The Internet: A Portal to Violent Islamist Extremism
Russian Intelligence Says Internet Helps Terrorists
From Russia's Daily Online Kommersant: Chief of staff of the National Antiterrorist Committee Vladimir Bulavin called the Internet an aid to terrorists and criminals.
Quote:
At a working meeting between the special services of Russia and Azerbaijan, Bulavin stated, “We have a common headache and misfortune. That's the Internet, which was probably thought up by the world community for the better, in its own way, but has, unfortunately, turned into an encyclopedia and aid for terrorists and bandit elements.” Bulavin said that the Russian and Azeri special services discussed how to fight that phenomenon.
“Even on the bilateral level, we cannot defeat that phenomenon,” Bulavin said. “Therefore, we intend to introduce the issue at the meeting of the
FSB of Russia with its foreign partners, which will take place in September 2007 in Khabarovsk. Representatives of almost 90 enforcement agencies from 59 countries will take part in that meeting.
Bulavin also stated that the special services of Russia and Azerbaijan discussed joint action to counter international terrorism, guaranteeing the security of electricity- and heat-generating facilities, cooperation at the border, informational security and personnel training.
An Internet Jihad Sells Extremism to Viewers in the U.S.
"When Osama bin Laden issued his videotaped message to the American people last month, a young jihad enthusiast went online to help spread the word.
The global jihad is as close as YouTube, which features videos like an ode to suicide attacks, a message 'to black Americans' from a bin Laden lieutenant, and an Iraq insurgency promotional message.
'America needs to listen to Shaykh Usaamah very carefully and take his message with great seriousness,' he wrote on his blog. 'America is known to be a people of arrogance.'
Unlike Mr. bin Laden, the blogger was not operating from a remote location. It turns out he is a 21-year-old American named Samir Khan who produces his blog from his parents’ home in North Carolina, where he serves as a kind of Western relay station for the multimedia productions of violent Islamic groups..."
Personally, I think the United States ought to consider armed intervention in North Carolina. If we could somehow turn it into a democracy, it could spark further democratization in the region. And that would undercut this sort of support for terrorism.
But seriously, this is one more example of how information technology has altered the strategic landscape by blurring the distinctions between fantasy and reality in the minds of delusional young males. I still believe we are approaching a time when the United States will be forced to treat people from terrorism-producing states like Pakistan and the Arab world as we did those from the Eastern Bloc during the Cold War, i.e. as requiring special control and surveillance.
Killin's too good for him....
The fine line between free speech and providing aid and comfort to the enemy has been crossed. I've always been a fan of deportation. The "black Chinook" needs to be sent out to get this guy.
Our legal system simply doesn't have a mechanism for dealing with these types of people. Are they enemy collaborators or are they simply voicing their opinions? Either way, they bear watching at the very least.
There's repression, and then there's publicity
Quote:
Originally Posted by
wm
It becomes tough to advocate for and defend liberal democracy around the globe when one is repressing its tenets at home.
I couldn't agree more, and certainly don't advocate heading down the slippery slope to suppressing 1st Amendment rightts. If we go that direction, somebody might decide that SWJ needs to be suppressed.
That being said, if his overt support for terrorists was made widely known in his hometown, his life might be a bit less pleasant. If all of your neighbors know what that you're openly advocating the armed overthrow of their government and destruction of their society, they might not be too friendly.
Not more virtuous, but not less...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tequila
I'd argue that the Civil War era which you cited before was a time of extremely low social cohesion, so much so that the Union itself split apart and significant portions of the population in both North & South were actively disloyal or aggressively nonparticipatory in the war itself. The WWII era had a much higher degree of social cohesion, but that was also a function of the industrial economy and its subsidiary, national conscription.
The WWII era was not more virtuous than today. It was vastly less egalitarian and unequal politically, saw violent and aggressive disenfranchisement of large segments of the American population, and from a purely military standpoint oversaw enormous incompetence and disasters which were either covered up or disregarded in the name of national morale...
I agree with everything quoted above, though I suspect that if we both begin from this starting point, we will arrive at different conclusions. In the WWII era, many Americans did not see themselves as part of civil society. They wanted to be included and in this quest they endured injustices that few of us would tolerate today, being shunned due to their ethnicity or other unjust reasons. Today, an equal or larger proportion of America is unconcerned with membership, with some actively rejecting civil society.
