Assessing Al-Qaeda (merged thread)

[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....

[TheCurmudgeon]

I think your article makes my point:

Grasping such complexity will require a much more subtle approach than one grounded in a simple distinction between (modern) political goals and (traditional) religious ones. Terms such as “political Islam” are inadequate here as they frame our inquiries around a posited distortion or corruption of properly religious practice.

My issue is that we, as professionals, should not give into the the desires to simplify the problem. If we start using terms like "political Islam" without the necessary clarifications between the terrorist/insurgents' interpretation of Islam and a more pedestrian meaning of the term Islam then how can we hope those who read our writing to understand there is a difference. If we are incapable of understanding and articulating the difference in conversations amongst ourselves, how are we ever going to get the general population to understand.

As professionals, people listen to what we say. We should be clear when we use terms like "political Islam."

BTW, the article you site makes a great point on how Islam is blamed for socioeconomic problems that are larger than Islam.

[Bill Moore]

I think your article makes my point:



My issue is that we, as professionals, should not give into the the desires to simplify the problem. If we start using terms like "political Islam" without the necessary clarifications between the terrorist/insurgents' interpretation of Islam and a more pedestrian meaning of the term Islam then how can we hope those who read our writing to understand there is a difference. If we are incapable of understanding and articulating the difference in conversations amongst ourselves, how are we ever going to get the general population to understand.

As professionals, people listen to what we say. We should be clear when we use terms like "political Islam."

BTW, the article you site makes a great point on how Islam is blamed for socioeconomic problems that are larger than Islam.

As professionals it probably way past time to explore updating our lexicon.

Obviously Islam isn't a cause for economic problems, since the same economic problems impact other societies and states that are not Islamic. A lot of countries that are primarily Muslim suffer from the same issues of corruption, the resource curse, and borders drawn to facilitate exploitation by western powers as many non-Muslim countries. On the other hand, those that practice fundamental Islam do have an issue with marginalizing approximate 50% of their population by hindering the ability of women to get an education and pursue professions, and I can't help but think that is a factor in some countries for retarded economic growth.

Islam is the underlying reason for the wide ranging jihad we're wrestling with now. That doesn't mean every Muslim embraces it, and most likely a small percentage do, nonetheless a small percentage of 1.3 billion people is still a lot of people. We have to understand our adversary and ourselves, and based on the recent dialogue I fear we understand neither.

[Bill Moore]

Somewhat dated, but these excerpts from a RAND study are worth considering, and it helps clarify my point that we're looking at this through a Western bias that almost makes it impossible for us to imagine a government without institutions, yet the jihadists admit that they want a government that doesn't stand in between God and man, and they admit they don't know what that will look like, and the transition will be rough. You may also be right, and this could be their downfall.

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand...RAND_MG602.pdf

in their own words
Voices of Jihad, by David Aaron
Compilation and commentary

Jihadis can also be categorized as Islamists, political movements that want to bring the practice of Islamic law into government. Here, too, the jihadis are at the extreme end of a spectrum. At the moderate end is the Islamist-oriented government of Turkey, a NATO ally and a nation where secularism is enshrined in the constitution. Further along the spectrum, the Muslim Brotherhood is the largest opposition group in the Egyptian Parliament. And finally, there are the Islamists in Sudan who countenance the genocide in Darfur (of non-Arab Muslims), the Taliban, and the jihadis.

The following statement is indictative of the bias we start with when viewing these challenges, which makes one wonder why they thought that Muslims were going to embrace western civilization in the first place?

“Many writers, thinkers, scholars, and leaders who were advocating conformity with the values of western civilization and adherence to its norms and the complete adoption of its principles began rethinking their ideas and started to change their tone and replace it with a new more cautious and wary approach. The call for the return of Muslim society to the fundamentals and teachings of Islam became more powerful, paving the way for the re-islamisation of all aspects of life.

Below Naji references the competing political systems.

“The interest in understanding the rules of the political game and the political reality of the enemies and their fellow travelers and then mastering g disciplined political action through sharia politics and opposing this reality is not less than the importance of military action.” (Naji, 2004)

You can't more clear than this in a vague sort of way

“In other words, any political program will not succeed unless we can defeat the West militarily and culturally, and repel it from Muslim lands. At that time, it will not be difficult for the nation—with its great energies and vast wealth—to re-form its life in accordance with the fundamentals of Islamic Sharia.

This is where I think you and Bob are too quick to draw parallels to the West, even when claim to be above that. Highlights are mine.

The caliphate we are working to establish cannot be compared with
any known man-made political system.” (Ibrahim, 1984)

One of the unfamiliar characteristics of these writings is the way religious sayings and symbols are used to address issues that in the West would not take on such religious aspects. It is reminiscent of the way the communist movement in the 20th century discussed almost every political issue in terms of “class struggle,” and in much of the Christian era, secular problems were debated in the language of church doctrine. Similarly, jihadis address contemporary problems in terms of their religious ideology.

Do they desire to fight the West? Some do,

“Islam is an all-encompassing religion. It is a religion for people and for regimes. . . . Islam is the only alternative for the countries [of the world]. . . .

“Therefore, the crime of the tyrants in infidel [i.e. non-Muslim] countries, who do not rule according to Allah’s law, is an enormous sin . . . and we are obliged to fight them and initiate until they convert to
Islam, or until Muslims rule the country and he who does not convert to Islam pays Jizya.

“That is the religious ruling with regard to infidel countries and all the more so with regard to those who rule Muslim countries by way of the cursed law [i.e. a man-made law].” (al-Najdi, 2003b)

[Bob's World]

The sad truth is that America's founding principals and the goals of the Sunni populations that AQ targets align far more than either side is comfortable to admit.

