Studies on radicalization & comments

[Tukhachevskii]

I think we flatter ourselves and underestimate our antagonists if we assume that those fighting us are purely reactive, and that we can control them simply by adjusting our own policies. Reaction to US policies - some flawed, some not unreasonable - is a part of the picture, and it's a part that we ignore at our peril. It is by no means the entire picture, and it is equally perilous to focus on that part to the exclusion of all others.

I whole heartedly agree. On a number of threads I have attempted, usually dismally, to impress upon the members of the central role of Islam in Islamism/Islamist violence(political uncorrect notion of course). I decided that I would write a proper article for the Small Wars Journal outlining my conceptual and theortetical basis for such an assertion. However, I came up against two problems; 1) getting hold of the necessary material, either via the library or via my university alumni service, would immediately flag me up as one of them!; 2) most of the material avaliable is through websites whom I would rather NOT give my personal details to. However, while schlepping through the internet to find what research material I could I discovered that someone had beaten me to it and produced a work that I could only hope to ape rather than best. The work is a thesis written as part of the course requirements at the US National Defence Intelligence College in 2007 by a Major Stephen Collins Coughlin. I think it would be to Our Great Detriment if it were more not more widely diseminated. I understand he is in political hot water for his work but from what I hear right thinking individuals in the Pentagon (shock horror, who would have thought it) are rallying around him; finally, common sense prevails.

[Bob's World]

I whole heartedly agree. On a number of threads I have attempted, usually dismally, to impress upon the members of the central role of Islam in Islamism/Islamist violence(political uncorrect notion of course). I decided that I would write a proper article for the Small Wars Journal outlining my conceptual and theortetical basis for such an assertion. However, I came up against two problems; 1) getting hold of the necessary material, either via the library or via my university alumni service, would immediately flag me up as one of them!; 2) most of the material avaliable is through websites whom I would rather NOT give my personal details to. However, while schlepping through the internet to find what research material I could I discovered that someone had beaten me to it and produced a work that I could only hope to ape rather than best. The work is a thesis written as part of the course requirements at the US National Defence Intelligence College in 2007 by a Major Stephen Collins Coughlin. I think it would be to Our Great Detriment if it were more not more widely diseminated. I understand he is in political hot water for his work but from what I hear right thinking individuals in the Pentagon (shock horror, who would have thought it) are rallying around him; finally, common sense prevails.

You wouldn't want to have us radical Christians feeling left out simply because our movement to throw off the poor governance of the Holy Roman Empire is already over.

But if you are looking for allies in making this all about villanizing a particular religion, google some of Ralph Peters recent stuff. He's pretty out there on that limb as well.

No doubt about it though, religious-based ideology works. That's why so many insurgent leaders use it. National leaders as well for the same reasons.

[Tukhachevskii]

You wouldn't want to have us radical Christians feeling left out simply because our movement to throw off the poor governance of the Holy Roman Empire is already over.

But if you are looking for allies in making this all about villanizing a particular religion, google some of Ralph Peters recent stuff. He's pretty out there on that limb as well.

No doubt about it though, religious-based ideology works. That's why so many insurgent leaders use it. National leaders as well for the same reasons.

Sir, if I am out to villianise Islam does that mean that AQ, Hezbollah, JI, MB (et al) are perverting it? Upon whom does the onus of responsibility lie for providing us with a proper strategic appreciation of our foes and their relationship to their "religion"? I seek merely to understand Jihad for what it is not for what we would like it to be. If we don't like the conclusions fine...and as for protestanism, the inquisition etc. I don't think I ever absolved them for their violence but I do find it hard to find scriptural evidence to support such actions unlike our Jihadi friends: yes, the Book of Joshua could be held up but then the Book of Joshua is meant as history- what Joshua did- not what Christians should do. Unlike the Shari'a and the Quran. However, I do not mean to dismiss your concerns/points, I would rather not get into a flame war, but I acknowledge your valid and pertinent concerns. And yes, I do like "most" of what Ralph Peters writes because invective, polemic and controversy are very often the foundations of proper debate and the beginnings of truth.

