The David Kilcullen Collection (merged thread)

[Bill Moore]

Agree the political problem needs to be solved, but that isn't the same as saying ISIL represents the Sunni political view. The difference isn't subtle.

[Bob's World]

Bill,

Best I can tell only a small minority of the locals or the foreign fighters buy into the political viewpoint of ISIL - but most all buy into the need for some sort of Sunni governed space in that region and the need to restore new stability to the current competition for where the line between Sunni and Shia influence lies. ISILis the only one stepping up to lead that effort. The US needs to own the fact that what we did in Iraq is what put both of those issues in play.

In this regard ISIL is very much like the Nazi party in Post WWI Germany. Few Gwrmans bought into their extreme ideology or approaches - but virtually all Germans believed in the need to turn back the injustices of Versailles.

When people need a ride desperately enough, and only one bus is coming around, they tend to get on the bus.

Who, besides ISIL is offering a solution to the fundamental problems at the root of this conflict?? Not the US with this new approach (that I believe the President was bullied into taking once the two beheadings occurred). We were doing better before, but needed a much clearer narrative and stated goals for our strategy.

if we truly stand for what we say we do as a nation, we need to champion an approach that is about evolving toward a more sustainable political future for the region, not simplistically trying to defeat those we deem as beyond the pale and to restore the obsolete and illegitimate political structures that brought us here to begun with.

Either way, I don't know how Turkey does not soon devolve as well into a similar conflict for a new, more legitimate governance for the Kurds. Turkey should be pressing for Civil Rights reforms similar to what the US wisely adopted in the 60s if they want any hope of staving off revolution and possible civil war.

As is often the case, governments hold both the primary cause and cure in their hands, but also the ability to simplistically employ legal violence to force the increasingly unsustainable status quo. Most opt for the latter.

[davidbfpo]

I have now re-read the original article, in which David K. refers to four threats - for Australia and others. Those threats are:

domestic radicalisation, foreign fighters, the effect of Islamic State on regional and global jihadist groups, and the destabilising effect of conflict in the Middle East.

Guy Fawkes was a Catholic radical who in 1605 attempted to blow up the British parliament in London, effectively to decapitate the establishment and is marked each 5th November with bonfires, fireworks and in places more. This article links him to the contemporary scene:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/1...r-change.html?

Here are key passages reagrding domestic radicalisation:

..the mobilising effect of overseas terrorist groups on people in our own societies — is the most immediate threat.....The randomness, unpredictability and copycat nature of these attacks, which require little preparation, give few warning signs, and are difficult to prevent, is what makes them so terrifying. Attackers are often disenfranchised, alienated, marginalised young people, frequently converts: society’s losers, who see radical Salafi-jihadist ideology as a way to be part of something big, historic and successful. They’re not really self-radicalised. Rather, they often access online terrorist materials (increasingly in English) for inspiration, instruction and training, or link up online with radicals who groom them for action.Defeating this threat is partly a matter of community policing to identify and engage at-risk individuals, and partly a matter of detecting and monitoring access to online forums, radicalisation networks, social media and online training materials.
Despite the fear these attacks create, police and intelligence agencies have a pretty good handle on this type of threat, but in the long term this brings a potential cost to civil liberties and community cohesion.

I have doubts that in reality anyone officially has a 'handle' on this problem, that includes the police and intelligence agencies. Too many of those id'd as 'at risk' here suffer from mental illnesses, not radicalism. 'Detecting and monitoring' sounds neat, it is not and for this threat threatens more of what we seek to defend.

[Bob's World]

David, besides on the part of government officials, we are not dealing with mass hysteria or temporary insanity, either one.

Sure, many will simply act out for any good (or bad) excuse, but the reality is that for populations everywhere around the world in the current environment, the expectations of governance of the people are evolving faster than governments are able, willing, or even aware of the need, to adjust.

Not massive change, often just subtle adjustments.

In the US we can vote out an excessively liberal and ineffective agenda over night on a set time schedule through legal means. Most are not so lucky.