Sad thing is Tail Gunner Joe was as right as he was wrong
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bob's World
Islamism is no more dangerous to the world than communism was. Both were just convenient ideologies that spoke to oppressed populaces that worked for driving out illegitimate governments in their time and place. 40 years from now we'll look at the nut jobs ranting about "radicalization" the same way we look back at Senator McCarthy...
He had the right idea but used some poor methodolgy to try to do what he thought needed to be done.
Lot of that going around...
That's a long way of saying that if you do not think Communism was and is dangerous, you have obviously missed what has happened to this country as a result of the actions and activities of some so-called Communists, their hangers on and collection of useful idiots.
If you do not think facets of Islamic belief, misapplied, are dangerous you may not have lost any good friends to those bizarre beliefs before 9/11, before Afghanistan and before Iraq.
Quote:
Legitimacy of government in the eyes of the governed; and a trusted mechanism to legally affect governmental change. These two things are, I believe, the strategic keys to COIN. Address them first, and the rest will in short order fall into place. Ignore them and address the symptoms instead, and you are in for a long, painful ride.
I don't totally agree with that but it too is as right as it is wrong. Question not answered, still, is how do you get that "legitimacy of government?" I have yet to see one that all involved believed was legitimate. In the unlikely event you were to plan and describe one that would be viewed by all as legitimate then comes the hard part. What, precisely, is your trusted mechanism? Even Canada has election fiddles... :wry:
And COIN is still a myth, a theory that needs to be parked in a museum... ;)
I can always count on Bill, Ken, and MIke to keep me anchored
Bill: Totally agree that a strong raid into Afghanistan to punish the living crap out of AQ and then leave was the way to go. Tell the Taliban stay out of this, it isn't about you, do our business and then go home. Instead we took out the Taliban, installed a new government, and then took on the role of protector....
But to clarify some key points in my root causes argument, because AQ is a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself.
1. Illegitimate governments: I am very clear that the definition is through the eyes of the populace being governed, not some external party. That when the populace of a nation (or even some autonomous region that isn't really a state in western terms) does not recognize the legitimacy of the governance over them, you have a prime, strategic, causal factor for insurgency.
2. I never said we need to attack or reform these illegitimate governments, I said that we need to stop protecting and supporting them in the suppression of their own populaces. The second prime strategic causal factor for insurgency is the lack of a trusted, certain process that a populace can employ to affect governance legally and peacefully. I don't care what that process is. I don't think we need to force western values, democracy or voting on anyone. I do think we need to hold a hard line with this entire crop of autocratic despots whose populaces are filling the ranks of AQ on the road, and insurgent movements at home to devise and implement such processes. This will either lead to new governments that those respective populaces recognize the legitimacy of, or will bestow new popular legitimacy on the existing government. It will allow the populaces of these nations to enact their OWN reforms. Hubris indeed to attempt to shape in our image.
3. Everyone jumps from "We must support despotic dictators" to "we must abandon our influence in the Middle East." Is there really no middle ground? I refuse to believe that. We live in an era of Lazy Diplomacy. We are bigger and stronger so we either demand that others do as we wish them to under threat of economic or military violence; or if they refuse, we label them "rogue" and either ostracize them or attack them. We have become selfish bullies. Do what I say or I'll take my ball and go home, or kick your ass, depending on how I feel, and if I think you can hurt me or not (i.e., have nuclear weapons). We must find a middle ground in the Middle East. In another thread they talked about having as powerful as possible military, and then using it as rarely as possible. I agree. So long as everyone knows you also possess the will to use it quickly and judiciously when necessary. We have gotten lazy and now lead with the military option.
For Ken:
4. No question major mayhem has been wrought in the name of Communism and Islam. But there is also no question that major mayhem has been wrought in the name of Democracy, Christianity, etc, etc etc. It isn't the ideology one uses to motivate their populace to action that is to be feared, it is the underlying causal factors that promote the violence itself. Colonialism is a big problem today. The residue of Western imperialism will shape conflicts for years to come. Just as the residue of Greek imperialism shaped conflicts from the Balkans to India for hundreds of years. Just as the residue of Roman imperialism shaped conflicts for hundreds of years from the Levant to Great Britain. To fear and attack the ideology of those who rise up to throw off illegitimate or oppressive control measures is to fear the wrong thing. It is to fear the loud noise of a gun going off rather than the bullet headed for your brain. It is to counter the noise rather than to address why you are being shot at in the first place.
