Results 1 to 20 of 78

Thread: Crowdsourcing on AQ and Analysis (new title)

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Calcutta, India
    Posts
    1,124

    Default

    What one is probably missing is that one is analysing the issue from a western standpoint i.e. on a business matrix.

    The important aspect is - religion; and that too a religion that assumes that it is the only religion that is ideal for mankind and connected is the fact is that this religion, rightly or wrongly, feels that it has not got its rightful place, owing to a joint conspiracy of all other religions in the world.

    This feeling is not of recent history. It has been festering ever since the collapse of the great Islamic Empire with immense intellectual achievements that stretched from Spain in the West to most countries in the East and also the disintegration of the Caliphate.

    Closure to time, the creation of Israel, right under the nose of the Muslims, then bolstering it and finally the humiliation of the drubbing the united Muslim countries repeatedly experienced at the hands of tiny Israel, which true to the mindset, blamed it on a western conspiracy. The failure to wrest Kashmir from India, inspite of western support at the UN, added insult to injury to the mindset.

    However, given the US strategic requirement and hence assistance, the overthrow of the Soviets in Afghanistan by Islamic 'warriors', rejuvenated dreams of the Caliphate and the glorious past of the Islamic Empire and that the Islamists were on the ascendancy.

    While all what happened in Afghanistan was because of the efforts of the Mujahideens, they were nevertheless a fragmented lot without any real united command. Each of the fragments jockeyed to be supreme to no avail.
    Hence, there was no real and cognisable victory of Islam over the rest.

    AQ and OBL provided the illusory leadership of the Islamic world at war. Not because of any spectacular victory in the local arena, but because of 9/11 where the Great White Satan - the fountainhead of all conspiracy against Islam was brought to its knees by OBL. Hence, he became a rallying point.

    However, true to islam, temporal power overtook the spiritual. While OBL reigned supreme as the messiah, his and his organisation's power and achievements got diluted as the other factions jockey for power and because of relentless pressure of the US, wherein the open support of certain governments got pushed to the background and even coerced into attacking OBL and his organisation.

    Thus, while OBL has become somewhat irrelevant, yet one does not know what is the residual influence his organisation has as of now.

    Notwithstanding OBL and his organisation, other factions have come to the forefront and are effective.

    Therefore, it is moot point, if these factions, having tasted blood and power, will abdicate these to OBL's organisation without a quid pro quo.

    Hence, maybe the focus of the WOT should not only focus on the AQ, but also on the various other factions that are operating and the synergy that they created in tandem with the AQ operating in the background.

    And the effect of Islam and the desire to return to the glorious days should be also cranked in, in any analysis.

    The fact that the Pakistani Army and the ISI are half hearted in their effort on the WOT is an indicator that Islam continues to be a paramount factor since they willingly accept the chaos and mayhem and assassination of their Governors and Ministers and leaders, apart from the near daily bombings, in their country caused by the fundamentalist flag bearers of Islam.

  2. #2
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default Defining the enemy & focus

    Hi Ray,

    Nice to see that you have resumed posting - providing us with content shaped by your Indian Army career.

    As to your comment:

    from Ray
    Hence, maybe the focus of the WOT should not only focus on the AQ, but also on the various other factions that are operating and the synergy that they created in tandem with the AQ operating in the background.
    you are in good company. Our domestic legal mandate to use armed force against AQ is flexible enough to cover associated groups - as well as nations and persons.

    The 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), passed by Congress and signed by President Bush, provides in most pertinent part:

    ...That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
    Pub. L. No. 107-40, § 2(a), 115 Stat. 224 (2001).

    At times, our focus has strayed from the AUMF.

    We also have some times overemphased aspects of the ideology involved (Islam), and other times have underemphased that ideology. One might also question whether we have overemphasized some AQ associates (or alleged AQ associates) at the cost of underemphasing other groups.

    Regards

    Mike

  3. #3
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default A timely judicial comment

    Judge Silberman's brief comment in Esmail v Obama (see Another brick in the wall for the entire court's findings) reinforces the suggestions made above by Ray and me;

    SILBERMAN, Senior Circuit Judge, concurring:
    ......
    First, to note that the government at oral argument agreed that even if petitioner could show he resolutely declined to “join” al Qaeda or the Taliban, and thus could not be said to be a part of either, so long as evidence showed he fought along side of al Qaeda, the Taliban, or with associated forces he would be covered by the Authorization for Use of Military Force. District courts, in that sort of case, need not strain to find a petitioner is “a part of al Qaeda.” See Hatim v. Gates, --- F.3d ---, 2011 WL 553273, at *1 (D.C. Cir. 2011); Awad v. Obama, 608 F.3d 1, 9 n.1 (D.C Cir. 2010); Al-Bihani v. Obama, 590 F.3d 866, 871-72 (D.C. Cir. 2010). [1]

    [1] Of course, “the purely independent conduct of a freelancer” – one who does not fight alongside of, or actively support, al Qaeda, the Taliban, or an associated force – “is not enough” to justify detention. Bensayah v. Obama, 610 F.3d 718, 725 (D.C. Cir. 2010).
    While this is "dicta" in this particular case, it does provide guidance for a plausible argument in a case where a loosely associated group is involved.

    Regards

    Mike
    Last edited by jmm99; 04-09-2011 at 01:03 AM.

  4. #4
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Cambridge, MA
    Posts
    75

    Default Thanks for the feedback in this thread

    Folks, thanks for the feedback on this initial thread.
    I've used it to help set up a crowdsourcing experiment on AQ's future strategy and just started a new thread on that concept in this folder called.

    "Crowdsourcing AQ's Strategy 2011-2012"

    Would like to get your feedback and thanks in advance for any and all thoughts.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •