The Economics of Terrorism

William Tucker, over at the American Spectator (read article) speaks of the idiocy of treating the GWOT as a law enforcement issue. He speaks directly to the notion that drug dealers (as mentioned in Kerry's analogy of prostitutes and drug dealers) have an economic incentive for their actions, and terrorists don't:

Islamic terrorists are driven by religion, not money. Their motives are not economic, which is exactly the problem. Poverty and misery are not the underlying cause.

Now this highlights the most disturbing twist in the discussion. Terrorists are not fighting for something better, as we in the west define it. Our current concept of their "self-interest," which thanks to Adam Smith is something that we think we understand, is not something that we can believe they are trying to advance. Their motives cannot be considered "economic" as we understand economics. Their motives are considered outside the bounds of what we normally think of as "rational" thinking.

Some might argue that theirs is a "heavenly economy" in which they attempt to improve their status in the after-life. But this argument is muted by the analysis of the actions of those 19 terrorists of 911. Their final days were not filled with religious piety, but with debauchery. They couldn't have seriously been seeking religious fulfillment while they acted contrary to their religious beliefs. But then again, some people might make extraordinary withdrawals from an account if they expect to make an inordinately large deposit. But, I just don't buy these religious economy arguments. However, I argue that the long-term nature of the religious benefits is not something what is driving their actions.

Instead we have to consider that their motives might really have been governed by something else, something more difficult for us to understand.

We know that under certain circumstances even economic individuals will forego a superior long-term reward for an inferior, but more proximate short-term reward. Almost all of us weight-watchers sacrifice our long-term desire for a sleeker form for the immediate lure of a caloric treat (but only on the rarest of occasions). And what about the reformed alcoholic who "slips" and takes a drink if their guard isn't up? All economic individuals will, under the right circumstances, choose an inferior reward over a superior outcome if the inferior reward is near enough in its realization to overcome the long-term benefits of the alternative.

So what is this inferior but more proximate reward that causes the terrorist to give up life? Or to shed the values of a religion that they do, in fact, know (by reading the Koran)? I believe that the proximate incentive is hate. I believe that these individuals are, in fact, economic - in that they are seeking blood-lust fulfillment of a hate - and this proximate fulfillment of a blood lust somehow weighs superior to their long-term fulfillment of life.

If this is the case, then the terrorists are not "non-economic" individuals. Instead, the long-term value of their "life" is minimal, and the short-term satisfaction of acting on their "hate" must is maximal. That is all. It is a fulfillment of this short-term lust for blood and revenge that drives terrorists. It isn't really religious.

This means that those that benefit from terrorism (the leaders of the Islamic movement), derive their power from minimizing the value of life. By encouraging squalid conditions, by increasingly subjecting "their people" to forms of tyranny, they degrade the human experience. At the same time, they maximize hate, and direct hate toward specific peoples (Jews and Americans). It is this satisfaction of enmity that provides the short-term benefits to terrorists.

So, yes, terrorists are economic. But their economy is foreign to us.