Scott Atran observes that devoted actors in the Middle-East commit to a sacred cause and make "costly sacrifices," including dying & killing. These devotees die and kill in the name of "moral imperatives independent of concrete material goals.

Scott's finding applies equally to the First World War: Nine-million dead with nothing accomplished. Jay Winter--the prominent historian of the war--notes that the war "solved no problems." Its effects were either "negative or disastrous." It was, he says, the outstanding example in European history of "meaningless conflict."

Like the actions of Islamic leaders who plan suicide bombings, the leaders of the First World War fought in a way that, as Atran puts it, that "defied cost-benefit calculations." Actions undertaken were "all out of proportion to prospects for success."

 The "rational choice" model that dominates the discipline of political science--turns out to be ludicrous. Time to abandon it.