The Banality of Evil

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RJO

I don't think my argument necessarily undercuts the democratization strategy. I should also acknowledge that my thinking on this is strongly influenced by Jonathan Shay's Achilles in Vietnam: Combat Trauma and the Undoing of Character.

It's possible to accept the notion that an important root cause of terrorism is a sense of victimization and a sense of the abuse of justice and honor (which is a central theme of Shay's work, since the Iliad opens with an aborted fragging of a commanding officer who violated a subordinate's sense of justice), while at the same time seeing democratization and its consequences as a tool to get at those root causes. Following the metaphor of "letting it burn out" -- for that approach to work, you have to make sure there aren't additional sources of ignition that will restart the fire at another spot. It may be that the individual cases have to burn themselves out, but democratization (or more generally, increasing the levels of justice within a society) dampen things down overall and prevent reignition in the minds of other individuals. That permits a shift from a large-scale military strategy to an individually-focused law enforcement strategy. (Occasional mass murderers will always be with us, but organized groups of them need not be.)

---

But the thing is that democracy in the Islamic world seems to invariably take a populist form that doesn't vent off the perception of victimization and scape goating, it just makes it even more legitimate. Heck, democracy in the UK and Spain doesn't seem to stop the rise of Islamic terrorism.

I believe the root cause of Islamic extremism is that Islamic culture (which includes but is not the same as Islam as a religion) cannot create stable states which can be economically, technologically, and socially competitive in the 21st century. But, to the extremists and those sympathetic to them, admitting this would be admitting that their religion is flawed. So, instead of blaming the real causes of their poverty, weakness, and instability, they seek scapegoats. And the West is it.

To me this means that Islamic democracies, assuming they retain the dysfunctional elements of Islamic culture, are still going to be uncompetitive, weak, and unstable. So they're still going to seek scapegoats. If anything, a democracy will be less effective than dictators like Musharaff, Mubarak, and the Sauds at clamping down on this.

I believe promoting democracy is a good thing in itself. I think it will have no effect on Islamic extremism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SteveMetz

Second is the influence--at least in the South--of what I called evangelical extremism. These are the people who feel we have entered an end-of-time conflagration between Christians and non-Christians (which, depending on the time of day, seems to be either Muslims or secular liberals). At first I just scoffed at them until I began to realize how many there are and how much political influence they have.

---

This is not a new phenomenon, by any means. I remember when I was a kid back in the 70s hearing various relatives of mine discussing Hal Lindsey's "The Late Great Planet Earth". They were convinced, along with Hal, that the Book of Revelation said that the world would end in a military confrontation with the atheistic and communistic USSR. This sort of thinking has merely been updated with the times, replacing the USSR with some Islamic or United Nations bogeyman. (See the phenomenal publishing figures for the "Left Behind" series, if anyone doubts how widespread it is.)

I had a co-worker tell me a couple of years ago that Saddam Hussein, himself, could be the antichrist. After he was hanged, he decided the Antichrist must be the head of the EU, the UN or even the Pope, himself. He also doesn't believe that members of the Roman Catholic church are actually Christians, at all.

This may be shocking stuff to any of you small war thinkers outside of Dixie, but I can assure you that it is pretty typical stuff in your typical evangelical Southern protestant church. Around here, that pretty much means ANY church that is not Roman Catholic, Episcopalian, or Unitarian.

I think alot of people are vaguely aware that there is this group of people who have these beliefs. But they mistakenly feel it is just a handful of folks, perhaps because they don't personally know them. I got news for them, this is mainstream, man-on-the-street stuff down here. It will be interesting to see who can attract this vote in the coming GOP primaries down South, since they have basically taken over the GOP at the local level. At least around here they have, maybe not where you are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tacitus

I had a co-worker tell me a couple of years ago that Saddam Hussein, himself, could be the antichrist. After he was hanged, he decided the Antichrist must be the head of the EU, the UN or even the Pope, himself. He also doesn't believe that members of the Roman Catholic church are actually Christians, at all.

---

Now that's just silly talk. Everyone knows that Larry King is the antichrist.

I agree with Tacitus; I think many would be surprised with underlying emphasis on end times (eschatology) in much of America and how this impacts our national policies. Our support for Israel and the commitment to their national survival has a lot to do with how many Americans think about Armageddon and the conditions that have to be set in order for this to happen.

Nat,
Yes I include prevention under Law Enforcement. As an example in most states you can be arrested for making the statements that many terrorist make. It usually falls under the category of Harassing or Threatening Communications. If it continues you will usually end in the Stalking category which is most definitely terrorist behavior and is usually a felony which means you will do some serious prison time for that.

