a bit of common sense from the New York Times

Exploring the Flaws in the Notion of the 'Root Causes' of Terror

By EDWARD ROTHSTEIN

    Since Sept. 11, few phrases have become as familiar as "root
causes." Forthright condemnations of the attacks have
    often been accompanied by assertions that, ultimately, the "root
causes" of terror must also be addressed. And the
implication is that if those causes are not eliminated, terrorism can be
expected to continue.

It is remarkable how much agreement there is on the nature of these root
causes. Many American intellectuals have cited
American policy toward Israel, the poverty of Arab lands and
inequalities and inequities reinforced by Western actions. The
Vatican Synod in October, after condemning the "horror of terrorism,"
called for the elimination of the root causes of poverty
and inequality. And similar declarations were made by many nations at
the United Nations this week.

But it is worth thinking about just what premises about terrorism and
fundamentalism lie behind these arguments.

First of all, these judgments accept a view of terror that has been held
by many terrorist groups throughout modern history.
The theory is that terrorism is an extreme reaction to grievous and
long-festering injustices that have not been redressed by
other means. Such claims were made by European anarchists at the
beginning of the 20th century, by the radical
Baader-Meinhoff gang in the 1970's and, of course, by Islamic terrorist
groups ranging from Hezbollah to Al Qaeda. This
might be called the "injustice theory" of terrorism and it is now widely
held.

But at the very least this theory is inconsistently applied. Timothy
McVeigh and his collaborators, for example, asserted that
their ideas of rights and liberty were being violated and that the only
recourse was terror: the Oklahoma City bombing. Yet,
no one suggested that his act had its "root causes" in an injustice that
needed to be rectified to prevent further terrorism. The
injustice theory is apparently invoked only when one sympathizes with
its conclusions.

The current invocations of injustice theory are also seriously flawed.
Consider just one supposed root cause of Islamic
terrorism: poverty. The implication is that to help stop terror, poverty
must be ameliorated. There are, of course, very good
reasons to eliminate poverty. Yet while some poverty-stricken people may
engage in terror, there may be no essential
relationship. Poverty can easily exist without terror (think of the
American Depression). And terror can easily thrive without
poverty.

The European fundamentalist wars between Protestants and Catholics,
which involved substantial terror, crossed all
economic boundaries. The left-wing terrorists of the 1970's and 80's
were solidly middle class. The leaders and many of the
main operatives in contemporary Islamic terrorist groups are, at the
very least, middle class; some Al Qaeda operatives were
highly educated; and bin Laden, of course, is a multimillionaire.

Moreover, the injustice theory, with its list of root causes, leaves no
room for religious passion, irrational ambitions or cultural
and tribal schisms. So it is unable to take into account the role played
by fundamentalism. For fundamentalism, as the term is
now used, involves a set of beliefs that lie beyond particular
resentments. Fundamentalism can even be associated with a
self-sacrificial renunciation of material pleasures; even suicide is
sanctioned if it will further the fundamentalist goal. Under
fundamentalism, in both its religious and political forms, every aspect
of life is governed by a single set of ideas. All of history,
all of natural law and all actions of the divinity, are seen as leading
up to the present moment, granting incomparable power
and authority to the fundamentalist. Those laws also demand that they be
accepted universally and that great battles must be
waged on their behalf.

The fundamentalist does not believe these ideas have any limits or
boundaries. Goals are not restricted to a particular place
or a particular time. The place is every place; the time is eternity.
That is why fundamentalism is often expansionist; it must
extend its reach as part of the great battle. In this context, one man's
terrorist, as the maxim goes, is far from being just
another man's freedom fighter. The goals of fundamentalist terror are
not to eliminate injustice but to eliminate opposition.

This is precisely the sort of mental universe that the philosopher
Hannah Arendt associated with what she called "totalitarian
terror." Writing more than a half-century ago, she was primarily
thinking of Nazi Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union, but the
ideas have far greater resonance.

Like fundamentalist terror, totalitarian terror leaves no aspect of life
exempt from the battle being waged. The state is felt to
be the apotheosis of political and natural law, and it strives to extend
that law over all of humanity. Reality, Arendt suggested,
never modifies totalitarian ideas; events do not prove those ideas wrong
or diminish belief. Instead, totalitarianism modifies
perceptions of reality to suit the ideas; the world is changed to fit
with the vision of totalitarianism. Nothing is allowed to
stand in the way of totalitarian ideas. Opposition is guilt, punishment
is death.

If contemporary Islamic terror can be considered a variety of
totalitarian terror, it becomes clearer just how limited the
injustice theory and the question of "root causes" are. No doubt,
injustices and policies can be argued over, but not as root
causes of terror. Totalitarianism stands above such niceties. No
injustices, separately or together, necessarily lead to
totalitarianism and no mitigation of injustice, however defined, will
eliminate its unwavering beliefs, absolutist control and
unbounded ambitions. Claims of "root causes" are distractions from the
real work at hand.