Everybody Knew — Part V: The Psychology of Extremism — Why War Often Creates More of It

Guest Opinion by Alicia Boothe Haggermaker

When violence erupts between nations or militant groups, the immediate response is usually force.

Bomb the extremists.
Eliminate the militants.
Destroy the threat.

On the surface, it feels logical. If extremists are the problem, removing them should solve it.

But history tells a more complicated story.

In many cases, military action against extremist groups doesn’t eliminate extremism.

It multiplies it.

And the reason isn’t political.

It’s psychological.

Radicalization Has a Predictable Pattern

Researchers who study extremism often describe radicalization as a step-by-step psychological process. One well-known model, sometimes called the “staircase to terrorism,” explains how individuals move from frustration to violent action as they begin to feel they have fewer peaceful options available.

Most people experiencing hardship never become extremists.

But when several conditions combine, the probability increases:

• humiliation or occupation
• loss of family members
• poverty or instability
• perceived injustice
• a narrative explaining who is to blame

When those factors exist, extremist movements don’t need to invent anger.

They simply organize it.

War Creates the Raw Material Extremists Need

Extremist groups depend heavily on public support and grievances within the communities they operate in.

Every civilian casualty becomes a story.

Every destroyed home becomes a recruitment poster.

Every grieving family becomes a potential radicalization pathway.

Even modern counterterrorism strategies like drone strikes have faced criticism because civilian harm and disruption of daily life can undermine legitimacy and fuel recruitment for extremist organizations.

In other words:

Violence doesn’t just eliminate fighters.

It can also create future ones.

History Shows the Pattern Repeating

This cycle isn’t theoretical. It appears repeatedly across modern conflicts.

Afghanistan

During the Cold War, the United States armed militant groups to fight the Soviet Union.

Those fighters later evolved into networks that produced the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.

The war meant to stop one geopolitical threat helped seed another.

Iraq

After the 2003 invasion, the Iraqi military and government were dismantled almost overnight.

Hundreds of thousands of trained soldiers suddenly had no income, no government, and a profound sense of humiliation.

Many of them eventually joined insurgent movements.

From that chaos emerged ISIS.

Gaza and the Escalation Cycle

In Israel and Gaza, decades of violence have hardened attitudes on both sides.

Each attack becomes justification for retaliation.

Each retaliation becomes justification for the next attack.

Moderates lose credibility in prolonged conflicts like this.

Extremists gain it.

The Martyrdom Effect

There is another psychological dynamic at play.

When fighters die in conflict with powerful states, they are often elevated to martyr status within their communities.

Their deaths become symbolic.

Their stories spread.

Their images inspire others.

Ironically, killing extremists can sometimes immortalize them.

Why Military Solutions Alone Fail

Military force can weaken extremist groups.

It can eliminate leaders.
It can disrupt operations.

But if the conditions that produced the extremism remain, the movement simply reappears under a new name.

Al-Qaeda becomes ISIS.

ISIS fragments into new groups.

The ideology mutates.

The cycle continues.

The Uncomfortable Reality

This doesn’t mean extremist violence should be tolerated.

But it does mean something many governments struggle to admit:

Extremism is not only a security problem.

It is a psychological ecosystem.

Every bomb may remove a militant today.

But if it radicalizes three grieving relatives tomorrow, the war never truly ends.

The Question the World Avoids

If history shows that military responses alone often fuel the very extremism they seek to destroy, then the question becomes unavoidable.

Are we actually defeating extremism?

Or are we unintentionally manufacturing the next generation of it?

Until we are willing to ask that honestly, the cycle will continue.

And that raises an even deeper question beneath all of it.

If silence allows systems to persist, and violence often reinforces the patterns we are trying to break…

what role does certainty play in keeping those cycles alive?

That question leads directly to the final piece in this series.

The first part of this series may be read HERE, the second part HERE, the third HERE, and the fourth HERE.

Alicia Boothe Haggermaker is a lifelong resident of Huntsville, Alabama, and a dedicated advocate for health freedom. For more than a decade, she has worked to educate the public and policymakers on issues of medical choice and public transparency. In January 2020, she organized a delegation of physicians and health freedom advocates to Montgomery, contributing to the initial draft of legislation that became SB267.

Opinions do not reflect the views and opinions of ALPolitics.com. ALPolitics.com makes no claims nor assumes any responsibility for the information and opinions expressed above.