Assessing Al-Qaeda (merged thread)

[carl]

When people define the problem in the context of the religion of the participants, they are not only superficial in their analysis - they create a problem with no solution other than genocide or pure suppression of one party by the other.

This is a very important view. It recognizes the horror of religious conflict, but that is not why the statement is important. It is important because I think the recognition of the horror that religious conflict results in may affect our ability to realize when the enemy is embarked upon a course that intentionally seeks to start a religious war. Because it is such a horrible thing doesn't mean it can't come and it doesn't mean some people don't desire it and seek to provoke it. AQI intentionally tried to do that once before in Iraq. It can happen and has happened and therefore it is important that we realize this and believe it to be when it comes.

The problem with Bob's World's statement above is it appears to so dread the possibility that somebody wants to kill me or you because of religion that it refuses to recognize that that possibility exists. It seems such a strong fear of a thing that denial of its existence is the only emotionally acceptable recourse. We must accept the reality that the other guy can define the conflict upon the basis of religion so we can see it for what it is when it comes. And it has come. We don't seek to define this as a religious conflict. They do. We do ourselves no favors by denying what is.

[Bill Moore]

In many locations where there are conflicts a reasonable change in governance would do much to alleviate the hostility. In the deeply divided country of Iraq political changes are a must for any chance of progress. Hopefully I'm wrong, but I see little reason to believe there can be a one Iraq solution, and instead we'll see a formal or informal division of Iraq into at least three ethnic enclaves. Even if that happens it won't appease IS I who desire to impose a caliphate throughout the entire region based on their interpretation of Islam. That problem is very much a military problem unless the majority will peacefully accept their rule, which isn't possible. At this point in our discussion I think there are political aspects for the Iraq problems that need to be addressed, and if they're not any military action will only achieve short term effects, but at the end of the day military action will be needed against the IS I.

[Bob's World]

Carl,

Who are "They"?

You are right that "they" in charge of ISIS, ISIL, Muslim Brotherhood, AQ, etc. choose to define the conflict in religious terms. As I have often said, this is the smartest and most effective way to recruit citizens to serve as guerrillas, as an underground, and as an auxiliary (in US doctrinal terms) in support of their agenda. But even those three broad groupings of the population only make up a small portion of Sunni populations of the greater Middle East and the entire planet writ large.

I suspect the majority of Sunni believe strongly that the governance they live under must change; but that a much smaller percentage believe they must act out illegally to effect that change; and a much smaller percentage still that believe that the future governance they should replace their current governance with is that extreme Islamist version is espoused by the "they" you seem so concerned about. The much larger "they" simply want fair opportunity, justice under the law, and reasonably evolved rights more in tune with the environment of the current day.

The Sunni revolutionary insurgencies are in full swing and will continue to play out. The most likely (and best, IMO) outcome in Syria and Iraq is a fragmentation into new states defined much more by common culture and heritage than by the desires and interests of Western imperialists.

It looks to me that the leadership of the Gulf States (where the revolution will spread to next if those governments to not stop simply attempting to buy down their populations with oil money), are conducting UW with various Sunni groups in Syria and Iraq to facilitate the formation of a Sunni state (or states) there. It looks like the US either tacitly or covertly supports that play.

No one knows what the future will bring, but most should be able to see that the current framework of governance in the region where the states of Iraq and Syria currently burn is untenable. The US does not need to control this, and any efforts to do so will not only be likely to fail, but will also only validate the #1 rationale employed by AQ and others to motivate their target audience to conducts acts of transnational terrorism against the US and the West.

Mitigate, shape, develop lines of influence - yes to all. But the more we attempt to control the less of all three of those more critical factors we will have.

[carl]

Carl,

Who are "They"?

You are right that "they" in charge of ISIS, ISIL, Muslim Brotherhood, AQ, etc. choose to define the conflict in religious terms. As I have often said, this is the smartest and most effective way to recruit citizens to serve as guerrillas, as an underground, and as an auxiliary (in US doctrinal terms) in support of their agenda. But even those three broad groupings of the population only make up a small portion of Sunni populations of the greater Middle East and the entire planet writ large.

I suspect the majority of Sunni believe strongly that the governance they live under must change; but that a much smaller percentage believe they must act out illegally to effect that change; and a much smaller percentage still that believe that the future governance they should replace their current governance with is that extreme Islamist version is espoused by the "they" you seem so concerned about. The much larger "they" simply want fair opportunity, justice under the law, and reasonably evolved rights more in tune with the environment of the current day.

