Islam, Catholisism, religion, and conflict

[TheCurmudgeon]

I start this thread as an open forum. There is a contingent amongst the regular posters that feel that "political correctness" has killed out ability to see the religious aspects of conflict. This seems to be particularly true in the case of attacks on Islam as a religion that fosters insurgency and terrorism. In the interest of an open exchange I would like to explore this topic.

I will start by saying that religion "of the book" - particularly Islam and Catholicism - offer an interesting problem in the world of conflict. This is true because both religions offer life after death. Not just life, but a reward of heavenly bliss for those that follow the edicts of the religion. This creates a body of Soldiers ready to die for their cause because their ultimate reward is not in this life but in the next.

Each of the religions (and sub sects) have their own prerequisites for this "ultimate reward". For example Jesus died on the cross passively for the sins of man. In the ninth century Christian Martyrs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyrs_of_C%C3%B3rdoba) did much of the same in Spain. Each religion has its particular historical anomalies.

So I open the question up ... what relevance does religion have to modern day issues in Syria and Iraq? Where should we draw the line between religion and simple hate?

[J Singh]

An excellent topic for consideration. Religion can serve as both the casus bellli or merely the facade, or anywhere in between, depending upon the context and the individuals involved.

One thing that is for certain, however, is that the US government has zero credibility when it comes to issuing dictates regarding the interpretation of any given collective religious corpus. The problem, as one sees it, is that US government officials and media derived from the Western secular model have become deluded by their own propaganda (one can almost immediately strike off any government or media utterance that includes the epistemological bias, manifested as framing bias, of 'radical' and 'extremist' - throw in a few ultra- and far- for good measure to enhance the comedic value). One clearly can't rule out the political pandering angle but the mirror image logical fallacy is clearly evident. If Western secularists are the target audience then one is preaching to the choir. If the target audience is from outside this group, then the propaganda is falling on deaf ears. The US government has either volitionally or through myopia failed to grasp the religious roots, specifically in regards to Islam, that predicate the actions of Islamically adherent non-state actors.

[Bill Moore]

I start this thread as an open forum. There is a contingent amongst the regular posters that feel that "political correctness" has killed out ability to see the religious aspects of conflict. This seems to be particularly true in the case of attacks on Islam as a religion that fosters insurgency and terrorism. In the interest of an open exchange I would like to explore this topic.

I will start by saying that religion "of the book" - particularly Islam and Catholicism - offer an interesting problem in the world of conflict. This is true because both religions offer life after death. Not just life, but a reward of heavenly bliss for those that follow the edicts of the religion. This creates a body of Soldiers ready to die for their cause because their ultimate reward is not in this life but in the next.

Each of the religions (and sub sects) have their own prerequisites for this "ultimate reward". For example Jesus died on the cross passively for the sins of man. In the ninth century Christian Martyrs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyrs_of_C%C3%B3rdoba) did much of the same in Spain. Each religion has its particular historical anomalies.

So I open the question up ... what relevance does religion have to modern day issues in Syria and Iraq? Where should we draw the line between religion and simple hate?

You have a bad habit of misquoting and taking people's words out of context to support your view. Very few people posting on SWJ have attacked Islam, they have simply pointed out al-Qaeda's principle motivation is religion, and Islam dictates social and political behavior. Yes, al-Qaeda is waging a religious war of sorts, but that sure has hell doesn't mean 90% percent plus Muslims in the world agree with al-Qaeda. We're waging a war against AQ and AQism who are waging a religious war. That doesn't mean we are waging a war against Islam.

Where do we draw the line? It isn't our line to draw when it comes to hate between the various sects, we draw the line when groups or individuals threaten the U.S. or our interests.

[TheCurmudgeon]

You have a bad habit of misquoting and taking people's words out of context to support your view. Very few people posting on SWJ have attacked Islam, they have simply pointed out al-Qaeda's principle motivation is religion, and Islam dictates social and political behavior. Yes, al-Qaeda is waging a religious war of sorts, but that sure has hell doesn't mean 90% percent plus Muslims in the world agree with al-Qaeda. We're waging a war against AQ and AQism who are waging a religious war. That doesn't mean we are waging a war against Islam.

Where do we draw the line? It isn't our line to draw when it comes to hate between the various sects, we draw the line when groups or individuals threaten the U.S. or our interests.

I have a habit of trying to show people there is more than one way to view a problem. i do that with their own words. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Sarcasm doesn't always translate well in this medium. If i offend, I usually apologize.

None-the-less, I open this because I felt that the topic was tangential to many other threads here, and comes up quite often, but is never addressed directly.

I had a conversation with a retired Armor Colonel the other say that one of the reasons Europeans and Americans are such good warriors is because our common faith provides for an afterlife. Eastern religions generally do not. Of course then the topic turned to Samurai suicide and Kamikazes attacks - honor in a martial society. It dawned on us that Islam could call on both these strengths. Its offered an afterlife and its history is far more martial than Christianity (perhaps on par with Judaism?) These social factors complicated first, our understanding of others (Muslims, Buddhists, etc) view the operational environment, and two, the rational these others might use in making tactical decisions. In the case of middle eastern Muslims, the advantage that their religious convictions hold (afterlife, Religion founded by a warrior of sorts) stands in contrast to the less favorable views most of the books I have seen in western literature about the Arab military and the way they fight. Clearly not everything can be answered by religion. ... of course, on the flip side you have a group of religious zealots who take on an armor column and win ... can we say that the fighters faith helped them achieve that victory?

Of course, there is also our biases. America is schizophrenic when it comes to religion. We claim we are secular but we are a deeply Christian country. Our founding documents are based on rights endowed on us by our creator. This sets up an uncomfortable problem, particularly for a country that tries to be multicultural in difficult times. The first instinct when attacked by outsiders is to withdraw and rally around out basic principles. This causes problem for us. It is something I think we do a poor job of confronting, and religion is central to that.

I am actually less interested in fights between different sects of any particular religion. I would like to explore how religion, in general, affects how we view conflict and the operational environment. It may be a large topic, and I may be the wrong person to continue this thread. Bill is right to observe that some may think I have an agenda. I do, but not the one that most would think. In any case, this will be my last post except to ask specific questions.

[carl]

I will start by saying that religion "of the book" - particularly Islam and Catholicism - offer an interesting problem in the world of conflict. This is true because both religions offer life after death. Not just life, but a reward of heavenly bliss for those that follow the edicts of the religion. This creates a body of Soldiers ready to die for their cause because their ultimate reward is not in this life but in the next.

If this is your premise it is wrong. If you look through history, some armies composed of Muslims fight well and some don't. Some armies composed of Catholics fight well and some run like rabbits at the first shot. So from this I gather that religion doesn't matter nearly as much as training, leadership, organization and whether the men get paid on time.

I would note also that every variation of Christianity that I know of believes in the soul continuing on after death. Which is also what us mackerel snappers are taught.

[Bob's World]

AQ uses extreme and unrealistic perspectives on religion to sell illegal, violent political activism for the same reason Madison Avenue uses pretty extreme and unrealistic portrayals of beautiful women to sell virtually everything else.

Because it works. Men are pretty simple creatures to manipulate. Particularly young men who are powered more by testosterone than reason.

[jcustis]

I am actually less interested in fights between different sects of any particular religion.

I believe it is exactly this fight that poses the greatest residual global security challenge, and we should probably spend some time thinking about what:

1) The non-Islamic world is going to do to address it.
2) Whether there is a particular side the non-Islamic world wants to be on.
3) If there is anything that can or should be done to minimize the fractures in Islam, or at least support proxies working to resolve the problem.

