover that today's suicide terrorists have only improved models of mass violence from other times to a deadly effect. This historical context places Bloom above other noted books on the subject.