Columnist-Europe's Identity Crisis Fuels Rising Anti-Muslim Sentiment

[Kevin23]

http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/europes-identity-crisis-fuels-rising-anti-muslim-sentiment/19670466

I just got finished reading this article on AOL. Personally, I find some disagreement with the article as a whole. Because the European Far-Right despite some of it's recent successes electorally with some of it's rhetoric isn't a really great force in most European countries.

Secondly, from personal experience on a long-term visit to the UK in the summer of 2008. I observed attitudes and opinions towards Britain's immigrant communities(including the Muslim one) to be low-tension and nowhere near the media sensationalism seen in the US. With issues between England and other region's within the UK like Scotland and Northern Ireland being much higher in terms of what I observed, read, and heard. Even though since then the BNP has gained some seats on the local/European level. However, I haven't been back to Britain in over 2 years and I can't vouch for attitudes and relations in other European countries like France, Netherlands, Spain, or Italy.

Therefore, perhaps some of the members more familiar with this issue can provide some insight?

[Starbuck]

It seems to vary by country. Switzerland recently banned the construction of minarets.

[Tukhachevskii]

Secondly, from personal experience on a long-term visit to the UK in the summer of 2008.

Unless you visted the entire country and stayed in the UK for at least 6 months per location (major cities, larger towns and rural areas of EACH county then I can't see how you could make a sweeping statement like that one above. OTOH if you stayed in London for that peruiod then I can easily see why you'd think the tension has been "hyped". Your definition of "long term" (i.,e the Summer of 2008) makes me scratch my head...what would short term be ....10 minutes?.

[davidbfpo]

The AOL article is quite good and cites several commentators whose views I listen to, notably Chris Allen.

Yes Europe is changing, some of it due to demography, notably the declining birth rate in Southern Europe - which pre-dates the arrival of significant Muslim numbers, for example Italy. There have been some strange political decisions, such as the claim Europe (or X nation) needs a supply of cheap labour; often without realising families come too and the relaxation of immigration / asylum rules.

In many places, invariably the urban conurbations, new immigrant communities have arrived, gained employment, sought family access and re-uniting and for a host of reasons - sometimes prejudice - have failed to disperse and sustain education and economic opportunities. In part of one English city, in the inner city the youth unemployment rate before the current economic situation was 54%.

Most of those were young males, who did not seek education, employment or training. Often their aspirations were too high, for example no longer being willing to work long hours (in restaurants) or in traditional places (family shop). Young South Asian girls are very keen on education in contrast, but appear to disappear from the labour market by twenty-one.

Being a Muslim does not mean you are anti-British. There was some polling earlier this year, in London, that found Muslim loyalty and confidence in our national institutions was higher than amongst the indigenous population.

The "radical" and "extremist" tiny factions within the European Muslim communities want to see a gap, no a gulf, between Muslims and non-Muslims. Many Muslims recognise this, all too many prefer the quiet life and say quiet.

Un-quiet Muslims acknowledge that for a Muslim many places, not all, in Europe provide a far better home for them and advocate obeying the law. Mutually adjusting to each others traditions, culture and more takes time.

Is there an identity crisis in Europe? Yes, for many reasons, the reaction to a larger Muslim presence is one, which is pandered to by the extremists and some who should know better - often the political "moderates". There is a growing gulf IMHO between the public and political institutions, particularly at the European level - which are remote, difficult to follow, reject and want to do more not less.

That is quite enough for a Sunday afternoon.

[Bob's World]

Its all about the perception of the populace in question. How they feel about their situation rather than how the government, or the larger populace thinks they feel or should feel.

I ran across this polling product that compares how the general populace feels on some of the issues we relate to recent violence and instability associated with groups employing Islamist Ideologies. Not a perfect product, but it does highlight the divergence on virtually every issue, and some insights are there to be drawn as well.

I have no idea what the politics of the group producing this product are, and don't endorse their findings, merely post them to share as one piece of a complex puzzle.

(For example, Germany is the largest European provider of foreign fighters to AFPAK; an Germany also stands out with the greatest disparities between the general populace and the Muslim populace on most issues as well).

http://pewglobal.org/2006/07/06/muslims-in-europe-economic-worries-top-concerns-about-religious-and-cultural-identity/

Worth a review. I'd be interested if there are other similar products out there as well. Such subjective insights into how people think and feel are far more valuable than external assessments focused on objective metrics.

