You're moving in the right direction
with this:
Quote:
from graphei
Now, let me clarify global insurgency. The Muslim 'ummah (community) does not recognize national boundaries per se. Regardless where they came from, all were part of the dar al-Islam (lit. The House of Submission) and the greater Brotherhood and Sisterhood of Muslims. That is what al-Qaeda and other international groups attempt to tap into especially when they posit us as dar al-Harb (lit. The House of War) where jihad is permitted. While neither dar al-Islam/Harb is mentioned in the Qur'an or Hadith, both appear early on in the fiqh as Islamic rulers sought to justify their expansion theologically.
Keep the "global" and take away "insurgency" and put it on its own special shelf as part of the toolkit.
The modern roadmap for a merger of the concepts of defensive jihad and offensive jihad began with Maududi (Jihad in Islam) in the late 1930s, setting out the need for both the political struggle (appropriately merged with religion - which is dominant) and the military struggle.
He recognized the unity of all Muslims globally as an end goal, despite the backsliding of most of them in his terms.
He also recognized the oil spot concept in using both struggles to create a Salafist governance in one area and spread out from there (not necessarily contiguously).
In his eyes, the Muslim House was corrupt and had to be restored to a pure Salafist state of affairs. To do that, a transnational effort would be needed - in effect waging unconventional warfare using many tools (including support of local insurgencies). That being successful, the Muslim military forces would include both unconventional and conventional elements
After that task is completed, the Non-Muslim House would be brought into the fold - as it is written. The military operations against it would include both unconventional and conventional forces. Victory would ensue from a juncture of the conventional forces attacking from the Muslim House and its unconventional forces operating in the non-Muslim House.
Basically, the "Comintern Plan" + a very strong input of religion.
Regards
Mike
To me these points are important and true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jmm99
with this:
Keep the "global" and take away "insurgency" and put it on its own special shelf as part of the toolkit.
The modern roadmap for a merger of the concepts of defensive jihad and offensive jihad began with Maududi (
Jihad in Islam) in the late 1930s, setting out the need for both the political struggle (appropriately merged with religion - which is dominant) and the military struggle.
He recognized the unity of all Muslims globally as an end goal, despite the backsliding of most of them in his terms.
He also recognized the oil spot concept in using both struggles to create a Salafist governance in one area and spread out from there (not necessarily contiguously).
In his eyes, the Muslim House was corrupt and had to be restored to a pure Salafist state of affairs. To do that, a transnational effort would be needed - in effect waging unconventional warfare using many tools (including support of local insurgencies). That being successful, the Muslim military forces would include both unconventional and conventional elements
After that task is completed, the Non-Muslim House would be brought into the fold - as it is written. The military operations against it would include both unconventional and conventional forces. Victory would ensue from a juncture of the conventional forces attacking from the Muslim House and its unconventional forces operating in the non-Muslim House.
Basically, the "
Comintern Plan" + a very strong input of religion.
Regards
Mike
But I also think they are not what we in the West need to obsess on.
Everytime in history that the Muslim Ummah has come together and torn apart, it has been at swordpoint. Muslim swords building the Caliphate, and Muslim Swords doing much of taking it apart as well.
This is the bright red cape that Bin Laden the Matador would love for you to fixate on and to expend your great sthength in the pursuit of, as he deals us a slow death of a 1000 cuts in the process.
Certainly people in the midldle east look at governance and states very differently than people in the West do. Certainly religion is at the core of governance in Muslim communities. Certainly Muslims seek more to be able to achieve their duty to god than their duty to self than Westerners do.
So, when Muslims seek "self-determination" it is a very different thing that they seek and different motivations that will encourage them to seek it than in the West.
What is seen as Despotism in one society may be seen as enlightened in another. To each their own.
I think the West needs to reflect on how much control we have exerted over the people and governance of the Middle East over the past few hundred years and focus our energies less on how we can keep things there as they are; but rather on how we can enable a relatively peaceful evolution to what they should be. On their terms. Sustain the Ends of our national interests, but take a long hard look at the Ways and Means that have been seen as successful over the years.
The differences in our cultures mean that "right" will look different for them than for us. That's OK.
Them thinking that we are an obstacle to them gettng to "right" is not OK.
When one's state department is more focused on developing CT and COIN capabilities than on developing effective foreign policy and diplomacy, that is a metric that you might be off course.
When the majority of one's military is not in deterrence missions and preparing for war, but is out enforcing foreign policy, that is a metric that you might be off course.