They are, as you said, the ones who are defining this as a religious conflict, as I said. They are the people with the weapons and the organization. So that makes them dangerous. What you believe the majority of Sunnis believe makes no difference at all even if they do believe as you think because the ones who matter are the ones with the weapons and the organization. They have not attended some secret conference somewhere and all agreed to pretend that they are motivated by religion just to recruit and motivate the foot killers. They don't fool themselves. They motivate their rank and file with the same thing that motivates them, religion.

As you said, but seem to refuse to acknowledge, the conflict is religious. They defined it such. We have to believe that they have done so in order to combat it. You gotta know the kind of fight the other guy has put you in even if you didn't want to be put into it.

[TheCurmudgeon]

They are, as you said, the ones who are defining this as a religious conflict, as I said. They are the people with the weapons and the organization. So that makes them dangerous. What you believe the majority of Sunnis believe makes no difference at all even if they do believe as you think because the ones who matter are the ones with the weapons and the organization. They have not attended some secret conference somewhere and all agreed to pretend that they are motivated by religion just to recruit and motivate the foot killers. They don't fool themselves. They motivate their rank and file with the same thing that motivates them, religion.

As you said, but seem to refuse to acknowledge, the conflict is religious. They defined it such. We have to believe that they have done so in order to combat it. You gotta know the kind of fight the other guy has put you in even if you didn't want to be put into it.

Carl,

What do you think it is about this religion that motivates them?

[carl]

Carl,

What do you think it is about this religion that motivates them?

I don't know. It is probably more useful to say what is it about religion rather than to speak about "this religion". If you go that track it still doesn't really matter about the details of belief and religion's place in the human heart. It matters that religion can be used as the reason to kill, conquer, rape and steal. It hasn't been widely fashionable lately but it is making a comeback in a big way.

[davidbfpo]

A short review by Professor Bruce Hoffman:http://news.siteintelgroup.com/blog/...-the-caliphate

Starts with:

Once again, the conventional wisdom in Washington about al-Qaeda (AQ) and the broader jihadi terrorist threat has been proven wrong. The wishful thinking passing for analysis since the beginning of the year that the split within the movement resulting in the expulsion of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) from the AQ fold would simultaneously weaken both Core AQ and ISIS—now pretentiously re-named the Islamic State (IS)—has been dramatically disproven by the latter's lightning thrust into Iraq and seizure of the northern and western parts of the war-torn country.

[OUTLAW 09]

The exchange between Bob and Bill is interesting for a number of reasons--but having dealt often with really good Islamists (good from their understanding of the Koran and the Sunnah and their speaking a really good Arabic) and even though I was the interrogator and they were the detainees the conversations sometimes got deep.

We in the West never took the time to try to understand what was driving them and often I caught myself actually agreeing with them--example---in 2005 and 2006 we never took the time to fully understand what was driving the Sunni insurgents---was it religious in nature, was it nationalism in nature meaning they did not like their country being invaded by Americans, was it they simply did not like foreigners and the list could go on and on.

Example---we chased someone for over two years---one year from the previous BCT the 1st ID and then we actually stumbled across him.

When I got his folder it was honestly four inches thick with reports over reports. So if one looked at the folder one would think you were dealing with a really major AQI fighter and or cell leader.

When I read through the reports I was stuck by a number of repeated reports saying virtually the same thing so that really the four inches went to about a half inch.

Then I simply said explain the remaining reports to me and just how did you get this massive reputation. He was startled by the direct question.

Here is the story and it goes to the heart of the ME and how we as Americans failed to fully understand what we were seeing.

This individual had a two brothers one a few years younger than himself (he was the oldest) and a really young brother of 12.

Next to the family in a small faming village near Baqubah there was a richer farmer who had a pond and ducks. One day the rich farmers wife came to my insurgents family and accused the youngest brother in front of the mother for stealing four of the ducks---the mother of the accused brother then slapped the rich farmers wife who went home crying.

Two days later the nephew of the rich farmers wife came to the insurgents family waving a pistol and demanding a financial payment for slapping the wife--this led to a gun fight with the nephew who was killed by the second oldest brother.

Now at least under Saddam the police functioned in 2002---the second oldest brother was arrested as was my insurgent who was later released as the investigating judge ruled there was no involvement on his part. The brother got a 20 year jail sentence for the killing and was in Abu Ghraib when we arrived in Baghdad and was released by Saddam just before we arrived thus basically freed of all charges.

So he goes home and there the aggrieved family then with every opportunity would finger the released brother for being in AQ , for being an insurgent, for being a criminal, for smuggling, for building IEDs, etc---and naturally we the Army collected all these reports which ended up in a targeting folder.

