Radical Islamist Ideologies and The Long War
IFPA, Jan 07: Radical Islamist Ideologies and the Long War: Implications for U.S. Strategic Planning and U.S. Central Command's Operations
Quote:
...In many respects, this Long War can be portrayed as a struggle between modernity and tradition, between Western cultures and values and Islam’s rejection of individual rights over the greater welfare of society, although it is not as simple as that. While it is not necessarily the clash of civilizations of which much has been written, the new jihadists certainly are seeking to make it one, by attracting moderate Muslim support for actions designed to bring the United States and its coalition allies to their knees, defeated in Iraq and Afghanistan, expelled from the Persian Gulf, and witness to the destruction of Israel. As such, the political, strategic, and operational challenges facing the United States in the global struggle against radical jihadists are twofold: on the one hand, Washington and its coalition partners must contain and, if possible, defeat the terrorists on the “battlefield” (both on the virtual battlefield of the Internet and on the ground in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Horn of Africa, and other hotspots where they operate), but, on the other hand, they must also develop and communicate a credible message to the broader Muslim community that can help to de-legitimize the jihadists’ arguments and diminish their appeal. What is needed, in other words, is a better blend of hard and soft power to isolate, disrupt, and, when/where possible, destroy extremist networks, and to create lasting divides between the jihadistst and non-jihadistst Islamic communities....
...and a closely related doc:
Rethinking the War on Terror: Developing a Strategy to Counter Extremist Ideologies
Quote:
On January 10, 2007, the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis (IFPA) convened an expert level workshop designed to help U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) devise a strategy to counter the arguments of the radical Islamists and to undermine their appeal to susceptible Muslim audiences around the world. Focusing on the nature of the ideological challenge that the radicals represent, participants explored the ideological underpinnings of current-day radical Islamist movements and factors that contribute to the radicalization process of individuals. There was, in this regard, extensive debate about the centrality of religion to radical Islamist ideology, with many participants convinced that while religion is an important motivator in the radicalization process, it is also being used to legitimate a very specific worldview that has been shaped by many factors external to Islam, but that impinge on Muslim views of Islam’s place in the 21st century world. Over and above specific grievances, many Muslims express a general sense of anger and humiliation (into which radical Islamists can tap) in reaction to events of foreign origin over which they have no control, but which are viewed as impacting their daily lives in a negative fashion. At the same time, domestic problems in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and other Muslim countries can feed that dissatisfaction and engender support for extremism, as has the push for autonomy and independence in such areas as Kosovo, Kashmir, and Chechnya. The main point here is that while we face a global, transnational extremist movement, it is one that is often triggered and fed by local conditions and difficulties that have little to do the West per se, and about which we must become far better informed....
The battle of Legitimacy Theirs vs Ours
You mention that religion is central to their fight. Hasn' t this remained a key component since the death of the prophet. This has caused a great deal of controversy between Sunnis and Shi'a (internally) and problematic between Muslims and Non-Muslims (Externally). The Salafists desire a return to the Golden age of Islam when they were in charge and will justify any activity (suicide bombers/death of innocents) to get to that goal. The building of coalitions is needed and the will to apply force (killing to the denial of sanctuaries) will be what wins this long war.
Warning - soap box rant....
Hi Tempest1,
I'm going to play semantician here for a second - specifically about the term "fundamentalist". This is a word that has seen a significant shift in meaning over the past 100 years, and that shift is causing all sorts of problems right now. The general, "pop culture" meaning attached to the term is, bluntly, totally wrong and highly derogatory - it implies that a "fundamentalist" is an unthinking robot who is too "stupid" (or kept in willful ignorance by a manipulating clergy) to think for themselves.
I would argue that analytically, we need go back to the original meaning of the term. In English, the term derives from someone who personally chose to ascribe to the basic or "fundamental" tenets of Christian theology outlined in a work entitled the Fundamentals of the Christian Faith (1913 I believe). Given the generally Protestant tenor of the work, it required people to think quite a bit about their beliefs. A fundamentalist, stripping away the Christianocentric component is, therefore, a person who has studied their religion, has made an informed choice to accept it and, most importantly, is someone who takes it seriously. Defining someone as a "fundamentalist" solely because they oppose a socio-political system is useless for analytic purposes since it confuses the strength of a persons' convictions with the content of those convictions.
Having said that (okay, "ranted on a soap box" :D), what do we get if we use the older meaning? Well, first off, we get a totally different insight into how the mind of a believer (to rip off Hoffer's term) works. We also get a totally different insight into both where and how the "battle" needs to be conducted. Put simply, it means that we need to conduct a large part of our combat in terms that are internal to Islam - which is, after all, one of Jim Guirard's main points.
On to your categories and off the semantics soap box, I think you have a really good categorization scheme in terms of political attitude and social contracts.
Marc