Freelance Jihad & 4 Steps to Terror

[marcinmoka]

Understanding Terror Networks

by Marc Sageman

This seems as if it would be an interesting read. Shame I only discovered it very recently in a book review. Nonetheless, he attempts to define the modern day 'Terror Network', which according to him, is a loosely structured and diverse group, but with similar ideas, or "Freelance Jihad"

But perhaps his most interesting bit is addressing the commonly mis-perceived notion that terrorists are blood thirsty, poverty stricken and ultra devout soldiers, which is odd, since according to most profiles, it is middle class, somewhat westernized and highly educated individuals ( most often engineers).

According to summary in the Economist, they turn from these regular joes into terrorists via a 4 stage process:

The initial trigger is a sense of moral outrage, usually over some incident of Muslim suffering in Iraq, Palestine, Chechnya or elsewhere.

This acquires a broader context, becoming part of what Mr Sageman calls a “morality play” in which Islam and the West are seen to be at war.

In stage three, the global and the local are fused, as geopolitical grievance resonates with personal experience of discrimination or joblessness.

And finally the individual joins a terrorist cell, which becomes a surrogate family, nurturing the jihadist world-view and preparing the initiate for martyrdom. Many Muslims pass through the first three phases; only a few take the final step.

Source : The Economist

Thoughts?

[myata]

Certainly, "moral" outrage about real or imaginary grievance may and does drive some individuals to irrational destructive action. This is a general phenomenon of human species and I fail to see how it relates to any particular religion or ethnicity. E.g the guy who shot 30 people in a college in the US is hardly a different case from somebody blowing themselves up in Baghdad.

A different situation which is also very much worthy of consideration, is when actions causing human tragedy and death on a much higher scale of magnitude, are undertaken out of pure goodness.

[eyeball]

I've certainly experienced the first three stages in my own life, but in my case stage 3 (joblessness) happened first and was followed by stage 1 (moral outrage) and then stage 2 (a strong sense of "us vs them"). If even a whiff of violent suppression had attended these experiences then engaging in some sort of counter-violence would have been easy. Not to the extent I'd be willing to martyr myself or kill innocent people but who knows how far a person can be pushed until they're over the edge?

As it is I am a little older and more objective about things but I will never forget and I understand completely how and why the West has made so many enemies in the world. I'm just bloody thankful I didn't have a head full of superstitous nonsense to help fuel my angst at the time. Religion makes everything worse.

The thing I find interesting is the order these 4 stages seem to have given as a...given, towards Understanding Terrorist Networks. I think the author is in error. The third stage is the one most likely to occur. Joblessness or economic deprivation is actually the more relevant trigger or root cause of the other stages. If economic deprivation results from a deliberate attempt to concentrate wealth and redirect it and other opportunities away from local people its easier to understand where the moral outrage and shared sense of us vs them comes from, add discrimination, unjust government suppression, violence, torture, murder and imprisonment and...well, I'd be a freedom fighter too. Wouldn't you?

The very first opening sentences of this review immediately seemed wrong.

For decades, a new type of terrorism has been quietly gathering ranks in the world.

Nonsense, there's nothing new about the injustice at the root of it. People have been getting screwed since day 1.

America's ability to remain oblivious to these new movements ended on September 11, 2001.

That didn't stop some people from trying to maintain that oblivion, sadly many have succeeded beyond my wildest disbelief.

A far better explaination for terrorism is found in the book Jihad vs McWorld by Benjamine Barber. It was published just a few years before 9/11.

Edited February 16, 2008 by eyeball

[eyeball]

By the way the author Marc Sageman and the think-tank he's associated with, the FPRI...

should not be mistaken for non-partisan, nor should their deep roots within higher education imply an intent of a simple advisory role.

Source Watch

Figures. Now I know why the erroneous order of the 4 stages he describes almost seemed deliberate to me.

"Put most baldly, we have always advocated an activist U.S. foreign policy; we have shared an abiding suspicion of the Soviet Union and other Communist states; and we have always maintained a strong interest in the promotion of democracy, free-enterprise, and the rule of law. Perhaps most controversially, the professional staff is not shy about the use of force; were we members of Congress in January 1991, all of us would not only have voted with President Bush and Operation Desert Storm, we would have led the charge."

Democracy...free-enterprise...the rule of law...

In a pig's eye.

