> I can easily imagine being motivated to violence if:
>
> a. Basic services necessary for modern life are
> offline or intermittant
This (absence of basic services etc.) has been the case in Iraq for last ten years under UN sanctions. This is also true of many developing nations without necessarily leading to sustained armed struggle supported by the mass of population.
> b. Confused, nervous, often angry and heavily armed
> foreign troops are patrolling the streets of my town
The question is why should they resort to armed struggle, if they can have street demonstrations and mass rallies. If mosques and newspapers can be used for agit-prop.
> c. I've witnessed the (possibly quite horrid) deaths
> of family or friends or neighbors or simply a person
> who was minding his/her own business and was gunned
> down.
We need to consider the ability to fight over a long period of time. Where does this come from?
> d. A foreign power, claiming to be doing things in my
> best interest, and supposedly the bunch in charge,
> shows little competence, little desire to include even
> people I respect in decision making and generally
> makes my life obviously more difficult simply by being
> in my country.
Saddam regime was no better, though it wasn't a foreign regime.
> This is the hard reality that can feed random
> outbursts of violence. Any number of ideologies -
> Islamic fundamentalism, Ba'athism, whatever - can
> simply provide idea wrappers and organizing principles
> for emotions which are the natural effect of the
> causes listed.
I don't know if Ba'athist ideology is a credible one today, after decades of Ba'athist rule/misrule.
>itis possible for several movements to compete for
>people's loyalty - disagreeing on philosophical points
>ut agreeing that the foreigners must go.
Yes, this is possible, but anti-imperialism as a _mass_ and _militant_ ideology is almost dead in Asia. There are exceptions to this trend, however. For example Palestine.
Ulhas