You were correct in your assumption that we should target terrorist leadership and extremest as opposed to classifying a whole religion as extreme.

Zoning laws are one of the LE successes that you don't here about much. For example in Alabama if you are arrested near a school,church for selling drugs you automatically incur what they call an enhanced penalty. You have mandatory jail time for a longer period. Zoning laws can also be used to prevent crimes because of the usage restrictions placed on certain areas and structures. police officers can get pretty creative when it comes to their enforcement. I have had first hand experience with this and have talked to other officers at conventions about these types of activities. Because they are usually civil matters with heavy fines you don't here much about it, but are very effective. Similar to the idea of how they got Capone for Income tax evasion.

"Knock and talk" operations were so unbelievablely effective that our local DA made them so restrictive that they were finally stopped for most situations. Knock and Talk in the LE world is a lot different that how you may have heard of it being used in Iraq. Hope this has cleared some things up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr Jack

I agree with Tacitus; I think many would be surprised with underlying emphasis on end times (eschatology) in much of American and how this impacts our national policies. Our support for Israel and the commitment to their national survival has a lot to do with how many Americans think about Armageddon and the conditions that have to be set in order for this to happen.

---

One of the more bizarre aspects of life as UN Military Observer in southern Lebanon was getting Middle East Television beamed in from Jerusalem and funded by the 700 Club with programming that included, of course, the 700 Club, Monday Night Football with over dubbed commentary (not translation) in Arabic by folks who had no clue what they were watching, and professional wrestling. And good ole Pat Robertson claimed all of this was good therapy for a country torn by religious schisms.

Tom

Democracy works in the U.S. to some degree because our education system worked (past tense). Still the majority of people are motivated by emotions not rational thinking (look at the stock market for an example). The uneducated masses are easily manipulated by the snake oil salesmen in religious garb, and we want to spread democracy to Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc.? If our extreme Christian right took over the government they would look for targets to nuke for Jesus, and these luny tunes are our neighbors who are exposed to logical arguments to damper their enthusiasm and belief that they personally know what God wants, yet they're still insane. Do we really want democracy in Pakistan? I know the policy makers get out of the beltway, but I think their travels are deceptively safe, so they fall into that category, "there are none so blind as those who refuse to see".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom Odom

One of the more bizarre aspects of life as UN Military Observer in southern Lebanon was getting Middle East Television beamed in from Jerusalem and funded by the 700 Club with programming that included, of course, the 700 Club....

Tom

---

It should hardly come as a surprise, then, if many people in the Arab world think America is engaging in a New Christian Crusade to wipe out Islam.

Have any prominent public figures suggested that people like Pat Robertson, through these broadcasts, are doing as much to fuel radical Islam as bin Laden is with his cassette tapes smuggled out of Waziristan?

Bob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RJO

It should hardly come as a surprise, then, if many people in the Arab world think America is engaging in a New Christian Crusade to wipe out Islam.

Have any prominent public figures suggested that people like Pat Robertson, through these broadcasts, are doing as much to fuel radical Islam as bin Laden is with his cassette tapes smuggled out of Waziristan?

Bob

---

Personally I think that anything we do or say only accounts for a minuscule portion of the belief that the West, particularly the United States, seeks to wipe out Islam. I believe the true reasons for the popularity of this idea lie within Islam, not outside it, so there's very little we can do to change it. This ethos of victimization is a convenient way to avoid dealing with a flawed culture.

Steve Metz, I think that you are 100% correct on that. which is exactly why I think the LE framework of Motives, Methods, and Opportunity makes a lot more Strategic sense. Instead of starting with what we want(our Ends) it starts out by understanding your opponent his Motive. That will guide in understanding his Methods and the Opportunities he seeks (mostly time and location). And when you understand that you can figure out a counter for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slapout9

...I think the LE framework of Motives, Methods, and Opportunity makes a lot more Strategic sense. Instead of starting with what we want(our Ends) it starts out by understanding your opponent his Motive. That will guide in understanding his Methods and the Opportunities he seeks (mostly time and location). And when you understand that you can figure out a counter for it.