Edited February 16, 2008 by eyeball

[marcinmoka]

Nonsense, there's nothing new about the injustice at the root of it

The 'source', in absolute terms, perhaps not. But the way it manifests itself, absolutely.

I will never forget and I understand completely how and why the West has made so many enemies in the world.

At least you've made no attempts to hide your occidental masochism. Though why is the West to blame? It takes two to tango, no?

Religion makes everything worse.

On the domestic level, I'm not so sure. On the wider geo-political level, I agree.

Joblessness or economic deprivation is actually the more relevant trigger or root cause of the other stages

Data? Not to mention, terrorism in most cases requires considerable financial means. Yet the financing for such operations obviously doesn't come from the deprived.

[eyeball]

The means that terrorists use will always change with technology but the source of their motivation is still more relevant than the manifestation. Terror appears to be an acceptable cost of doing business for some people but they still have to come up with some means of putting it into a context that people can understand. Hence the so-called think-tanks that give rise to the Marc Sageman's of the world.

I'm just an Earthling so I don't really have any feeling of masochism or allegiance towards the West for that matter but yes it does take two to Tango. I guess the difference is who's leading who? There's lots of blame to go around but the West in particular should know better than to go about much of the world preaching democracy, freedom and prosperity while bankrolling dictators, oppression and creating disparity. I'm pretty sure the data on that will show the income gap is still growing faster than ever around the world.

Who needs data when personal experience tells the story. Being economically disenfranchised in an un-just manner will definitely cause a reaction. Don't be surprised if that reaction is violent, especially if violence was used against the people being dis-enfranchised. I suppose Sageman's first stage could be corrected by paraphrasing it; The initial trigger is some incident of Muslim suffering in Iraq, Palestine, Chechnya or elsewhere usually caused by oppression and economic disparity.

Not to mention, terrorism in most cases requires considerable financial means. Yet the financing for such operations obviously doesn't come from the deprived.

Considerable compared to what? 9/11 will probably rank as one of the most cost-effective terrorist attacks for a long time to come. The price the West has paid in return is astronomical. You're probably correct about the financing for some terrorism coming from wealthy people though. Heroin production is as high as ever right on the front line of the War on Terror itself. Go figure.

[marcinmoka]

The means that terrorists use will always change with technology but the source of their motivation is still more relevant than the manifestation.

No. Many people, if not most, people suffer such hardships, but very few seek it to justify violence.

As per technology? You miss the point. When I referred to the 'manifestation', it had nothing to do with bombings, or hijackings. What makes modern terror so different is the target, which is sadly, civilians. Prior to, the targets were most often upon some organ of the state, or at least a representation.

There's lots of blame to go around but the West in particular should know better than to go about much of the world preaching democracy, freedom and prosperity while bankrolling dictators, oppression and creating disparity.

In life, as in politics, you often must sacrifice a pawn to win the match. Its no pretty, but you can never loose sight of the big picture.

Who needs data when personal experience tells the story.

Are you seriously implying that your little anecdote is somehow the universal truth? If this was truly, the case, than the bulk of terror suspects would hail from Chad or Ethopia, and not Saudi Arabia, or even worse, Leeds and Mississauga.

Considerable compared to what?

Considerable compared to the incomes generated by these disenfranchised peoples. 9/11 supposedly needed 0.5 million easily in direct, operational funds. While the 'cost effectiveness' was unprecedented, it still took considerable resources upfront.

[eyeball]

No. Many people, if not most, people suffer such hardships, but very few seek it to justify violence.

As per technology? You miss the point. When I referred to the 'manifestation', it had nothing to do with bombings, or hijackings. What makes modern terror so different is the target, which is sadly, civilians. Prior to, the targets were most often upon some organ of the state, or at least a representation.

Notwithstanding justifying terror many people still understand perfectly well where the motivation for violence is rooted and I don't think there's much doubt the 9/11 targets were specifcally targeted because they were such graphic representations of the Wests's and in particular US economic and miltary imperialism. When 'many' are actually millions its easy to imagine quite a few will become terrorists/freedom fighters.

In life, as in politics, you often must sacrifice a pawn to win the match. Its no pretty, but you can never loose sight of the big picture.

