Wednesday, October 1, 2003
previous entry | main | next entry | TrackBack (0)
Martin Kramer weighs in
I've already had my say on this, but do check out Kramer's full post.posted by Dan on 10.01.03 at 04:16 PM
At least Kramer admitted Pape did useful work in stating that suicide bombing is a form of strategic attack. Pape's audience is not Kramer's audience, and the former need to be told that suicide bombing is aggression, and not a response to oppression. Pointing out errors in Pape's statistics is appropriate, but much of Kramer's criticism seems to be sour grapes that his prior work wasn't cited.
Neither of them would look at historic responses to suicidal attack/defense. Kramer wouldn't even address the subject of current responses. Pape did and thereby weakened his article. It was also unfocused in other ways, as comments in your original thread noted.posted by: Tom Holsinger on 10.01.03 at 04:16 PM [permalink]
Two points to Mr. Holsinger:
I stand corrected on most of your points. Note my other distinctions however. I said that Pape's audience needs to be told that suicide bombing is aggression and not a response to oppression, not that Pape told them this. What I said Pape told them was that suicide bombing is a form of strategic attack. This is a useful start to understanding the rest, notably that suicide bombing campaigns generally need foreign support and sanctuaries, and that foreign support is rooted in aggression towards the targets of the suicide bombing.posted by: Tom Holsinger on 10.01.03 at 04:16 PM [permalink]
You're absolutely right.
Post a Comment: