Results 1 to 20 of 279

Thread: Studies on radicalization & comments

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    106

    Default

    Posted by Bob's World
    The problem with legitimate is that it implies "free from outside influence and manipulation." Big problem there for the good Cold Warriors, as "containment" was rooted in controlling the periphery; so we have become used to sacrificing legitimacy in favor of official all in the name of containment.
    B.W. I think you tend to conflate issues at times. This particular thread was focused on counter radicalization. While the term radicalization is problematic to say the least, the practice of undoing the harmful effects of brainwashing have been practiced throughout history with mixed results. If you look at the process that is used to convince people to become suicide bombers it is a very skillful approach (often enhanced with the use of drugs) to get a subject to commit suicide (thus become a useful idiot to some group).

    I guess you can call this individual choice, or more accurately you could label it as maligned outside influence (actors from outside his/her previous social circles) that are hunting the psychologically vulnerable. Is it really self choice? Maybe as much as it is for a kid to join a gang, start taking meth, etc., but that sure as hell doesn't make it legitimate.

    Our ability to describe the problem is weak to say the least, and I largely blame SOCOM for coming up with crap ways to define the problem. Take the hard thinking role away from the military and let the political anthropologists take a whack at defining the problem we're trying to solve. Preventing brain washing by sects is one approach, as is "attempting" to heal those who been brainwashed (what SOCOM calls VEO members). However, there is a big difference between a kid who has been isolated, drugged, and feed Islamic dogma to prepare hiim for a sucide mission, and an insurgent. SOCOM lumps them all conveniently into the VEO category.

  2. #2
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Hi GS,

    Quote Originally Posted by Global Scout View Post
    Our ability to describe the problem is weak to say the least, and I largely blame SOCOM for coming up with crap ways to define the problem. Take the hard thinking role away from the military and let the political anthropologists take a whack at defining the problem we're trying to solve. Preventing brain washing by sects is one approach, as is "attempting" to heal those who been brainwashed (what SOCOM calls VEO members). However, there is a big difference between a kid who has been isolated, drugged, and feed Islamic dogma to prepare hiim for a sucide mission, and an insurgent. SOCOM lumps them all conveniently into the VEO category.
    Most political Anthropologists don't know bupkiss about the cult / deprogramming literature (that's us symbolic and/or ritual Anthropologists). And, honestly, "preventing brainwashing by sects" just isn't on (BTW, the literature always refers to these groups as "cults" 'cause sects have too much political power ).
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

  3. #3
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    106

    Default

    Marc, agreed, but my focus is on accurately defining the problem. This is something Kilcullen took a pretty good stab at. We now simply call all those that fight us extremists, which is not helpful.

  4. #4
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Hi GS,

    Quote Originally Posted by Global Scout View Post
    Marc, agreed, but my focus is on accurately defining the problem. This is something Kilcullen took a pretty good stab at. We now simply call all those that fight us extremists, which is not helpful.
    Totally agree with that ! While I disagree with some of Bob's World's definitions, I actually think he has a workable model. That said, the entire term "radicalization" is a problem, and, IMHO, we need to concentrate on one tiny, and very specific, component of it - the likelihood that people will shoot at us. Bob (and Dave K.) is, however, quite right that that is actually a balancing act between the restrictions we put on and the interpretations that people put on those restrictions (okay, I'll admit, I'm rather liberally interpolating here...).

    That said, maybe the question to ask is by what process, in what manner and under what conditions do people come to believe that it is "right and proper" to shoot other people?
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

  5. #5
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default And...

    Quote Originally Posted by Global Scout View Post
    Posted by Bob's World

    B.W. I think you tend to conflate issues at times. This particular thread was focused on counter radicalization. While the term radicalization is problematic to say the least, the practice of undoing the harmful effects of brainwashing have been practiced throughout history with mixed results. If you look at the process that is used to convince people to become suicide bombers it is a very skillful approach (often enhanced with the use of drugs) to get a subject to commit suicide (thus become a useful idiot to some group).

    I guess you can call this individual choice, or more accurately you could label it as maligned outside influence (actors from outside his/her previous social circles) that are hunting the psychologically vulnerable. Is it really self choice? Maybe as much as it is for a kid to join a gang, start taking meth, etc., but that sure as hell doesn't make it legitimate.