[J Singh]

The Enlightenment and Reformation, in the Western experience, started the slow, and with the latter oft bloody, process of gelding religion and making it subservient to secular authority. What passes for the 'religious' in the West can indeed be amusing secondary to 'self-identification' and the 'cafeteria' approach to scripture. Having one's weltanschauung develop in accordance with a Western secular formation makes the objective analysis of events, issues and perceptions that arise from vastly differing sociohistorical strands difficult. It takes a certain amount of effort to not fall into the trap of the mirror image logical fallacy. For such a fall would be extremely far-radical and radically ultra-extreme (framing bias employed for comedic effect).

[carl]

AQ uses extreme and unrealistic perspectives on religion...

This isn't really an argument but just an observation. I am not sure that an absolute objective standard of "extreme and unrealistic" exists when it comes to religious belief.

[Bob's World]

I'm not arguing Carl, just stating the facts as I understand them.

J Singh mentions the enlightenment and reformation.

Better he backs it up a bit and considers the Renaissance in the 1300s-1600; Mr. Guttenburg's printing press in 1445, the Reformation in the 1500s; and then the Enlightenment in 1600s/1700s.

People of Western Europe long held under the ideological and political control of the Holy Roman Empire becoming informed and educated; the political hi-jacking of Martin Luther's religious counter to the Catholic Church by those who sought to overthrow the political control of the Roman Empire.

Those who wished to sustain the status quo remained Catholic; those who sought change became Protestants of that status quo.

Politics and power dressed up in the religious terms necessary to move people to violent and illegal action.

What we see in the Middle East is little different. The keepers of the status quo love to blame some other ideology or religion for the challenges they face. Far easier to swallow than the recognition that the governance they provide is so sorely out of touch.

[carl]

The keepers of the status quo love to blame some other ideology or religion for the challenges they face. Far easier to swallow than the recognition that the governance they provide is so sorely out of touch.

True in an absolute sense, that the governance they provide is out of touch. But that leads back to Bill M's point, which as I understand it is the takfiri killer's desired form of government is defined by religious belief; they are upset not because the govs there aren't enlightened, but because they don't conform to their idea of what religion dictates.

No matter how you slice it, religion looms very large as a motivator in and of itself.

[OUTLAW 09]

I'm not arguing Carl, just stating the facts as I understand them.

J Singh mentions the enlightenment and reformation.

Better he backs it up a bit and considers the Renaissance in the 1300s-1600; Mr. Guttenburg's printing press in 1445, the Reformation in the 1500s; and then the Enlightenment in 1600s/1700s.

People of Western Europe long held under the ideological and political control of the Holy Roman Empire becoming informed and educated; the political hi-jacking of Martin Luther's religious counter to the Catholic Church by those who sought to overthrow the political control of the Roman Empire.

Those who wished to sustain the status quo remained Catholic; those who sought change became Protestants of that status quo.

Politics and power dressed up in the religious terms necessary to move people to violent and illegal action.

What we see in the Middle East is little different. The keepers of the status quo love to blame some other ideology or religion for the challenges they face. Far easier to swallow than the recognition that the governance they provide is so sorely out of touch.

Here in Berlin is a native born Egyptian (Sunni) with a German passport who has been here over 19 years as a political scientist ---he has written in German a book titled "The Islamic Fascism" where he intensely looked at the Salafist and Takfiri Sunni wings and came to the conclusion that there is no difference between say the European fascism of the 30s/40s and yes even into the present and the current Salafist and Takfiri wings of Sunnism.

Needless to say he is under constant death threats out of that community and is under police protection.

The threats have increased to such a level he is now leaving Germany.

[J Singh]

J Singh mentions the enlightenment and reformation.

Better he backs it up a bit and considers the Renaissance in the 1300s-1600; Mr. Guttenburg's printing press in 1445, the Reformation in the 1500s; and then the Enlightenment in 1600s/1700s.

One could back it up a bit beyond that and extend it to the time of the development of Greek (inclusive of Athenian) democracy. The reason for choosing the Enlightenment (Wikipedia being non-citable for published work but sufficient herein) was the following:

"The Age of Enlightenment (or simply the Enlightenment or Age of Reason) was a cultural movement of intellectuals beginning in late 17th-century Europe emphasizing reason and individualism rather than tradition.[1] Its purpose was to reform society using reason, to challenge ideas grounded in tradition and faith, and to advance knowledge through the scientific method. It promoted scientific thought, skepticism, and intellectual interchange (emphasis mine)."

The Reformation was specifically included secondary to its predicative basis for the oft violent and bloody sectarian struggles that followed from it. One may back 'it' up to the extent that one chooses without altering the resultant conclusion.


People of Western Europe long held under the ideological and political control of the Holy Roman Empire becoming informed and educated; the political hi-jacking of Martin Luther's religious counter to the Catholic Church by those who sought to overthrow the political control of the Roman Empire.

Those who wished to sustain the status quo remained Catholic; those who sought change became Protestants of that status quo.

Politics and power dressed up in the religious terms necessary to move people to violent and illegal action.

However one frames it, the resultant is unchanged. The sociohistorical paradigm operative in the West has been, for some time, the triumph of secularism over religion. The interesting conundrum in regards to how the West arrived 'here' from 'there' is that it included the use of violence and acts deemed illegal by the old order. It is not surprising that the new order would deem 'illegal' the mechanism by which it came to power.


What we see in the Middle East is little different. The keepers of the status quo love to blame some other ideology or religion for the challenges they face. Far easier to swallow than the recognition that the governance they provide is so sorely out of touch.

The secular grievance model is nice but misses the boat on why 'they' fight. The latter requires an objective understanding of their worldview (sans the mirror image logical fallacy).

[slapout9]

I believe it is exactly this fight that poses the greatest residual global security challenge, and we should probably spend some time thinking about what:

1) The non-Islamic world is going to do to address it.
2) Whether there is a particular side the non-Islamic world wants to be on.
3) If there is anything that can or should be done to minimize the fractures in Islam, or at least support proxies working to resolve the problem.

I have not seen any Catholic,Jewish,Baptist,Buddhist suicide bombers. So I don't see what any other religion has to do with todays situation.
Our Wilsonian "Political Correctness" and this idea that we will go forth and make the world safe for democracy will destroy us. Better to remember and follow the example of the Barbary Wars and why our God created the US Navy and Marine Corps!

[J Singh]

As an example (the current administration being no better than the previous one in regards to the matter), the following internalized propaganda-speak just makes one shake one's head in disbelief:


Don't call them jihadists any more. And don't call al-Qaeda a movement. The Bush administration has launched a new front in the war on terrorism, this time targeting language. Federal agencies, including the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security and the National Counter Terrorism Center, are telling their people not to describe Islamic extremists as "jihadists" or "mujahedeen," according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. Lingo like "Islamo-fascism" is out, too. The reason: Such words may actually boost support for radicals among Arab and Muslim audiences by giving them a veneer of religious credibility or by causing offense to moderates.

Excluding the cited author's own framing bias, the first rationale makes little sense. The target audience doesn't look to the US government, which has zero religious authority, to define jihadists and the mujahideen as something else. The second rationale is pure politically correct pablum.


"Regarding 'jihad,' even if it is accurate to reference the term, it may not be strategic because it glamorizes terrorism, imbues terrorists with religious authority they do not have and damages relations with Muslims around the world," the report says.

"Even if it is accurate?" The deceptive halo is one that does not apply to the target audience. Again, the US government is in zero position to determine if the jihadists have religious authority. Completely left out of this is that it is not the lexicon that the US government chooses to use that 'damages relations with Muslims around the world' but rather interventionist neo-Wilsonian foreign policy.


"Don't compromise our credibility" by using words and phrases that may ascribe benign motives to terrorists.

This statement is such an epic fail on so many levels.