No, I stand firm on my two points of strategic COIN:
1. First ensure that the populace recognizes the legitimacy of its governance on their terms.
2. Second, ensure that the populace has legal, peaceful, trusted and certain measures in place to effect changes of governance.
Finally, to bring this home: As I watched the inaugural of President Obama, I found it very interesting how the media went on and on about how America was electing its first Black President; I also found it interesting how fired up about this fact the African American populace was (I had thought that insurgency was resolved, but no, it requires more work and constant nurturing). But what I found the most interesting was what no one was talking about. The most powerful man in the world, the leader of the most powerful nation in the world, was handing over that mantle to another man peacefully, as a matter of course, because the people had chosen a new leader and it was time to transfer in accordance with the laws of the land and with will of the people. And no one noticed.
In America this is as natural as breathing. No one notices oxygen when it is all around you. In many lands around the world there is no such "political oxygen." There are few things more noticeable than the lack of oxygen. When we support despotic, illegitimate leaders, it is Uncle Sam's hand that is on the knob of the oxygen tank. When the populaces of those countries seek to throw of those illegitimate, despotic governments, it is only natural that they seek first to take our hand off of that knob. We don't need to take our hand off the knob (i.e., pack up and go home), we just need to turn the damn oxygen on.
Some yeas and a few Nays...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bob's World
...But there is also no question that major mayhem has been wrought in the name of Democracy, Christianity, etc, etc etc... Colonialism is a big problem today. To fear and attack the ideology of those who rise up to throw off illegitimate or oppressive control measures is to fear the wrong thing.
True on the fact that 'democracy' and colonialism have their own failures that have left fear and resentment in many places. Yet, most people I've talked to around the world over the years acknowledged that 'our' crimes were and are slight compared to at least one of the two you cited -- and the other is rapidly gaining, even among its own devotees, an equally bad reputation. A lot of folks overseas "hate the US" but most of them also want to emigrate and come here...:wry:
While there are undoubtedly some who fear the ideology instead of what said ideologies can do, I think they're relatively few in number and are rarely in a position to affect policy. I think you're seeing 'what they can do' attacked in a not very effective way partly due to poor information and knowledge and partly to lack of some effective tools to do it another way. An example is the punitve strategic raid -- those things have been done for centureis -- but we do not do them for a variety of reasons. I believe that is large measure due to a lack of political will in the corridors of power of the US. I agree with much you say but your ideas are not going to work unless you fix that.
Quote:
No, I stand firm on my two points of strategic COIN:
1. First ensure that the populace recognizes the legitimacy of its governance on their terms.
2. Second, ensure that the populace has legal, peaceful, trusted and certain measures in place to effect changes of governance.
Yes, you do indeed stand firm on those two items and have for many months -- you also have yet to tell us how to realistically implement those ideas. ;)
Quote:
Finally, to bring this home: As I watched the inaugural of President Obama...And no one noticed.
I don't think that's correct; most of the rest of the world noticed but our flaccid media doesn't report foreign news at all well -- it doesn't even report US news at all well -- so you might have missed it. As a cruiser of worldwide English language news on the internet, I saw a lot of comment on that aspect. Many wondering why their transitions were not as assured. Interestingly, there were people here who did not believe that relatively smooth transition would occur, rumors of coups and other things abounded inside the US.
Quote:
When we support despotic, illegitimate leaders, it is Uncle Sam's hand that is on the knob of the oxygen tank. When the populaces of those countries seek to throw of those illegitimate, despotic governments, it is only natural that they seek first to take our hand off of that knob. We don't need to take our hand off the knob (i.e., pack up and go home), we just need to turn the damn oxygen on.