[Bob's World]

Sir, if I am out to villianise Islam does that mean that AQ, Hezbollah, JI, MB (et al) are perverting it? Upon whom does the onus of responsibility lie for providing us with a proper strategic appreciation of our foes and their relationship to their "religion"? I seek merely to understand Jihad for what it is not for what we would like it to be. If we don't like the conclusions fine...and as for protestanism, the inquisition etc. I don't think I ever absolved them for their violence but I do find it hard to find scriptural evidence to support such actions unlike our Jihadi friends: yes, the Book of Joshua could be held up but then the Book of Joshua is meant as history- what Joshua did- not what Christians should do. Unlike the Shari'a and the Quran. However, I do not mean to dismiss your concerns/points, I would rather not get into a flame war, but I acknowledge your valid and pertinent concerns. And yes, I do like "most" of what Ralph Peters writes because invective, polemic and controversy are very often the foundations of proper debate and the beginnings of truth.

Not a company I will join, but that is both of our perogatives.

Most see ideology as a COG for insurgency; I, like Chairman Deng Xiaoping, see it much more as a Critical Requireiment. A good cat that catches mice. I think the history of insurgency backs this perspective. Often that good cat is steeped in the religion of the populace that a leader is seeking to motivate. That is a smart insurgent leader. But it is not the religion that is likely to be at fault so much as it is the governance over that same populace.

I was debated vigorously on this topic by a religious scholar who had read my paper published here on SWJ regarding the role of ideology in insurgency. He was determined to prove to me that religion was at the core of the problems and touted his "several PhDs" on the topic. Then, in a moment of high irony, accused me of have secular biases due to my background. He was not amused when I suggested that perhaps he may have a religious bias or two based upon his.

Mike (JMM) has made the point on this forum about the difference between information that are "facts", those facts that are "relevant" and those facts that are "material." I believe you are good all the way up through relevant in terms of the role of islam in the current insurgencies in the middle east. But I also believe you fall short of "material." But as I said, the majority position is quick to tout the criticality of Islamism as a causal factor for our current troubles. I've spent a lot of time thinking and studying on this, and I just can't make that connection.

[marct]

Hi Bob,

I am drafting up a paper now that hits this in greater detail, tentatively titled "Changing the Lexicon - A Critical Step in Winning the Battle of the Narrative" that explore dropping the current lexicon rooted in war and COIN; and evoliving to lexicon rooted in MSCA and Criminal Law. Actions will certainly remain "war-like" for a while in Afghanistan, but with the idea that words proceed action, and that changing how we think as well as how we talk will pave the way more quickly to reducing military support and evolving from military prosecution to civilian prosecution of those who act out.

If you'd like, I'll push you a draft in a week or so.

Well, I'd like to see the draft .

Most see ideology as a COG for insurgency; I, like Chairman Deng Xiaoping, see it much more as a Critical Requireiment. A good cat that catches mice. I think the history of insurgency backs this perspective. Often that good cat is steeped in the religion of the populace that a leader is seeking to motivate. That is a smart insurgent leader. But it is not the religion that is likely to be at fault so much as it is the governance over that same populace.

I'm not sure if an ideology per se is a CR (much less a COG); more likely a "belief structure" would be a better term since it could be a set of inter-related, bottom-up belief structures rather than anything coherent. Having said that, I suspect that a coherent belief structure or, at a minimum, one that is capable of translating between and, to a limited degree, "harmonizing" across different belief structures is the necessary condition.

I was debated vigorously on this topic by a religious scholar who had read my paper published here on SWJ regarding the role of ideology in insurgency. He was determined to prove to me that religion was at the core of the problems and touted his "several PhDs" on the topic. Then, in a moment of high irony, accused me of have secular biases due to my background. He was not amused when I suggested that perhaps he may have a religious bias or two based upon his.