Reference URL: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3535863,00.html

[slapout9]

Glenn Beck interview of David Barton on Jefferson and Islam, Barbary Wars.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlT1IXSv830

[slapout9]

Here in Berlin is a native born Egyptian (Sunni) with a German passport who has been here over 19 years as a political scientist ---he has written in German a book titled "The Islamic Fascism" where he intensely looked at the Salafist and Takfiri Sunni wings and came to the conclusion that there is no difference between say the European fascism of the 30s/40s and yes even into the present and the current Salafist and Takfiri wings of Sunnism.

Needless to say he is under constant death threats out of that community and is under police protection.

The threats have increased to such a level he is now leaving Germany.

Liddel Hart in his book "Strategy" talked about how this could happen with Islam at the end of WW2. Some far sighted people have seen this coming for some time.

[Bob's World]

Ok, for all of you who are convinced they fight because of their religious differences rather than in pursuit of power or to throw off a system of governance designed and implemented by one group to oppress the other, riddle me this:

Why is it that people of these same diverse religions live together in natural harmony when these inequities of illegitimacy, power and opportunity are resolved??

[slapout9]

As jcustis said there various sects now and during the Barbary wars. We found some good Muslims and with God and a few Marines we brought them to the curb and signed a treaty. The Navy helped to. Keep them in line forget about reforming them.

[J Singh]

Ok, for all of you who are convinced they fight because of their religious differences rather than in pursuit of power or to throw off a system of governance designed and implemented by one group to oppress the other, riddle me this:

Why is it that people of these same diverse religions live together in natural harmony when these inequities of illegitimacy, power and opportunity are resolved??

One would need an example of where that which is described in the question, actually exists, in order to consider a response to it.

[Bob's World]

Seriously?

How about Catholics and Protestants virtually every where?

[carl]

Seriously?

How about Catholics and Protestants virtually every where?

Virtually everywhere...?

RCs and the Prods settled that thing a long time ago and when they did, the settlement was largely preserved I think because of western cultural environment, which of course was influenced by the nature of the religion itself along with the Enlightenment and all that. Slaughtering Episcopalians just isn't done. Unless that Episcopalian wanders into Raqqa where he will have to flee, convert, dhimmi or die.

I'll riddle something back. Suppose IS achieves the supremacy they dream of and establish an unchallenged caliphate that runs from the Atlantic coast to Indian Ocean, north and south as far as your imagination lets them go; do you think they will allow freedom of worship? How long do you figure it will take?

[J Singh]

Seriously?

Yes, seriously.


Why is it that people of these same diverse religions live together in natural harmony when these inequities of illegitimacy, power and opportunity are resolved??

Diverse religions or sects of the same religion?
Natural harmony is a term begging for a propounded definition.
The emphasized text does not comport with any geopolitical region of which one is aware.


How about Catholics and Protestants virtually every where?

Both have been subsumed, generally, by Western secularism following a long and oft bloody struggle between the partisans (going back to the issue of the Western sociohistorical experience). Of course, "virtually everywhere" still has its flash points (http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jul/11/hundreds-loyalists-convicted-rioting-belfast-minister).


More than 700 mainly young Protestant men have been convicted of rioting in protests linked to parades and the union jack dispute in Belfast, it has emerged. The news came ahead of a potentially violent standoff involving Ulster loyalists and a banned Orange Order march in Belfast. As loyalists were preparing to light their bonfires on the eve of the 12 July – the climax of the marching season – Northern Ireland's justice minister, David Ford, told the Guardian that he was concerned that more and more young Protestants were joining the ranks of those already convicted of public order offences.

[jcustis]

I see where COL Jones is going with his point, and it is very valid on many angles.

The Protestant-Catholic dramas of Northern Ireland were not about the raw differences between the two sects of Christianity, but rather the privileges and benefits afforded those who were from a particular sect. Definitely inequalities of legitimacy, power and opportunity unresolved.

[Bob's World]

We are too quick to focus on the sizzle, rather than the steak.

"The sizzle" is those distinguishing factors, be it shared grievance (powerless peasants vs entitled landholders in Asia and virtually every place colonized by Spain); or some characteristic such as race, tribe or sect that has served to determine who is in power and who is out of power.

"The Steak" is the real issue: Governance and Power. When governance is not equitable and when no effective legal means within the context of the culture of the people involved exists to address inequities, or illegitimacies, or flat out abuses of power - Revolutionary energy will build and teams will form along the lines that divide the issue.

Power. When such conditions exist all manner of opportunists will arise to exploit that popular energy to coerce change upon the offending system of governance. Sometimes these are honorable leaders who represent the greater interests of the people. Washington, Ghandi, King to name three. Usually these are individuals and organizations who are either self-serving or seek to advance some darker purpose. If you build it, they will come. Governance builds these conditions, and they always come eventually. They always come.

And governance (and many of those paid experts who advise governance) almost always blames it on the sizzle. This is why so many Kings who ignore these conditions end up with their heads in baskets or on pikes. This is also why these conditions of instability tend to keep coming back even when some insurgent is "defeated." The insurgent is not the insurgency.

[carl]

We are too quick to focus on the sizzle, rather than the steak.

"The sizzle" is those distinguishing factors, be it shared grievance (powerless peasants vs entitled landholders in Asia and virtually every place colonized by Spain); or some characteristic such as race, tribe or sect that has served to determine who is in power and who is out of power.

"The Steak" is the real issue: Governance and Power. When governance is not equitable and when no effective legal means within the context of the culture of the people involved exists to address inequities, or illegitimacies, or flat out abuses of power - Revolutionary energy will build and teams will form along the lines that divide the issue.

Power. When such conditions exist all manner of opportunists will arise to exploit that popular energy to coerce change upon the offending system of governance. Sometimes these are honorable leaders who represent the greater interests of the people. Washington, Ghandi, King to name three. Usually these are individuals and organizations who are either self-serving or seek to advance some darker purpose. If you build it, they will come. Governance builds these conditions, and they always come eventually. They always come.

And governance (and many of those paid experts who advise governance) almost always blames it on the sizzle. This is why so many Kings who ignore these conditions end up with their heads in baskets or on pikes. This is also why these conditions of instability tend to keep coming back even when some insurgent is "defeated." The insurgent is not the insurgency.

All well and good but if you are unfortunate enough to be under the IS and you are a Christian, a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Zoroastrian, a Sikh, a Wiccan or any sort of disapproved of variety of Muslim you have a choice of flee, convert, dhimmi or die.

That's religion.

[slapout9]

The Irish situation is almost a classic situation on how you will have to handle this type of religious war because BOTH sides are claiming the MORAL right to rule....thye fight to establish legitmacy first before all else. Just like Islam! Allah is everything and Allah is always first until that happens nothing else matters.

That is why the 4GW have it right when they say we need to change how we think about these things by using the 3 filters of a Moral level,a Mental level,and Physical level of war before we even get started.

Islam does this very well which is why they are so hard to beat. They establish Moral authority then move to Sharia law and then decide on physical challenges. It is an integrated system which makes them very tough!

Much of our college boy intellectual leadership isn't even capable of this kind of thinking. Compared to our leadership during the Barbary wars who were very well educated, yet most did not even have what by todays standard would be a high school education,but they had learned to think in principles and think through situations very well.

[jcustis]

"The sizzle" is those distinguishing factors, be it shared grievance (powerless peasants vs entitled landholders in Asia and virtually every place colonized by Spain); or some characteristic such as race, tribe or sect that has served to determine who is in power and who is out of power.

"The Steak" is the real issue: Governance and Power. When governance is not equitable and when no effective legal means within the context of the culture of the people involved exists to address inequities, or illegitimacies, or flat out abuses of power - Revolutionary energy will build and teams will form along the lines that divide the issue.


Agreed sir but we need to stay abreast of what is going on with that sizzle since that is what the most malevolent actors focus on, and beat the drum about when whipping up more adherents to the cause.