True reason for the massive reporting: ---the aggrieved family was simply mad that the murderer was out of jail and free and they wanted him locked back up.

When we did not respond by arresting the second brother the finger pointing towards my insurgent picked up as well with the same acusations ---at this stage in 2005 many BCTs did not fully understand this concept of Iraqi finger pointing which was using the Army by the local Iraqi as a vengeance tool against their alleged and perceived enemies.

Now AQI comes into play---in this town was a alcoholic AQ leader who often would walk down the street shooting his pistol at the locals---my insurgent had two windows shot out by him and one evening he goes down and basically shoots the AQI leader seriously wounding him---so now he is in trouble with the US Army, the AQI and caught between both the fronts.

He was also pushing AK47s that he had stolen from a local military camp because we did not get to Diyala until five weeks after arriving in Baghdad. So AQI upped the pressure and threatened his family if he did not sell them the weapons which he did --so now we have him on the radar as a AQI weapons dealer.

So now I have him sitting in front of me with a four inch folder as a AQI member, an AQI weapons dealer---all because of four allegedly stolen ducks back in 2002.

Or as the BN that captured him stated---he was a really bad dude.

Guess what--- we the US Army until 2010 never got this finger pointing exercise that the Iraqi's used with us to settle their personal disputes.

By the way many Iraqi women learned quickly that by accusing their husbands of being AQI we would arrest them and then they were gone for at least 2 or more years in Abu Ghraib and Bucca---during this period they would then divorce their husbands because the Army had arrested them as "terrorists" ---this was jokingly referred to as the "Iraq divorce".

[slapout9]

It literally means to submit..... does it not? or more generally to submit to the will of Allah. That means there is nothing to interpret!!!! nothing to analyze!!!! nothing to do but follow and submit!!!!! or be killed as an infidel. In fact only an infidel would try an analyze or interpret Islam which is an abomination in and of itself. This is what we never seem to understand. That is why the only way out is to follow......... The Prime Directive!

[slapout9]

This is a very important view. It recognizes the horror of religious conflict, but that is not why the statement is important. It is important because I think the recognition of the horror that religious conflict results in may affect our ability to realize when the enemy is embarked upon a course that intentionally seeks to start a religious war. Because it is such a horrible thing doesn't mean it can't come and it doesn't mean some people don't desire it and seek to provoke it. AQI intentionally tried to do that once before in Iraq. It can happen and has happened and therefore it is important that we realize this and believe it to be when it comes.

The problem with Bob's World's statement above is it appears to so dread the possibility that somebody wants to kill me or you because of religion that it refuses to recognize that that possibility exists. It seems such a strong fear of a thing that denial of its existence is the only emotionally acceptable recourse. We must accept the reality that the other guy can define the conflict upon the basis of religion so we can see it for what it is when it comes. And it has come. We don't seek to define this as a religious conflict. They do. We do ourselves no favors by denying what is.

I think your right carl,
One has to ask why are we afraid to face this? It is a religious war, the goal is to hurt America anyway possible. I am sure there are other motives to go along with this but it seems to be the primary mover. Political Correctness is going to destroy this country, it prevents the discussion of reality. What a propaganda win for the PC crowd, they have completely destroyed our ability to think as a Nation in order to defend ourselves and never fired a shot. Anything that violates the love boat foreign policy is not even considered no matter obvious it has become.

[Bill Moore]

I think your right carl,
One has to ask why are we afraid to face this? It is a religious war, the goal is to hurt America anyway possible. I am sure there are other motives to go along with this but it seems to be the primary mover. Political Correctness is going to destroy this country, it prevents the discussion of reality. What a propaganda win for the PC crowd, they have completely destroyed our ability to think as a Nation in order to defend ourselves and never fired a shot. Anything that violates the love boat foreign policy is not even considered no matter obvious it has become.

Actually Carl and Bob are both right. There must be a new political arrangement in the Middle East for any hope of a sustainable peace that will lessen, not erase, the appeal of radicalism. We also need to take the radicals' threat to the wider region and the U.S. very seriously. Foreign fighters are not flocking to Syria for secular reasons, but to support a religious war. Some will continue that fight when they return home. We can do little to influence the political outcome, but we can implement a wide range of security measures, to include military action to reduce the threat. This war is far from over, but we can be smarter about how we conduct ourselves so we don't make the situation worse like we did with our invasion of Iraq. We also can make it worse by not taking action as we failed to do against AQ prior to 9/11.

No easy answers, which is why I think this discussion is valuable.

