Sanctuary or Ungoverned Spaces:identification, symptoms and responses

[omarali50]

It seems to me that there is no general rule, here or elsewhere.
But the crucial issue may be identifying the enemy and knowing what he wants in each case (its not a she in Afghanistan).
I have no inside information, but I have a number of leftist pakhtoon friends and they make two points that may appear contradictory.
1. There is a jihadist core in pakistan (not in "sanctuaries" alone, but in the govt, in the Islamist parties, especially in the intelligence agencies) and they are fleecing the Americans while ruthlessly protecting their minimum interests (even if that means sacrificing a lot of foot-soldiers).
2. Pakistan is not a very strong state. No one in the ruling elite actually wants to try to fight off an unhappy America or even to survive without monthly handouts. The bluff works only because America lets it work.
If both points are correct (and I vacillate between believing both and being skeptical) then the problem is never going to reach some imaginary worst-case scenario. Point two trumps point one.
Having said that, in the interest of full disclosure, I would add that as an American I dont see what all of this has to do with any imaginary "war on terror". There is no enemy out there that needs this response. Even if this is being done for Israel or for oil, its a waste of effort. Israel has problems closer to home and is a big boy and should handle its own problems. The oil comes from the gulf, not from Afghanistan. Much smaller investments in carrots and sticks and other measures would keep Islamist terrorism in manageable bounds in the west.
All this is only meaningful if the US is worldcop and wants to do some social engineering in a bad neighborhood. Otherwise, why bother? Let them kill each other or make peace or make love or whatever. India is at risk, but they think they are big boys too. Besides, if they could handle kashmir in the nineties, they should be able to handle X or Y in the future as well.

[slapout9]

The oil comes from the gulf, not from Afghanistan. .

Some say it's not directly about oil, but indirectly about oil because of the proposed pipeleine? Your thoughts on that aspect.

[omarali50]

To reiterate: there are many "worst case scenarios" and slippery slopes, but the ruling elite in pakistan is not totally crazy. When push comes to shove, they always pick option A. They know what side their bread is buttered. Some craziness is good for business when all you are selling is nuisance value.
And, yes, I am sure there are nicer ways of putting this.

[omarali50]

I have never really figured out what that means. Pipelines will presumably ship oil from central asia to China or India. Let them police the pipelines. If they can.
And if people want a big cop to keep order in the neighborhood, then big cop sahib shouldnt have to spend his own pocket money on the job. Something like that.
Honestly, I suspect that some of this strategic value BS is cooked up by someone who wants a canteen contract for his cousin in the next war. Something like that. I am exposing my ignorance, but I really cannot figure it out.

[Bob's World]

Oil is a global market. People who have it need to sell it, people who need it need to buy it. All we every really wrestle over is who gets what cut of the profits. What government, what corporations, etc.

Corporations love the stability that comes with dictators, so we tend to back keeping dictators in power where corporate interests are high. I suspect since that has worked so well, we have applied the same stability principle to other areas where different types of interests are at stake, like access to key LOCs such as the Red Sea and Suez.

The real issue at play in GWOT is not an effort to expand extreme versions of Islam onto the unwilling; but rather to dislodge extreme versions of capitalism that have served to disrupt local processes of governmental legitimacy. Both will run hand in hand for a while, but once the causation of governance is addressed, the motivation of extreme Islam will quickly subside as well. If history is any judge, anyways.

(The poor fellas at Exxon didn't even send me a Christmas card this year.)

[slapout9]

The real issue at play in GWOT is not an effort to expand extreme versions of Islam onto the unwilling; but rather to dislodge extreme versions of capitalism that have served to disrupt local processes of governmental legitimacy.

Yep, they don't like Globalization, that is why they chose the Twin Towers,the very symbol of Global Domination from New York.

[Infanteer]

Yep, they don't like Globalization, that is why they chose the Twin Towers,the very symbol of Global Domination from New York.

Did they target the WTC due to a fear of globalization? Was the target selected after reading some Thomas Freidman and seeing a true threat to the safety of ones immortal spirit?

Or did big, well-known towers just serve as a large enough target of opportunity to stick it to someone supporting people who pissed you off.

I've always understood it to be the latter.

[slapout9]

Did they target the WTC due to a fear of globalization? Was the target selected after reading some Thomas Freidman and seeing a true threat to the safety of ones immortal spirit?

Or did big, well-known towers just serve as a large enough target of opportunity to stick it to someone supporting people who pissed you off.

I've always understood it to be the latter.

I think since they had already tried to blow up the Towers once already it is the former, they were determined to finish what they had started.

[Bob's World]

I have to go with Infanteer on this one. The symbolism of those twin towers, standing there at the gateway of the greatest city, of the greatest nation, represented the greed, power, and hubris of the American people in the second half of the 20th Century. They represented so much of the "why" behind the tremendous controlling presence established by the U.S. around the globe, a presence that remains the greatest in the Middle East as it has not evolved or rolled back there nearly to the degree it has in Europe, Asia or even Latin America. What better target than the WTC if one just wanted to walk up this great Tiger of a country and kick it square in the balls?? The targeting of the Pentagon, as the hub of the military forces that have enforced those control measures, and the unfulfilled targeting of the Capital/White house all make tremendous symbolic sense.

That said though, I believe that there certainly are those who are attracted to AQ's movement that do fear globalization; and perhaps those are the most deeply religious of their supporters. Just as the invention of the printing press unleashed an information age that led to the reformation of Christianity, with the associated tremendous social and political upheavals of that era; so too is the information technology fueling globalization placing reformatory pressures on Islam as well. There will be those who press for change and those who cling equally steadfastly to maintaining an exaggerated, and probably largely fictional and romanticized version of how they believe Islam is supposed to be. This is the great friction within Islam that will likely grow and forever change the face of that culture, the balance of power, and beliefs of the faithful in ways that are impossible to predict and totally and completely independent of the political objectives of AQ. It is like the monster wave crashing toward the shore that AQ is riding to serve their own ends. But such a wave can pick up everything in its path. I really think we need to do a better job of understanding both dynamics separately, as well as how they interact together, but to not conflate them as one homogeneous dynamic, because they are not.

Their world is changing in ways that are scary and unpredictable, and that will lead to powerful and unpredictable reactions in some. We can't do much about that and should not attempt to do so. We can, however, assess and adjust our foreign policies and relationships in the region to be less controlling and more respective of local dynamics of popular will and governance. As Dave Maxwell says... something about not wanting to be the minnow caught between two copulating whales.

[Infanteer]

Wow, what a good thread - there are a few distinct discussions going on, so I'll start here:

The real issue at play in GWOT is not an effort to expand extreme versions of Islam onto the unwilling; but rather to dislodge extreme versions of capitalism that have served to disrupt local processes of governmental legitimacy. Both will run hand in hand for a while, but once the causation of governance is addressed, the motivation of extreme Islam will quickly subside as well. If history is any judge, anyways.

That's how I understand it - if I recall correctly, AQs big targets were "apostate dictatorships" in places like Egypt and Saudi Arabia (these were the two states that spurned OBL and Zawahiri). Eliminating them and cleaning up The House of Submission was the policy and sticking it to the U.S. to rile up the Islamic masses is the strategy. I believe that Michael Sheuer detailed all this with his use of primary sources in his books.

The whole global caliphate is more like the "ideological chatter" on the fringes of the mission; similiar to our side talking about democratizing the world.

That being said, this refers to AQ the group (an NGO I guess), which may have seen its goals and organization change in the last 10 years (I'm not too current on it). AQ the movement, which lives in the West and everywhere else, is a different beast altogether. I'm not sure taking one down will affect the other anymore.

[JJackson]

1. There is a jihadist core in pakistan (not in "sanctuaries" alone, but in the govt, in the Islamist parties, especially in the intelligence agencies) and they are fleecing the Americans while ruthlessly protecting their minimum interests (even if that means sacrificing a lot of foot-soldiers).
2. Pakistan is not a very strong state. No one in the ruling elite actually wants to try to fight off an unhappy America or even to survive without monthly handouts. The bluff works only because America lets it work.

Is this what is going on? I think there are two elites the Military and political dynasties.
1] I would see as the Military who are good Muslims but not Jihadists. Their primary interest relates to India and while they are very happy to use US tax dollars to beef up their forces they want them as protection against their enemy not the US’s (the same is going on in Yemen).
2] Is the political class, and all who get rich through their patronage. They have a very difficult task they want to feather their own nests with those nice US tax dollars but their electorate are absolutely clear who their enemy is - the US and India probably in that order. How do you do enough to appease the Americans without getting lynched by your own people and without letting a US or Indian proxy establish itself on your northern flank.
What has not been discussed much is China who are very close to the Pakistanis and also have a vested interest in not having a US or Indian proxy in Afghanistan. To date they have not needed to take any action in their own interest but if the US makes its attacks on its Pakistani allies more overt or India looked like gaining significant influence that may change and needs to be factored in.