Not saying that we're off course, just that we might be...
The clans, Islam, the secular State, Jihad... a field approach
Dear Madam Graphei
First of all, do not worry; I am sure you will go on field. We all started by being academic before being field people. :)
My use of the words "secular state" to qualify the clan organization (mainly in Somalia) is not the proper term as per say. I agree on that. My point being that the clans, despite having a religious backbone, are a, if I can say so, a universal human organizations/societies primal level. In all places I have been to (Christian/Animist/Muslim…) have the clan as the very core root of people organization to survive. In places like Somalia or Afghanistan where the formal State (as we describe it) has failed, the clans are the same as "villages" in Liberia between 1989 and 2004 or in remote places in DRC or tribes in Chad. It is the smallest structure of human organization. (The term village is abusive also for Liberia and DRC but here I am touching the boundaries of my scholar English).
As Steve reminded us all, the basic rule is: I need to live and feed my family.
In fact, in many places, you can basically witness what I would call the Nietzschean aurora in action.
The construction of organized societies for their self preservation: the defense of the core group of the extended family or what could feet in the classical definition of an ethnic group/tribe: the people with a common ancestor or group of ancestors.
The religion role in politic in such remote places (may be am I wrong with Afghanistan) is a top up. All societies have religion (to respond to too many unsolved question, the first ones being why me and what am I doing here?) and, as Marx stated it, religion is a political body. It's all a question of power, survive but also determine what is right to wrong… Where I am, they all are Christian animist but it is Ok to kill the neighbor to stole his cows and get married. (Not sure the Catholic Church would support that.) But in order to survive and perpetrate the survival of the group, it is morally acceptable.
(Culture comparison has its limits and I accept it. All scholars' fire on me…)
In a practical approach, knowing religious leaders and their personal philosophy is helpful to understand the politic and sometime the military actions that go with. But it is not the only ingredient. Knowing the economic resources of this warlord and his family connections will most of the time be more useful, in a purely military approach. In a global approach, as in small wars per definition, knowing each gang chief religious background helps a lot to understand why he is doing so or against you and conduct diplomatic actions. But it is not enough. (See rule nb1).
Talking about the very complex notion of Jihad in Islam.
First, I would not translate Dar al Islam by the House of Submission (the literal translation) but by the House of God. The aim of Islam being to turn hearth into paradise, the land of God in reality. In opposition with the Christian aim that paradise is somewhere lost in the sky. (It is a little quick resume but it works by the way). The land of milk and honey is hearth after all humans have turned to Islam and Jesus comes back. (I like the farmer approach: 2 feet in the mud, simple explanations of complex intellectual stuff.)
Saying so, let's come back to the reality. Jihad is not only making war. You have the great and little Jihad. War is just part of the little Jihad. Humanitarian actions are part of the little Jihad. During Lebanon war, in 2006, I meet many Middle East guys who were on Jihad and were conducting humanitarian actions. They were performing both little and Great Jihad. Humanitarian actions were not perceived as war effort but as the duty of Muslim to help Human Being in danger (the Muslim first, Ok): this was their participation to the little Jihad. And also showing the world that Islam was all about compassion for those who suffer: this was their Great Jihad. You cannot exclude that the fact it was a war between Muslim and Israel was part of the equation but do not put it in first place of the analyze. On this, I would recommend the publications of Abdel-Rahman Ghandour.
But what I also witnessed is the political struggle between State, Saudi Arabia in first place, against "religious communities" as Hezbollah but also Sunni ones. The preservation of secular State legitimacy was high in the agenda of Middle East powers during that war.
Jihad is used as a political tool to challenge most of the secular States and basically contest the power of many autocrats in Middle East. You really have to integrate the Al Nadha ideology into the equation and also its complexities. Some apparently very radical Muslims are promoting both Burka and women education. Most of the radical Sunni organizations I have been working with are not challenging the world but challenging their national government.
In some extend, this radicalization of the opposition between secular and non secular State in Islam looks like the radicalization of the French Revolution against the Church and the King and its "Divine legitimacy". In the end, the Mullahs are a "problem" for the Checks. Power cannot be shared. So, in a military approach, you have to play on it.
Finally, knowing the enemy is a danger for most of the ideologist (on all sides). If you can understand the intellectual process of the enemy, then you start to question your legitimacy. This leads to internal chaos. :D
M-A
PS: keep on calling me Sir, this flater my revolutionary cultural ego ;)