Bob

"Notes1The principal countries surveyed for this report were Great Britain, France, Germany, Spain, Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Pakistan, Turkey, Nigeria, India, Russia, and the United States, with most of the findings coming from the four western European countries. In addition, a few findings are presented from China and Japan."

"About the Pew Global Attitudes Project
The Pew Global Attitudes Project is a series of worldwide public opinion surveys encompassing a broad array of subjects ranging from people’s assessments of their own lives to their views about the current state of the world and important issues of the day. The Pew Global Attitudes Project is co-chaired by former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright, currently principal, the Albright Group LLC, and by former Senator John C. Danforth, currently partner, Bryan Cave LLP. The project is directed by Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center, a nonpartisan “fact tank” in Washington, DC, that provides information on the issues, attitudes, and trends shaping America and the world. The Pew Global Attitudes Project is principally funded by The Pew Charitable Trusts. The surveys of European Muslims were conducted in partnership with the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, another project of the Pew Research Center, which works to promote a deeper understanding of issues at the intersection of religion and public affairs."

[Bob's World]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101017/wl_afp/germanymuslimreligionimmigration

Then this today from the German Chancellor.

Learn the language? Good COIN, keeps people from falling into enclaves that feel excluded due to their inability to communicate with society as a whole, and are thus more likely to perceive dangerous discrimination.

Learn the culture? Also good COIN. The more homogeneous a society the more stable.

Abandon your religion and and become Christian? I think this is too much. We attribute too much to ideology that is really much more related to the other two factors above. IMO if you do one and two, three is unnecessary for the stability of a society.

[Fuchs]

This is not COIN, but domestic policy.

City development planning sucked in some cities and some PC holy cows protected the topic against being addressed by policy.
It's a very German problem and not dramatic.


The Merkel government isn't going to do more than create noise and symbolic policy on this issue simply because that's all that they can do in general. The CDU hasn't been governing for two decades, but at most administrating when in charge of the government.*

The really relevant question is therefore not what the chancellor says, but what Gabriel (social democrat) and the greens do. The conservatives were never really multiculture-interested, but at most disinterested.
The greens are the epicentre of multiculture ideology in Germany, and the SPD is their only realistic coalition partner. The SPD seems to move on the topic of how to address the past failures on immigrant integration and it's decisive whether they can exert enough influence on the greens or not.

So far the greens didn't push themselves into the focus of attention in this topic because they enjoy the extremely good poll results which are based on the Stuttgart 21 conflict (a kinda multi-billion bridge to nowhere project that sparked a huge local civil resistance movement).



*:
There's only one "but". Erdogan, the Turkish prime minister, has embarrassed German politicians a while ago by visiting Germany and a huge Turkish event in Germany and agitating there against integration, promoting Turkish nationalism. He did recently a U-turn and this might be a result of German foreign policy efforts. Maybe we'll learn about this strange episode in a few years.

[Bob's World]

Domestic Policy is COIN. The Governments that are the best at COIN rarely see organized resistance to their governace coming out of their populace. Be it "an ounce of prevention" or "a stitch in time."

I would advise the Chancellor that she just pushed her country closer to such challenges by her moves that were intended to have an opposite effect.

[davidbfpo]

A good analysis of the situation in some European nations IMHO:http://www.opendemocracy.net/cas-mudde/intolerance-of-tolerant

Opens with:
The advance of populist anti-Islamic forces in the liberal bastions of northern Europe - Denmark, the Netherlands and Sweden - appears to reflect a betrayal of these societies’ renowned social tolerance. But there is a more subtle logic at work, says Cas Mudde.

Ends with and can be read as a summary:
The implication is that the recent rise of anti-Islam sentiment in northern Europe is proof neither of the end of tolerance in Europe nor the Europeanisation of ethnic nationalism. It is instead an outpouring of the intolerance of the tolerant, long (self-)censored by a political culture of anti-nationalism and conformity. The fact that (orthodox) Muslims can be opposed with a liberal-democratic discourse - rather than an ethnic-nationalist one - makes it at last politically acceptable (and increasingly politically correct) to express ethnic prejudice in these countries.

[Tukhachevskii]

A good analysis of the situation in some European nations IMHO:http://www.opendemocracy.net/cas-mudde/intolerance-of-tolerant

Opens with:

Ends with and can be read as a summary:

accompanied by the preceding paragraph...

