What Is The Link Between Mental Illness And Radicalization?

"Mental illness is nothing to be ashamed of, but stigma and bias shame us all." -Bill Clinton

Memorial service for the victims in Tennessee

Mass shootings appear to be in the news nearly all of the time these days.  Last month, a man entered the Emanuel AME church and opened fire on a Bible study group, killing nine people and sparking off a series of discussions on racially motivated violence.  Earlier this month, mass shootings occurred in both Louisiana and Tennessee.  In response to these events, people often blame firearms for either being too readily available or not available enough to stop these individuals.  However, the real issue behind these events is often far more complicated.  Though initial details are still sketchy, many reports suggest that the shooters in Louisiana and Tennessee both suffered from depression.  There is also considerable speculation that the Tennessee shooter had been motivated by radical religious beliefs of martyrdom.  All of this raises the question: Is there a connection between mental health and radicalization? 

Not exactly the real issue here

First of all, what is depression? Well it isn't just a fancy word for feeling "bummed out." The Diagnostic and Statistics Manual of Mental Disorders lists long-term symptoms such as decreased interests in daily activities, impaired social function, and feelings of guilt of worthlessness.  There are many different types of depression and it can be brought on by any number of causes (both situational and because of chemical imbalances in the brain).  It is estimated that nearly 40 million Americans suffer from some form of depression or anxiety (often undiagnosed).  Treatments range from personal therapy to drugs which seek to re-stabilize the chemical balance within the brain.

Some basic facts, get educated!

So these shooters were potentially suffering from depression.  How likely is it that they turned to radical extremism because of this?  Most modern theories on terrorism and extremist ideologies do not attribute mental illness as a significant factor for adopting these beliefs.  Though it can play a part in a person's motivation to commit violent crimes, it is more often the violent act that brings about mental illness (not the other way around).  Instead, sociologists often link radicalization to isolated or alienated people with narcissistic personalities (though there is significant debate on this).

In both Tennessee and Louisiana, the shooters seemed to have some history of mental illness.  The Aurora theater shooting is yet another example of a person with potential mental illness engaging in mass violence. However, these cases seem to be the exception rather than the rule.  We certainly cannot make a reasonable case that people engaged in mass killings are completely sane, but blaming their heinous acts on a legitimate (and so often misunderstood) mental condition is often not entirely accurate.  Individuals suffering from mental health conditions are often searching for meaning or validation in their lives.  They can withdraw from social life as a coping mechanism, while others latch on to ideologies or support groups to help bury their feelings.  Depression and other mental illnesses often cause extreme self-hatred or feelings of worthlessness.  While it is possible that low self esteem and indifference to the world can cause individuals with severe depression to channel their sadness and negative emotions outward, most people suffering from depression take their feelings out on themselves. Rather than lash out at other people they instead lash out at themselves.

This probably isn't helping things either...

This isn't to say that there aren't some cases where people with mental illness adopt radical beliefs.  In those cases, radical Islam is just one of many things these people could turn to.  Some choose this, others choose racist ideologies, others just lash out at any target they see as responsible for their bad feelings through indiscriminate violence.  In the case of the Tennessee shooter, his upbringing may have made him more prone to choose radical Islam over other ideologies, but the same can be said about the South Carolina shooter and his upbringing.  Islam itself isn't necessarily more inherently violent than other ideologies, the radical voices just seem louder. 

If it turns out that ISIS and its warped interpretation of Islam are partially to blame for the Tennessee shooting, this tells us about the terror tactics they are attempting to use.  Al-Qaeda's tactics typically involved elaborate and theatrical schemes designed to shock people.  While effective (when executed successfully) at generating fear, they are often very difficult to pull off due to their complex nature (it's hard to hide bomb making equipment from the FBI).  ISIS, on the other hand, has taken a much different approach to terror.  They issue calls to all potential supporters to commit acts of violence wherever they have an opportunity (though very few attacks have been directly tied to this).  Sadly, one of the most effective and inexpensive methods of causing terror is to simply find a firearm and begin shooting up a public area.  This is extremely difficult to prevent and predict since a large majority of American citizens have access to these weapons and they can often be carried into a variety of public places (and neither banning guns or giving everyone access to weapons will solve this problem).  Using "lone wolf" gunmen may unfortunately prove more effective than other methods of terrorism since it is hard to predict and yet still effective in generating fear and making headlines.  It also has the added effect of continuing to fuel the seemingly unending debate about gun control in America.