[Bill Moore]

The sad truth is that America's founding principals and the goals of the Sunni populations that AQ targets align far more than either side is comfortable to admit.

It is important to clarify this statement to avoid confusion. Sunni populations is too broad a description to be useful, that is even broader than saying Americans think this or that. If you read the writings of various Sunni revolutionary writers I agree with you statement. This thread specifically is focused on al-Qaeda and al-Qaedaism, which narrows the focus to a small percentage of the Sunni population. I agree AQ targets this broader population, and ultimately needs to win it over through conviction or coercion to be successful.

Specifically al-Qaeda leaders, and the religious leaders they reference, align their thoughts to some degree with our American revolutionary leaders when they talk of freeing their people from tyrannical regimes who oppress their people. Several fundamental and radical Muslims were fond of U.S. Information Service during the Cold War, because they believed we were the only ones effectively telling the truth about the USSR and their oppression of Muslims. However, they (for lack of a better term, the radical leadership that embraces al-Qaedaism) see us as the oppressors due to our perceived desire to impose secular governments elected by the people, which in their view puts the people above God. They agree on removing regimes that oppress the Muslim people, but that is where al-Qaedaism linked groups stop being aligned with our founding fathers. They have no use for democracy, equal rights, etc. The form of governance they plan to implement is equally oppressive, but perhaps more just, than the ones they desire to expel.

They adjust their words over time based on local context and to respond to the adversary's actions, so their religious (same as political in their case) narrative continues to evolve, but the core of establishing a caliphate remains; and some extremists are on record as looking globally, not just re-establishing the caliphate.

The vast majority of Sunni Muslims who are not aligned with al-Qaedaism, still seem to find some aspects of AQ's arguments credible (Islam is under attack, Muslims are being oppressed, etc.), and any military action the West takes can unintentionally give additional legitimacy to AQ linked groups. Dictators in Muslim countries, especially where the majority of Muslims live in poverty also lend legitimacy to AQ's assertions. We agree on this, and it explains why AQ is able to spread its message and help mobilize the local population to act against their government, so yes that aspect is political. However, I think we would be remiss to discount the larger religious context that informs the political. Unlike our nation, religion is superior and informs the political in Islam, especially to al-Qaedism linked groups.

Steve is probably right that once the extremists establish governance they'll probably lose power when coercive power isn't enough to hold it altogether. That still doesn't reduce to the West from the AQ linked members who still desire to strike the West either out of revenge, or to convince the West not to interfere in their countries, or in some cases in a misguided attempt to spread Islam into the West (the global caliphate).

From a security standpoint we need to identify those terrorists (another word that isn't overly helpful) who intend to do "us" harm and find a way to eliminate them without giving AQ additional legitimacy. Ignoring the threat isn't an option, nor is a major ground campaign, nor is nation building in our image. It is absolutely critical we understand the narrative which is based on their interpretation of Islam. Trying to replace this narrative with a narrative based on democracy has failed and will probably continue to fail. Seems that most the appropriate approach to weaken their narrative is other Muslims promoting narratives that weaken AQ's. This is probably happening in some locations, but unfortunately leaders like Maliki further legitimize AQ's narrative.

[TheCurmudgeon]

The sad truth is that America's founding principals and the goals of the Sunni populations that AQ targets align far more than either side is comfortable to admit.

I believe you are right, which means that a large part of the problem is not them, but us. We don't like to make the comparison between the our history and the current Sunni situation because of uncomfortable parallels and what it reveals about our own national "creation myths".

[carl]

The sad truth is that America's founding principals and the goals of the Sunni populations that AQ targets align far more than either side is comfortable to admit.

LOL. I hate to use that but nothing else fits...and it did make me.

Freedom of association. Freedom of religion. Freedom of the press. Representative government. Checks and balances.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Somewhat dated, but these excerpts from a RAND study are worth considering, and it helps clarify my point that we're looking at this through a Western bias that almost makes it impossible for us to imagine a government without institutions, yet the jihadists admit that they want a government that doesn't stand in between God and man, and they admit they don't know what that will look like, and the transition will be rough. You may also be right, and this could be their downfall.

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand...RAND_MG602.pdf

in their own words
Voices of Jihad, by David Aaron
Compilation and commentary

As your post observes, there is nothing unique in the using Islam to justify a utopian ideal.

One of the unfamiliar characteristics of these writings is the way religious sayings and symbols are used to address issues that in the West would not take on such religious aspects. It is reminiscent of the way the communist movement in the 20th century discussed almost every political issue in terms of “class struggle,” and in much of the Christian era, secular problems were debated in the language of church doctrine. Similarly, jihadis address contemporary problems in terms of their religious ideology.

There is nothing new here. The Christians did it if the 14th-17th centuries in Europe. The communists did it with ideology.

To say that the Caliphate will be like no government on earth is just motivational speak. To govern, a theocracy has to have systems. Look at the Vatican - the ultimate theocracy. It has banks, police, PR people. And it only governs over a small space (and an large congregation). Iran is a theocracy and is very complex with its ruling Ayatollahs and its more secular government. There is nothing new under the sun. To say that Islam is somehow unique is to deny the rest of human history. So to approach it as a unique problem, a primarily religious problem, is to feed into its own propaganda.

More important to the current problem is al Baghdadi. He is more cleaver and pragmatic than a simple religious leader. He has managed to create a self funded movement that has succeeded in using alliances with less religious groups to gain and control territory. He is more of a rational actor than his followers whom he manipulates. He is a man who apparently has no issue with the luxurious west as he wears a Rolex. Yet he is willing to be Stalinistically vicious in order to control his followers.

Actually, it might be more appropriate to compare his to Stalin than to any Mullah or Ayatollah. He has taken a fundamentalist ideology and he it taking it over piece by piece. He will now consolidate his power. Kill his rivals and control the purse.

[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.