The argument is twofold. First, after decades of secularisation, Islam is a (rapidly) growing religion that threatens the secular consensus by bringing religious issues back onto the public agenda. Second, (orthodox) Islam - and vocal Muslims - openly challenge local beliefs on gender equality and gay rights, which are regarded as fundamental aspects of liberal democracy in these countries. Hence, it is the tolerant liberal democrats who oppose the intolerant Muslims.

There is so much wrong with that article that I don't know where to start.

1. Is Islam and being a Muslim an "ethnicity" as it is understood today? (That particular question is a sore/sensitive point with me in particular given most people in my own country would classify me as a foreigner).

2. Does the article's final summarising paragrpah therefore propose that ethnci-nationalists and not liberals, should be opposing Islam?

3. Is being anti-Islamic tantamount to racism? What about Nazism? (In which case I'm a racist)

1 & 3. The problem with the descriptor "ethnicity" is that is has been appropriated by the Left, Liberals and other fifth columnists who use it in a manner that apporahces epsitemological "essentialism". When I was taught about Nationalism at University we used Anthony D. Smith's definition which descirbes ethnicity as a set of shared beliefs, cultural mores, language, symbols (mythomoteur) and a territory (not the supposed "race" one apparently belongs to). It has nothing to do with race. In fact Race itself is logically (http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/reprint/90/11/1699.pdf), epistemologically (http://edweb.csus.edu/edc/class_downloads/wycoff/edc210ArticleDestructiveNatureTermRace.pdf) & scientifically (http://www.ces.uc.pt/formacao/materiais_racismo_pos_racismo/fallacy_of_race.pdf) false (http://web27.cc.utexas.edu/law/academics/centers/humanrights/events/adjudicating/papers/AmericanAnthropology.pdf) ( the UK police force or government now use "ethnicity" as a PC replacement for "race" but don't, for the life of you, try and tell them how wrong they are). One of the earliest uses of the word race was spanish wherein it denoted (and here's a something compatarive linguists and linguistic anthropologists will recognise) breeding (like its French cognate) and one could change ones race by changin one's religion. It was not an essentialist attribute. What the hell does that have to do with Islam? Are they born genetically predisposed to violence and domination or is it their system of belief? The same question was asked by people about Nazism (i.e., whether it was specifically a German disease). The attempt to muzzle any and all opposition to Islam/ism by labelling it racist merely helps our opponents cause. Why is it that we have to pussy foot around Muslims (which of course simply reinforces their own sense of superiority and infallibility).

2. Following from the above the fact that liberals rather than "nationalists" (another politically loaded term and in which camp I situate myself) have taken up the cause is precisely to undermine the banner being rasied by racist groups. Lets make it clear at the outset, Islam/ism is something that concerns a lot of people (and for very good reasons). The fact that politicians are tackling it should not detract from that fact. By that standard the "peace party" was more liberal than Churchill's war party (or course the analogy doesn't hold if you don't equate Nazism and Islam/ism as identical ...and you play the fiddle). Let me phrase it differently...is being anti-Nazi being anti-German/racist (assuming that Germans comprise a "race")? Is being anti-BNP racism against my fellow fairer skinned compatriots? Is being anti-Islamic the equivalent of racism against people with tan complexions (like myself) or dark skin? (notice how the descriptors "tan" and "dark" refer to aesthetic qualities rather than supposed racial/ethnic-as used by UK gov- essenntialist attributes). It is? Well, now then, how does one go about applying for political asylum?! (Where is another question altogether!

[Fuchs]

Domestic Policy is COIN.

That's something which moderators certainly don't want me to mention here. Let's just say I rate the truth content at 0%.



By the way, can someone explain this "identity crisis" thing to me? I'm European and I have no clue what identity crisis is meant.

[Dayuhan]

That's something which moderators certainly don't want me to mention here. Let's just say I rate the truth content at 0%.

I think the idea is that good domestic policy keeps people happy, and happy people don't insurge, so domestic policy is preventive COIN. Of course keeping everybody happy in a multicultural society isn't always easy, and the desire for tolerance in some European societies is and will continue to be tested by the question of how much intolerance they are prepared to tolerate in the name of tolerance.

[Fuchs]

That's probably what kings thought, but it's entirely unacceptable thinking for a democratically elected head of government.

[120mm]

That's probably what kings thought, but it's entirely unacceptable thinking for a democratically elected head of government.