 A lone wolf.  Though you are still more likely to die in a bathtub than by terrorist attack.

In all, people commit violent acts and turn to radical ideologies and groups for a wide variety of reasons (some are completely normal and sane minus the whole wanting to kill people part).  Though mental illness may not play as big of a role as most people think, it is still a significant problem which needs to be addressed.  Even though the link between mental illness and radicalization is weak, comprehensive and supportive mental health care will do far more to address the root of this problem than banning weapons or giving everyone a gun.  This certainly won't solve the issue or stop all mass shootings, but if it prevents even one act of mass violence, it will have been worth it.

Fortunately, mental health awareness is finally starting to gain meaningful recognition in popular culture (though conditions such as anxiety, depression, and psychosis are still heavily stigmatized).  Despite laws preventing insurance discrimination of mental health treatment, insurance companies often find ways to shortchange people on their mental health coverage.  Until we treat mental health problems like we do physical health problems, millions will continue to suffer with untreated or undiagnosed conditions.  Depression isn't just a matter of "stop being sad and be happy instead."  And you can't just "get over" mental health problems by ignoring them in the hopes they go away.  Real progress and healing requires real solutions. 

TL;DR: Depression and mental illness doesn't contribute to radicalization nearly as much as it seems, but these are still serious problems which need to be address by the American public.

*I have refrained from using the names or images of any of the convicted shooters in this article.  This is a deliberate attempt to not give them any of the recognition or acknowledgement they desire.* 

The Great Sunni-Shia Divide In Yemen

The Recent Situation In Yemen

For several months now, a civil war has been raging in the impoverished nation of Yemen on the Arabian Peninsula.  While tensions in the region have simmered for decades, this most recent conflict broke out when a group of Shia rebels known as the Houthis overthrew the Sunni elected president of Yemen Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi earlier this year.  They also took control of most of Yemen's port city of Aden.  Now, nearly seven million of Yemen's people are facing a famine crisis.  Though the United Nations recently took advantage of a temporary ceasefire to deliver food and supplies to the civilian population, more suffering will surely follow until this power struggle is resolved.  So nearly half a year after the outbreak of this conflict, where do things currently stand?

The Houthis have been driven out of most of their strongholds within Aden and are being pushed back into the countryside of Yemen.  With Saudi Arabia leading airstrikes on Houthi safehouses, Sunni tribal leaders engaged in ground combat, and a large Saudi Arabian army amassed at the border with Yemen, it appears the Houthi's days in charge of Aden (and much of its remaining territory) are numbered.  It should be noted that the Houthis never controlled Yemen outright even after overthrowing President Hadi's government.  Yemen's political makeup has a strong emphasis on regional alliances and local officials, so overthrowing a president doesn't exactly guarantee control over the entire country.  Many have compared this current civil war to the much longer divide between Sunni and Shia Muslims throughout the world.   This is a vast oversimplification and greatly overemphasizes the role of nations like Saudi Arabia and Iran in determining local politics.  Still, the Sunni-Shia divide plays a big part of this conflict.  Let's examine the (very oversimplified) basics of this division in Islam and what it means.