[TheCurmudgeon]

I think your right carl,
One has to ask why are we afraid to face this? It is a religious war, the goal is to hurt America anyway possible. I am sure there are other motives to go along with this but it seems to be the primary mover. Political Correctness is going to destroy this country, it prevents the discussion of reality. What a propaganda win for the PC crowd, they have completely destroyed our ability to think as a Nation in order to defend ourselves and never fired a shot. Anything that violates the love boat foreign policy is not even considered no matter obvious it has become.

I did not realize "American" was a religion.

That statement, more than anything else, demonstrates the flaw in your thinking. You confuse religious organizations and political organizations. So you will never be able to define the problem correctly.

Bob is right, religion is NOT the main driver. By using religion to define the problem you include vast numbers of people who are unrelated to the problem. YOUR religious opinions make you see the problem as religious. You have defined the sides, the "us and them", based on your religious views. I wonder is Muslim Americans see the problem the same way.

So what is your solution, genocide?

[TheCurmudgeon]

Let me offer "a modest proposal" - a way to examine the question of religion in conflict. I will assume that the average American is Christian. Based on that observation alone, I can assume that the American answer to radical Islam is total annihilation of the entire Muslim population.

That is a fair interpretation because of the religious teachings of both Christians and Jews. The bible teaches them that, when confronted with an enemy it is appropriate to kill them all. In 1 Samuel 15 God instructed them to destroy Amalek completely, “man and women, child and infant, oxen and sheep, camel and donkey.” Total genocide.

So clearly the teachings of the bible would direct all Americans to engage in the total extermination of every Muslim in the world.

Think about this for a minute. Based on what I have just said is it fair to impute motivation and desire to every member of a religion based on the religions teachings. Is it really fair to say that, because there are a few passages in the Koran about killing infidels, that every Muslim is now a threat to my existence?

Religion is not the problem. Men interpret religion. They adapt it to their own thinking. It is not the religion that cause acts of terror, it is the motivations of the people and the way they twist the religion to fit their desires. It is those initial motivations that are the problem. They are what has to be addressed to find a solution.

[Bill Moore]

Slapout can speak for himself, but i think you just left the ballpark completely with your comment about America not being a religion, so therefore the other side can't wage jihadists. First off the religious conflict is principally between Muslims, we are simply seen as the far enemy viewed as a secular state that is supporting those the jihadists see as undesirable. Al-Qaeda linked movements are most definitely fighting to impose their view of Islam, which is also a political system. Just because we separate church and state doesn't mean that others do this. As we all recognize there are multiple groups fighting and the coalitions constantly shift. Some of those group are seeking political power regardless of religion, so it is complex. It is also wrong in my view to claim ISI isn't motivated by religion. Why we shy away from I don't understand.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Slapout can speak for himself, but i think you just left the ballpark completely with your comment about America not being a religion, so therefore the other side can't wage jihadists. First off the religious conflict is principally between Muslims, we are simply seen as the far enemy viewed as a secular state that is supporting those the jihadists see as undesirable. Al-Qaeda linked movements are most definitely fighting to impose their view of Islam, which is also a political system. Just because we separate church and state doesn't mean that others do this. As we all recognize there are multiple groups fighting and the coalitions constantly shift. Some of those group are seeking political power regardless of religion, so it is complex. It is also wrong in my view to claim ISI isn't motivated by religion. Why we shy away from I don't understand.

The problem is not that we shy away from religion, it is that we use it as the primary evil without looking any further. We make no effort to understand how religion is being used by the extremist. The history being invoked, to try to find the reason why anyone would follow them. We think in shallow terms - they are evil people who are religious, therefore their religion is evil and so is everyone who practices it.

The recent article "The Coming War with the Caliphate" is a prime example. The author had no idea what he was saying by using that term the way he did. He might have well have said "The Coming War with the Ummah."

For some people it is enough to know that they are Muslim extremists. That categorization alone explains their motivations. It is this narrow thinking that causes the problem.

Extremists of all strips use a doctrinal base from which to espouse their message. Be it Muslim, Cristian, Communism, or some ethnic identity myth. Again, it is not the religion that is at issue, it is the base of the extremist view and why that view resonates with a particular segment of the population.

Thinking that way is complicated. Thinking that way is hard. But what we have done up until now is not working. There is no reason to expect that it will in the future.

BTW, it was Slap that compared America to a religion, not me. You can't mix metaphors without revealing a little about how you think.

Explain to me how Islam is a political system. What part of the Koran explains how a government should be established? What part discusses who the executive is? How laws are made? How budgets are determined? The reason there is a Sunni Shia split is because Mohamed failed to leave anything like a plan for future governance. So no, Islam is not a form of government. It lays out some laws, just as the bible does. That is nothing new. It certainly does not make Islam a political system.