I think you are reading it unnecessarily harshly.

Actually, I have a similar point of view, but a different nuanced reading of it.

The purpose for a free and democratic republican government (not the mob rule of so-called "democracy") is to foster an intentional and perpetual state of Stage 1 revolution as a way to ensure stability of a nation-state as well as to provide for flexibility and allow a government to change to suit conditions.

[Fuchs]

OK; I'll tell you from where I come:

COIN is about the suppression of extreme discontent in a country. One of the worst aspects of it is that OUR governments learn how to violently suppress opposition.
Just like OUR governments learn how to do tolerated domestic espionage, domestic surveillance, building databases about citizens and kidnapping/arresting without proper procedure in general in the GWOT.

These two aspects are more dangerous to freedom and prosperity of the West than all those Islamic terrorists combined.

Now I came into contact with someone who had even mentally crossed the Rubicon, thinking of COIN in the domestic context.

120mm, I was extremely moderate in my reply. NOW I'll be honest:
That kind of idea ("domestic policy is COIN" is more dangerous than the worst hate propaganda from whatever crazy Imam you can find.
I am 100% opposed to this.
Nobody must be allowed cross the Rubicon without fierce and overwhelming opposition.

[Dayuhan]

COIN is about the suppression of extreme discontent in a country. One of the worst aspects of it is that OUR governments learn how to violently suppress opposition.
Just like OUR governments learn how to do tolerated domestic espionage, domestic surveillance, building databases about citizens and kidnapping/arresting without proper procedure in general in the GWOT...

120mm, I was extremely moderate in my reply. NOW I'll be honest:
That kind of idea ("domestic policy is COIN" is more dangerous than the worst hate propaganda from whatever crazy Imam you can find.
I am 100% opposed to this.
Nobody must be allowed cross the Rubicon without fierce and overwhelming opposition.

I think you're just using different definitions of COIN: you're assuming suppression, they're assuming prevention. If you govern well and prevent insurgency, there's no need to suppress it with all those nasty tactics, as there's nothing to suppress.

[Fuchs]

COIN is not about the prevention of an insurgency, but about countering it.


Insurgency and counterinsurgency (COIN) are complex subsets of warfare.
FM you-know-which-one

Politicians at home must not think in COIN terms. That would equal thinking about suppressing citizen's discontent. It's about suppression.
NOT ACCEPTABLE!

I'll face anyone who uses the term "COIN" inflationary and thus helps to make it appear acceptable in a domestic environment, too.


COIN is too dangerous for domestic freedom and democracy.
It MUST NOT PASS THE RUBICON.

[davidbfpo]

The UK-based Quilliam Foundation has released a lecture given in 1990, at the time of the Salman Rushdie "affair":
'Asian, British and Muslim in 1990', the transcript of a speech delivered by Iqbal Wahhab to Oxford University’s Asian society in the wake of ‘the Rushdie Affair’ in 1989.

The speech is remarkable for showing the surprising longevity of many of the issues facing Britain’s Muslim communities – indeed issues surrounding free speech, education, politics and identity, to name just a few, remain just as hotly debated and contested today as they were in 1990. The speech is also a useful reminder for policy-makers to avoid seeking short-term fixes that may do little to alter longer-term trajectories.

Wahhab, now chair of advisors at Quilliam, gave his speech amid a background that had witnessed the emergence of political advocacy in the UK framed specifically around issues pertaining to Muslims, and pertaining to Islam.

Link:http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/index.php/component/content/article/716

[Graycap]

COIN is not about the prevention of an insurgency, but about countering it.


FM you-know-which-one

Politicians at home must not think in COIN terms.

......

COIN is too dangerous for domestic freedom and democracy.
It MUST NOT PASS THE RUBICON.

I'm italian and I think that what make Fuchs react so strongly is worth a deep thought.

Anyway I'd like to submit to your attention some kind of different problem with COIN and domestic policy: organized crime.

In Italy we have some regions that are in some kind of extra territorial status. Nothing seems bad: there are elections, there is an administration etc.. But everything is controlled by organized crime. I've came to think of it like a won insurrection. Without too much violence, even if we must remeber the fallen heroes. We reached the IED stage and after that everything calmed down.

Now we have live side by side with a part of Italy that is not really in control. This part of the country CAN'T imagine any kind of development because any economic or social entity MUST come to terms with organized crime.