Sunni and Shia Populations in the Middle East

Following the death of Islam's prophet Muhammad, a new leader (Caliph) of the Muslim community needed to be appointed.  One group, who would later become the Sunni (from the Arabic "Sunna" meaning the sayings and actions of Muhammad) believed that a man named Abu Bakr should lead the community since he was likely the closest companion to Muhammad.  However, some people (who would later become know as the Shia meaning followers of Ali) disagreed, believing that only a member of the prophet's family could rightly hold the title.  They wanted to see a man named Ali ibn Abi Talib become Caliph instead (Ali was Muhammad's first cousin and married Muhammad's daughter Fatima).  Though they got their wish a few decades later when the Caliph Uthman ibn Affan was assassinated, the struggle of trying to make a member of Muhammad's family the leader of the Islamic community caused these factions to drift further apart and ultimately break out in civil war (known as the Fitna).

Since then, many Sunnis have generally recognized (or at least acknowledged) a long series of Caliphs.  These were usually the leaders of whichever conquering army was in control of the region at the time (Umayyad rulers, then the Abbasid rulers, then the Ottoman sultans).  The position of Caliph disappeared entirely when Mustafa Kemal Ataturk abolished the office in Turkey after declaring Turkish independence from the Ottomans.  No widely recognized leader has taken up the position since then (though Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi of ISIS has tried to claim this title).

Saudi Arabian Troops in Formation

The Shia, on the other hand, began recognizing a series of Imams (like an Islamic priest) as their spiritual leaders.  Most Shia recognize twelve Imams as being divinely appointed (the twelfth Imam supposedly went into hiding centuries ago and will return as a savior of humanity), though some only recognize the first five or seven of these as divinely inspired.  This may seem like a minor division between Sunni and Shia, but centuries of violence between some in these factions has caused distrust and fueled revenge attacks in a long cycle of conflict.  With nations like Iran being predominantly Shia and the Arabian Gulf nations being predominantly Sunni, ethnicity and nationalism can also play a part in this mistrust.  However, we shouldn't imagine that all Sunni and Shia do not like each other.  These are only broad trends and the majority of average Muslims are not quite as concerned about these religious differences as media sources would like people to believe.  The divide has existed for well over a thousand years, but this does not mean Sunnis and Shias have been embroiled in perpetual conflict for the entire time.

So can the two live peacefully together?  Yes, under the right circumstances.  In places like Lebanon, the Sunni and Shia populations (along with some Christian minorities) have worked out a power sharing plan within the government to ensure each group has a say in the political process.  In places where Muslims are not the majority, Sunni and Shia populations often have to join together to advocate for their common rights and religious freedoms in the face of discrimination.  The main contributor to positive Sunni-Shia relations appears to be a more representative system where one faction does not have complete and perpetual dominance over the other.  However, with Iran, Saudi Arabia, and ISIS all encouraging Sunni-Shia conflict, it is very unlikely a genuine peace will emerge anytime soon.   

Lebanon's Religious Factions

What does this divide mean for Yemen's current conflict?  Assuming the Houthis are eventually defeated (or at least pushed back into the fringe of Yemeni politics), the country will likely remain a close ally to both the United States and Saudi Arabia.  Iran would also see its spreading influence blocked in Yemen (though it is important to recognize again that the Houthis are their own independent actors and not just puppets of the Iranians).  Unfortunately, this conflict has allowed AQAP to spread and take advantage of the chaos of the conflict to recruit more members.  Though the terrorist group has very limited ability to conduct attacks outside of its small regional area, it will continue to gain strength the longer this conflict drags on.

No matter the outcome of this civil war, Yemen's sectarian problems will never be resolved without the economic, educational, and infrastructural changes which it desperately needs.  These reforms alone will not solve all of Yemen's problems, but an educated and productive population is far less likely to become mired in the patters of cyclical violence which often plague poor regions with divided societies.  The "great Sunni-Shia divide" is not an impossible gulf to bridge.  With time and enough positive investment, even these long-competing groups can learn to coexist (or at least tolerate one another).

TL;DR: The Sunni and Shia have (on a broad scale) opposed each other for many centuries, but that is no reason to abandon all hope of a great Islamic coexistence.

What Are The Alternatives To An Iranian Nuclear Deal?