LOL - don't you know the Golden Rule of Academia, Bob? If you don't have a Ph.D., you're biased and probably suffering from some variety of False Consciousness .

Mike (JMM) has made the point on this forum about the difference between information that are "facts", those facts that are "relevant" and those facts that are "material." I believe you are good all the way up through relevant in terms of the role of islam in the current insurgencies in the middle east. But I also believe you fall short of "material." But as I said, the majority position is quick to tout the criticality of Islamism as a causal factor for our current troubles. I've spent a lot of time thinking and studying on this, and I just can't make that connection.

There is a concept from physics that I have found immensely useful: potential vs. actual. I can't think of a single religion that doesn't have a potential for violence so, rather than looking at a religion qua religion, I tend to ask how did this get converted from potential to actual? Why, for example, didn't you have Christian insurgencies in the Roman Empire until the 4th century? Why did you have so many of them in the 6th & 7th centuries? etc., etc.

Bob, you might want to take a look at some of Max Weber's stuff on Charismatic leaders and the role of Prophets (check this one out if you haven't already). Most of the times when a religious "field of symbols" is converted from a potential to an actual, it involves the construction of a "vision" that meets current needs more parsimoniously than other expressions.

[Dayuhan]

I certainly wouldn't want to be associated with the views of Ralph Peters, or to a lesser extent those of Maj Coughlin, who I would say have turned to blindness at the other end of the ideological spectrum. Certainly it's possible to say that Islamic Law provides a scriptural basis for jihad, just as a particular interpretation of the Christian scriptures once provided justification for the Crusades. To jump from there to the conclusion that every Muslim is a jihadi waiting to strike would be as absurd as it would be to assume that every Christian is just waiting to go all Old Testament and start smiting unbelievers.

Religion - any religion - or any other committing belief system can be a powerful motivator to violence. Whether or not any given individual member of any given belief system is motivated to violence depends on a whole host of factors, some personal, some external. It is easier, for example, to motivate young single males to violence than it is to motivate females with families, regardless of their religion, their social standing, or their perceived level of oppression. Individuals who are alienated, disaffected, or angry can easily have those emotions directed toward an external target, whether or not they have actually suffered any injustice. As I stated earlier, it is generally not possible to use this kind of manipulation to generate enough support to initiate or sustain an insurgency in the absence of real and immediate motivating issues, but if you're aiming only to recruit a few hundred fighters or a few dozen terrorists, these tactics will serve quite well.

Perceptions of unfairness play an important part in this equation, but it's important to note that perceptions are easily manipulated and may not be associated in any way with reality. Building a perception of unfair or abusive treatment aimed at "the other" or "the outsider" is a common way for leaders to divert attention from their own shortcomings and motivate others to violence.

This means that at any given point the causes of hostility and our capacity to address them have to be realistically assessed, whether looking backward or looking forward. If a previous or proposed action is or will be viewed as unfair or abusive, it is likely to be counterproductive, as it will simply play into the enemy propaganda base. I was personally opposed to the Iraq war largely for this reason: I expected that no matter what our actual intentions were, the war would be perceived as a grab fo Iraqi oil , and that our extended presence in Iraq would be unnecessarily provocative.

On the other hand, we should not fall into the trap of believing either the enemy's propaganda or our own. For example, we cannot address anti-US sentiment in Saudi Arabia by relinquishing control because we haven't any control to relinquish. If in fact our policies in the ME have been aimed at control, as BW says, those policies must have been failures of the highest order, because... well, despite numerous wars and the expenditure of many lives and much treasure, what have we ever actually controlled in the ME? Maybe our own bowel movements, on a good day, but not much more.

We need to refrain from unnecessary provocation, without falling into the trap of trying to redress every real or imagined injustice in modern history: we can't do that in any event and if we try we'll likely end up making an even larger mess. A reasonable course lies somewhere between the extremes, as usual.