The provocation: which kind of strategy, if not COIN, must be envisaged?

Bernard Fall, when had to explain why military evalutions of pink area were futile, said: look at taxes. When no more tax income come from a village that village have flipped side. In south Italy we have entire towns with no income taxes....

[Bob's World]

COIN is not about the prevention of an insurgency, but about countering it.


FM you-know-which-one

Politicians at home must not think in COIN terms. That would equal thinking about suppressing citizen's discontent. It's about suppression.
NOT ACCEPTABLE!

I'll face anyone who uses the term "COIN" inflationary and thus helps to make it appear acceptable in a domestic environment, too.


COIN is too dangerous for domestic freedom and democracy.
It MUST NOT PASS THE RUBICON.

I admit a very heavy bit of baggage has been hung around the neck of COIN. Many think, as Fuchs appears to here, that it is about controlling a populace in order to preserve a government. This comes from the old school, virtually entirely obsolete perspective of COIN practiced by the British Colonial Empire, learned and employed by the US during it's own Colonial forays in the first half of the last century, and then codified in the Small Wars Manual by the Marines before WWII; and largely echoed in the current COIN manual

Back then, the mission was for a foreign power to suppress the will of the populace in order to sustain in power their puppet governments. Those governments sole function was to serve the interests of the foreign power and to suppress/control their populaces. For whatever reason, we have come to call that "COIN" and have rolled it into current doctrine and make it the name of the mission we are conducting places like Iraq and Afghanistan.

The problems are several:

1. The intervening/Colonial/external power is not doing COIN. Period. Only the host nation can do COIN. Call what those other guys are doing whatever you want, but don't call it COIN as it just confuses the matter and leads to wholly inappropriate roles and engagement.

2. The mission is now reversed. Pre-globalization the mission was in fact to keep a friendly government (one willing to support your interests over the interests of their own populaces) in power and to suppress any popular challenge to that relationship. Now with empowered populaces being far more dangerous than any tin-horn government is, the mission is to support the will of the people and to protect them from; help them drive the reform of, or help them remove such illegitimate despots. Friendly dictators can no longer control their populaces so whether we recognize it or not, the mission has flipped 180 degrees for the external powers who have interests to maintain in some foreign land. They can no longer simply ignore or help suppress the populace and rely on their relationship with these illegitimate leaders.

3. This means the COIN mission has changed for the Host nation well. To date it has been to simply suppress the illegal challenges to one's reign, and to rely on big, foreign, brother to help one do so. Control was a Verb rather than a noun. Now these government actually have to perform, they actually have to listen to their people, they actually have to provide good governance. COIN is no longer a campaign of oppression waged only once the populace goes violent to suppress that violence, COIN is now the day in, day out provision of good governance that prevents such organized, illegal challenges to governance from emerging in the first place.

So, in summary:
Only HN govt does COIN.
"Small Wars" mission is now 180-out from when the manual was written. Now it is to truly "liberate the oppressed" and to work to ensure that legitimate governance is in place; rather than the old model to work to keep illegitimate government in place.

It's a bold new world. Once we recognize that we'll like it better.

COIN is the mission for every government, everywhere, everyday. It is only when they forget that and act with impunity toward their own people, or allow some foreign power to co-opt their legitimacy that one has problems.

Or in old school terms for when insurgency exists:

Government = COIN; Populace = Insurgency

In new school terms when insurgency exists:

Government = Poor Governance; Populace = Counter-Poor Governance


The focus for that intervening external power who has interests to service must be on understanding the concerns of the populace, then focusing on working with the government to develop and adopt appropriate reforms to address the issues among the people that are being exploited by the insurgent organizations. Reconcile the issues, not the insurgent/insurgent organization. They can get on board or face the consequences of their actions.

[120mm]

I agree that Fuchs' concept of COIN is tragically limited, and therefore flawed.

A perfect COIN campaign, in my mind would involve minimum to no violence, and would result in insurgent shifting from, or even avoiding violence and resolving their root causes by entering into political discourse.

This is, of course attributing rationality to insurgents, as well as the government.

[Fuchs]

I submit that high level authorities have published official texts about COIN and take away the option of defining it at will from you long ago.


Invent your own term if you think of something else. Do not seize an established term for something different.

[Bob's World]

I submit that high level authorities have published official texts about COIN and take away the option of defining it at will from you long ago.