Not pretty is a pretty lite way of describing Cold War imperialism. I'd say its downright ugly. In board games real people don't get disenfranchised, they aren't rounded up and tortured, or imprisoned or killed for protesting. Human beings also really resent being regarded as expendable pawns. By only focusing on the big picture you missed the thousands and millions of pawns with real feelings, including outrage, that are now manifesting their feelings.

Are you seriously implying that your little anecdote is somehow the universal truth? If this was truly, the case, than the bulk of terror suspects would hail from Chad or Ethopia, and not Saudi Arabia, or even worse, Leeds and Mississauga.

As it is above so it often is below. Its a much smaller world these days and its not hard to find analgous local human dramas that are mirrored in the larger sweep of events. My little anecdote was an experience that was shared by thousands of people in this country and I've met representatives of people from around the world that gave similar accounts of their experiences. Disenfranchising a person can take more forms than simply robbing them of the means to make a living, it can also mean stripping them of their power and leaving them defenseless or stripping away their respect - humiliating them and regarding them as being no better than pawns in some game for example. Like I said if this experience had included state sponsered oppression, violence and murder I am quite certain this would have provoked violence in return. It certainly appears Saudi Arabia's American supported dictators have committed atrocities against some of its minorities and opposition and as for Leeds and Mississauga it does look like Sageman might be onto something with his 2nd stage, his “morality play” in which Islam and the West are seen to be at war.

Considerable compared to the incomes generated by these disenfranchised peoples. 9/11 supposedly needed 0.5 million easily in direct, operational funds. While the 'cost effectiveness' was unprecedented, it still took considerable resources upfront.

I think $500,000 is peanuts in the context of a Bin Laden connection to wealth, in any case the terrorists motivation a-la- stage 3 is still the more important ingredient precisely because it precedes the rest.

Sageman has basically gathered all the right dots together its just that he's connected them the wrong way. On purpose I suspect.

[jbg]

Understanding Terror Networks

by Marc Sageman

This seems as if it would be an interesting read. Shame I only discovered it very recently in a book review. Nonetheless, he attempts to define the modern day 'Terror Network', which according to him, is a loosely structured and diverse group, but with similar ideas, or "Freelance Jihad"

But perhaps his most interesting bit is addressing the commonly mis-perceived notion that terrorists are blood thirsty, poverty stricken and ultra devout soldiers, which is odd, since according to most profiles, it is middle class, somewhat westernized and highly educated individuals ( most often engineers).

According to summary in the Economist, they turn from these regular joes into terrorists via a 4 stage process:

Source : The Economist

Thoughts?

The analysis makes sense, but has absolutely no policy relevance. We need to hit jihad sponsors hard, so that at least the majority learn that jihad brings nothing good.

[myata]

Really, I'm all for the the folks who like to cry that "let's go and get them", etc show the manly act and enroll in the first echelons. I think it'll make a better world in the long run, even via natural selection (i.e. improving humanity's gene pool). Any chance of that happening, anytime soon? I'll even come to see you off - one way.

[AngusThermopyle]

Any chance of that happening, anytime soon? I'll even come to see you off - one way.

It never ceases to amaze me the hatred displayed by some people toward their fellow citizens, even to the point of wishing them dead.

[eyeball]

The analysis makes sense, but has absolutely no policy relevance. We need to hit jihad sponsors hard, so that at least the majority learn that jihad brings nothing good.

Your statement sure reflects a poor understanding of the nuanced meanings of the word jihad not to mention who's sponsoring what.

The analysis makes no sense given the conclusions, it places all the blame on the victims and it places effect ahead of cause. If stage 3 were correctly placed 1st were it belongs, the analysis would have an immediate policy relevance. It would suggest that better policies that deliberately try to avoid pissing off millions of people should be followed.

In stage three, the global and the local are fused, as geopolitical grievance resonates with personal experience of discrimination or joblessness.

The sense of moral outrage is not the initial trigger that Sageman says it is. It's actually triggered by discrimination, joblessness and the brutal oppression of people at the hands of thugs militarily and financially sponsored by... the usual suspects.

