Nick Weininger over on Catallarchy makes a valid point about how problems can have multiple and simultaneous causes. He uses the examples or terrorism and two causes pushed by the right and libertarians: Islam and foreign occupation.

If we think of terrorism as a chemical reaction, then Islam is more of a catalyst than a cause. Foreign occupation is one of (many possible) fuels of the reaction. But every chemical reaction requires more than one reactant. I believe that other ingredient is poverty.

Poverty is a key ingredient in most terrorist acts. Suicide bombers in Israel blow themselves up so their family will get the payoffs from the Saudi royals and others. The French and Russian revolutions were led by upper middle class kids wanting to do something (usually the wrong thing) about poverty. The 9/11 hijackers and London bombers were more of the same, middle class reactionaries looking to blame someone for the fact their culture is so far behind the rest of the world.

Olivier Roy, writing in the New York Times, says:

Converts are to be found in almost every Qaeda cell: They did not turn fundamentalist because of Iraq, but because they felt excluded from Western society (this is especially true of the many converts from the Caribbean islands, both in Britain and France).

“Born again” or converts, they are rebels looking for a cause. They find it in the dream of a virtual, universal ummah, the same way the ultra-leftists of the 1970s (the Baader-Meinhof Gang, the Italian Red Brigades) cast their terrorist actions in the name of the “world proletariat” and “Revolution” without really caring about what would happen after.

After 9/11 America consoled itself with the line: “The Terrorists hate us for our freedom”. That sounds nice, but isn’t true. Terrorists hate us for our successful economy, which we owe to freedom. Al Qaeda doesn’t hate the Saudi’s for their freedom. It doesn’t hate the Egyptians for their freedom. It doesn’t hate the Indonesians for their freedom. Yet it still blows up innocent civilians in those countries.

Oliver goes on to make the case that the whole Foreign-Occupation-as-a-cause-for-terrorism is a non-sequiter:

If the conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine are at the core of the radicalization, why are there virtually no Afghans, Iraqis or Palestinians among the terrorists? Rather, the bombers are mostly from the Arabian Peninsula, North Africa, Egypt and Pakistan - or they are Western-born converts to Islam.

It is also interesting to note that none of the Islamic terrorists captured so far had been active in any legitimate antiwar movements or even in organized political support for the people they claim to be fighting for. They don’t distribute leaflets or collect money for hospitals and schools. They do not have a rational strategy to push for the interests of the Iraqi or Palestinian people.

The problem with terrorism is that is works. Terrorists, like spoiled children, want attention and our 24/7 international news cycle gives it to them. It is a small price we have to pay for our globally connected economy. And I say it is a small price because our globally connected economy has in a large part ended state to state war.

The solutions to terrorism are: global economic connectivity, ruthlessly hunting down the perpetrators and financiers of terror, preemptive elimination of the leaders for whom terrorism is their source of importance, and a general populace that says “bugger off, I’ve got to get to work” when terrorists disrupt their daily life.