Invent your own term if you think of something else. Do not seize an established term for something different.

Submit as you wish, but I submit that the current crop of definitions (of which there is certainly no one version or concrete perspective as you imply) are all overly concerned about what the problem looks like at a given time rather than looking to what are the common causations of a variety of problems that can all then manifest in a wide range of non-violent to violent ways; but that demand common cures to address causation.

For example, Drug-driven violence in Mexico look more like insurgency in Afghanistan than car burning in France does;

But the car burning in France shares a much closer causal connection to Afghanistan by far. So COIN-based approaches in France focused on understanding the concerns of the populace, mitigating violence and repairing governance could work.

In Mexico the driving causation comes not from the government, but rather from the demand for illegal drugs in the U.S. COIN approaches there would totally miss the mark on causation, only address the common symptoms of violence and violent organizations, and leave the primary causation untouched and thus the problem unsolved.

When I pull out my US COIN manual it tells me in the first sentence of the first paragraph of the first chapter that "COIN is warfare." That puts the US military in an intellectual and operational box that virtually guarantees long, drawnout military-led approaches to COIN. I prefer not to limit myself to that small, ineffective, unproven box; others like it there. I don't judge, I just think they are missing the big picture in very important ways that hinder true success.

[Global Scout]

Posted by Graycap,


Anyway I'd like to submit to your attention some kind of different problem with COIN and domestic policy: organized crime.

In Italy we have some regions that are in some kind of extra territorial status. Nothing seems bad: there are elections, there is an administration etc.. But everything is controlled by organized crime. I've came to think of it like a won insurrection. Without too much violence, even if we must remeber the fallen heroes. We reached the IED stage and after that everything calmed down.

The provocation: which kind of strategy, if not COIN, must be envisaged?

Bernard Fall, when had to explain why military evalutions of pink area were futile, said: look at taxes. When no more tax income come from a village that village have flipped side. In south Italy we have entire towns with no income taxes....

Graycap, thanks for this post. Italy has always fascinated me. In the north you have a very modern and successful society, while in the south you something that looks like parts of Africa or South America. The most recent crisis in southern Italy is the new garbage crisis, and now apparently the national government is going to step in take over.

I also read a report that a certain percentage of Italy's GNP comes from organized crime (I believe it was 10% or so), and I suspect that means 80% plus of the GNP for the south, and of course they're not paying taxes, because who is going to claim money received through crime?

I actually think Bob's World's claims of a failure of government are very appropriate here. The Italians I have met in the North can't stand the south and even have a political party that advocates separating the south because they see the South as more culturalll aligned with a corrupt African country than the true Italy in the North (Rome and further north of). I watch these problems in the news and wonder where the national government is? Why don't they respond? Why doesn't the national government have the courage to wipe out organized crime in southern Italy (or at least suppress it)? Why are these people living in such poverty, while northern Italy is rich?

I don't see how a modern nation such as Italy can ignore half its populace and simply claim they're not really Italians. I agree the approach will be much COIN like. National security forces will have to take over local governments and purge the corrupt members out, and then transition to a legitimate government. Economic development in the South is a must. Italy can't be a great nation until it addresses its internal problems. Eventually the problems in the South will become to large to ignore, and they'll even be tougher to solve then.

[Graycap]

I don't want to derail this thread and my intention was only to stimulate a reflection about COIN strategies in the western world.

I think the BW vision of COIN could be appllied in the context fo italian ciminal low level "insurrection". I've found that using the 4GW construct could very well help understand what I've called the italian insurrection. The poblem is the gradual dissolution of State masked with more and more econoimic retard and social problems.

In Italy we faced the Euro terrorism of the seventies that could be interpreted like a tentative insurrectionalist strategy. The red brigades, in their final stages, theorized the alliance of political terrorism with crime.

Globalscout has writte about garbage crisis. This is not a simplicistic garbage problem. The citizens concerned are really desperate. Infact when a garbage site has been found immediately after it become uncontrolled and everything, from city garbage to radioactive material could be dumped inside since criminal gangs control the garbage business.

On the other side the gangs don't accept an efficient state able to perform such a basic duty. So they actually mix with citizen's to stir up protests with calculated violence. Yesterday they have surrounded two police cars and destroyed the with iron pieces. But do not make mistakes: they used that iron poles just because it was more than sufficient to make clear their position. They could use Ak47 if they thought it could be useful.
Some days ago the Calabria's gangs let the police find a LAW72 expended case before the office of the prosecutor that had confiscated some house ti them. Just to make the message clear.