Edited March 14, 2008 by eyeball

[Army Guy]

I don't think your version of stage 3 fits, atleast not according to the links below, how does one explain bin ladin...

what makes a terrorist.

inside the mind of a suicide bomber

[myata]

I hope you read your own reference (article #2). Marwan explains his anger at the Americans (quess what - not Koreans, or New Zealandees, or even Russians - why I wonder? puzzle ...) by the fact (near quote) that they didn't leave after deposing Saddam, and their subsequent actions. To me, this at least carries some logic. The alternative warmongers are trying to feed us - about that irrational unexplainable hatred that is about to engulf all and everything, unless we do it first, has none. Zero. Nada. Not in my experience. Having lived in a few places around the world I'm very much of the opinion that the people everywhere are basically the same. They like to leave reasonably well (by their standard) and they like to be treated well. And they usually get pissed off when they aren't treated well, especially (hugely exacrebating circumstance) by a stranger in their own home. The worse they're treated by a stranger in their own land, the more pissed off they may become. And yes, we all know that people who are pissed off a lot are much less lilkely to perceive and exercise reason. I.e., what you sawed is what you get. 2 x 2 = 4.

[Army Guy]

I hope you read your own reference (article #2).

Yes, i have read the entire article, serveral times infact, this is not the first time i have posted this link. I posted it in ref to Eyeballs claim that stage 3 should be first.

Eyeballs quote below...

The third stage is the one most likely to occur. Joblessness or economic deprivation is actually the more relevant trigger or root cause of the other stages. If economic deprivation results from a deliberate attempt to concentrate wealth and redirect it and other opportunities away from local people its easier to understand where the moral outrage and shared sense of us vs them comes from, add discrimination, unjust government suppression, violence, torture, murder and imprisonment and...well, I'd be a freedom fighter too. Wouldn't you?

And if you remember that marwan comes from a family that was well off, not one that was deprived or jobless, nor one that had been subjected to discrimation on a personal level. Marwan had a brother that joined the resistance, i'd say that was the reason he joined, although he has said it was the attack on the school demostration, ( this may be the closest thing he's felt discrimated about) But he fails to give any details about the attack, and makes it sound one sided...something i've learned nothing is one sided, everything is prevoked one way or another...

I mentioned Bin Ladin because he does not fit into Eyeballs theory either, comes from a very wealthy family, and what discrimination did he face on a personal level....i think he fits into stage one perfectly...and it was he's travels that brought on stage three....well after stage one had happened...

Eyeballs theories are more in line with the old us Gov't ones below...

U.S. government strategies to combat the jihad are based on the traditional reasons an individual was thought to turn to terrorism: poverty, trauma, madness, and ignorance. Sageman refutes all these notions, showing that, for the vast majority of the mujahedin, social bonds predated ideological commitment, and it was these social networks that inspired alienated young Muslims to join the jihad. These men, isolated from the rest of society, were transformed into fanatics yearning for martyrdom and eager to kill.

Marwan explains his anger at the Americans (quess what - not Koreans, or New Zealandees, or even Russians - why I wonder? puzzle ...) by the fact (near quote) that they didn't leave after deposing Saddam, and their subsequent actions.

Yes he does, explain, that he's pissed because they( the US and allieds) won't leave...so much that he is willing to take up arms again'st them....another good decision... But really lets think about this for a second...would this action be in the best interest of the Iraqi citizens, or for the US, this is what he is impling ....come in dispose a brutal leadership, then vanish into the night, leaving the Iraqi people to fend for themselves....to piece together thier own government and rebuild thier own country....And as much as we blame the US for all of it's faults in Iraq...has Iraqi people shown they are capable of these actions...this is why the US is stuck in Iraq, is screw if it leaves and the same if it stays....

Or would it be the actions of a responsible country to assist with trillions of it's own tax dollars to rebuild the country and keep some sort of order in place...

What kind of order do you think they would have if the US had vanished into the night...what would become of Iraq on the inter national scene, would it's neibours just look on or would they have seen a weak defensless country and taken advantage of that...

But what Marwan fails to really explain is why he is so pissed at the US, he fails to put it all into context, i'm sure peer presure had nothing to do with it, nor the fact his brother joined, nor the countless rumours or stories of things the allied and US have done, nor the one sided media, the one sided religious sermons, even the one sided family conversations...Nope they had nothing to do with corupting this young mans decision....to pick up arms..and once that was done, and he experianced combat, there was no turning back...and his deep hatred for the US is deepen by seeing and living with his comrads that have perished....to the piont where is is now at ready to become a suicide bomber one that will not only kill US and allied soldiers but the very people and ideas he is fighting for....(Most of the 1,200 Iraqis killed by insurgents since May 1 have died in suicide bombings.)