    Our ability to describe the problem is weak to say the least, and I largely blame SOCOM for coming up with crap ways to define the problem. Take the hard thinking role away from the military and let the political anthropologists take a whack at defining the problem we're trying to solve. Preventing brain washing by sects is one approach, as is "attempting" to heal those who been brainwashed (what SOCOM calls VEO members). However, there is a big difference between a kid who has been isolated, drugged, and feed Islamic dogma to prepare hiim for a sucide mission, and an insurgent. SOCOM lumps them all conveniently into the VEO category.
    I'll save my constructive comments on what SOCOM does well or poorly for when I have those conversations with the leadership there. They know they can count on me for a candid, thoughtful assessment.

    As to the quote you posted here; the point that was getting to is my belief that what I call the "Pied Piper Theory of Insurgency," that some dynamic leader with a powerful ideology can engage a well governed populace and lead them into insurgency is a Fairy Tale. Certain individuals like our own nut job "Jihad Jane"? Sure. But not the populace in a way sufficiently to create insurgency.

    So, if not the Pied Piper, then why these growing insurgencies? Why do members of these many separate growing insurgencies travel to be foreign fighters to counter US efforts; why do members of these insurgencies conduct acts of terror on US and US interests? Why is the US threatened far more today by the populaces of our allies than by any other source?????

    To my analysis it is a reaction to the retention of a very controlling family of foreign policy developed and employed for the Cold War, but retained for convenience and because we could long past its expiration date. Some great metrics that people tend to ignore:

    1. The previously stated point about the greatest threat to the US coming from the populaces of our allies.

    2. The fact that we have been deploying our military at an every growing rate to enforce our foreign policy among the same "allied" states that these populaces come from.

    To me the problem is not that someone is "radicalizing" these populaces; the problem is that our obsolete foreign policy contributes so directly to creating conditions that creates a populace that is easily motivated to attack the US as a solution to their domestic concerns.

    Is this conflating? I don't think so. I think it is looking past the spin to try to see what is making it spin.
    Robert C. Jones
    Intellectus Supra Scientia
    (Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

    "The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

  6. #6
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    As to the quote you posted here; the point that was getting to is my belief that what I call the "Pied Piper Theory of Insurgency," that some dynamic leader with a powerful ideology can engage a well governed populace and lead them into insurgency is a Fairy Tale. Certain individuals like our own nut job "Jihad Jane"? Sure. But not the populace in a way sufficiently to create insurgency..
    Agreed; no "pied piper" is going to generate the depth and breadth of resentment and hostility needed to initiate or sustain an insurgency. Generating enough to sustain a terrorist movement that requires only a relatively small base of intensely radicalized individuals is another matter altogether.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    Why do members of these many separate growing insurgencies travel to be foreign fighters to counter US efforts; why do members of these insurgencies conduct acts of terror on US and US interests? Why is the US threatened far more today by the populaces of our allies than by any other source?????
    I have yet to see any evidence that either foreign fighters or AQ terrorists act as "members of insurgencies", unless we are to embrace the "global insurgency" notion, which I personally find insupportable.

    I do not agree that the US is threatened by the populaces of our allies. I don't think the US is threatened by any populace at all, but by a group of radicalized individuals recruited from many populaces (including our own) but neither representing nor acting on behalf of any of them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    Some great metrics that people tend to ignore:

    1. The previously stated point about the greatest threat to the US coming from the populaces of our allies.

    2. The fact that we have been deploying our military at an every growing rate to enforce our foreign policy among the same "allied" states that these populaces come from.
    If we're going to use these as metrics, we need to quantify them, or at least to verify them. What indication do we have that we are being threatened by a populace... any populace?

    Where have we been "deploying our military at an every growing rate to enforce our foreign policy" among allied states? I've seen us deploying our military to remove governments we disliked and to try to manage the power vacuums left by these removals... but where are we deploying forces at an increasing rate to enforce our policies among allies?

  7. #7
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Wink Others differ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    They know they can count on me for a candid, thoughtful assessment.
    As an aside, I hope you'll point out that DA is ruining SF for lasting harm...
    Is this conflating? I don't think so. I think it is looking past the spin to try to see what is making it spin.
    That's the "differ."

    Seems to me that you are spinning a simplistic solution to a complex problem (and one that elides the reality of US domestic politics, as I've often said). I'm not at all sure there's as much Cold War thinking today as you seem to believe -- nor am I convinced there ever was such channeled thinking as you also seem to believe. My perceptions of that period apparently differ significantly from yours...

