This is a list of previous assignments

Violence by Islamic Groups Can Be Considered Rational Name Institution Violence by Islamic Groups Can Be Considered Rational Introduction The rise of extremist Muslims groups around the globe has raised debate to whether their motive to engage in violence can be considered rational. There is a need for the western policy makers to identify their underlying motives in order to effectively deal with the violent Islamic groups such as the ISIS, Hamas, and al-Jama’a al-Islamiyya among other groups. Many terror groups have emerged over the past years around the world (Pape, 2003). Most of these terror groups have resorted to violence in order to achieve their objectives. Despite waging war against the west and their allies, there are internal conflicts in Islamic countries between the Islamic groups and their governments. The terror groups have employed the use of violence in attempt to force the targeted regime to heed to their demands (Pape, 2003). In the Middle East, most of these Islamic groups have waged war against Israel with the aim of reclaiming the disputed territories. The western world has become the primary target because of their presence in the Middle East and interest in the region. AL Qaeda is one of the Islamic groups that have launched series of attacks with the aim of putting pressure on the United States to withdraw their military presence in the middle-east. The group has been blamed for spreading their extremism which has led to the rise in domestic terrorism in the western world. This group was blamed for September 11 attacks in American soil which triggered the U.S to wage war against terror groups. According to Pape (2003), a rise in terrorism is driven by economic and political factors. These groups are determined to push the Western allies to withdraw their presence in the region so that they regain total control over the region. But according to Creshaw (2007), terrorism is a form of political expressions. There is an ideological explanation that explains why terrorist engage in violence. This paper discusses why violence by Islamic groups can be considered as rational and whether western policy makers deal with violent Muslim groups. The paper compares the two articles by Pape and Crenshaw to identify their strengths and weaknesses. Could violence by Islamic groups be considered rational? The Islamic group violence can be considered as rational. Before 1980s, there were few terror groups and most of them were fighting against Israel occupation of the Middle East. In recent years, these groups have waged war on the U.S and their allies. The violence by the terror groups in modern world can be viewed as politically motivated. The terrorist has used violence to chat their political future and control of affairs in specific regions. Terrorism is a strategy which has been employed by the Islamic groups to influence the politics in the areas that enjoys western support and also in the regions where there is west had interfered with local politics (Pape, 2003). In political context terrorism can be interpreted as the choice of actions for the Islamic groups that they employ to justify their cause. Their guest to control and influence the politics has led them to choose violence rather than diplomatic approach of addressing political issues. The decision makers in Islamic groups employ terrorism to guide the behaviors of their followers. It is a clear that terrorism is guided by logical processes that are predictable (Creshaw, 2007). Terrorism is fuelled by radical groups who employ violence as course of action and the ironly alternative to attain their objectives. The groups reach at their decisions to use violence because of its effectiveness in rallying their followers that their actions are justifiable and their campaigns against their perceived opponents has benefits to the entire Islamic states. Terrorism is a psychological warfare and a rational choice employed by the terror groups to address their problems. The Islamic groups perceive that the use of violence is appropriate because their terror campaigns success would benefit the group as well as their supporters. A rational person can be driven to become a terrorist despite the consequences of their actions because of their objectives and benefits of their participation. Islamic groups are made up of rational individuals who believe that working as group is vital to attaining their goals and objectives. The idea of terrorist being rational is supported by Pape who notes that the rise in terror violence is driven by the gains that the groups would achieve at the end of their terror campaigns (2003). The groups have rational decisions which have affected their behaviors as a group. The group has taken advantage of the existing political turmoil and propaganda against the west to recruit many followers with the aim of intensifying their terror attacks thus sending a political message. The fact that terrorism is rational can be explained based on the psychological strategies that the group employs (Creshaw, 2007). These groups blame the West for their political, social and religious problems. However, the use of violence can be viewed as irrational because the strategies used by the groups have failed to enable them to attain their goals. Also most of their followers may not be able to justify their causes based on their disadvantage pasts. For instance, most of individuals in these groups are uneducated, socially isolated and unemployed (Pape, 2003). The leaders of the Muslim terror groups around the world have employed the use of violence as a solution to achieve their objectives. To achieve political motives, the groups have resorted to violence as a means of pushing the governments to concede to their demands. This strategy of pushing for a concession has led to the rise of terror groups in recent years that resort to violence with the aim of attaining their objectives. Terrorism is not a product of irrational groups; it has been employed as a strategy to push the governments to change their policies so as to accommodate their demands. It has been utilized as a tool of coercion to push for policy change and the withdrawal of the western presence in the region (Pape, 2003). An increase in violence waged by Islamic groups against the west clearly shows how these groups strategize and target their opponents to comply with demands. The consistency of the attacks shows that terrorism and use of violence is driven by rational behaviors. These groups are guided by a strategic logic that the only way in which they can demand for government concession is to stage and attack on their targets. Some of their goals and realistic while some of them are unrealistic and it requires different approaches. It is difficult for the governments to agree to a concession in the case where the demands by these groups are not realistic; this has created disputes which has led to loss of human lives. Some of the methods being employed by terrorist groups are so mainstream and irrational. The U.S presence in the region has been viewed as a threat to political system that exists in most Islamic states. The western allies being pro-democracy, has been the target of the terror groups who believes that the democratization process is a threat to their social, religious and political system. As a result of what they perceive as external interference, the governments allied to the U.S have become the target of the terror groups. It is difficult