At least Kramer admitted Pape did useful work in stating that suicide bombing is a form of strategic attack. Pape's audience is not Kramer's audience, and the former need to be told that suicide bombing is aggression, and not a response to oppression. Pointing out errors in Pape's statistics is appropriate, but much of Kramer's criticism seems to be sour grapes that his prior work wasn't cited.

Neither of them would look at historic responses to suicidal attack/defense. Kramer wouldn't even address the subject of current responses. Pape did and thereby weakened his article. It was also unfocused in other ways, as comments in your original thread noted.

Two points to Mr. Holsinger:
1. I have no sour grapes about not be quoted--Professor Pape made ample references to my work. It's just that he misrepresented my position. I don't mind being ignored nearly as much as I mind being misconstrued.
2. It is not Professor Pape's position that "suicide bombing is aggression, and not a response to oppression." In fact, he argues that suicide bombing appears always as a response to foreign occupation, hence his policy recommendation: disengage, withdraw, leave. I am not sure that it just what people need to be told.

Mr. Kramer,

I stand corrected on most of your points. Note my other distinctions however. I said that Pape's audience needs to be told that suicide bombing is aggression and not a response to oppression, not that Pape told them this. What I said Pape told them was that suicide bombing is a form of strategic attack. This is a useful start to understanding the rest, notably that suicide bombing campaigns generally need foreign support and sanctuaries, and that foreign support is rooted in aggression towards the targets of the suicide bombing.

Mr. Holsinger,

You're absolutely right.

Martin Kramer