    You have some really good ideas. Like Global Scout, I believe you tend to conflate many diverse things into one overarching mantra that is at least arguable. That obsession unfortunately obscures some of those good ideas.

  8. #8
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    106

    Default

    Ken,

    Want to 2nd your call for a review of SF's focus on DA and the harm it has done to the force. Some SF junior officer recently insulted one of our Canadian brothers by telling him he wasn't capable of understanding tribal engagement because he wasn't SOF. I feel off by chair because I was laughing so hard. While SF has been doing DA the conventional forces were focused on the popualce. SF so called tribal engagement is a late show to the fight, yet a couple of junior MAJs think they have a brand new idea and thet won't want to hear any criticism from non- SF types.

    Besides being comical, and a flawed approach the arrogance demonstrated is simply sad. He sounds more like an 18 y/o Marine who just completed basic than a seasoned professional. Our DA forces are very good at what they do, now if we could only get SF to be good at what they should do we could actually give the enemy hell.

  9. #9
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Smile Fair observations all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    As an aside, I hope you'll point out that DA is ruining SF for lasting harm... That's the "differ."

    Seems to me that you are spinning a simplistic solution to a complex problem (and one that elides the reality of US domestic politics, as I've often said). I'm not at all sure there's as much Cold War thinking today as you seem to believe -- nor am I convinced there ever was such channeled thinking as you also seem to believe. My perceptions of that period apparently differ significantly from yours...

    You have some really good ideas. Like Global Scout, I believe you tend to conflate many diverse things into one overarching mantra that is at least arguable. That obsession unfortunately obscures some of those good ideas.

    Equally fair though is to point out that "containment" was very simple in concept, yet very complex and evolving in execution. Same applies to thories that I offer up as being more relevant to today's security environment.

    Also equally fair is to note that most "good Cold Warriors" are skeptical of my theories. It shakes the foundation that their entire professional lives have been built upon a bit harder than they are comfortable with. Easier to just assume you are right and that others attack you in growing frequency for reasons completely disconnected from one's own actions. Personally, I know it is a pet peeve, so I may be biased, but I just hate victim mentalities that draw comfort through rationalizing the sources of major challenges off onto others. Responsibility and blame are very different things, and yes, I confess, that I do believe that it will only be once the US takes greater responsibility for the higher order effects of our actions that we will begin to get a better handle on our current security challenges.

    I just can't join the group think that rationalizes such things away as "terrorism", or "Islamism" or "radicalization." I believe in all of those things, just not that they are all directed at us for things that we do not have to take responsibility for.

    As to DA, there is plenty of that thinking going around. SF jumped in the pool, but it was crowded when they got in, and it will be crowded when they get out. Change is hard. Read LTC Petit's article in the current Special Warfare magazine on thinking COIN but executing FID. He has the SOTF here in the South now, and more than any other leader, other than perhaps MG Carter and GEN McChrystal himself, gets it.

    Tribal engagement is certainly a growing area, but is defensive only, essentially a reinforcing of the self-governance that is the essence of governance in Afghanistan. I do get nervous at what I hear from senior leaders inside the beltway who appear to be grasping at this grassroots approach as a magic exit strategy; they misunderstand both the program and the nature of the conflict here. Its a good program, it is not the magic easy button that wins the day. Infanteer, who is a regular poster here is not SOF, but gets this very well and from all accounts is doing great things in a very tough neighborhood. He is, however, an exception. No the problem and the solution to this and every insurgency is at the top, not the bottom. If you build an "NFA" around the top, you are in for a long, hard road.

    Threat-Centric, Population-Centric, Government Centric. Can make your head hurt. Truth is the lines blur considerably. One can't get at the populace without dealing with the threat. Typically (in good Cold Warrior fashion...though learned from our "Great Game" predecessors) whether one says they are focused on the threat or the populace, we end up way too often actually being focused on establishing and sustaining some particular government.

    So, yes, this will remain my steady drumbeat: Legitimacy, Legitimacy, Legitimacy are the three most important things in COIN. If the top doesn't have it in the eyes of THAT populace, you will probably not be able to bail that leaky boat out fast enough to keep up.
    Robert C. Jones
    Intellectus Supra Scientia
    (Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

    "The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

  10. #10
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    "I have yet to see any evidence that either foreign fighters or AQ terrorists act as "members of insurgencies", unless we are to embrace the "global insurgency" notion, which I personally find insupportable.