[Bill Moore]

The problem is not that we shy away from religion, it is that we use it as the primary evil without looking any further. We make no effort to understand how religion is being used by the extremist. The history being invoked, to try to find the reason why anyone would follow them. We think in shallow terms - they are evil people who are religious, therefore their religion is evil and so is everyone who practices it.

The recent article "The Coming War with the Caliphate" is a prime example. The author had no idea what he was saying by using that term the way he did. He might have well have said "The Coming War with the Ummah."

For some people it is enough to know that they are Muslim extremists. That categorization alone explains their motivations. It is this narrow thinking that causes the problem.

Extremists of all strips use a doctrinal base from which to espouse their message. Be it Muslim, Cristian, Communism, or some ethnic identity myth. Again, it is not the religion that is at issue, it is the base of the extremist view and why that view resonates with a particular segment of the population.

Thinking that way is complicated. Thinking that way is hard. But what we have done up until now is not working. There is no reason to expect that it will in the future.

BTW, it was Slap that compared America to a religion, not me. You can't mix metaphors without revealing a little about how you think.

Explain to me how Islam is a political system. What part of the Koran explains how a government should be established? What part discusses who the executive is? How laws are made? How budgets are determined? The reason there is a Sunni Shia split is because Mohamed failed to leave anything like a plan for future governance. So no, Islam is not a form of government. It lays out some laws, just as the bible does. That is nothing new. It certainly does not make Islam a political system.

First off I think very few people in uniform default to all Muslims are evil terrorists, and I think more than half have actually read a fair amount of history on the topic. You and Bob can come across as more than a little condescending at times. Our military is full of bright and educated folks who have put their lives on the line to protect Muslims, so keep that in mind.

Second we have always had our share of simpletons, to include rednecks, in the public sector who form opinions based on 15 second sound bytes in the news. Those people don't make policy, but admittedly if stupidity mobilizes voters then it could influence policy.

Islam according to al-Qaeda and I believe the Wahabbists should guide both social and political life. The laws are based on Sharia law, and law is a function of the state. I agree that governments must eventually form institutions, and since Saudi Arabia seems to be a state that follows Islam closely maybe a close look at their institutions would be informative.

http://www.merip.org/mer/mer205/what-political-islam

What is Political Islam

by Charles Hirschkind

Over the last few decades, Islam has become a central point of reference for a wide range of political activities, arguments and opposition movements. The term “political Islam” has been adopted by many scholars in order to identify this seemingly unprecedented irruption of Islamic religion into the secular domain of politics and thus to distinguish these practices from the forms of personal piety, belief and ritual conventionally subsumed in Western scholarship under the unmarked category “Islam.” In the brief comments that follow, I suggest why we might need to rethink this basic framework.

The claim that contemporary Muslim activities are putting Islam to use for political purposes seems, at least in some instances, to be warranted. Political parties such as Hizb al-‘Amal in Egypt or the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) in Algeria that base their appeal on their Islamic credentials appear to exemplify this instrumental relation to religion. Yet a problem remains, even in such seemingly obvious examples: In what way does the distinction between the political and nonpolitical domains of social life hold today? Many scholars have argued that “political Islam” involves an illegitimate extension of the Islamic tradition outside of the properly religious domain it has historically occupied. Few, however, have explored this trend in relation to the contemporaneous expansion of state power and concern into vast domains of social life previously outside its purview -- including that of religion.

Gets more interesting as you keep reading....

[slapout9]

BTW, it was Slap that compared America to a religion, not me. You can't mix metaphors without revealing a little about how you think.

If you are gonna quote me get it right!!!! I never said that read it again.

[slapout9]

I did not realize "American" was a religion.

I go to work for awhile and you just fall off a cliff....Read it again I did not say American....You said that! I said America!!! referring to the country....based upon a conversation with a Muslim American who asked me directly "Why America doesn't get it?" Allah is everything....All must start with him not Politics according to my friend. But he is right most people don't get it which why we are in the mess we are in.

That statement, more than anything else, demonstrates the flaw in your thinking. You confuse religious organizations and political organizations. So you will never be able to define the problem correctly.

I have no flaw in my thinking but you sure do. I am stunned you are such a Cartesian thinker that you really have know clue do you? Here let me help you. Please read "Understanding Islamic Fundamentalism" by William R. Polk

http://consortiumnews.com/2014/06/29...undamentalism/


And finally NO! I do not nor have never recommended genocide!