One of the things you notice about kids, especially younger ones, is their proclivity to ask ‘why’. At times, this habit can get a little annoying as the little tots seem to question the reason behind just about everything. As a grandfather of a 3-yr old boy, I can attest to how many ‘whys’ come out of his mouth!
This need to know why something is the way it is rears its head every time a serious act of violence occurs. Whether we are talking about a school shooting, a vehicle ramming or an explosive detonated in a crowd, the demands for answers arise immediately, often while the dust has yet to settle or the dead and wounded cleared from the scene.
Into this void we always see media turn to ‘experts’, some of whom are and some of whom are most decidedly not well-versed on the subject matter. These wise souls weigh in soberly on what has transpired, provide their ‘theory’ on the motivation of the perpetrator, and leave their audiences somewhat more at ease now that the latter ‘understand’ the genesis of these terrible acts.
But what if these ‘experts’ are wrong?
In the hours and days following the attack on New Year’s morning in New Orleans we were inundated with explanations on the attacker, his background, why he embraced violence, and what the whole thing meant. Media were all over this story, not surprisingly, and it dominated the news cycle (and still is three days later). NB I myself did several TV and radio interviews on the event, although I repeatedly ask my hosts NOT to refer to me as an ‘expert’, as that term has become next to meaningless, particularly since 9/11 where many of these self-styled know-it-alls appeared from nowhere.
So far, I have noticed the ‘usual’ analysis in this instance. The terrorist had marital issues. He was in financial straits. He was a ‘misogynist‘. He was mentally disturbed. Yadda, yadda, yadda…
All of the above may be true, to some extent, but none of them ‘explain’ why he drove into a crowd of revelers, fired at police and built two (unsuccessful) IEDs. Allow me to ‘explain’ why.
When it comes to understanding the mindset of a terrorist we have to acknowledge first and foremost that it is complicated. Very. There is seldom – if ever – a single explanation for why. Terrorists come in all shapes and sizes, from all kinds of backgrounds and with all kinds of capabilities. There is no ‘profile’ and never will be one, the claims of ‘experts’ notwithstanding (you might want to check out my 2015 book The Threat from Within for a much more detailed discussion on this).
You see, all the ‘reasons’ offered do not pass the ‘necessary and sufficient’ test (thanks to a linguistics prof at Carleton University for introducing me to this concept almost four decades ago). For something to be necessary implies it has to be there for something else to transpire. This is patently false. To take but one example, a sense of ‘alienation’ is not found in every case of terrorism and does not have to be present for the so-called ‘radicalisation’ process to begin in the first place. Furthermore, lots of angry people are not ‘alienated’ and yet do go on to embrace terrorist ideologies.
On the ‘sufficient’ side it follows that no one factor can account for the decision to take the lives of others. If that were true, all people having ‘marital issues’ would go on to join ISIS. This too is obviously inaccurate.
So, what are we left with? Simple. A dog’s breakfast of factors, influences (there is no such thing as ‘self-radicalisation’ and yet we see that phrase time and time again in media reporting, and even spouted by ‘experts’), backgrounds, circumstances and random events come together to create a terrorist. Trying to re-create the conditions under which this unfolds is pointless and impossible. It is better to take note of signs of radicalisation (again, see The Threat from Within) and ensure that those in a position to do something about it are aware of them (and yes, this includes security intelligence and law enforcement organisations).
I am not naive. The next time an attack of this nature occurs we will read the same testimonies by family and friends that they ‘never saw it coming’ – despite the obvious red flags – and the same desperate search for ‘why’ (which will inevitably be resolved by ‘experts’). As with my three-year old grandson, ‘why’ is the operative word and a question that must be answered (before we move on to something else – squirrel!). It is, alas, human nature to want to know and yet we will not figure this thing out. Trust me, it’s complicated.