    I do not agree that the US is threatened by the populaces of our allies. I don't think the US is threatened by any populace at all, but by a group of radicalized individuals recruited from many populaces (including our own) but neither representing nor acting on behalf of any of them."


    One merely needs to look past the cover story of "Terrorism" and "Counterterrorism."

    And, for the record, no one is a bigger critic of the "Global Insurgency" theory than I am. Does AQ use a common cause to get support from many diverse insurgencies to put effort against common objectives? Absolutely. Does that make it a "Global Insurgency"? NO. The effects may be massed, but the solutions remain diverse. The US must trace each line of foreign fighters back to their homelands, and then honestly assess our relationships with the governments there. Not just from our biased perspectives, but from the biased perspectives of that populace as well. At the end of the day it is the perception of the affected populace that controls.

    So, just a couple examples from a couple of articles I googled. I don't agree with these articles, but there are good facts to pull from them.

    http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Current-A...g=en&id=108612

    From this article: "top five foreign fighter producing cities for that cohort of individuals per capita were: Darnah, Libya; Mecca, Saudi Arabia; Jawf, Saudi Arabia; Dayr al zur, Syria; and Sanaa, Yemen, respectively."

    Pay attention to those locations, they will come up again.

    US-Saudi Cooperation in War on Terrorism Lauded in State Department Annual Report; 30 April, 2004
    http://www.saudi-us-relations.org/ne...est-04-30.html

    This second article is full of interesting facts. It praises the Saudis for their tremendous efforts in Combating Terrorism, and even for pushing for governmental reforms at home (This was 6 years ago, it would be interesting to see if any real action on these reforms took place).

    Take this paragraph for example:

    "Since May, Riyadh has arrested more than 600 individuals during counterterrorism operations and continues investigating the Riyadh attacks. Saudi security forces have suffered significant casualties while conducting counterterrorism operations and raids. Raids in Mecca, Riyadh, and Medina led to arrests and document seizures and netted large quantities of explosives and a variety of weapons. In July alone, security services seized more than 20 tons of explosive-making materials in Qassim. In November, the authorities seized a truck bomb at a reported al-Qaida safehouse in Riyadh. Meanwhile, Saudi officials met several times with their Yemeni counterparts in an effort to stanch the flow of weapons into Saudi Arabia from Yemen."


    Ok, news flash, this isn't CT, this is COIN. The Saudis have been in nearly continuous LVL 1 insurgency for at least since FDR gave them his blessing of US Legitimacy. The beauty of doing COIN with in a despotic monarchy is that you can simply label your citizens who dare to challenge your benevolent rule as "Terrorists" and crush them, so it never really begins to look like a classic insurgency. This will however train your insurgents to look for more indirect means to achieve their goals. This is where Bin Laden comes in. He offered an indirect approach. Take down the Western protectors first, and then redirect your energies at home.


    I could be totally wrong, but what I see (and there are thousands of articles out there, these are just two that popped up at the top of one search) are restless populaces, joined and energized by the modern information age, drawing strength from each other to rise up to resist their own separate conditions of poor governance. Many of these countries, like Saudi Arabia and Yemen, were US allies from the start. Some, like Libya, came to the US late to gain our blessing as an ally in the War on Terrorism and get a US sanction to ruthlessly attack their own insurgent populace in the name of "counterterrorism." And they all send fighters to work under the AQ flag to nick away at the US where ever we might be.

    Global Insurgency? No. Global War on Terrorism? Equally no. Global friction to a US foreign policy in dire need of a fresh approach that is more populace focused and less rooted in sustaining "friendly dictators"? Yeah, I really do think so. But that is just my assessment. I toss it out here not to "radicalize" anyone, but just to gain other perspectives to help shape my own.
    Last edited by Bob's World; 03-15-2010 at 05:24 AM.
    Robert C. Jones
    Intellectus Supra Scientia
    (Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

    "The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

  11. #11
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    And, for the record, no one is a bigger critic of the "Global Insurgency" theory than I am. Does AQ use a common cause to get support from many diverse insurgencies to put effort against common objectives? Absolutely. Does that make it a "Global Insurgency"? NO. The effects may be massed, but the solutions remain diverse. The US must trace each line of foreign fighters back to their homelands, and then honestly assess our relationships with the governments there. Not just from our biased perspectives, but from the biased perspectives of that populace as well. At the end of the day it is the perception of the affected populace that controls.
    I don't dispute this, but I think you're systematically overestimating the degree of American influence in these environments, and focusing excessively on the assumption that participation in this conflict is a response to American provocation, possibly to the point where equally important factors are excluded from the picture.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    From this article: "top five foreign fighter producing cities for that cohort of individuals per capita were: Darnah, Libya; Mecca, Saudi Arabia; Jawf, Saudi Arabia; Dayr al zur, Syria; and Sanaa, Yemen, respectively."