If one does not care one way or the other about inclusion in civil society, then it is difficult for that person to place much importance on the outcome of battles that the society enters into (in other words, “militant Islamists hate America, not me”). He is susceptible to being persuaded to support or not support the battle for reasons that are disconnected from the benefits of success or the costs of failure (In other words, this argument can sound logical: “lots of teens with no other economic opportunities in life than to join the Army are dying in Iraq, therefore we should end this war”).
If one actively rejects and opposes the society around him, then that person is likely to seek to rally opposition to the battle. His most logical audience, aside from peers, is those who have the least interest in the benefits of winning, such as the personality above.
The (thankfully) modal American personality sees himself as a member of civil society, sees that he has a shared stake in the outcome of a battle, and is susceptible to persuasive arguments connected to the benefits of success or costs of failure or inaction. And there are still those among us today who are not members of civil society (residents, aspiring immigrants, etc) but who seek inclusion into society and hold the sense of a shared stake in the outcome of our battles.
Among those who see themselves as members of civil society or aspire to be part of it, I think that you will be hard-pressed to find many who oppose continuing our efforts in Iraq unless they think that failure is inevitable or that there is almost no benefit to succeeding. Contrast this with the rhetoric of the most vocal among those who reject or abstain from our civil society: Bush lied, Cheney is an evil oil baron, 4,000 dead, thousands of Iraqis are being raped and slaughtered by a handful of troops, we’re to blame for al-Qaeda’s actions, et cetera. There is not much evidence that they are concerned with the outcome and its implications for our nation. They are simply offended by the use of force in our national interest and horrified at human suffering, oblivious to the context in which it occurs.
And, just to clarify ahead of time, I do not expect everyone to agree with me, nor would I seek to persuade them by calling them names. I’m pondering the situation, not recommending a course of action. The former must precede the latter. Most of my peers prefer to discuss football and their upcoming PCS, so this forum is a more logical place to have my views challenged so that I can refine or reject them. Hopefully that doesn’t sound like I’m trying to be cute or coy – I do recognize that nutjobs pop up in open forums and purposely “disrupt”, “flame”, or spout extreme views that they have no intention of changing, regardless of the evidence against them. I present my views so that others may pick them apart or validate them.
Schmedlap can put me in the validation box.
While I might quibble around the edges a tiny bit and would add that most Americans are considerably more concerned with US success than they are about the factors cited by those opposed to this war (many to any war...), I think he has it mostly correct.
Errors are made in all wars, tequila cites a few from World War II. There were many more, some more egregious and / or damaging than those named -- Palau comes to mind -- but anything involving humans is highly subject to error and often for very base reasons. That is not going to change. Far more regrettably, a tendency to fail to learn from past mistakes also seems to be a human foible...
I would add that with respect to current operations, there have been errors aplenty -- strategic, operational and tactical -- in high places and one of the most important is the abject failure of this administration to outline its case for Iraq. This is the worst Admin for getting its message out in my memory. :(
I believe that the errors made in WW II and those made today do not negate the necessity of participation in either war.
Actually for most of our history, we've had an
all volunteer professional military; conscription was used briefly only in the Civil War and World War I.
It was reimposed for World War II; intended to be for the war period only. The world was irrevocably changed by WW II and we had become a global power so, for the very first time, the draft was reinstituted in peacetime (1948) after the war and that effectively gave us a quite large standing Army from 1950 until 1973, running about .004 of the population for most of that period with spikes for Korea and Viet Nam (only about seven out of 24) .
From 1973 until 1991, that figure was about .003 -- with no draft.
Compare that to 1930. A 165K Army (including the Army Air Corps) equated to about .0014 of the population. Today with vastly more responsibility it's only about .0017 (with about as many aircraft as has the Air force). That is not a significantly greater number and it doesn't approach the 1950-1991 figure.
I suggest that the deviation in strength and processes is not great and that the real and very significant deviation is the transformation from an inward looking growing nation to a major power with global responsibilities. Given that major change in focus and responsibility -- wanted or not, we have it -- the actual change is miniscule and unavoidable.
The internal US societal changes are, I believe, a different issue that have little bearing on the size and structure of the Army.