Uncle Sam Wants U.S. Muslims to Serve
27 December Christian Science Monitor - Uncle Sam Wants U.S. Muslims to Serve by Richard Whittle.
Quote:
As US troops battle Islamic extremists abroad, the Pentagon and the armed forces are reaching out to Muslims at home.
An underlying goal is to interest more Muslims in the military, which needs officers and troops who can speak Arabic and other relevant languages and understand the culture of places like Iraq and Afghanistan. The effort is also part of a larger outreach. Pentagon officials say they are striving for mutual understanding with Muslims at home and abroad and to win their support for US war aims. Among the efforts to attract and retain Muslim cadets...
A good idea on paper but.....
I'm not sold on this idea. It sounds like another knee jerk reaction, akin to opening military recruiting stations in overseas countries. It is rife with potential, serious issues, all of them obvious.
I agree that putting a muslim face on our efforts in both theaters should be a top priority, but to me it isn't worth taking this risk.
I dislike stereotyping as much as anyone else. But untill we have a deeper understanding of Islam I think it is a brutal fact of reality that all muslims are suspect. It seems to me that we should stick to hiring muslims as Department of Defense Civilians, contractors and the like. I'm reminded of the fragging that the 101st experienced and I wonder, how can a devout muslim justify serving in a western military in operations against fellow muslims? For now, I think that we should keep muslims at arms length.
Once the enemy is inside the wire, the damage they can do is disasterous, and it's hard to root them out.
The speaker is more important than the message
I see our Muslim population as a potential asset, not a threat. It is a population that we (non-Muslim Americans) can either alienate and turn into a threat, or one that we can treat as fellow Americans. The second option has obvious strategic IO value, because it shows the world we're walking or talk. If we choose the first option, we'll give the Al Qaeda Network an IO weapon the equivalent of a Nuclear weapon. I had the opportunity to work with numerous Muslim Americans since 9/11, and they put their lives on the line like the rest of us for their country. They love their country, and many are looking for an opportunity to serve despite the current wave of bias.
A Muslim America speaking about the virtue of freedom and democracy in Afghanistan or Iraq brings a lot more credibility to the message, than a red headed farm boy from Kansas. Of course there will be risks, and some penetrations. That is the nature of the game, just as the KGB occassionally penetrated our CIA, FBI, and military intelligence, but the risk is definitely worth the potential gain. Just what exactly will they compromise anyway?
The real battlefield isn't physical turf, but it is a battle over minds. In this case we're ultimately talking about the interpretation of the Koran and Islam. If American Muslims could have a moderating effect on the radical Muslim voice, that would have much more strategic impact than deploying additional Brigades into the fray. If we're only going to fight at the physical level, and not use the IO realm, then we're only left with options that much more draconian.
Good White Christian Americans
Yes there were those traitors, along with these (and many, many more not so famous):
Aldrich Ames (probably the worst)
Robert Hanssen
John Walker
Ronald Pelton
Jane Fonda
The list goes on, and none of these folks were special, on the other hand we assume some risk by recruiting Muslims and in return stand to reap great gains. Furthermore, unless someone is a position of great trust there is very little they can compromise in the information age that is beyond limited tactical information.
I'm not convinced we shouldn't pursue this option.
We'll just have to disagree
Rock I have always respected your posts, whether I agree or not, and this is one time I don't concur with your logic. In the end you may turn out to be right, but I (as if I have a vote) would be willing to accept that risk, as long as it is mitigated with the appropriate counterintelligence background checks and measures.
Osama Bin Laden has attempted to define this war as the world against Islam, and Islam against the rest of the world. Some of the posts I have seen here indicate we as a nation have took his bait hook, line and sinker. This whole conflict is about perception, and the perception I see is we're running scared of anyone who is Muslim. This is dangerous to us, not AQ. This attitude could force the "vast majority" of Muslims worldwide who are not on AQ's side to find areas of agreement. I remind you that Dearborn, MI is not in flames, unlike Paris was, and Paris of course is a proponent of penalizing Muslims with bias, job discrimination, etc. Paris created an Army for the Islamists to exploit.
