The “myths” and my reactions to them after the jump.

1. Most terrorists are spoiled rich kids.

Frankly, I couldn’t be more shocked that this is considered a myth. Do people really think that spoiled rich kids are running around playing terrorists in the tens of thousands? Are the creme de la creme of countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, etc running off to fight in the jihad? Stern herself dispels the “myth” with this factoid:

Of the 25,000 insurgents and terrorism suspects detained by U.S. forces in Iraq as of 2007, nearly all were previously underemployed, according to Maj. Gen. Douglas Stone, the commander of detainee operations at the time.

2. Al-Qaeda members come from repressive countries in the Middle East.

I think most would agree this is a strong belief. Stern talks about the fact that there are al-qaeda affiliates in North Africa, Somalia, and Indonesia. While true, I think if you polled most Americans, they would believe that Morocco, Libya, and maybe even Somalia are actually in the Middle East. It doesn’t make it true, but their problem is geography rather than philosophy. Indonesia is without question a trouble spot, but Indonesians also haven’t been a part of an attack (or attempted attack) on the United States.

Stern comments:

More broadly, there is no particular political system that reliably promotes or deters terrorism. And democracy is not the cure-all it is often assumed to be. There are many more terrorist incidents in democratic India, for example, than in non-democratic China or Saudi Arabia.

Since the “myth” was about al-qaeda, I think it’s a bit unfair to go outside those bounds when responding, but I also think it’s fair that Americans are most concerned with terrorist organizations that target the United States. Terrorist incidents in Kashmir are alarming, but the greater concern for Americans is for the jihadists that are training next to those destined for Kashmir who have American interests in their sights.

3. Al-Qaeda is made up of religious zealots.

Stern comments:

To the contrary, rank-and-file terrorists who claim to be motivated by religious ideology often turn out to be ignorant about Islam. The Saudi Interior Ministry has questioned thousands of terrorists in custody about why they turned to violence, and found that the majority did not have much formal religious instruction and had only a limited understanding of Islam.

This is another troubling “myth”, and one whose pertinence I question. What Stern really means is that Al-Qaeda is made up of religious zealots that are following the true Islam. The problem with this statement is that the terrorists, whether they are right or not, believe that they are following the true form of Islam. Ignorance doesn’t make one less devout, and believing a false teaching of a religion doesn’t make one less passionate about carrying out its creeds, if you don’t know or believe that it is false.

Stern continues:

Rather than Islam leading young recruits toward al-Qaeda, it may be an ignorance of Islam that renders youths vulnerable to al-Qaeda’s violent ideology.

Again, most would agree that the Salafi-Jihadist form of Islam isn’t true to the religion, but what does it matter? Salafi-Jihadi Islam is a form of Islam, even if you believe it is a corruption of the faith. These people are carrying out actions they believe their faith demands.

I don’t understand the point of shattering this “myth”. Is it to stop focusing on the Islamic association of Al-Qaeda terrorists? Is it to simply clarify with every report and every analysis that: “Yes, we understand that these people believe that they are following Islam, but that is simply not the actual case.” Is it to promote pity that these poor souls don’t even really know why they are training themselves to a fever pitch in order to carry out suicide attacks against the United States? (OK, I can almost get to that last point, because in point of fact, I do pity these people to an extent.)

4. Terrorists are motivated by a strong belief in their cause.

Stern comments:

Terrorist movements often arise in reaction to a perceived injustice, whether real or imagined. Yet ideology is not the only, or even the most important, factor in an individual’s decision to join. In my research and interviews with terrorists, I have found that operatives are often more interested in adopting a new identity than in supporting a terrorist group’s stated goals. Many speak, in particular, about being motivated by a feeling of humiliation. A Kashmiri militant founded his group because, he said, “Muslims have been overpowered by the West. Our ego hurts . . . we are not able to live up to our own standards for ourselves.”

This is another troubling “myth” because it would seem to suggest that the people fighting and killing themselves to attack the United States are not motivated by a strong belief. If that’s true, then they are willing to fight, kill and sacrifice their own life for something they don’t really care about. I just can’t get behind that.

If Stern is trying to suggest that terrorists aren’t necessarily motivated by the specific global (or regional) operational aims of the central commanders for the terrorist organization, I can agree with that. I have no problem believing that Abdulmutallab wasn’t really concerned with a free Palestinian state, or the supposed imperialistic ambitions of the United States. I have no problem agreeing that he was likely motivated more by loneliness, personal restlessness, lack of alternate opportunities that met his needs (whether financially, morally, in matters of fulfillment, etc), or by an emotional manipulation by his handlers. What I can’t agree with is that he would carry out the act to kill himself and nearly 300 other people on the flight for something he wasn’t actually all that jazzed about. I also find it hard to believe that he and others like him aren’t motivated by the general aims of the terrorist organization. I believe that they do care about establishing their version of Islam, attacking those that would (in their minds) seek to destroy Islam, and especially about getting revenge on who they believe is responsible for the situation their family and perhaps even their country is in.

I also have a problem with the dispelling of this myth, and this line in particular:

Many speak, in particular, about being motivated by a feeling of humiliation. A Kashmiri militant founded his group because, he said, “Muslims have been overpowered by the West. Our ego hurts . . . we are not able to live up to our own standards for ourselves.”