Sorry, do not agree at all. Some of those regimes are despotic; many more are just not as nice a some would like -- though the bulk of the populace is content. A lot of those 'populaces' you frequently are in fact merely segments of a populace with axes to grind and / or agendas that point in other directions. A few of those axes are reflexively anti-American simply because we're big, arrogant and clumsy. All those failings are due to our governmental system and real change means changing that system. Good luck with that...
We also need to satay away from other folks' oxygen...
You have an amazingly benign view of people for a former Prosecutor. My Daughter in Law in the Seattle area has a Sister who is a prosecutor and has been for about 20 years. Same region of the country, same basic demographics -- and she's more cynical about people than I am... :D
We can agree philosophically but practically, probably not. People are as a collective are prone to be unduly selfish which leads them to follow demagogues and do strange and illegal things (including being rebels without a cause...). People will tolerate poor governance and the USA is a major example of that (proof is in your daily news, just check the Early Bird). You tend to gloss over that little failing...
The world is not a nice place and some of your suggestions are unlikely to be implemented because the ebb and flow of international relations mitigates against it. All those other nations have a say in what happens and many of them do not wish us well and they will look for any chink to do some minor or major harm as they believe they can succeed. This:
Quote:
we label them "rogue" and either ostracize them or attack them. We have become selfish bullies. Do what I say or I'll take my ball and go home, or kick your ass, depending on how I feel, and if I think you can hurt me or not (i.e., have nuclear weapons).
is one result of that. US desires are not the sole reason we appear to do what you say, other nations including some 'friends' nudge and fiddle to take us down a peg, sometimes successfully, sometimes not. We respond to many things the way we do primarily due to having a dysfunctional (by design) government.
Lastly, you have never addressed how you intend to get the US political class and system to operate as you desire; how you're going to get around that designed, Constitutional, illogical and flawed functionality -- even though I have repeatedly asked you to do so. You can blow me off and not answer but to then keep saying the same things over and over without addressing the issues raised is not IMO helpful to your position. YMMV but I think changing the US approach is a far bigger impediment to Bob's World than the other two factors combined.
Grenades, Nigel. The kids use grenades. The bad guys
start 'em off with throwing rocks and then, when they get good, escalate to grenades...:D
The RPGs are for the teenagers who get those with which to be surly (in lieu of body piercing).:o
Actually, one shouldn't be cynical and I hope I'm not unduly so -- but it does flat pay to be suspicious. :wry:
Well, as I say, it is a minority opinion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dayuhan
No, really? Ah hadn't noticed... :D
Yes, I know we keep coming back to it, but it's an issue at the core of how we're trying to handle the current mess, and I'm not quite willing to let it go.
The idea that foreign fighters represent an insurgent populace at home is something that needs to be examined, and I'm not convinced that it stands up to examination. After all, an abundance of foreign fighters flocked to Afghanistan to fight against the Soviets... were they also representatives of an insurgent populace? Fighting the Russians in Afghanistan seems an odd way of expressing discontent with American influence over the homeland. I'm not sure quite why you would say that foreign fighters indicate insurgency on the home front, rather than a relatively small number of young men driven by a potent mix of testosterone, religious fervor, and lack of anything better to do at home... a mix that has sent young men off to fight in wars of dubious purpose many times in the past (the Crusades might be cited as an example).
I agree with Bill, who said what I was trying to say in a good deal fewer words:
Regarding this...
In the case of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, this of course gets us exactly nowhere, because we don't give them any aid and they are not in any way dependent on us. Even if we had leverage, though... how do you think the populace of, say, Saudi Arabia would react if we demanded or even suggested that the Saudis need "a reasonable and certain procedure for the populace to affect changes of governance". I wouldn't expect any appreciation or gratitude. I'd expect them to tell us to mind our own damned business, amid a great deal of suspicion that our intention is to use that mechanism in some devious way to insert of Government that will be subject to our control, a suspicion that AQ will be all to eager to promote and exploit. AQ, after all, is agitating for more despotism, not less.