So while we all blame the US for all this.... it's kind of catch 22 is it not....for if they had pulled out we would be blaming Marwans decision on the US for leaving and not establishing a stable country...and instead of his hatred for US soldiers would be replaced by another country, or religion or group of young men....but it would be the same thing Marwan would be ready to take his life in order for some deep believe he is doing right....when in fact he is a product of Iraq, his culture, his religion, his family, his peers, and war...but it's not as fun to blame those....it's more Canadian to blame the US...

[myata]

But really lets think about this for a second...would this action be in the best interest of the Iraqi citizens, or for the US, this is what he is impling ....come in dispose a brutal leadership, then vanish into the night, leaving the Iraqi people to fend for themselves....

There you go. Same old "burden of the white man" adage. We know better what's in the best interests of the Iraqi etc people. We set up their lives in their own interest. Funny, but surely just a coincidence, that it plays in our interests too, needn't to mention. And if and when it doesn't (or stop playing into our interests) we'll call them some name, and find them another, better government. Again, in their own best interests. See, when we invade you, we kill you, we set up dictators to run you, it's in your own best interests.

You either don't understand, or don't see the hypocrisy in this ages old story used by oppressors of all kinds. That's too bad. One can ignore the laws of nature (physical, or human likewise) only to their own peril.

Nevertheless, and one more time, the solution to the juhad, terrorism, end of the world, yada, yada problem is really very simple: leave them alone; let them sort their own problems; deal fairly and respectfully without interference; and you'll be fine.

[Army Guy]

There you go. Same old "burden of the white man" adage.

Is it the white mans burden, or is it the burden of being one of the G-8 nations, having the power, and wealth to make postive changes...

We know better what's in the best interests of the Iraqi etc people.

Let me ask you something, do you really think that life under sadam, or the taliban was great, was fair, was in the best interests of the Iraqi / Afgan people. Do they deserve a crack at what you and i have today?

Funny, but surely just a coincidence, that it plays in our interests too, needn't to mention. And if and when it doesn't (or stop playing into our interests) we'll call them some name, and find them another, better government.

Yes it does play into our interests, everything we do on the world stage is for our interest....would it not be benificial for all if Iraq or Afgan was a democractic country of some sorts, that could play be the rules.

Nevertheless, and one more time, the solution to the juhad, terrorism, end of the world, yada, yada problem is really very simple: leave them alone; let them sort their own problems; deal fairly and respectfully without interference; and you'll be fine.

And what if the problem hits us here at home, to we continue do leave them alone...such as those Canadians that perished in the towers, or what about the FLQ crisses in Quebec....or for that matter anyone with a axe to grind whom turns to violence to solve it....

To sum it all up, nothing gets solved by burying our heads in the sand and pretending nothing is happening.

someone once quoted " all evil needs to thrive is for good men to do nothing".

Edited March 26, 2008 by Army Guy

[myata]

Is it the white mans burden, or is it the burden of being one of the G-8 nations, having the power, and wealth to make postive changes...

Positive does not amount to making wars and installing friendlies to rule them. That's colonialism by any name, nothing to do with "positive" but indeed a side effect of having the power without moral authority or judgement to exercise it.

Let me ask you something, do you really think that life under sadam, or the taliban was great, was fair, was in the best interests of the Iraqi / Afgan people. Do they deserve a crack at what you and i have today?

They do, and by barging into Iraq and Afghanistan we denied them that chance. I.e. the chance to make positive changes in their own countries of their own accord. Building them a country that is good for us (and we think is good for them too) is a mockery of respect and genuine assistance.

....would it not be benificial for all if Iraq or Afgan was a democractic country of some sorts, that could play be the rules.

The only way to find out would be to wait till people of these countries decide to establish democracies. Again through their own will and by their own accord.

And what if the problem hits us here at home, to we continue do leave them alone...such as those Canadians that perished in the towers, or what about the FLQ crisses in Quebec....or for that matter anyone with a axe to grind whom turns to violence to solve it....

If and then it hits (for real, not imaginary "45 minutes ballistic missile" or "WMD" or "Al-Quada" (in Iraq)) we'll have to develop working tools and strategies to protect our country without having to occupy half of the world. Hint: part of that strategy should/would be prevention. I.e making sure that such hits don't hit home; stopping meddling in others affairs will go a long way toward that.