"I hope - and indeed I believe - that this agreement will lead to greater mutual understanding and cooperation on the many serious security challenges in the Middle East."- Ban Ki Moon, United Nations Secretary General

Lead negotiators after finalizing the Iran nuclear agreement

Negotiations on Iran's nuclear development program have been going on for over a decade.  This week, a critical milestone in those negotiations was reached as the United States (along with the United Kingdom, France, China, Russia, and Germany) and Iran formally agreed to the terms of a final deal limiting its development of nuclear technology.   If you recall, President Obama agreed to let Congress review the deal prior to it going into effect.  They can now issue a nonbinding (symbolic) rejection of the deal, but Obama can still override their decision if they do not have a 2/3rds majority.  This makes it nearly certain that the deal will be implemented.

As we have discussed previously, Iran has been allegedly attempting to gain access to a nuclear weapon for several years (they have never outright admitted it, but they often conceal information about their program and enrich uranium to levels which suggest weapons development).  Though more outlandish theories attribute this to a desire for regional military conquest or the destruction of the State of Israel, the main reason most nations seek nuclear weapons is for regime security and military defensive superiority.  With these types of weapons, other states are highly unlikely to invade or launch military attacks against them.

Nations with nuclear weapons

To put it simply, Iran needs uranium to build a nuclear weapon.  Uranium can also be used for energy and medical treatments, so it's not like uranium can be banned entirely in Iran.  Uranium needs to be enriched (purified) from its raw form which comes out of rocks in the ground.  Most medical and energy purposes only need uranium to be enriched to no more than 5% (100% being completely pure).  Iran has agreed to seriously cutback on its enrichment of uranium and plutonium (both very rare and difficult to produce in quantities sufficient to make a weapon) in exchange for the removal of sanctions (trade restrictions on almost everything going into or out of Iran).  The country will also have to allow inspectors into its facilities at any time to ensure they are keeping their end of the deal.

Worldwide uranium deposits

The deal has some wins for Iran (small amounts of continued enrichment for up to fifteen years, operation of some facilities, and the lifting of sanctions), and some wins for the U.S. and its partners (enrichment is limited to 3.7% and all facilities must give full access to inspectors).  To ensure the continued cooperation of both sides, Iran still maintains some ability to enrich uranium and the U.S. can still reimpose sanctions if it feels like Iran is not living up to its end of the bargain.  This balance helps keep both sides honest while the deal is in place.  It is important to remember that Iran doesn't really consider America to be a shining example of honesty and integrity in international affairs (the CIA overthrew their elected prime minister a while ago).  Iran distrusts America about as much as America distrusts Iran. Because of this, both sides need to feel they have some ability to re-escalate the situation if needed (otherwise no deal would ever be agreed to in the first place).

Former Prime Minister of Iran Mohammad Mossadegh

Many critics point to the continued enrichment of uranium or the maintenance of some facilities as signs of a terrible deal.  To these opponents, any deal which does not entirely remove Iran's enrichment ability and nuclear research facilities is unacceptable.  However, it is critical to point out that such a deal is equally unacceptable to the Iranians.  They would never accept a deal like that because it amounts to complete capitulation to the American demands.  (The real reason for most of the American, Israeli, and Arab Gulf opposition is because the lifting of sanctions will eventually strengthen and empower Iran.)  Since the U.S. and its allies could theoretically reimpose sanctions at any time without serious repercussions,  Iran would lose all of its bargaining power to have sanctions lifted again in the future if it removed all ability to push back using uranium enrichment.  In short, agreements are about compromise, not capitulation.

Furthermore, if the complete removal of Iran's enrichment and research abilities is the only measure of a successful deal, then what other alternatives are there when such a deal inevitably fails?  Short of imposing more sanctions (which is about as unlikely to work as continuing the sanctions has in ending the program), the only other option is military conflict.  Their facilities can be bombed and damaged (but not entirely destroyed), but this will only delay their progress and likely embolden the regime to push even more aggressively for a nuclear weapon.  In that scenario, the only means of truly ending the threat of a nuclear Iran is to remove the regime itself.  This is an incredibly dangerous and destructive option (one which ought to have been learned through the experience in Iraq).