It follows along the line of "some folks are never happy".

[Bob's World]

All well and good but if you are unfortunate enough to be under the IS and you are a Christian, a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Zoroastrian, a Sikh, a Wiccan or any sort of disapproved of variety of Muslim you have a choice of flee, convert, dhimmi or die.

That's religion.

No, that is human nature.

Try being a white settler in Comanche territory in the 1800s; or a black person in white territory in the same period; or an accountant at a biker bar. There are many ways one can be the wrong flavor in the wrong place at the wrong time. Religion is only one of those ways. But it is a way widely leveraged by systems of governance, and it is therefore a way widely leveraged to challenge governance.

ISIS may well be the initial organization in charge of an emergent Sunni state in modern Syria and Iraq - but either they will mellow in time, or they will be replaced by voices that speak more for what the people of that region want going forward, rather than for what they are currently against.

[Bob's World]

The Irish situation is almost a classic situation on how you will have to handle this type of religious war because BOTH sides are claiming the MORAL right to rule....thye fight to establish legitmacy first before all else. Just like Islam! Allah is everything and Allah is always first until that happens nothing else matters.

That is why the 4GW have it right when they say we need to change how we think about these things by using the 3 filters of a Moral level,a Mental level,and Physical level of war before we even get started.

Islam does this very well which is why they are so hard to beat. They establish Moral authority then move to Sharia law and then decide on physical challenges. It is an integrated system which makes them very tough!

Much of our college boy intellectual leadership isn't even capable of this kind of thinking. Compared to our leadership during the Barbary wars who were very well educated, yet most did not even have what by todays standard would be a high school education,but they had learned to think in principles and think through situations very well.


Sorry Slap, put your bible, torch and pitchfork away; and break out a map and history books that attempt to portray English control of the northern section of Ireland from the perspectives of each party equally.

While the treaty of Westphalia essentially stated that "might is right" and that if you can take and hold some land, then you are the legitimate governance over the people who live there - that in no way deletes the fact that those people are unlikely to recognize that legitimacy and will resist that presence and imposed foreign system of governance. Just because the original occupants were Catholic, and the invading occupants were Protestant, does not make it a religious war. It just means the conflict will be waged between parties with different religions.

Same is true of the Jewish occupation of Palestine, btw.

As to 4GW, IMO that is another batch of hocus pocus to rationalize why people dare to resist the wonderful things governance plans for them, but that is a debate for another thread...

[carl]

No, that is human nature.

Try being a white settler in Comanche territory in the 1800s; or a black person in white territory in the same period; or an accountant at a biker bar. There are many ways one can be the wrong flavor in the wrong place at the wrong time. Religion is only one of those ways. But it is a way widely leveraged by systems of governance, and it is therefore a way widely leveraged to challenge governance.

ISIS may well be the initial organization in charge of an emergent Sunni state in modern Syria and Iraq - but either they will mellow in time, or they will be replaced by voices that speak more for what the people of that region want going forward, rather than for what they are currently against.

...and religion is an intrinsic part of human nature which gets us back to religion.

Religion is indeed only one of many ways to be out of favor but in the particular place and time we are discussing, it is THE way. You want to get yourself killed quick, start passing out Bibles on a Mosul street corner.

I don't share your confidence that IS will prove unpopular and therefore lose its grip on power. The history of the 20th Century shows us well that a group of ruthless, determined and well organized men who have a strong enough police force and some kind of ideology to play off of, in this case a religion, can grab and hang on to power for generations regardless of what the people they rule want or don't want.

Your outlook seems to be guided by the idea that secular concerns trump all. I think that is a grave error. Religion and religious belief have been amongst the most powerful drivers of human action, as we are witnessing right now and as history has witnessed for all the time it has been watching. For these guys, secular is not the prime concern, religion is.

This is not an academic point. It is important that we accurately gauge the motivations of the enemy because they will cause us to take different paths when contesting them. In this case if the motivation is religious, then the most important allies we can seek are people of religious standing and Muslims who oppose takfiri killers on religious grounds. If the motivation were at its heart secular (which it is not) then the aforementioned people are just nice to have, not vital.

David posted a number of things on a thread about moderate Muslims, to include an excellent TED video by a woman who was born in Algeria and saw the conflict there first hand. She wrote a book about Muslims who risked and are risking their lives to voice opposition to the takfiri killers. Those people are actually more vital to us in this fight than the spec-ops super soldiers and the drones. We must recognized that and support them to the extent we can.

[jcustis]

Those people are actually more vital to us in this fight than the spec-ops super soldiers and the drones. We must recognized that and support them to the extent we can.


Bingo!!!

That speaks to the question I have carried for a long time, which wonders whether we are investing enough resources to strengthen those moderate voices. If they are more important than a FID actor or a kinetic drone, what are we doing to demonstrate that importance?

[Bill Moore]

Bingo!!!

That speaks to the question I have carried for a long time, which wonders whether we are investing enough resources to strengthen those moderate voices. If they are more important than a FID actor or a kinetic drone, what are we doing to demonstrate that importance?

I think this is the key to ultimately quelling the violence in these sectarian conflicts. However, I don't think "we" should or can empower them. How much money does it take? How much money did Martin Luther King need to start a movement? Different issue, but I don't think credible voices need a lot of money. We're not talking about buying air time and putting out propaganda that will fall flat to begin with, especially if the audience thinks we support it.

We can't resolve their religious conflict anymore than we can mandate a peace between Israel and Palestine. We may be able to help mitigate it, and we can certainly target the actors that threaten us, but I suspect this will be a long fight.

I recall someone else who shared Bob's secular view and that was Paul Wolfowitz (or witless). If you recall prior to invading Iraq he stated there was no ethnic conflict, so somehow this key advisor and architect of the war seemed to forget the recent history (post DESERT STORM) uprisings of the Kurds and Shia. What he saw in Baghdad is Saddam imposing a relative peace between the different ethnic/religious groups just like Tito maintained an imposed peace by recognizing the Muslims as a separate group, which incised the Serbs and they took revenge (religious conflict) when presented with the opportunity.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/10572342/Religious-conflict-in-global-rise-report.html

Religious conflict in global rise - report


Violence and discrimination against religious groups by governments and rival faiths have reached new highs in all regions of the world except the Americas, according to a new report by the Pew Research Centre.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/curr_war.htm

Religiously-based civil unrest and warfare


The role of religion in civil unrest and war:

Often, the media does not identify the precise causes of some of the conflicts around the world. Clashes are frequently described as being ethnic in origin, even though religion may have been a main cause.

The true causes of unrest are sometimes difficult to determine. Frequently, there are a mixture of political alliances, economic differences, ethnic feuds, religious differences, and others:

I think they're right, most conflicts are due to a variety of issues, but the predominate issue/identity factor frequently is religion. This has nothing to do with steak and sizzle. That is simply an attempt to sound superior, the analogy is void of any intellectual rigor. You can't wish religion away by calling it sizzle.

Is governance/government going to be part of the solution ultimately? Most certainly, there won't be a solution without it, but good governance alone won't be enough, credible religious leaders will have to work with the government as part of civil-society to convince the different religious groups to stop fighting. Much easier said than done.

[Bill Moore]

Another site worth looking at for exploring the topic in further detail. I used the word explore instead of argue, because the bottom line is religion, identity politics, governance, and economics all play a role. The only outliers are those who are attempting to dismiss the power of religion altogether.

http://www.center2000.org/northern-ireland/

Northern Ireland

Roman Catholics versus Protestants


Though many allege that this conflict and ensuing violence may not be the result of any single cause, there appears to be little doubt that if the emphasis on the religious-based differences has not been the cause, it has certainly contributed to and exacerbated an already difficult situation.

