Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Radical Islamist Ideologies and The Long War

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,099

    Default Radical Islamist Ideologies and The Long War

    IFPA, Jan 07: Radical Islamist Ideologies and the Long War: Implications for U.S. Strategic Planning and U.S. Central Command's Operations
    ...In many respects, this Long War can be portrayed as a struggle between modernity and tradition, between Western cultures and values and Islam’s rejection of individual rights over the greater welfare of society, although it is not as simple as that. While it is not necessarily the clash of civilizations of which much has been written, the new jihadists certainly are seeking to make it one, by attracting moderate Muslim support for actions designed to bring the United States and its coalition allies to their knees, defeated in Iraq and Afghanistan, expelled from the Persian Gulf, and witness to the destruction of Israel. As such, the political, strategic, and operational challenges facing the United States in the global struggle against radical jihadists are twofold: on the one hand, Washington and its coalition partners must contain and, if possible, defeat the terrorists on the “battlefield” (both on the virtual battlefield of the Internet and on the ground in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Horn of Africa, and other hotspots where they operate), but, on the other hand, they must also develop and communicate a credible message to the broader Muslim community that can help to de-legitimize the jihadists’ arguments and diminish their appeal. What is needed, in other words, is a better blend of hard and soft power to isolate, disrupt, and, when/where possible, destroy extremist networks, and to create lasting divides between the jihadistst and non-jihadistst Islamic communities....
    ...and a closely related doc:

    Rethinking the War on Terror: Developing a Strategy to Counter Extremist Ideologies
    On January 10, 2007, the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis (IFPA) convened an expert level workshop designed to help U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) devise a strategy to counter the arguments of the radical Islamists and to undermine their appeal to susceptible Muslim audiences around the world. Focusing on the nature of the ideological challenge that the radicals represent, participants explored the ideological underpinnings of current-day radical Islamist movements and factors that contribute to the radicalization process of individuals. There was, in this regard, extensive debate about the centrality of religion to radical Islamist ideology, with many participants convinced that while religion is an important motivator in the radicalization process, it is also being used to legitimate a very specific worldview that has been shaped by many factors external to Islam, but that impinge on Muslim views of Islam’s place in the 21st century world. Over and above specific grievances, many Muslims express a general sense of anger and humiliation (into which radical Islamists can tap) in reaction to events of foreign origin over which they have no control, but which are viewed as impacting their daily lives in a negative fashion. At the same time, domestic problems in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and other Muslim countries can feed that dissatisfaction and engender support for extremism, as has the push for autonomy and independence in such areas as Kosovo, Kashmir, and Chechnya. The main point here is that while we face a global, transnational extremist movement, it is one that is often triggered and fed by local conditions and difficulties that have little to do the West per se, and about which we must become far better informed....

  2. #2
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    All over
    Posts
    9

    Default The battle of Legitimacy Theirs vs Ours

    You mention that religion is central to their fight. Hasn' t this remained a key component since the death of the prophet. This has caused a great deal of controversy between Sunnis and Shi'a (internally) and problematic between Muslims and Non-Muslims (Externally). The Salafists desire a return to the Golden age of Islam when they were in charge and will justify any activity (suicide bombers/death of innocents) to get to that goal. The building of coalitions is needed and the will to apply force (killing to the denial of sanctuaries) will be what wins this long war.

  3. #3
    Council Member tequila's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    1,665

    Default

    You mention that religion is central to their fight. Hasn' t this remained a key component since the death of the prophet.
    I would disagree.

  4. #4
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    All over
    Posts
    9

    Default

    Why would you be in disagreement? Certain groups have disputed interpretations of components of their religion

  5. #5
    Council Member tequila's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    1,665

    Default

    When you say "they", are you referring to all Muslims, Muslim polities in general, Muslim states?

    If any of those, I would argue, generally speaking, no. I would say that the overwhelming general tendency in Muslim-dominated states is one of coalition-building expansion followed by eventual fragmentation over time, though this is admittedly rather general trend with many exceptions.

  6. #6
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    All over
    Posts
    9

    Default

    Sorry for that. They Meaning the Fundamentalists (Salafists) these are the ones who see themselves as reliving and fighting against US Forces Today as the past warriors did during the battle of Yarmuk and Badr, Invoking the Will f God against Superior Forces and winning (this could be with any means necessary)

    I delineate Muslims into three Basic Categories
    Fundamentalists (Those who are against the west/non-Muslims outright)

    The Fence Sitters (Those who are taking the wait and see approach) Semi-Moderates. Those who like democracy and the freedoms associated with it just not present US policies.

    Allies those who are fighting and dying with the west because they believe that Islam can co-exist with other religions and can assimilate (sp) into this complex entity called Globalization.

  7. #7
    Small Wars Journal SWJED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Largo, Florida
    Posts
    3,989

    Default Who Said What...

    Quote Originally Posted by Tempest1 View Post
    You mention...
    T1 - Just a friendly reminder, others have made this mistake on this board previously - usually new members, that Council members who post external studies, articles, op-ed pieces etc., do so to open up a reasoned discussion on the issues - the posted link is not necessarily the opinion of the Council poster. Address the source and not the SWC poster.

    Moreover, study the linked item and do not just respond to the quoted text. Context means everything... Linking to supporting documents in your replies / opinions would also add to the discussion.

    We are not that 'drive-by' friendly on this board. We all get on our 'soapbox' here from time to time - Council members then step down and engage in, hmm, off-soapbox discussion to continue the debate. Thanks for understanding.

  8. #8
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    All over
    Posts
    9

    Default

    Not sure of which direction off soap box.......... means the Dr and I had a continuous discussion which went well.

    If there is something to which I was to respond to or missed please direct me to this link.

    Thanks

  9. #9
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Hi Tempest1,

    You may want to read through the document Jedburg posted here a little bit ago - it goes to the heart of why I distinguish between strength and content.

    Marc
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

  10. #10
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    All over
    Posts
    9

    Default

    Hello Doctor,

    I am not going to be as engaging today I have some students to attend to but would be very interested in continuing our debate.

    I am a firm believer that force has a variety of options from kinetic to denial of space/territory. It also encompasses a mental aspect of reality present and reality for a future state of being.

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
  •