Religion and Insurgency

Dave Kilcullen's latest at the SWJ Blog - Religion and Insurgency.

Quote:

---

A few commentators have panned the new counterinsurgency manual for insufficient emphasis on religion. There is a grain of truth in this criticism but, as a practitioner, the evidence I see does not really support it. Rather, field data suggest, some critics may misunderstand both current conflicts and the purpose of doctrine. Worse, they may be swallowing propaganda from munafiquun who pose as defenders of the faith while simultaneously perverting it. (Did I sound like a politician there? Never mind. I will show factual evidence for this assertion, so the resemblance is fleeting…I hope).

The theorists posit the existence of something called “religious insurgencies”, which are allegedly defined by their religious (read: Islamic) dimension. They argue that the passion religion arouses, its stringent dogma, and its capacity to de-humanize the “other” makes religious insurgents uniquely violent and fanatical. This allegedly immunizes such insurgencies against efforts to address legitimate grievances, “hearts and minds”, governance improvement, resource and population control, and minimum force — key techniques in the new doctrine. This, they argue, foredooms counterinsurgency to fail in current conflicts. For the serious version of this argument, read Frank Hoffman’s analysis here at SWJ; for the populist variant, read anything recent by Ralph Peters or Edward Luttwak. Most critics (not all—the sublime Hoffman is an exception) argue that counterinsurgency is too “soft” for religious insurgents, that unbridled brutality — “out-terrorizing the terrorists” (Luttwak), “the value of ferocity” (Peters) is more appropriate...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SWJED

Dave Kilcullen's latest at the SWJ Blog - Religion and Insurgency.

---

Hallelujah for once someone gets it! It is not about religion. In fact as I study this insurgency and others, I have come to the conclusion that no war in the history of mankind started out as a religious struggle--they metastasize into religious alignment because religion envokes such deeply held beliefs and creates a cause that is so encompassing and so grand as to polarize the masses in the fight--"us against them." Religion is mearly a catalyst in the struggle and when left unabated, it will orgainze, and direct the outcome. When you ask a Sunni and Shiite why they are fighting, they don't even know why--I asked. The truth is that humans (other than crazies) will not kill other humans that are alike and so inorder to organize and create differences--to dehumanize the struggle, humans create differences--they develop a "Cause" that is aluring and grand. And, in the scheme of things, there are few causes that are more compelling than religion. That being said, we cannot lose sight of the fact that wars can be organized around anything... race, nationality, territory, ethnicity, oppression--anything that is convenient and compelling. Hitler organized against the Jews so much so that he had his people equating the Jews to mosquitos.

Your article is a great start. The answer to the insurgency in Iraq is not to divide the country up but to unite the country around a Cause to Live For that is greater than the insurgency's cause to die for--to do this we must first isolate and alienate the insurgency on the battlespace, we must create hope, and we must give the people an opportunity to succeed. I am presenting a paper in July discussing these principles precisely, "Creating A Sustainable Iraq."

The Fundamentalism Project

I recall hearing from some of the academics involved back in the 90's at a presentation at Fermilab. Some of the material is dated but still useful.

Interesting links. One question: Under their categories of "fundamentalism", where are the subjects of "Fundamentalist Humanists?" or "Fundamentalist Scientists?" or "Fundamentalist Anthropologists?"

As a self-avowed "Fundamentalist Christian", I find that the "Fundamentalist Academic" has no problem scapegoating those of my ilk for the world's problems. And as long as they stick to religion, they can be as closed-minded, prejudicial and bigoted as they like, and still be heralded by our current culture as open-minded and intellectual.

Hi 120,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 120mm

Interesting links. One question: Under their categories of "fundamentalism", where are the subjects of "Fundamentalist Humanists?" or "Fundamentalist Scientists?" or "Fundamentalist Anthropologists?"

---

Didn't you know that no academic can be a "fundamentalist" :eek:???

Seriously, it's one of the reasons why I dislike the current use of the term - it conflates religious fundamentalists, aka people who believe in the fundamentals of their religion, with reactionary bigots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 120mm

As a self-avowed "Fundamentalist Christian", I find that the "Fundamentalist Academic" has no problem scapegoating those of my ilk for the world's problems. And as long as they stick to religion, they can be as closed-minded, prejudicial and bigoted as they like, and still be heralded by our current culture as open-minded and intellectual.

---

Too true, and all part of PC "fundamentalism" :wry:. I think a large part of it has to do with a split in philosophy that goes back to Descarte (okay, it's probably routed in the Platonic / Gnostic split that comes to us as the Mind-Body "problem") ; basically a split between the "real world", which can be objectively studied and mapped by science, and those parts of "reality" that cannot be.

I have a suspicion, and only that mind you, that many academics are completely uncomfortable with the very idea of something that cannot be bounded and controlled, at least with the tools and methodologies they have created. I think that this level of "discomfort" is what is behind the drive to ridicule religious believe and replace it with their own "fundamentals".

Marc

Quote:

---

"Interesting links. One question: Under their categories of "fundamentalism", where are the subjects of "Fundamentalist Humanists?" or "Fundamentalist Scientists?" or "Fundamentalist Anthropologists?"

---

Heh. Yes, the FP is going to be coming from an American secular, liberal, elite academic perspective and I'm sure the founders were influenced to some degree by their political feelings about Ralph Reed and Pat Robertson.

Nevertheless, if I threw every book or paper off my shelf whose authors I found smug and irritating, I'd have a lot of bare shelves.

A Quick Note on Religion and Insurgency by Bing West

More on Religion and Insurgency by Jim Guirard

Globalization without religion? That'll take all the profit out of war, won't it? I'd become a Hindu if it saved my head from being lopped off and the tactical exigency if shifting religious allegiance is hardly proof of the pudding that religion is not one of the driving forces and rallying points on the street in real time in Iraq. If indeed religion is not the main issue, then adaptation and even some limited adoption of Islamic ways doesn't need to be on the COIN page of operational theory. The folks back home will certainly agree with that. The most successful COIN operatives in our history were the mountain men/free trappers. We bemoan our logistical issues and expenses, they had no logistical support. We struggle with cultural issues when they often were in literal first contact mode of interaction with the tribes. They lived like the Indians and adopted much of their spirituality and didn't hesitate to smoke the peace pipe. They married Indian women and learned the languages and adopted Indian combat tactics and in return got trading alliances and were able to identify and mark future resources for the folks back home. Beaver pelts and Democracy have alot in common in this respect and two hallmarks of COIN success to me are learning the language and being able to identify with the native religion.

"Liver-Eating" Johnson

The mountain men were made of sterner stuff.