Actually his was mostly about political power, but religion is being leveraged.


In spite of the 2007 peace agreement serious tension remains between the Catholics and the Protestants. In early 2013 the Protestants hung out the English flag in vast numbers, a move which offended the Catholics. Violent demonstrations erupted. This was not the first time, nor probably the last, that that such actions would be on display. As the French are fond of saying: “the more things change, the more they remain the same”.

http://www.center2000.org/indonesia/

Indonesia

Christians versus Moslems


Until his demise, Suharto, the former president, had been able by sheer force, to repress these differences in this and throughout this nation of 13,000 islands. Until now, that is.

Today, the fear is that the violence in places like Ambon will spread. Already, one sees similar clashes in the resort island of Lombok, attacks on churches in Jogjakarta and rallies in the capital of Jakarta itself, where tens of thousands of Moslems enraged by accounts of violence against them, shout their readiness to die in a Moslem holy war.


As Strategic Forecasting wrote in its February 13, 2002, intelligence briefing, the so-called Indonesia Island Agreement recently signed won’t halt religious clashes, stating the “Rival Christian and Moslem factions in Indonesia’s Molucca Islands signed a peace agreement Feb. 12, 2002. But given the highly volatile conditions, there is little reason to believe the violence will end any time soon.”

This gets to my previous point, ultimately the religious leaders have to agree to stop the fighting, and this creates an opportunity for the government to help ensure the peace through better governance.

[Bob's World]

Bill,

You are an ideolog. I won't cure that.

I give you rigor, and you dismiss it. I give you common sense, and you dismiss it.

This is why ideology works. It blinds one to the facts before their face.

If we focus on governance and oppression there are cures to conflicts that history bears out. If we focus on ideology there are no cures. Governments being challenged by popular uprising tend to disparage their challengers and to blame causation on anything other than their own governance. This is what politicians do.

I'll let you all enjoy your pity party on this thread. There is no profit to be made in jumping on the "ideology made them do it" band wagon - or in trying to steer that band wagon onto a path actually based on fact.

[carl]

I think this is the key to ultimately quelling the violence in these sectarian conflicts. However, I don't think "we" should or can empower them. How much money does it take? How much money did Martin Luther King need to start a movement? Different issue, but I don't think credible voices need a lot of money. We're not talking about buying air time and putting out propaganda that will fall flat to begin with, especially if the audience thinks we support it.

We can't resolve their religious conflict anymore than we can mandate a peace between Israel and Palestine. We may be able to help mitigate it, and we can certainly target the actors that threaten us, but I suspect this will be a long fight.

I think there are some things we can do, not big dramatic 'Operation Yanks to the Rescue' type things, but there are things. For example, if Mr. Obama or various governors to take note of Muslims who oppose the takfiiri killers and publicly honor them, that would be a good thing. Honorary degrees are good things. Things like that are useful. If a Hollywood producer took note of it, on his own without gov prompting, that would be a great thing. We should publicly recognize these people and their bravery. It is wrong that PC makes us afraid to do that. They are not afraid and their lives are actually at risk.

Also perhaps we could, on the qt, expand what we consider to be the 'us' that we will act to defend against threats. That might be helpful also. For example, if the people who shot Malala were to be found mysteriously dead in the street one day, I think bit by bit, that would be good.

Your ultimate point is good though, we can't do it, they will have to. But I think there are things we can do to help.

[J Singh]

When the 'oppressed' are demanding a state on theological formulations what secular grievance would one suggest government focus upon (outside the religiously motivated calls for its dismantling and replacement)?

[slapout9]

When the 'oppressed' are demanding a state on theological formulations what secular grievance would one suggest government focus upon (outside the religiously motivated calls for its dismantling and replacement)?

That is an excellent question!

[Red Rat]

Religion is often the primary identifier in conflict, but it is rarely the primary instigator. N Ireland exemplifies this. The drivers are Fear, Honour and Greed (welcome back my old friend Thucydides :wry:), primarily power and resources. The Troubles are focused almost entirely in time and space on deprived urban ghettos on both sides of the sectarian divide. The middle classes in N Ireland may not talk to each other, but they certainly do not fight each other.

I believe that it is an accepted social trend that the more affluent and secure a society is the less religious fervor is apparent. This would seem to link with religion as an identifer and not necessarily an instigator.

The problem in the Middle East at the moment is that religion is seen not just as an identifier but as a solution, and under many of the brands of Islam being marketed, a solution that brooks no compromise (and compromise is the essence of politics).

[Bill Moore]

Religion is often the primary identifier in conflict, but it is rarely the primary instigator. N Ireland exemplifies this. The drivers are Fear, Honour and Greed (welcome back my old friend Thucydides :wry:), primarily power and resources. The Troubles are focused almost entirely in time and space on deprived urban ghettos on both sides of the sectarian divide. The middle classes in N Ireland may not talk to each other, but they certainly do not fight each other.

I believe that it is an accepted social trend that the more affluent and secure a society is the less religious fervor is apparent. This would seem to link with religion as an identifer and not necessarily an instigator.

The problem in the Middle East at the moment is that religion is seen not just as an identifier but as a solution, and under many of the brands of Islam being marketed, a solution that brooks no compromise (and compromise is the essence of politics).

I think we risk misleading ourselves when we use Northern Ireland as a paradigm for what we're seeing in Muslim lands. This gets back to cherry picking an example of religious conflict (in this case it is actually is a political power conflict) to fit the proposal that governance is the fix.

If you look at other examples, oppressive governance has been effective in suppressing violence between sects (Indonesia, Iraq, Syria, Yugoslavia, etc.), but when the oppressive government loses the means to oppress (by whatever means) we often see sectarian conflict. Other forms of governance that don't discriminate, provide opportunity for all, etc. also seem to work if they can get to the left of the problem. I'm not aware of any historical examples, where changes in government policy (other than oppressive) have resolved deep rooted religious conflicts without religious leaders (civil society) mutually agreeing to stop the violence.

Bob is calling the kettle black in my opinion, the ideologues in the U.S. were the neo-conservatives who pushed for regime change in Iraq, Afghanistan, and hoped for more regime changes in the Middle East during the Arab Spring in the belief that if democratic governments were installed peace would break out throughout the land. Wolfowitz dismissed the potential for religious strife in Iraq, and the civil war that erupted between Sunnis and Shia has spread throughout the region. While I respect Bob's views, and I think they will ultimately play an important role in the ultimate solution, I don't think you focus on government while excluding the reality of religion's impact.

Yes Bob despite your excessive arrogance in tone, I actually agree with much of what you write. The problem is it is not complete.

[jcustis]

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2014/07/16/Jordan-s-Abu-Qatada-says-caliphate-declaration-void-.html


Radical cleric Abu Qatada, who is being tried on terror charges in Jordan, on Tuesday denounced as "void" the declaration of a caliphate by Sunni jihadists in Iraq and Syria.

"The announcement of a caliphate by the Islamic State (IS) is void and meaningless because it was not approved by jihadists in other parts of the world," Abu Qatada wrote in a 21-page document published on jihadist websites.

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), which has been fighting in neighbouring Syria and Iraq, on June 29 proclaimed a "caliphate" straddling both countries and headed by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who now calls himself Caliph Ibrahim.

"This group does not have the authority to rule all Muslims and their declaration applies to no-one but themselves," said Abu Qatada.

"Its threats to kill opponents, sidelining of other groups and violent way of fighting opponents constitute a great sin, reflecting the reality of the group," wrote the Palestinian-born preacher.

Abu Qatada, who has repeatedly criticised the Islamic State, urged other Muslims against joining the Sunni jihadist group.

"They are merciless in dealing with other jihadists. How would they deal with the poor, the weak and other people?"