to comprehend whether their fight against democracy can be considered as rational, but it is a key factor that has fuelled violence and hatred against the West. The democracies have become a major target of violence from the Islamic groups (Pape, 2003). The groups have employed terrorism against the governments which have a democratic system as compared to authoritarian regimes. One of the reasons why these groups are against democracies is because they are the soft targets who have weak policies and they apply different kind of approaches to reach concessions such as diplomatic means. The other reason why democracies are the targets is their policies that are often opposed by these groups because of its soft stance on western presence in the region. The democracies have become a soft target of terrorism that employs violence to coerce them to heed to their demands. Reasons why Western policy makers should deal with Muslim groups The violence by the Islamic group is rational and the Western policy makers must deal with violent Muslim groups. Understanding the root cause of terrorism and their objectives would enable the western world to come up with strategies that would enable them to address an increase in terror violence in recent years. The choice strategies of strategies have both negative and positive ramifications (Creshaw, 2007). Following the terror attack in the U.S soil which Al Qaeda claimed the responsibility, the U.S were able to wage a war against terror groups around the world. Even though the strategy employed led to the ouster of the regimes that were linked to terror groups, the move by the U.S did not provided a lasting solution. The war against terror failed to put an end to terrorism because many terror groups in recent years have emerged. It is important for the policy makers to understand the motives of each terror groups, their targets and strategies in order to come up with amicable solutions to address terrorism. According to Creshaw (2007, terrorism is rational and the terror groups employs psychological warfare to coerce their opponents to agree to their demands. The policy makers should apply come up with a rational solution to address the issue of terrorism. They should approach the issue of terrorism with by coming up with rational strategies to deviate the behaviors of the groups. They should formulate and make decisions on the choice of actions by ascertaining the consequences of applying each action. Other alternative approaches should be used as an alternative backup strategy in the case of potential uncertainties. When it comes to approaching rational groups, diplomatic strategy should be applied to influence their decisions. However, in groups with diverse rationality, there are potential errors that may arise in the case where a diplomatic approach has been applied which requires other alternatives. The rational approach has been successfully applied by the U.S government in the past and it worked perfectly. For instance, In1969 the popular front for liberation of Palestine (PFLP) had planned to hijack a plane in the day the president Nixon was supposed to meet the Zionist organization (Creshaw, 2007). Because their motives had been identified earlier, the president choose not to address the meeting and the attack was foiled. However, this approach may not be applicable in when dealing with irrational groups whose behaviors are unpredictable. The policy makers should play neutral in the conflicts that they are not directly affect them because their participation has consequences. Aside from implementing their diplomatic policies, the western policy makers should focus on coming up with strategies that would aid Muslim states to address the root causes of terrorism. Most terror groups are motivated by political and monetary benefits. Their followers’ behaviors are influenced by the outcomes of their aggressions. Since most of their followers re unemployed and uneducated, the West should provide all the necessary support to countries affected by terrorism to address the root causes of the problem. This is a vital psychological strategy that would influence the behaviors and thinking of the groups and their followers. According to Kaylvas (2016), the government may also give incentives to the groups as a means of influencing their rational thinking. This would influence them to weigh between engaging in endless violence and living a normal life. This approach is productive since the military actions have proven to be ineffective and counterproductive in providing a lasting solution. The policy makers must identify the strength and weaknesses of these groups in order to come up with approaches to deal with terrorism. The Western policy makers should consider cutting links with the governments that finance terrorism. By cutting financial and diplomatic support, such regimes would be compelled to influence such groups to end violence. The articles by Creshaw and Pape have its strengths and weaknesses explaining the motives of terror groups and approaches to address the issue. The two articles have not properly highlighted the religious reason that has led to an increase in terror groups. The two articles have too much emphasis on politics, economic and social reasons that has led to an increase in terror groups in recent years. It is evident that in the regions that the U.S has no presence, there is a conflict between different groups which is difficult to identify its reasons. For instance, ISIS has waged war mainly in Middle East countries with the aim of establishing Islamic states. Their motives could be religious based and political gains. These articles have not acknowledged the religious motives of these groups which influence their violent behaviors. These articles have not provided adequate solutions that can be utilized by the policy makers to deal with terrorism. However, Creshaw has suggested strategies that can be employed by the West to avoid the consequences of their actions. Creshaw suggest that rational decisions are solutions to rational violence. Pape (2003), on the other hand cites issues that drives individuals to join terror groups. If the policy makers would address these issues such as unemployment and illiteracy, the U.S and the democratized governments would be able to address the issue of terrorism. Both articles also fail to suggest the situation in which the military intervention is necessary after all the available strategies have failed to provide solution. Demanding for withdrawal of U.S presence in the region can be the motive of the Islamic groups, but it also has negative repercussions on global security. Conclusion In conclusion, violence by Islamic groups can be considered rational. This is based on the underlying reasons why these groups have staged violence against the west and their allies. The U.S presence in the Middle-East is seen by the groups as a threat to their political system. It is evident that these groups are more likely to attack a democratized states compared to authoritarian states. The policy makers must exploit different alternatives to deal with terror groups simply because the military intervention in the past was counterproductive. References Crenshaw, M. (2007). The logic of terrorism. Terrorism in perspective. New York: Sage publication. Kalyvas, S. N. (2006). The logic of violence in civil war. Cambridge University Press. Pape, R. A. (2003). The strategic logic of suicide terrorism. American political science review, 97(03), 343-361.