    Pay attention to those locations, they will come up again.
    I'm well aware of the data, as you know, but I think your interpretation of those data are colored by certain assumptions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    Ok, news flash, this isn't CT, this is COIN. The Saudis have been in nearly continuous LVL 1 insurgency for at least since FDR gave them his blessing of US Legitimacy.
    I'm curious, why would you choose that as a starting point? Why not 1744, generally accepted as the start of the first Saudi State? Or 1932, roughly the point at which Ibn Saud consolidated his control of the peninsula and initiated the third Saudi dynasty. I get the feeling that you're overemphasizing the degree to which the Saudi State owes its legitimacy to the US... which in actuality is a very limited degree indeed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    The beauty of doing COIN with in a despotic monarchy is that you can simply label your citizens who dare to challenge your benevolent rule as "Terrorists" and crush them, so it never really begins to look like a classic insurgency. This will however train your insurgents to look for more indirect means to achieve their goals. This is where Bin Laden comes in. He offered an indirect approach. Take down the Western protectors first, and then redirect your energies at home.
    Are you suggesting here that despotic monarchies are more effective at suppressing insurgency than democracies are? According to all our COIN precepts, shouldn't the oppression of a despotic monarchy exacerbate insurgency? I'm not sure that experience elsewhere in the world supports the hypothesis that oppressive monarchies are effective mechanisms for the suppression of insurgency... certainly didn't work well for the Shah of Iran. The other plausible explanation, of course, is that a large part of the extremely conservative Saudi population actually prefers monarchy (at least when the monarchs are spreading money around) and that the dissidents have not been able to muster sufficient support to initiate full scale insurgency.

    It's also worth noting that AQ was able to recruit large numbers of foreign fighters from Saudi Arabia and the other areas under discussion to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. These fighters were clearly not fighting to reduce Soviet influence in their home country or as an extension of domestic insurgency. The combination of testosterone, boredom, lack of opportunity, and a noble cause were sufficient, and I see no reason to suppose that these same factors are not driving young men to go and fight in today's jihad. It's worth noting that the numbers involved are miniscule percentages of the populations in question. I suspect that a charismatic recruiter with a good pitch and a bit of money could recruit a few hundred Saudi men to go and fight just about anywhere they could claim that Muslims were being oppressed, regardless of whether or not the US was involved.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    I could be totally wrong, but what I see (and there are thousands of articles out there, these are just two that popped up at the top of one search) are restless populaces, joined and energized by the modern information age, drawing strength from each other to rise up to resist their own separate conditions of poor governance. Many of these countries, like Saudi Arabia and Yemen, were US allies from the start. Some, like Libya, came to the US late to gain our blessing as an ally in the War on Terrorism and get a US sanction to ruthlessly attack their own insurgent populace in the name of "counterterrorism." And they all send fighters to work under the AQ flag to nick away at the US where ever we might be.
    Do you really think Qaddafi needed US sanction to attack his own populace? Seems to me he's been doing it quite capably for many years, including the many years during which the US regarded him as a bitter enemy. While the US may have pulled Libya from the "sponsors of terrorism" list and resumed diplomatic relations, it would be a huge exaggeration to describe Libya as a US ally, and the US certainly isn't providing Libya with any critical support or assistance. I don't see any reason to assume that Libyans who go to Afghanistan or Iraq to fight are doing so because they object to America's support for Qaddafi, because America isn't supporting Qaddafi.

    Foreign fighters and AQ participants are very much a mixed group. Some come from countries where Governments depend on the US almost entirely for military and financial aid (i.e. Yemen). Some come from countries that are US allies and receive US aid, but that are not fully dependent on the US (i.e. Jordan, or Egypt). Some come from US allies that are not at all dependent on the US, or have more influence over the US than the US has over them (I.e. Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf Sates). Some come from countries with a long tradition of hostile relations with the US (i.e. Libya or Syria. Some come from the US itself, and from Western Europe. I don't see how we can lump them together and assume that they are driven by resentment toward US interference in their homelands... in actuality their motivations are more likely to be as diverse as their points of origin, and in many cases the primary driving factors are likely to be testosterone, boredom, and a rather loose sense of religious cause orientation. "Drive the infidel out of Muslim lands" is a compelling line, whether or not you have any particular beef with the particular infidel in question... it worked to recruit fighters to the anti-Soviet jihad, why wouldn't it work as well with the jihad of today?