Jordan's jihadist movement is generally dominated by anti-IS groups that support Al-Qaeda and its Syrian ally, Al-Nusra Front.

Abu Qatada's statement came after leading Jordanian jihadist ideologist Issam Barqawi, known as Abu Mohammed al-Maqdessi, denounced the declaration of the caliphate on July 2.

Once mentor to Iraq's now slain Al-Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, before the two fell out over ideological differences, Maqdessi told the IS to "reform yourselves, repent and stop killing Muslims and distorting religion."

Abu Qatada, who was deported from Britain in July 2013 after a 10-year legal battle, was acquitted last month of plotting a 1999 attack on the American school in Amman.

But he remained in prison, facing another terror charge of plotting to attack tourists in Jordan during millennium celebrations.

Agreed on the differences between N. Ireland and the current fractures in Islam. Two totally different times, places, circumstances, and underlying causes. Protestant or Catholic was just a bumper sticker.

[Red Rat]

I think we risk misleading ourselves when we use Northern Ireland as a paradigm for what we're seeing in Muslim lands. This gets back to cherry picking an example of religious conflict (in this case it is actually is a political power conflict) to fit the proposal that governance is the fix.

Sort of agree. :wry: N Ireland is not the Middle East and the dynamics are very different, but in both cases the dynamics are in my opinion primarily not religious.



If you look at other examples, oppressive governance has been effective in suppressing violence between sects (Indonesia, Iraq, Syria, Yugoslavia, etc.), but when the oppressive government loses the means to oppress (by whatever means) we often see sectarian conflict. Other forms of governance that don't discriminate, provide opportunity for all, etc. also seem to work if they can get to the left of the problem. I'm not aware of any historical examples, where changes in government policy (other than oppressive) have resolved deep rooted religious conflicts without religious leaders (civil society) mutually agreeing to stop the violence.

In many sectarian conflicts the great sectarian identifier is religious - but does that make it a religious conflict or a sectarian conflict? I would describe a religious conflict as one being where the primary motivator is a religious requirement. It therefore follows that for some in the Middle East the conflict is religious - they see themselves as under a religious duty to act as they do, but these are the fringe irreconcilables. Most sectarian conflicts in my opinion are over power and resources.

[Bill Moore]

In many sectarian conflicts the great sectarian identifier is religious - but does that make it a religious conflict or a sectarian conflict? I would describe a religious conflict as one being where the primary motivator is a religious requirement. It therefore follows that for some in the Middle East the conflict is religious - they see themselves as under a religious duty to act as they do, but these are the fringe irreconcilables. Most sectarian conflicts in my opinion are over power and resources.

I generally agree with the above, and it is the fringe irreconcilables I have been speaking of for the most part. They are in fact waging a war based on perceived religious duties.

The other conflict is sectarian, and religion is the key identity groups, so again religion plays a role. While the fighting may not be principally over religious reasons, it will take credible religious leaders along with government to get the violence under control. We can't simply ignore an identity group as some seem to be proposing.

Once violence evolves into hatred the political issues are not as important as hatred and fear in driving further violence, which just continues to escalate, at first mindlessly. The opposing religious identity groups are not going to stop the violence simply due to some political changes being implemented, although those changes are probably desperately needed. Governments will have to reach out to credible religious leaders to bring their folks into the peace process.

The only point in all of this is that religion matters, to ignore it completely to hype a particular model, or the desire secular Western approach, is misleading and potentially dangerous as we found out in Iraq.

[J Singh]

A problem with secular shoehorning of grievances is its application in cases where it does not apply. This holds especially apt when dealing with religious motivations involving religions that extent from the mere intrapersonal to the interpersonal (e.g. the organization of society as a whole along religious strictures). Could one engage in insurgency from an ideology of secular deprivation? Sure. Could one engage in insurgency from an ideology of religious commandment? Sure. Understanding 'why they fight' requires understanding their motivations, from their perspective, rather than shoehorning their motivations into what one might wish they were.

As an aside, the whole concept of violence as a method for implementing political change as being 'radical', 'extremist', etc. smacks of epistemological bias.

[Bob's World]

In populace-based, revolutionary conflicts like we are seeing across the greater Middle East in the current decade, "understanding why 'they' fight" is interesting; but I believe it is in understanding why the broader population those fighters rely upon support the fight that is key.

There are many reasons why young men fight. There are many reasons that leaders of fighting organizations use in their public messaging. But these are the tip of the iceberg. The vast majority of the mass behind these types of movements are an aggrieved segment of the population, that like an iceberg, is typically below the surface, not seen, and not well understood.

This is not dissimilar to recognizing that understanding why young men join the Marine Corps is very different than why our national leaders decide to employ the Marine Corps in combat - which in turn is very different than why our nation has a Marine Corps.

Not a perfect analogy, but point is that there are many layers to these things, and the layers that are the most visible and vocal are not of necessity the layers that are the most important to understand and address to move a situation toward some degree of durable stability.

[Bill Moore]

In populace-based, revolutionary conflicts like we are seeing across the greater Middle East in the current decade, "understanding why 'they' fight" is interesting; but I believe it is in understanding why the broader population those fighters rely upon support the fight that is key.

There are many reasons why young men fight. There are many reasons that leaders of fighting organizations use in their public messaging. But these are the tip of the iceberg. The vast majority of the mass behind these types of movements are an aggrieved segment of the population, that like an iceberg, is typically below the surface, not seen, and not well understood.

This is not dissimilar to recognizing that understanding why young men join the Marine Corps is very different than why our national leaders decide to employ the Marine Corps in combat - which in turn is very different than why our nation has a Marine Corps.

Not a perfect analogy, but point is that there are many layers to these things, and the layers that are the most visible and vocal are not of necessity the layers that are the most important to understand and address to move a situation toward some degree of durable stability.

I agree up to a point. I'm not a huge fan of the center of gravity concept, especially Dr. Strange's proposal there is only one COG, and your approach sounds as though you have defined governance/government as the COG, and if we fix government/governance (again, how do we do that?) we will somehow achieve our ends against al-Qaeda.

While agreeing with your general argument about it being multilayered, I probably diverge from your view because I think we have to address all the layers to varying degrees (situation dependent). Where there are major insurgencies, it is unlikely the masses of locals that join that fight are entirely or even primarily motivated by religion. The foreign fighters? Unknown, but at least it is a possibility. Those that crashed planes into the WTC and the Pentagon, they were motivated by religion. The underwear bomber religion, etc. These networks are cleanly divided or easily defined, so multilayered is a good description. Within in these layers are some individuals (hundreds of them) that are highly motivated by religion to do us great harm. In the off chance they acquire a weapon of mass destruction they will be inclined to use it against our citizens because they believe they have the religious mandate to do so. We can't ignore religion, and at the same time we can't solely focus on it.

[slapout9]

Which is why the 4gw concept of a moral,mental,and physical level of war is becoming more important than more traditional forms warfare analysis.

[marct]

As an aside, the whole concept of violence as a method for implementing political change as being 'radical', 'extremist', etc. smacks of epistemological bias.

LOLOL - this is SO true! I would, actually, go further and suggest that it is a case of epistemology being driven by both ideology and sub-conscious cultural programming.

Let's, for the moment and for the sake of argument, take a bit of a step backwards and look at how the concept of "religion" is being (mis)used. I suspect that there are a number of such (mis)uses, namely:

Assuming that a "religion" is coherent and whole
Aussuming that all members of a "religion" or a "sect" share the same beliefs
Disregarding a) how and b) that "new" interpretations of "religions" appear both organically and, also, in response to the lived environment
Mistaking the name for the thing (map - territory error)


I'm just going to comment on the final point, the map - territory error that seems to be happening a lot. One of the problems that I see appearing is that many commentators assume that since the content / name of a group is different, there will be no underlying pattern of human interaction that can be perceived. This, IMHO, is what Bob is looking at in part with his stress on governance: an underlying pattern. My concern with Bob's focus, however, is that it stresses that singular (and secular) pattern too much and, in doing so, creates a secondary bias against pulling out other patterns.