Centrifuge used to enrich (purify) uranium

Even if this deal breaks down and Iran begins racing to develop a bomb, the military option is always available in stopping this.  As it currently stands, most estimates place Iran's "breakout time" (the time it would take Iran to have a working weapon if it decided to do so) at about three months (though Israel's own intelligence suggests it is much longer).  Most estimates place the breakout time under this recent deal at least a year.  With international inspectors and scientists constantly monitoring the nuclear sites, it is highly unlikely Iran could develop a weapon in secret (not to mention every American and European intelligence agency will be closely monitoring this newly available data).  It would also be a large red flag if Iran suddenly expelled all of the inspectors and scientists, much like Saddam did in Iraq in 2002.  Simply put, no other option presents the same reasonable promise of success as the current negotiated plan. 

How will the region react to this?  It all depends on the willingness of Iran to maintain its end of the deal.  If Iran starts violating the terms of the agreement or starts acting shady about its program again, Saudi Arabia and other key players may begin planning for their own weapons program.  Though Saudi Arabia already has the preliminary makings of a nuclear program, the country is highly unlikely to actually develop it unless the threat of a nuclear Iran is imminent.  This is because the U.S. and its allies can put a lot more pressure on Saudi Arabia to stop a weapons program early in the process.  This would likely be done by cutting military arms deals, ending the import of Gulf oil, and cutting diplomatic support to Saudi Arabia.  Iran, often by its own actions towards the West, has already cut itself off from these options years ago. 

Saudi Arabia spends a lot of its money on military hardware

Whether successful or not, this deal is an historic change in the now decades long dispute over Iran's nuclear program.  What remains to be seen is whether both sides hold up their respective ends of the deal.  Opening up Iran to more trade options and outside influence might allow it to one day conduct shady arms deals with regional militant groups, but it can also increase the Iranian people's connections with the outside world.  When people are exposed to the ideas and interactions of the wider world, they tend to become less violent towards them.  This isn't to say that Iran's leadership will suddenly become friends with America and other Western powers, but Iran's people will have more positive exposure to these influences.  In the long term, this change in U.S.-Iranian relations can slowly help repair the damage done by decades of mistrust and subversion.  In all, lasting peace can only be achieved by mutual understanding, not mutual destruction.

TL; DR: The only real alternative to an Iranian nuclear deal is armed military intervention.  This deal helps prevent that.

What Is Russia Trying To Do In Eastern Europe?

This week's post comes to us from friend and colleague Brandon Kenney.  Brandon is a graduate of the University of Utah's Political Science program and is currently completing his Master's degree in Public Policy at the University of Minnesota.

Probably the best (fake) picture of Putin on the Internet

Not long ago, Washington’s foreign affairs experts were not overly concerned with Russia challenging the United States on a global stage.  Even along the campaign trail, Mitt Romney was laughed at in 2012 for making the claim that Russia was our top geopolitical adversary.  This is up for debate, but we certainly shouldn’t have been laughing about the matter three years ago.  Since then, Russia has grown in global influence, most notably with the annexation of Crimea. Tensions have only increased, with fears that Russia may pose a threat to the Baltic region (the countries of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania).  Last week, the United States announced it would be sending military hardware to seven European nations including the three Baltic countries.  Though it may not seem like a big deal, this is a somewhat serious buildup of weapons along an increasingly tense border.  So why is this (supposedly) a big deal?

Let’s take a step back, and look at what events lead to this point. With the end of the Cold War in 1991, the Soviet Union broke up, and regional powers began jockeying for influence over its remains. The most important powers that remained were the newly created Russian Federation and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).  NATO had been founded as a military alliance between the United States and its closest European powers during the height of the Cold War.  Facing this newly empowered international organization, the Russian Federation after 1991 continued to lose influence in the region.  NATO incorporated Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic in 1999, and the Baltic nations in 2004.  Though not exactly a model of success, the state of things in Russia has improved to the point that the country became richer and more powerful as the years passed. Vladimir Putin, coming to power in 2000, has centralized power and overseen the promotion of a fierce Russian nationalism. Itching to regain regional power, Putin has often stirred up problems in areas of lesser concern to western powers, such as Georgia (the country not the state). 

