I think the issue is simpler than portrayed. Yes, there certainly is an effect of the US military making its soldiers lives so much more important than anyone else's. And certainly, American lives are seen to be treasured highly, so they become a more desirable target.

But the reason for suicide bombing is much, much simpler. Just put yourself into the shoes of someone who has been wronged (real or perceived) by the US, or any other country that has a modern military. How are you going to avenge the death of your baby brother, your hard-working, studiously unpolitical father, your loving mother? It is simple. If you decide to take up arms against the US, you will die. It may take a day, it may take a year, perhaps 5. The survival rate of insurgents against the US is very, very small. So when you decide to take a stand against overwhelming force, you have decided to commit suicide. It then becomes simply a matter of which way you can inflict the most damage on your opponent.

Asymmetric warfare breeds suicide attacks. The better US military technology gets, the more rational suicide attacks become. The more complete the enemy's hold is, the more acceptable a "scorched earth" tactic becomes.

The perfectly logical desire to reduce US casualties may be the main reason why US military power is counterproductive to US policy.

I can't buy that it's rational to commit suicide by taking others with you, even if the others may be entirely made up of the enemy which, of course, is not the reality. Tying the rationality of the act to a subjective level of effectiveness seems...irrational. I can understand the impulse but not that it is arrived at rationally. IED's better serve this end I would argue, but don't require one's suicide. Remember the old adage 'It's better to run away today and live to fight another day' - that seems rational to me.

The morality of the act is another issue (not really addressed in the article) entirely. Although often linked with religion or religious beliefs, which is another issue to debate sometime (I am a moral person and do not believe in a particular religion), there is little doubt in my mind that suicide bombers believe themselves to be acting morally according to their understanding of their religious beliefs whether or not I find it moral. But it is an emotional act - not a rational one.

Another thought regarding the removal of the occupiers - how does this square with the London or Madrid bombings, or even the Oklahoma bombing by McVeigh and crew?

I can't buy that it's rational to commit suicide by taking others with you, even if the others may be entirely made up of the enemy which, of course, is not the reality. Tying the rationality of the act to a subjective level of effectiveness seems...irrational. I can understand the impulse but not that it is arrived at rationally. IED's better serve this end I would argue, but don't require one's suicide. Remember the old adage 'It's better to run away today and live to fight another day' - that seems rational to me.

On the specific example, IEDs are often made out to be simple things. In reality, creating them requires quite a lot of knowledge, and doing real damage with them is difficult. It's not for everyone.

On the general concept: living to fight another day assumes that you believe that things will get better, if you're being rational about it. That's not a likely scenario. It might have been in 2003, but not anymore.

I'll grant that deciding to fight for anything may be considered irrational, but the moment you have decided to fight, it is impossible NOT to conclude that you will most likely die (if you fight the US) and so you should consider suicide attacks as a reasonable option.

Another thought regarding the removal of the occupiers - how does this square with the London or Madrid bombings, or even the Oklahoma bombing by McVeigh and crew?

London was just a case of "fighting them there so we don't have to face them here". Perfectly rational. Suicide was part of it for many reasons. Surely it was easier than figure out exactly how to time these bomb, especially through the unpredictable traffic. Also, a suicide pact may hold up better through weeks of preparation.

McVeigh was a veteran of the fist Gulf war, disenfranchised and in with the wrong crowd. There are likely to be many like him over the next decade. Since they can bide their time and have good prospects of inflicting mass casualties without having to die themselves, they don't go for suicide attacks.

You provided more rationale than the article in just a few short paragrpahs.

It's easy to value your own life when your family is alive and healthy and you have possessions, a job, and hope for the future. Those who are occupied by the "world's only remaining superpower" have little reason to hope that the future, for them individually, will change. What, really, are they losing? Food rationing, living in fear, the experience of grief for those they've lost (most likely). In spite of the fact that our every encounter with the 3rd world seems to always involve poverty and degradation, this is not really the natural state of things. And no people are "used" to it. When it comes, it's a shock. When it persists, it numbs.

Add to this awful equation the belief in an afterlife and who wouldn't bring down their enemy and in so doing earn themselves a one way ticket to paradise.

The US does not face any imminent military threat from any of the countries we are currently warring against. The 9/11 attackers didn't launch a conventional attack against the US.. These invasions would not have prevented a millionaire Saudi from funding his minions' flight school tuition. More cooperation among intelligence agencies would have.

In light of that, it seems that American soldiers fight for imperial expansion and their efforts enrich the top 1% of the nation at the expense of the rest. Maybe we should try to figure out why American soldiers, who don't HAVE to be abroad to defend their country, risk their lives, their families, their health and their futures? Where's the rationality in that?