For example, one (blindingly obvious :D) pattern is that people who are recruited into "religious" groups engaged in combat (terrorism being just a tactic within a broader context of combat), generally know very little about their own, professed religion. So, what can we tell from this pattern?

Well, one thing we can draw out of it is that the kids so recruited often tend to leave once they gain more actual knowledge of their religion (unless it is also tied in with a long-term conflict involving other forms of identity, e.g. Northern Ireland). A second thing we find is that these movements tend to centralize control over ideology / "religious" knowledge, something that usually backfires over a longer period of time. A third thing, coming from the second, is that centralized ideology / religious knowledge becomes increasingly narrow (think "politically correct" on steroids) and, also, vicious in application (think "kill them all, God will know his own").

But the pattern I'm talking about here, the "spiral into insanity" as it were, actually is not really counterable by focusing on governance issues. To make matters even worse, the use of "religion", and especially in a state of multiple, competing "religious" groups following the same pattern, will tend to undermine the entire culture areas basic assumptions about legitimacy and sovereignty; at least that was the argument I made in my last WOTR piece (http://warontherocks.com/2014/07/from-magdeburg-to-mosul-iraq-syria-and-the-30-years-war/) ;).

Cheers,

Marc

[Bob's World]

To clarify, when asked to address a problem as a whole, rather than a single niche component of the problem that this thread focuses upon, I offer more comprehensive positions. By focusing my answer on the question I apparently have created the perception that all of those other aspects do not matter. They do.

Still not a comprehensive answer, but to clarify that when I say "governance" I do not mean "government." Equally, when I say the problem is governance, I do not mean that there must be some massive development of institutions or infrastructure, or radical change of form or function to reduce the negative energy in the system. From a paper where I included a section on why we need to shift from objective tactical metrics to more subjective strategic metrics to gain a better sense of if we were helping a place to make true progress:


Tactical definitions and tactical metrics undermine strategic progress: Our doctrinal definitions focus our efforts on the symptoms of insurgency rather than upon the fundamental nature of insurgency. Similarly, our metrics for assessing progress are largely tied to tactical measures of progress. Overtime we have increasingly compromised critical strategic factors in order to maximize our tactical effectiveness. Night Raids are a classic example of this, designed to maximize objective tactical gains, but at the expense of strategic principles. Sums of tactical gains do not equal strategic success.
Recommendation: Reframe the entire operation to promote the following perceptions: sovereignty – is governance IAW the expectations of the affected populations; legitimacy – do the affected populations recognize the right of this governance to affect them; justice – how do the people feel about the rule of law as applied to them; respect – do people feel they are treated equally to similarly situated populations more closely aligned with governance; lastly, empowerment – do people across the population perceive they have trusted, certain, legal and culturally relevant means to shape the governance that affects them. These are subjective and in the perspective of those affected.



When sides from along religious lines, and one side aligned with governance perceives themselves to have these things, and those not aligned with governance perceive themselves to not have these things, it sets the stage for a far more exploitable, passionate, and ruthless form of conflict than when the lines are not based in religion.


As to the role of the military, be that the military of some intervening power or that of the host nation, I offered this in another paper:


• Engage the threat: There are limits to the positive effects military activity can provide. Too much or too inappropriate and one is likely to add negative energy to the system, rather than take energy away. One must design and conduct tactical actions for strategic effect. The military also provides a critical supporting role to civil governance in three important ways as it works to indirectly reduce the negative energy in the system:
o Mitigate the negative impacts of poor governance and TCO/VEO activities on relevant populations
o Temporarily suppress or disrupt the symptoms of the threat (networks, activities, individuals, etc.)
o Create time and space for civil authorities to act directly to reduce the energy in the ecosystem

[Bill Moore]

To clarify, when asked to address a problem as a whole, rather than a single niche component of the problem that this thread focuses upon, I offer more comprehensive positions.

Threads tend to deep dive on a particular topic, but I see no indication that anyone posting here is advocating that it is all about religion and nothing else matters.

While you may offer more comprehensive positions, you don't offer realistic comprehensive solutions. You offer ideas that our government doesn't support such as the division of Iraq. I tend to agree that may be the best answer, but we really don't know if it will work, or if it is in our interests to allow this. Recommendations to be valuable have to be in line with policy guidance.

Legitimacy is certainly an issue, but it will seldom be an answer to addressing conflicts where there are multiple versions of what legitimacy is. Most of the violence is over identity groups attempting to establish their version of a legitimate government.

[Bob's World]

Bill, strategic understanding is only politically correct by coincidence.

Tactical action is politically correct by design.

Besides, neither you nor I know what our government's plan is for Iraq. But if one simply assesses the facts with an open mind it looks like the Balkanization of Iraq and Syria is the one thing that the Gulf States, Turkey, the US, and probably Iran, Israel, Russia, and most others seem to tacitly agree upon in a long time.

[slapout9]

Bill, strategic understanding is only politically correct by coincidence.

Tactical action is politically correct by design.

Besides, neither you nor I know what our government's plan is for Iraq. But if one simply assesses the facts with an open mind it looks like the Balkanization of Iraq and Syria is the one thing that the Gulf States, Turkey, the US, and probably Iran, Israel, Russia, and most others seem to tacitly agree upon in a long time.

Which is the whole problem of a politically correct anything, it destorts reality by design in order to avoid coming to a proper conclusion based upon the facts of reality as opposed to some preconceived notion of how things should be based upon some political agi-prop.

[Bill Moore]

Bill, strategic understanding is only politically correct by coincidence.

Tactical action is politically correct by design.

Besides, neither you nor I know what our government's plan is for Iraq. But if one simply assesses the facts with an open mind it looks like the Balkanization of Iraq and Syria is the one thing that the Gulf States, Turkey, the US, and probably Iran, Israel, Russia, and most others seem to tacitly agree upon in a long time.

Bob, I wish it was that simple, strategic understanding is biased by political correctness and a lot of other factors involving the individuals seeking that understanding. Action may or not be politically correct. Some would argue using drones to kill U.S. citizens in Yemen may not have been politically correct.

As for dividing Iraq, there was a recent statement made by either the President or his Press secretary that the U.S. policy was to support a united Iraq. That policy could change in time, but we all are aware of another situation where division of a country was supposed to lead a better peace, and that was UK's division of India to include West and East Pakistan. The actual division of the country resulted in up to a million killed during the migrations to one side or the other. Then it resulted in several wars, and still they have border skirmishes and are one of the more likely locations for a nuclear weapon exchange. Dividing the country won't be easy, and it will be most likely be very violent, so I'm not sure Turkey or any other country in the region wants to see a divided Iraq.

Interesting report from CSIS

http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/060501_dividingiraq.pdf

Dividing Iraq: Think Long and Hard First


Recent elections have made it clear, however, that its cities and 18
governorates all have significant minorities, and any effort to divide the country would require massive relocations.

Moreover, Iraq is heavily urbanized, with nearly 40% of the population in the
divided Baghdad and Mosul areas. Kirkuk is already a powder keg, and Basra is
the subject of Shi’ite Islamist “cleansing.” Ulster and the Balkans have already
shown how difficult it is to split cities, and with Iraq’s centralized and failing
infrastructure, and impoverished economy, violence and economics cannot be
separated.

[Bob's World]

Surely our government would not say one thing and do, support or wish very hard for another?? (tongue firmly in cheek).

