The psychological trinity in war

by John Thompson

03/17/03

Pity those people without a mentor, I’ve had several — all of whom had a lot to teach and some keep providing more lessons. Let me share the latest one with you.

Maurice Tugwell was my boss for a couple of years, and a friend for a lot longer than that. Retired and modest, he has little to be modest about — having been one of the world’s experts on that murky place where strategy, politics, psychology, ideology, intelligence and soldiering all collide. As a young Parachute Regiment officer he had jumped across the Rhine into Germany in the last great offensive of the War, then he had been in Palestine (in 1946-47), Malaysia fighting the Communist terrorists, sundry places in the Middle East, in Cyprus, in Ulster in the early 1970s and was attached by the British government to the Iranian military after that.

We recently spent a day together with a number of other experts on terrorism in a quiet conference in Toronto. The public wasn’t there, and those of the press who attended where all expert in the subject themselves. It was a feast of ideas and concepts, but Tugwell’s remarks offered a lot to chew over.

In all conflicts, there is a psychological element that operates at all levels of the conflict. At the top, however, the leaders of groups engaged in war — whether the national leaders of whole countries or the organizer of a tiny band of terrorists — must seek to inspire and motivate their side through what Tugwell called a "trinity" of essential messages. These include:

1. The righteousness of the cause. The terrorist might say "History is on our side!" or that "We are fighting for the oppressed!" so that he can go on to write another bloody page in history by oppressing more people. On the other hand, for righteous statements, it his hard to top Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address wherein he stated that the Union was fighting so that "Government of the People, by the People, and for the People shall not perish from the Earth."
2. The evil of all who oppose the cause. Osama bin Laden calls us "Jews and Crusaders", Hitler raged on about Bolshevik subhuman hordes, and we — while not always pure in heart and deed — can take comfort that our enemies must be evil because they inevitably are tyrants, despots, murderers and thugs.
3. The inevitability of victory. This is not always an easy sale, but it is the most vital point to make. Why fight at all, if you are not certain that you are going to win?

The second point is almost always accepted by most of the citizens in democratic societies -- excepting the Marxists with their invariably inverted ethics. The other two points are much harder to make except in an all-or-nothing struggle for survival such as the Second World War. But Tugwell noted that the democracies may sometimes suspend democratic freedoms during such a war to protect their psychological Trinities from doubters. The Trinity is easier to assemble inside a terrorist group where tight ideological discipline shuts most members off from even listening to dissent.

How does this apply in today’s contest? The Islamic Fundamentalists constructed their "We-are-good-They-are-bad" messages almost entirely without opposition over a number of years, but Al Qaeda couldn’t really make their third point, their promise of inevitable victory, until the World Trade Centre attack.

With the 9-11 attacks, al Qaeda demonstrated to the World that America was vulnerable. To defeat this message, America will have to show that it is far too powerful for the likes of Fundamentalists to defeat. This message was confirmed, sort of, when Osama bin Laden wriggled out of America’s grasp as Afghanistan fell. So, perhaps in the absence of an Al Qaeda target which overwhelming military might can smash, Iraq simply will have to do for a convincing demonstration to all of al Qaeda’s admirers. Worse yet for bin Laden would be the prospect of ordinary Iraqis rejoicing to see the Americans liberate them from that rival Arab strongman, Saddam Hussein.

What the United States needs to demonstrate is that it is willing to win the war against terrorism, and to use its strength to achieve that victory regardless of opposition. Toppling Saddam Hussein would be a clear demonstration of that intention and would firmly establish that third element of the Psychological Trinity.

Attacking Iraq might not play much of a material part in the War on Terror (although I think it will), victory in Iraq will play a crucial psychological part in the war.

John Thompson is President of the Mackenzie Institute which studies political instability and terrorism. He can be reached at: mackenzieinstitute@bellnet.ca