Selil, I don't find it unusal at all to seek out required skills in recruits. Good corporations do it, the CIA, the FBI, and a multitude of other organizations focus their recruiting efforts based on their needs (not PC, but needs). I think most of us accept that we're working in complex human terrain, and in the current war we need people who can speak the language, understand the religion, and help us collectively shape perceptions. It would it find it strange if we didn't focus on recruiting "vetted" Muslims. Actually I would find it criminal.
I'll let this one go for awhile, I personally hope cooler heads prevail at the decision level.
Re: Points That SSG Rock & Jedburgh Made
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SSG Rock
I'm not sold on this idea. It sounds like another knee jerk reaction, akin to opening military recruiting stations in overseas countries. It is rife with potential, serious issues, all of them obvious.
I agree that putting a muslim face on our efforts in both theaters should be a top priority, but to me it isn't worth taking this risk.
I dislike stereotyping as much as anyone else. But untill we have a deeper understanding of Islam I think it is a brutal fact of reality that all muslims are suspect. It seems to me that we should stick to hiring muslims as Department of Defense Civilians, contractors and the like. I'm reminded of the fragging that the 101st experienced and I wonder, how can a devout muslim justify serving in a western military in operations against fellow muslims? For now, I think that we should keep muslims at arms length.
Once the enemy is inside the wire, the damage they can do is disasterous, and it's hard to root them out.
Having read Vasili Mitrokhin's "The Sword & The Shield" & "The World Was Going Our Way", I'm reminded of the relative ease by which the KGB "turned" DOD civilians, contractors and "the like". Far more contractors were traitors than soldiers, their sense of honor and camaraderie being far less than that of those in uniform.
This leads me to lean towards Jedburgh's observation of "spy vs. spy" when reading about the numerous "Muslim" traitors. Money, ego & pride, blackmail, these would seem to the real factors, Islam normally just being a "front".
Imagine also the number of potential traitors within our midst working for the Saudis (special relationship and all those petro dollars, combined with the paranoia the Saudis have always had about us only heightened by some of anti-Saudi rhetoric after 9/11).
A "but" regarding that first of methods Jedburgh mentioned: nationalism (and tribal identity of a sort). While underway last summer during the Israeli-Hezbollah mess, I sought out the reactions of three sailors of Lebanese descent I knew of and found them intensely angry with the US and the military for backing Israel, especially once the IDF started hitting Lebanese infrastructure like the airport, bridges and seaports (ostensibly to prevent resupplying of Hezbollah). No Islam involved, all three of them were Christians. IMHO, their sense of betrayal and disapointment at what they viewed as US heavy-handedness could have made them optimal targets for intelligence operators.
The US will of course need to be wary when supporting our "friends" and "allies" actions that take sides in long-running disputes and cause substantial suffering among civilians and/or infrastructure. As a nation of immigrants, the blowback could well be substantial and be from within.
Not traitors to what their loyal to
Eddie, good points, and one I want to expand on briefly. One result of globalization is multinational corporations (even Ford claims to be a MN, not a U.S. Company). Some MN companies have extensive political sway in different parts of the world, and if it benefited them to see a particular group win a conflict, even if it wasn't in synch with U.S. interests, would they try to influence the situation to benefit the Company? I think it has been done before, but I need to research it. Assuming they are U.S. citizens, are they traitors, or rather are they part of the new global community, and their primary loyality goes to their Company? Spy versus spy threats are no longer restricted to State versus State. Is this any different than a large Company donating money to both the Democrats and Republicans to cover all their bases? Of course it is, but in concept it isn't.
Speaking of finding muslims to take an anti terror stand?
Stumbeld upon this website and thought it worth posting here for all to take a gander. This organization seems to be organized, but I've never heard of them. I thought some of their articles were interesting because they approach it from the peaceful muslim living in America perspective. I think I'll give it some of my time for awhile.