I really don't know, but sure looks like letting the current governments hold onto some portion where the majority is more autonomous (and the minorities too small and weak to cause much trouble) is what is most likely to occur. it will be messy, and while it may take a generation or two, is probably the best bet for getting to some degree of trust and natural stability for all of the many and diverse people of this region

In shah Allah. And if the Sunnis want to call their portion a "Caliphate," more power to them. Better to have a tangible Caliphate that is a small, weak state on the west banks of the Euphrates - than to retain the Caliphate as a powerful, unifying idea in the minds of frustrated young Sunni men.

As to the state of Iraq clumsily cobbled together by the US, it no longer exists. We will make the same mistake we made in Lebanon in the early 80s if we think this is still a national government and national security force and attempt to prop them up. This is now quickly becoming a de facto Shia government and Shia militia. To go in now is to take a side, and that does not serve our interests now any more than creating the perception that we were Christian Americans siding with Christian Maranites did then.

[Dayuhan]

As for dividing Iraq, there was a recent statement made by either the President or his Press secretary that the U.S. policy was to support a united Iraq. That policy could change in time, but we all are aware of another situation where division of a country was supposed to lead a better peace, and that was UK's division of India to include West and East Pakistan. The actual division of the country resulted in up to a million killed during the migrations to one side or the other. Then it resulted in several wars, and still they have border skirmishes and are one of the more likely locations for a nuclear weapon exchange. Dividing the country won't be easy, and it will be most likely be very violent, so I'm not sure Turkey or any other country in the region wants to see a divided Iraq.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that "we" (however "we" might be constructed) should divide Iraq. It's not a question of Iraq being divided by some outside party or parties, more a matter of outside parties accepting the reality that Iraq is in the process of dividing itself. It is of course true that this process is violent and will get more violent, but I don't see what anyone is supposed to do about it, short of a decision to either run Iraq as a de facto colony or to install a new dictator and provide that dictator with enough armed force to hold it together.

Dissolution was a predictable and widely predicted consequence of removing Saddam, so there's really no need for affectations of surprise at the outcome.

[Bill Moore]

Dayuhan,

It isn't rocket science, we (to include other states who take an interest in this) have a number of tools to support the central government and weaken opposition parties who desire to break away. We, along with other states, have a long history of supporting governments that some parties would have desired to break away from, but due to foreign assistance the governments were too strong to challenge.

With the exception of the Kurds, I haven't heard any other group express a desire to further divide Iraq. Has anyone heard Sunnis and Shia agreeing on a potential division of Iraq? If the Kurds control the northern oil fields and the Shia the southern oil fields, what does that leave for the Sunni?

I really don't think dividing Iraq into three separate states will work upon further consideration for a lot of reasons. Maybe promoting and enabling an independent Kurdistan would be in our interest.

[carl]

In shah Allah. And if the Sunnis want to call their portion a "Caliphate," more power to them. Better to have a tangible Caliphate that is a small, weak state on the west banks of the Euphrates - than to retain the Caliphate as a powerful, unifying idea in the minds of frustrated young Sunni men.
.

Why would the one preclude the other? It seems to me the weak state does not preclude the unifying idea at all. In fact its very existence gives that idea something tangible to coalesce around. Frustrated young might rather like something tangible to fight for. And weak states can develop into strong ones. This one is already strong enough to take over large parts of two countries and stand off forces from the Baghdad gov and Iran.

[Dayuhan]

It isn't rocket science, we (to include other states who take an interest in this) have a number of tools to support the central government and weaken opposition parties who desire to break away. We, along with other states, have a long history of supporting governments that some parties would have desired to break away from, but due to foreign assistance the governments were too strong to challenge.

I'm not sure there is a viable "central government" at this stage. There's a Shi'a government that claims to be a central government, but despite very prodigious foreign assistance it cannot control much of it's nominal territory. I think the reality that we don't want to face is that there are only two ways that a central government is going to control Iraq. One would be through genuine inclusion and cooperation, a lovely idea that neither we nor anyone else can impose. The other is Saddam's style, which is probably no longer possible. We attempted the first method, and (predictably) failed. In the process we broke down the dictatorial apparatus so thoroughly that it probably can't be reconstituted. How long do we keep doubling down and trying to put Humpty Dumpty together again before we recognize that it's no longer our decision to make?


With the exception of the Kurds, I haven't heard any other group express a desire to further divide Iraq. Has anyone heard Sunnis and Shia agreeing on a potential division of Iraq? If the Kurds control the northern oil fields and the Shia the southern oil fields, what does that leave for the Sunni?

Of course the Sunni and Shi'a don't want division. They both want the whole thing, but neither has the capacity to take the whole thing. This is not going to be settled by people sitting down at a table and deciding on a polite division. They will kill each other until either there's a winner and a loser or they get too tired to keep fighting and agree on a division out of exhaustion.

The Sunni of course will be left with not much, though ISIS has apparently taken (and may or may not be able to keep) some of the northern fields in the Mosul area. If Iraq is ever stable enough for serious exploration it's very possible that oil will be found in Sunni areas, but that's not likely any time soon.


I really don't think dividing Iraq into three separate states will work upon further consideration for a lot of reasons. Maybe promoting and enabling an independent Kurdistan would be in our interest.

Certainly an externally imposed division wouldn't work. The process just needs to play out; we may have started it but it's no longer under our control and the Iraqis are going to have to work it out for themselves. It's not going to be pretty.

[Bill Moore]

https://news.vice.com/video/rockets-and-revenge-dispatch-7

These Jews put the Torah over the state. A very interesting video, well worth watching to capture the atmospherics of the settlers.

[Red Rat]

Pertinent tweet from an Islamic State (IS) affiliated Twitter account.

The context of the conversation was comment on IS nascent air capabilities and their probable lack of necessary logistical support. An unsolicited response received was (verbatim):

"we taught u u a lesson in how a trained Heart doesn't fail. Unfortunately u didnt pass"

Clearly for many in IS this is a religious war, which to my mind puts the political dynamic closer to that which the Israelis perceive in their dealings with Hamas. This is not a battlespace (political or military) which the West appears comfortable in dealing with. As Alastair Campbell said with regards to the then British Prime Minister Tony Blair: "We don't do God".

[TheCurmudgeon]

Pertinent tweet from an Islamic State (IS) affiliated Twitter account.

The context of the conversation was comment on IS nascent air capabilities and their probable lack of necessary logistical support. An unsolicited response received was (verbatim):

"we taught u u a lesson in how a trained Heart doesn't fail. Unfortunately u didnt pass"

Clearly for many in IS this is a religious war, which to my mind puts the political dynamic closer to that which the Israelis perceive in their dealings with Hamas. This is not a battlespace (political or military) which the West appears comfortable in dealing with. As Alastair Campbell said with regards to the then British Prime Minister Tony Blair: "We don't do God".

It is not that we "don't do God", western states cannot legitimize a religious war. We can legitimize a war for freedom. Freedom is what we are willing to fight and die for. We can replace oppression with freedom. It is harder to replace religion with freedom. I would argue that it is impossible to do by an outside source.

The result is that we are fighting two different conflicts, almost fighting past each other. Western states with their quasi-religious belief in freedom as the cure for all political ills and groups like ISIS who use religion to legitimize both their war and their rule. In any case, the result is a war without end, because we can never control the ultimate battle space, the support of the population if our aim is to give them freedom. Freedom does not include forcing them to give up or modify their religious beliefs.

The ultimate result is war without end ... at least as long as you see force as a way to de-ligitimize religion and "impose" freedom. There are things that have to occur from within.

Which brings me around to my questions/comment. The only countries that currently attempt to impose freedom are countries with a judo-christian history. I could argue that Christianity is a "individualistic" religion in that each individual is capable to reaching salvation based on their own individual life choices (depending on which parts of the bible one consults). Does that matter?