We really need COIN strategy. Not COIN operations. Our army has been busy a number of times helping the civilian police but with no strategy.
Just more guarded places, more VCP. The criminal insurgent take immediately a low profile and after some months they are back in business.
The garbage dumps were made military strategic sites to allow their control by military units!!

We should have more administrative control, more low level control and more civil justice and first of all a strategy towards "the fence sitters" the thousands people that live through jobs warranted by criminal control. Not only more policemen.

[Global Scout]

Graycap,

I'm not so sure this topic is derailing the thread, but if you feel it is I think it would be worthwhile to start a thread discussing this. I'm shocked by the inefficiency of police in general. They rarely implement strategies of any sort, but when they do they seem to be extremely successful. The good news is I'm seeing more and more case studies of where police are implementing strategies (not COIN, but certain lessons are relevant) to clean up certain areas, instead of simply surging more patrols into the area. I think we'll see a sharp learning curb and more effective policing in the modern world (hopefully that includes southern Italy) in the near future.

[davidbfpo]

Rod Liddle writes in a certain style for The Spectator, but within are some gems, such as:
An awful lot of the new nastiness, spreading across Europe, can be put down to the refusal of the traditional parties to engage with the problems which their voters are forced to put up with. It is not simply political correctness, but political blindness — of much the same kind which afflicted our own Labour party in the past 15 years and which saw the British National Party, a lumbering creature of the dark led by idiots, bite huge chunks out of the Labour vote in the north of England and in Essex.

You can stretch people’s tolerance for a surprisingly long period of time, but when it snaps, it snaps back with real violence. And there are plenty of people like Pim Fortuyn or Le Pen or Griffin or Jorg Haider poised to make whatever advantage of it they can.

Link:http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/6370933/part_5/orange-alert.thtml

[Bob's World]

"You can stretch people’s tolerance for a surprisingly long period of time, but when it snaps, it snaps back with real violence."

From a Mr. Ron Liddle in David's post above. This struck me as very similar to:

"all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."

From one Mr. T. Jefferson, with editorial input by a Mr Franklin and Adams.

[Firn]

On the other side the gangs don't accept an efficient state able to perform such a basic duty. So they actually mix with citizen's to stir up protests with calculated violence. Yesterday they have surrounded two police cars and destroyed the with iron pieces. But do not make mistakes: they used that iron poles just because it was more than sufficient to make clear their position. They could use Ak47 if they thought it could be useful.
Some days ago the Calabria's gangs let the police find a LAW72 expended case before the office of the prosecutor that had confiscated some house ti them. Just to make the message clear.

We really need COIN strategy. Not COIN operations. Our army has been busy a number of times helping the civilian police but with no strategy.
Just more guarded places, more VCP. The criminal insurgent take immediately a low profile and after some months they are back in business.
The garbage dumps were made military strategic sites to allow their control by military units!!

We should have more administrative control, more low level control and more civil justice and first of all a strategy towards "the fence sitters" the thousands people that live through jobs warranted by criminal control. Not only more policemen.

When thinking about the various criminal organizations called mafia outside of Italy this quote is almost in the back of my mind: "The aggressor is always peace-loving ... he would prefer to take over our country unopposed."

Brutal and vicious violence has always been a hallmark of them. It is an organized violence administered by systems of rule which are deeply impressed into the populance of the south. Most of the time it seems that the bands don't even have to resort to menacing to extract their pizzo or to control their activities. Perhaps because everybody knows that brutal violence will be used against them if they cross certain lines.

Firn

[davidbfpo]

Via an email from the author Chris Allen, who has published this article “Fear and loathing: the political discourse in relation to Muslims and Islam in the British contemporary setting”. It can be downloaded free using the following link:http://tinyurl.com/37fduvq

To read and download other articles in the special edition of the periodical, please use the following link:http://tinyurl.com/3yedytx

He also has a book:www.islamophobiabook.com

[davidbfpo]

A US writer for once takes a different viewpoint to Europe turning Muslim:http://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2011/04/25/europes_supposed_islamic_crisis_106239.html

I also found this article on Europe's effect on the Muslim Middle East & North Africa interesting:http://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2011/04/04/the_muslim_worlds_coming_european_revolution_10623 0.html