---

When I first read this last night, I was intrigued by this approach -- and after reflection, this appears to be close to how NSC-68 was developed as the Cold War approach to countering Soviet aggression. George Kennan's "long telegram" follows a similar approach by first describing in detail the motives of the Soviet Union after World War II, as well as some of the methods:

Quote:

---

(1) Basic features of post-war Soviet outlook.
(2) Background of this outlook
(3) Its projection in practical policy on official level.
(4) Its projection on unofficial level.
(5) Practical deductions from standpoint of US policy

---

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/coldwar...e-1/kennan.htm

Interestingly, this morning's Washington Post has an article about NSC-68 as a potential template for today (article requires subscription):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...21.html?sub=AR

Quote:

---

Sixty years ago, America faced a new and dangerous global challenge, the expansionist aims of Soviet communism. This threat arose rather suddenly, and it was clear that it could portend a long struggle.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr Jack

When I first read this last night, I was intrigued by this approach -- and after reflection, this appears to be close to how NSC-68 was developed as the Cold War approach to countering Soviet aggression. George Kennan's "long telegram" follows a similar approach by first describing in detail the motives of the Soviet Union after World War II, as well as some of the methods:



http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/coldwar...e-1/kennan.htm

Interestingly, this morning's Washington Post has an article about NSC-68 as a potential template for today (article requires subscription):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...21.html?sub=AR

---

On the NSC 68 comparison, here's the introduction to an unpublished article I wrote last winter:

When George Kennan published “The Sources of Soviet Conduct” in 1947 the Cold War was already two years old, but Americans still struggled to understand it. Kennan provided an epiphany, both explaining the enemy and suggesting a logical response. This conceptual foundation was adjusted several years later in the report known as NSC-68, drafted by a team from the departments of State and Defense led by Paul Nitze. Containment retained its central place but it was as much a military as a political effort reflecting ongoing changes in the global security environment. Thus the pattern was set: throughout the course of the Cold War, debate allowed periodic refinement of American strategy.

Today the United States has been locked in another global conflict for more than five years. This time there was little discussion before arriving at a strategy. President Bush literally and figuratively came down from the mountain in the weeks after September 11 with an explanation and a plan of action. As time passed the shortcomings of the initial conceptualization—the “global war on terror”—became clear. While useful for mobilizing public support, the notion of making war on a tactic or phenomenon did not provide the coherence that the U.S. military and other elements of the government needed. Now the conflict has been recast as “the long war,” a phrase attributed to planners from the U.S. military's Central Command. The new phrasing, though, is useful but not sufficient. We know that the conflict is linked to terrorism. We know that it is long. But coherent strategy requires more than that. It is time to reinvigorate debate over the most basic elements of the conflict and of the appropriate American response to it. Put simply, the United States again must refine the conceptual framework of its grand strategy.

"the United States again must refine the conceptual framework of its grand strategy." (S.Metz)

I don't think this can be accomplished as long as the common person does not feel directly threatened by radical Islam. Granted, there is considerable suspicion, distrust, smoldering resentment and some fear amongst the people but IMO, the average person does not feel directly threatened. The threat factor after 9/11 quickly subsided. I think the 'slow bleed' strategic interests of radical Islam are best served by not again directly attacking America via ramming cars into airports and suiciders detonating in some crowded area. If religion is but the trappings of facists interested in power and control only, which many assert the Bin Ladens and Zawahiris really are, then their critical interests lie in the US not redefining its conceptual framework. I think they are quite comfortable in believing the common Muslim is not very susceptible to the counter-message(s) of the West. Their attrition factor is in full force in Afghan and Iraq and nothing really threatens them except the possibility of a real clash of cultures. I for one certainly don't want that but this fear of real cultural clash seems to somehow be playing into their hands.

"My concern is that when we treat extreme positions in Islam as main stream, it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. If mainstream Muslims feels that the West believes that they seek to convert or kill all non-Muslims, there is no ground for cooperation. Then the manichean view of Muslim and Christian extremists becomes reality."

I'm going a bit off topic, but I think that a large part of AQs strategy over and over has been divide and conquer. Putting moderate Muslims and Christians into extremist camps is definitely part of it. AQ has shown a real knack for seeing which countries are most loss averse and/or readying for an election and then targeting the nation or its soldiers to leverage the greatest effect for a minimal effort.

Another way they operate is to try to use distraction. Whenever AQ is really under pressure somewhere they launch an attack (usually through proxies) to take off the pressure. An early example of this would be in 2001 as Afghanistan was getting tight for them, there was a flurry of Kashmir incidents and terrorist attacks in India pushing India and Pakistan to the brink.
I think if we look a bit closer at the timing of attacks around the world in conjunction with our own operations we might have a good yardstick for when we are actually doing some real damage.

Time is on AQ's side, always has been, and I think their strategic interest will soon focus primarily on Israel and remain concentrated there for several years. They've gained enough traction via our attrition from a 2 front war to zero in on Israel full force.

Just noticed the recent bombings in Hyderabad seem to be another AQ attempt to distract us. I'm guessing we must be doing some things right in Afghanistan and they feel like their b**ls are in a vise.