This doesn’t dispel the myth for me, but it might bring up a qualifier. Terrorists are often motivated by something that has been done to them and their actions seek to restore what they believe they have lost. Whether that is a voice in their country, the freedom to practice their version of their religion, the prestige that they feel their family, religion, region or country should have, etc, they are seeking restoration, at the least.

This quote also clarifies a quality of self-loathing that motivates many terrorists. They are lonely, seeking to be a part of something, and even when they find a group that they can belong to, it’s difficult to let go of that knowledge that they didn’t fit into society. There very likely lingers a questioning of what’s wrong with me that I wasn’t accepted? Or in the case of this Kashmiri militant, “Why wasn’t I able to live up to the standards I believed in?”

It’s likely that the militants or terrorists that are involved in the fighting are motivated by this need for restoration, or even simply the fact that they have found a “family” that accepts them. The fact that the “family” accepts them only insofar as they are able to aid them in their agenda to destroy doesn’t seem to factor.

I still find it hard to believe, though, that the ones that carry out the suicide bombings or other highly risky, likely lethal actions aren’t motivated by a strong belief in something. I’m not prepared to categorize terrorists as people willing to throw away their life on a whim, and I believe that this line of thinking does a disservice to the work of stopping terrorists.

5. The typical terrorist recruit is an alienated loner.
Stern comments:

According to The Washington Post, Abdulmutallab, the alleged Christmas airplane attacker, wrote in an online Islamic forum: “I have no one . . . to consult, no one to support me and I feel depressed and lonely. I do not know what to do. And then I think this loneliness leads me to other problems.”

But for most terrorist recruits, the problem isn’t so much a lack of friends as the wrong friends. This dynamic isn’t so different from the way gang recruiting works in the United States: Terrorists often join an armed struggle because they have a buddy who has done so. In a survey of 516 Guantanamo detainees, researchers at the Combating Terrorism Center found that knowing another member of al-Qaeda was a better predictor of who became a terrorist than was belief in the idea of jihad.

I believe the gang analogy stands up pretty well here, but as someone that has personally known more than a few gang members, I question the premise that the people joining up aren’t alienated loners. When I was in elementary and middle school, there was a national wave of gang recruitment and violence, and it was particularly strong in my hometown. At one point, an intersection less than 10 miles from my house was the deadliest place in the United States (based on murders per capita per day). I knew many people that got involved in the Crips, Bloods, Latin Kings and dozens of affiliate gangs (my favorite was the Tree Top Crips, who would only wear green shirts and brown pants). In my personal experience, the people who joined these gangs fell into two specific categories: 1) they were people who didn’t really get along well with others or didn’t realize that they got along with others due to lack of confidence, and 2) the people that knew they could control group #1.

Were people recruited into (or attracted to) the gangs because they knew someone in a gang? Absolutely. I was recruited into two different gangs by people I knew, even though I was a skinny white boy (or maybe because I was a skinny white boy…). The reasons for the attraction to the gang was a place to belong, even when someone already had friends. Wearing a certain color, sharing a group name, and knowing where to focus your negative feelings were all powerful attractants.

It’s the same for terrorists. Does having a friend in a gang/terrorist organization increase the likelihood that you will be recruited to join? Absolutely. Will being an alienated loner make this recruitment more appealing? Absolutely. Let’s not confuse correlation with causation here. Another aspect to consider is that more extreme forms of all religions generally drive people to seclusion, away from the world. The people who become involved in these types of religion willingly (at first) exclude themselves from society in order to maintain the tenets of their faith. This self-imposed alienation helps to drive them into the arms of like-minded people.

Knowing someone in a terrorist organization opens the door for recruitment, but the crushing feeling of being alone in the world (even in the midst of friends) can drive people to do things they otherwise wouldn’t do, just as when Abdulmutallab says, “And then I think this loneliness leads me to other problems.”

Stern’s original point for the article was stated as:

The bottom line is that we can no longer assume that terrorists will come from any particular country or fit any particular profile. The more we learn about what makes people vulnerable to recruitment by terrorist organizations, the less any of the old generalizations hold up.

Perhaps I’m just a little late to the game, so I’m not familiar with what “old generalizations” Stern is talking about, but from everything I’ve read, we’re still pretty much focusing on the right people, if we’re talking about AQ and those that are seeking to strike the “far enemy” of the West. This person is usually:

• very poor
• a follower of an extreme, corrupted form of Islam of which they generally know little about
• they are motivated by real or perceived wrongs to themselves, their family, their religion or their country or by a feeling of inadequacy in the pursuit of their faith
• and they are generally able to be recruited by their feeling of alienation from the world at large

True, we can’t count on every single terrorist coming from Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Jordan, Iran, or Iraq. Fair enough (although I think we can agree that a large percentage do in fact come from those states). I truly don’t want to put words in Sterns mouth, but I feel like this article was a response piece to the new TSA rules, and that maybe the other four “myths” were filler thrown in to make a nice Top Five list, which generally proves more consumable, and in this day and age, re-tweetable. If so, I’d suggest that now is not the time to be muddying the waters in our national dialogue on the response to terrorism. If not, then I’m even more concerned.