Whatever our actual intentions, I suspect that the policy you suggest will be perceived, even among its intended beneficiaries, as arrogant imposition, self-interested meddling, or both.
The notion of "dialogue with the populace" is I think hopelessly simplistic. Many of these populaces are extremely fractured and factionalized, and there is nothing even resembling consensus on who speaks for the populace or what policies are desired. What one faction sees as an irreducible minimum demand may be seen by another as an intolerable provocation. The problem in many cases is not that there is no dialogue, but that the dialogue has devolved into a screaming match, or a shootout.
You mentioned Algeria and Yemen... Algeria has an elected National Assembly with over 20 political parties represented. Yemen has what on paper appears to be a quite admirable set of democratic institutions. Of course these institutions don't work the way anyone would want them to. Your suggestion seems to assume that the Governments in question have the capacity to make things work, but don't choose to do it, and that we can force them to make things work by threatening to reduce aid. I doubt that's going to work, because the sad reality is that they have no idea how to make things work, and neither do we.
In Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states I really don't think there's any major popular demand for a mechanism to remove and replace Governments. These are very conservative countries, and there is a pervading fear that establishing such a mechanism would generate intense competition for position, and the result would be chaos. For better or worse, many in that part of the world fear chaos more than they fear despotism.
Certainly there was much discontent in SA during the 90s, driven by the combination of the oil glut and the highly visible US military presence. In many eyes these two phenomena were related: just as Americans tend to blame high oil prices as a conspiracy driven by the Saudis and the oil companies, Saudis tend to blame low oil prices on a conspiracy between Americans and oil companies. Despite prodigious efforts to exploit that discontent, UBL et al were never able to generate anywhere nearly enough support to drive an insurgency. Today the narrative of resentment from those days has dissolved almost completely under a rain of dollars: it's amazing what sloshing a few hundred billion around will do to mellow out a disgruntled populace.
I think it's dangerous to assume that AQ's attacks on us were a reactive phenomenon that was driven by our policies and can be undercut by a change in our policies, and that if we follow that assumption we can easily spend a great deal of effort in policies and actions that are not productive and may be counterproductive.
But as the airwaves and print are full of the same steady drum beat of a majority opinion that has us 8 years into a war, and strategcially worse off and an economy in tatters and a national reputation at arguably an all time low to show for it.
I could be wrong, its theory and I have no metrics to prove my case.
There are strong metrics however that the majority opinion is wrong.
(Oh, and 5 minutes of google research on foreign fighers and and insurgent movements will show you the clear connections that I speak to. And I have NEVER, EVER said we should impose our values on others, quite the contrary. In fact, I beat a steady drum that we need to stop the hubris, and stop trying to control every outcome, and to help enable populaces everywhere to enjoy their own self-determination, and that in so doing we will turn down the heat on a global security environment.)
The 'Jihad Generation' BBC TV series
The first episode of a three-part BBC TV series called the 'Jihad Generation' by Peter Taylor, a respected reporter - notably for his work in Northern Ireland, was shown on Monday and gives an insight into the emergence in the UK of this 'generation'.
The programme is available on the BBC as an Ipod for nineteen days:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode..._Episode_1/and a summary is on: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8500782.stm
An alternative and hopefully works for those overseas, yes in the USA: http://watch-tv-episodes-online.com/...part-1-online/ alas registration required - well I tried.
The BBC summary:
Quote:
Peter Taylor investigates the terrorist threat from young Muslim extremists radicalised on the internet.
Following the attempt to bomb an airliner over Detroit on Christmas Day, this landmark series looks at the angry young men of Generation Jihad who have turned their backs on the country where they were born.
In the first episode, Peter hears from those convicted under Britain's newest anti-terror laws and investigates how some of the most notorious terrorists came to be radicalised. He finds a generation that has shed the moderate Islam their parents brought to this country, and instead have adopted a faith that they believe compels them to stand apart from Britain and its values.
The next programme:
Quote:
How young, radicalised Muslims plotted major attacks in Europe and America.
The Kings ICSR blogsite has one comment on the programme by Dr John Bew:http://icsr.info/blog/Generation-Jihad