Four rationalist models analyzed that have been used to help explain the use of suicide attacks by terrorist organizations include: (1) strategic signaling to the government, (2) bombing for votes, (3) bombing for recruits, and (4) tactical value of suicide attacks. Although the evidence is not conclusive, the data suggests that organizations are not using suicide attacks to (1) gain nationalist objectives, (2) signal strength to a foreign government, or (3) “outbid” rival organizations, as many scholars suggest. Instead, the evidence suggests that these attacks are used for (1) tactical advantages and (2) to aid the global recruiting effort of al Qaeda linked organizations. Of the various forms that terrorism can take, perhaps the most terrifying and deadly has been suicide terrorism. Although some have questioned the rationality of suicide missions, several scholars have countered with rationalist explanations for its employment. Using evidence from Palestine, Israel, Lebanon, Sri Lanka, Chechnya, and Turkey, these scholars have created plausible and rational models for attacks, which many consider irrational. This article analyzes four of these models, stated above, and their implications with respect to the events in Iraq. 4 tables, 2 figures, 72 notes and 2 appendixes