The expansion of NATO over the century

Putin has been even more aggressive lately, often acting under the pretense of an increasingly anxious Russian Diaspora living within the remains of the former USSR. Ukraine, the largest and most important of states (aside from Russia) in the former USSR, has often been one of the primary players in the East-West struggle. Following years of working toward a Western shift through a deal with the European Union, Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych enraged pro-Western Ukrainians by cancelling the deal to shift its relations in favor of Russia. This led to protests throughout Ukraine in 2013, known as the Euromaidan protests. Two months later, in February 2014, Russian soldiers moved into the region known as Crimea and seized a number of government buildings. Days later, the Crimean parliament voted to join Russia, and called for a regional referendum. The vote, highly disputed, reported that 97% of Crimeans wanted to join Russia.  Initially, world leaders condemned the referendum and accused Russia of manipulating the region’s population. Since then, the world’s leaders have been mostly quiet; seeming to have accepted whatever took place early in 2014.

Protests in Ukraine's Maidan Square 2013

Though the world seems mostly resigned to Crimea’s fate, a proxy war continues to rage in Eastern Ukraine with pro-cessionist forces battling the Ukrainian army for control.  Russia continues to claim it has no part in this battle, but known Russian soldiers with Russian military equipment have been seen throughout the region (even taking selfies of themselves clearly in Ukraine).  Putin’s strategy seems to be one of a slow encroachment into Ukrainian territory, often gaining ground and then quickly calling ceasefires to buy the pro-cession forces time to fortify their new territory.  This region is especially important given the large number of natural gas pipelines which run through Ukraine, powering much of Western Europe.   

The military situation in Eastern Ukraine

In the meantime, eyes are turning toward Estonia, and some fear we may be headed toward a large scale conflict with Russia. These fears are not misguided. Estonia, much like Ukraine, was a part of the former USSR and has a large Russian minority. Russian official have spoken of concerns that the Russian minority has been mistreated.  The reincorporation of the Baltic States would also connect the mainland with its port at Kaliningrad and provide Russia with a much stronger presence in the Baltic sea.  

 Signaling that both sides do indeed fear escalation, Russia and NATO forces have carried out military exercises in the region.  As Estonia is a member of NATO, its allies would be required to intervene should Russia make any moves into any of the NATO allied states (part of Article Five of the NATO Charter). Just as it did in Ukraine, Russia may be looking to stir the pot in Estonia, and foment protests like those that took place in Ukraine. If successful, NATO would be forced to seriously consider stepping in. The organization’s hands are bound in a way they were not with Ukraine (since Ukraine is not a NATO member). The worst-case-scenario, then, seems to be an all-out war between Russia and NATO.

The Baltics: Russia's ticket to the North Sea

Despite all of this, I seriously doubt that anyone wants a war. The costs are far too high for both sides, especially Russia. If it is in Putin’s designs to annex Estonia as he did Crimea, he is probably counting on NATO being unwilling to get involved in a country like Estonia, just as they have stayed out of Ukraine. NATO’s inaction would lead to the end of the treaty, bolstering Russian’s power both in the region and further afield.  It is a dangerous game, but one which has the potential to either strengthen Russia’s regional hand significantly, or bring it spiraling back into the darkness of its early post-Cold War years.  Given the humiliation of these years and the loss of so many of its former Soviet satellites to NATO, it is understandable that Russia is looking to regain some of its former glory on the world stage.  Unfortunately, this could come at a very high price to both Russia and the world.

TL;DR: Russia is looking to challenge Western influence in Europe by testing the NATO alliance.  If Russia invades a NATO country, the U.S. will have to respond or risk losing the entire alliance.