Terror Studies Must Look at History, Motives

[Rose Siding]

STOCKHOLM (Reuters) - Governments trying to fight terrorism should, when funding research, focus less on headline grabbers like weapons of mass destruction and more on studies of terrorists' everyday existence and motivation.

That was the message from European and North American experts reviewing research on terrorism and counter-terrorism at a seminar at the Swedish National Defense College on Tuesday.

Spending on research has increased since the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, but political sponsors want "results on their desks in two to three months" rather than lengthy field studies or historical analysis.

This means root causes are ignored and "to a large extent our national security is founded on guesswork. I personally don't find that very reassuring," said Danish researcher Michael Taarnby of Aarhus University.

"Good fieldwork is not necessarily expensive but the funding is not there if the subject isn't 'sexy' like al Qaeda or WMD," said Andrew Silke of Britain's Scarman Center.

http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=7973286

[RaleighNCDUer]

1. Can I get a big

"DUH!"

But do you think anyone in this administration will see it that way?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

4. do you really think the administration is really interested

in stopping terrorism? It seems to me they have merely used it as an excuse to put forth the neocon agenda, such as the Iraq war. If Bush was really interested, wouldn't more money be earmarked for secruity of ports, mass transit on the land, and nuclear power plants? If Bush wanted to stop terrorism, wouldn't he be working on the root causes of terrorism, as was mentioned in the main post?

[leveymg]

2. Garbage In, Garbage Out - a Useful Systems Engineering Concept

And then there are systems outcomes: e.g., 9/11; Iraq; and the Iran War Plans.

[Runcible Spoon]

3. but that would take time, careful analysis and objective critique

that doesn't make for good headlines!