To sum it all up, nothing gets solved by burying our heads in the sand and pretending nothing is happening.

someone once quoted " all evil needs to thrive is for good men to do nothing".

The big question is of course, what should the "good men" do? I'll go with independent judgement and serious analysis of the problem; rather than jumping on "get them" bandwagon pushed by people with less than obvious goals and agendas.

[bush_cheney2004]

...They do, and by barging into Iraq and Afghanistan we denied them that chance. I.e. the chance to make positive changes in their own countries of their own accord. Building them a country that is good for us (and we think is good for them too) is a mockery of respect and genuine assistance....

Interesting concept....and of course you would be in favor of ceasing all interventions...UN...NATO...or otherwise, which, by design, can escalate to "barging in". We saw your approach at work in Rwanda....the locals were not impressed...those that lived anyway.

Genuine assistance has existed with and without wars or interventions...must all that stop as well? No more NGOs and bright eyed kids off to save the world ?

Even your notion of "building a country" is quite Western and anti-tribal.

[myata]

There're tools, proven to be working and efficient, to keep petty dictators on a leash (as tight as needed) without having to occupy their country (and rebuild it to our model). Those are well known and were discussed here at length. One doesn't need a sledgehammer to put a poster on the wall. Too bad wormongers of the world have such bad memories even in what supposed to be their area of expertise. They don't appreciate specific targeted actions with well defined objectives and clearly visible results. No, they prefer global conflicts of ideologies. Democracy quests. Crusades. Why does it so remind us of other less than glorious periods in our history? And why can't we just go with our own preachings, and simply keep our nose out of others business?

[bush_cheney2004]

There're tools, proven to be working and efficient, to keep petty dictators on a leash (as tight as needed) without having to occupy their country (and rebuild it to our model). Those are well known and were discussed here at length.

Please elaborate on said "tools", and their efficacy.

[myata]

E.g: when France's peacekeepers were attacked in Chad? the response was to destroy the country's entire airforce - by similar, though way more efficient air attack. Simple, efficient, affordable, and teaches the bully a good and timely lesson. Other strategies were also quoted, sorry have no time for reiterations.

The bottom line is, teaching a bully is much more a matter of demonstration, than domination. It may not be possible or feasible to "change" or "reeducate" a dictator; but tools exist to make them obey; at issue, as always, is using the right tools for the job, as well as, of course, the will, and timeliness, of applying them.

[jbg]

E.g: when France's peacekeepers were attacked in Chad? the response was to destroy the country's entire airforce - by similar, though way more efficient air attack. Simple, efficient, affordable, and teaches the bully a good and timely lesson. Other strategies were also quoted, sorry have no time for reiterations.

The bottom line is, teaching a bully is much more a matter of demonstration, than domination. It may not be possible or feasible to "change" or "reeducate" a dictator; but tools exist to make them obey; at issue, as always, is using the right tools for the job, as well as, of course, the will, and timeliness, of applying them.

And for what reason does Chad need an air force when their population is starving? It seems that just about every African nation has a full army and air force (wouldn't be surprised if somehow Chad had a navy too) and the needs of the people are not being met.

Chad is a perfect example. They were part of a program to ensure that oil revenues and aid revenues went to benefit the people. They were diverted to putting down a rebellion.

[bush_cheney2004]

The bottom line is, teaching a bully is much more a matter of demonstration, than domination. It may not be possible or feasible to "change" or "reeducate" a dictator; but tools exist to make them obey; at issue, as always, is using the right tools for the job, as well as, of course, the will, and timeliness, of applying them.

So you are advocating wholesale bombings and air strikes as appropriate policy, despite the fact that such policies are part of the "grievances" echoed around the world about the USA and/or NATO? I have never understood why death and "war crimes" from the air are acceptable compared to a ground forces deployment and invasion.

[M.Dancer]

And for what reason does Chad need an air force when their population is starving? It seems that just about every African nation has a full army and air force (wouldn't be surprised if somehow Chad had a navy too) and the needs of the people are not being met.

Chad is a perfect example. They were part of a program to ensure that oil revenues and aid revenues went to benefit the people. They were diverted to putting down a rebellion.

It also explains why these nations that are always on the verge of starvation have an ample supply of recruits.

Villages could starve but the regimes troops are fed and therefore loyal.