New Paradigms for 21st Century Conflict

[Mark O'Neill]

Speaking of Mozambique, I remember when I was a fresh-out-of-grad-school, young professor eagerly awaiting the first time I'd see myself cited somewhere. At the time, I was writing on security in Southern Africa. I picked up a new book on that topic at my university's library, skimmed the endnotes and there it was! A citatition that said, "For instance, see Steven Metz....." So then I went to the text itself to see what the citation referenced. The text said (and I quote), "Many American academics have been duped by Mozambican misinformation." And *I* was the best example they could think of.

I was still happy--better to be a cited dupe than an unduped unknown.

Ouch!

That is gold - the original "well, there is good news, and there is bad news..."

Rob, regarding your point about introducing the term "jihad". I think that is problematic as it deliberately introduces a qualifier regarding terrorism / insurgency that reduces the universality of any subsequent definition or theory. Not all insurgent / terrorist Muslims in the world are fighting for what we might associate as a 'jihadist' cause. And, as we all know, not all terrorists or insurgents are Muslim. We have to be very careful about defining these terms (insurgency and terrorism) merely in terms of extreme Islamist behaviour just because that is what appears most problematic at the moment.

The 'West' made a similar error during the Cold War when we associated many nationalist or liberation movements with communism and the Soviet Bloc, rather than seeing their true nature. This in turn prolonged many conflicts, perhaps pointlessly.

My observation would be that the threat from radical Islam appears to have the same effect on rational strategic decision making that the 'threat' of communism had in a previous era. That is not to say that a threat does not exist, just that the nature and extent of it are often greatly mis-appreciated or exaggerated.

I, for one, am still trying to work out the reasoning behind the rhetoric that AQ is trying to, or will, 'destroy our way of life'. Seriously, how can a group of stateless individuals, half of whom are allegedly hiding in a cave somewhere on the Pakistan / Afghanistan border 'destroy' functioning liberal democracies such as ours, no matter how many bombs etc are let off?

The only answer I can even begin to see makings sense would be through our own disproportionate reaction to this perceived threat they offer. That is, our government's reactions through legislation, controls and actions that are enacted to counter the 'threat' actually could end up changing the way of life and liberties that our societies have now.

In effect, such an outcome could be interpreted, at least at one level, of 'destroying' our way of life - and we would have done it to ourselves. Now suppose that was AQ's intent all along? By reacting to the symptoms and manifestations of Islamic terrorism, rather than the recognising the true nature of the threat, are we in fact being suckered in by an abstract ' rope a dope' scheme?

Now that would be a 'premium' indirect strategy that both Sun Tzu and Liddell Hart would have approved of....

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, we cannot even agree on definitions of the 'threat'.