Terrific post, Serena. People need to hear it about terrorism having its roots in poverty. The same goes for the international drug trade and the illitic traffic in wild-animal parts -- people grow coca and kill endangered animals because they're poor and have no better options to feed themselves and their families. The hide of one jaguar will feed a poor Brazilian family for a year.

Even in the United States, where we have the highest per-capita number of people in prison in the world, many of those people are there because -- as you pointed out -- crime was the best option.

As poverty grows worse in the U.S., with families going bankrupt and jobs being outsourced and more people living on the streets, we will surely see "domestic terrorism" growing...and we won't be able to blame it on the Taliban.

Patricia, you're so right (as per usual).

I'll have to check it out. Thanks Serena.

(I'm not sure if my previous attempt to comment somehow violated the ToS or if it's caught in moderator limbo, so I will briefly post something similar)

Serena, did you posit the link between poverty and terrorism, or did the book? I think the distinction is critical, as if it was your interjection, I fear your call to arms may be unfaithful to the author and his work. Either way, I think there is something morally suspect about using terrorism-prevention as the rational to aide other countries, particularly when poverty is actually not a leading cause of terrorism.

Dave, thanks for your question. I agree, this is an important distinction.

When Mortenson started his work, he saw it as a means to pay back the people of Korphe for taking care of him. Once he started, he realized just how broad the scope of the region's poverty was, so he didn't stop with Korphe.

Greg was in Pakistan when the Twin Towers went down. And the people of Pakistan urged him to leave for his own safety. He said no, because he still had several projects to see to completion. And when the US invaded Afghanistan, he traveled to Kabul to begin an assessment of the school system there. Despite everyone telling him to go, he stayed. And now there are 58 schools in Pakistan and Afghanistan that are funded by CAI.

Mortenson's work is clearly motivated by a love for the people of Pakistan and Afghanistan. He's not a puppet of the US government and his primary motivation is not to prevent terrorism.

However, Mortenson does make the link between poverty and religious fundamentalism that fosters acts of terrorism. And I think he makes an excellent case for it. When people have no options, they become desperate, and this makes them willing to commit acts that seem to be illogical (such as blowing yourself up on a bus full of people). Mortenson clearly argues that the US had better start playing a humanitarian role in the region instead of bombing Iraq and Afghanistan to nothing. Because if we don't, the hatred that is fomenting there will continue to fester, which makes someone like Osama bin Laden more popular.

I think you should read the book. It's an important lesson for all of us.

Serena, thanks for getting back to me.

I haven't had a chance to look this book up locally to skim it over, but I can say with absolute certainty that his conclusion is wrong; the poverty-terrorism link is a myth, empirically disproven many times over. His assessment about the logic of suicide attacks is equally as flawed. Behind these two myths I feel is an interesting privileged Western bias that we all need to own up to.

The end result of his work is phenomenal, but I fear that some of the reasons behind it are reprehensible.

Dave, would you mind explaining the warrant for your argument?