Courage in Dark Places: Reflections on Terrorist Psychology

Andrew Silke Courage in Dark Places: Reflections on Terrorist Psychology The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere The ceremony ofinnocence is drowned; The best lack all convictions, while the worst Arefull ofpassionate intensity. — w illiam bu tler y ea ts, “The Second Coming” INTRODUCTION IN THE AFTERMATH OF THE SEPTEMBER 11, 2001, TERRORIST ATTACKS, controversy erupted when a handful of commentators argued that the A1Qaeda hijackers displayed courage in their actions. Writing in the New Yorker shortly after 9/11, essayist Susan Sontag commented, “Whatever may be said of the perpetrators of Tuesday’s slaughter, they were not cowards.” Television talk show host Bill Maher voiced a similar view: “Staying in the airplane when it hits the building—say what you want about it, it’s not cowardly.” Echoing this, Ted Turner, the founder of CNN, said during a speech at Brown University that “I think they [the 19 hijackers] were brave at the very least.” In all cases, these comments provoked fierce and overwhelming criticism. In most cases, the intense pressure forced the protagonists to backtrack and modify their origi­ nal statements. There was a profound and widely felt outrage in the United States that the 9/11 terrorists should be described in such terms. Yet, were these views inaccurate? Inflammatory and controversial the social research Vol 71 : No 1 : Spring 2004 177 statements certainly were, but they did hit on an important point: Can terrorists display and possess virtues such as courage? And if they can, what does this tell us about our understanding of courage as a virtue? Ultimately, it is far easier to condemn terrorism than it is to under­ stand it. In dealing with extreme violence of any kind there is a tendency to regard the perpetrators as psychologically abnormal and deviant. Terrorist acts are often abhorrent, and understanding them is often attempted in terms of the abnormality of the individuals responsible. To attempt comprehension in any other terms can in many eyes be seen to imply a level of sympathy and acceptance ofwhat has been done and who has done it. For example, consider the caustic assessment of Northern Ireland’s chief constable, Ronnie Flanagan, who, when commenting on efforts to better understand terrorist activity in Ulster, said that “For me, understanding [such activity], comes dangerously close to authorising, sanctioning and approving” (Hamden and Jones, 1999). Arguments against the search for objective insight are especially common in the aftermath of attacks that result in large numbers of casualties. Suffering and loss of life on a large scale, especially when it involves innocent women and children, raises serious and understand­ able questions about the motivations and morality of the individuals responsible. Terrorism is a topic that provokes extreme perceptions, perceptions that spill easily into considerations of the actors behind the violence. Yet, misconceptions and prejudices born in the wake of the callousness of terrorist acts, if pervasive enough, can influence the policies used to combat terrorism and leave a lasting impression on official attitudes regarding terrorists. In the wake of mass casualty attacks in particular, it is often diffi­ cult to engage in objective analysis of the causes and processes lead­ ing to the event. Instead, governments, analysts, and the wider public can become obsessed simply with response and punishment. The terrorists are demonized, stripped of their humanity and correctly or mistakenly assumed to be callous fanatics delighting in the carnage they have created and against whom extreme measures are not simply appropriate and justified but obligatory. Those who suggest otherwise 178 social research are dismissed as sympathizers or appeasers. Three decades of study on terrorism has taught one lesson with certainty, however, and that is that terrorism is not a simple phenomenon with easy explanations and direct solutions. It is a highly complex subject. Worse, it is a highly complex subject whose understanding is undermined and corrupted by a cabal of virulent myths and half-truths whose reach often extends even to the most learned and experienced. Military strategists have long recognized that it is the duty of a responsible leader to aim to gain an accurate understanding and appre­ ciation of the foe before him. Yet the effort devoted to gaining an...