    You wrote this in a previous post:

    The fact that we have been deploying our military at an every growing rate to enforce our foreign policy among the same "allied" states that these populaces come from.
    Again I have to ask... where exactly are we deploying military forces at an ever-growing rate to enforce our foreign policy on allied states?

    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.
    Last edited by Dayuhan; 03-15-2010 at 08:14 AM.

  12. #12
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    589

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Tukhachevskii; 03-15-2010 at 10:32 AM.

  13. #13
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default I agree -- but...

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    Global Insurgency? No. Global War on Terrorism? Equally no. Global friction to a US foreign policy in dire need of a fresh approach that is more populace focused and less rooted in sustaining "friendly dictators"? Yeah, I really do think so. But that is just my assessment. I toss it out here not to "radicalize" anyone, but just to gain other perspectives to help shape my own.
    Totally agree with you on this -- as always, my disagreement is limited to two factors:

    - I believe you significantly misunderestimate the American domestic political impact on your proposed courses of action.

    - Like Dayuhan and Tukhachevskii among others, I believe you significantly over estimate the global impact of America the ugly and evil while discounting the impact of America the very excessively rich.

    I also believe that the latter error leads in a sense to the first error...

    Good ideas can be obscured by the adverse impact of arguable propositions on one's audience.

  14. #14
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default You all have been making me think about why I think this today

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    Totally agree with you on this -- as always, my disagreement is limited to two factors:

    - I believe you significantly misunderestimate the American domestic political impact on your proposed courses of action.

    - Like Dayuhan and Tukhachevskii among others, I believe you significantly over estimate the global impact of America the ugly and evil while discounting the impact of America the very excessively rich.

    I also believe that the latter error leads in a sense to the first error...

    Good ideas can be obscured by the adverse impact of arguable propositions on one's audience.

    Which, of course, is why I take tactical pauses to post. So here goes:

    As I have stated fairly often, when it comes to insurgency it's all about the perception of the insurgent populace. Doesn't have to be real, doesn't have to be fact, and it sure as hell does not have to be a perspective that the target of that insurgency agrees with. In fact, more often than not the counterinsurgent finds the insurgent positoin to be rediculous all the way to the Guillitine.

    So, the question is not if WE think America is to blame for conditions of poor governance in so many Muslim dominated contries that we have relations with. The quesiton is not if those governments think they have conditions of poor governance in those countries. The question is not even if there actually are conditions of poor governance in those countries.

    The one material question is, the one material perspective is, do the insurgent and subversive elements of those populaces believe it to be true.

    Marie Antionette did not understand the importance of this point.

    King George did not understand the importance of this point.

    WE MUST understand the importance of this point. To fail to do so is to risk following in some very tragic shoes indeed.
    Robert C. Jones
    Intellectus Supra Scientia
    (Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

    "The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

  15. #15
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    So, yes, this will remain my steady drumbeat: Legitimacy, Legitimacy, Legitimacy are the three most important things in COIN. If the top doesn't have it in the eyes of THAT populace, you will probably not be able to bail that leaky boat out fast enough to keep up.
    OK, but in War you assert your legitimacy by killing those who seek to dispute by force of arms. Once the bad guys are dead, you can have the political process decide the legitimacy.

    In Irregular Warfare, you do not win by being the better government. You win by being the only government.
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  16. #16
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default Agreed. But I don't think COIN is war.

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    OK, but in War you assert your legitimacy by killing those who seek to dispute by force of arms. Once the bad guys are dead, you can have the political process decide the legitimacy.

    In Irregular Warfare, you do not win by being the better government. You win by being the only government.

    Violent, no doubt.

    But given the inherent internal nature of insurgency and COIN, I am currently of the mind that calling it "war" is extremely counterproductive to effective COIN. Better to look at insurgency as a "Civil Emergency" and the military aspect of COIN through the doctrinal construct of "Military Support to Civil Authorities" (MSCA). I think this leads to healthier perspectives that are more likely to yield an enduring result.

    To wage war on one's own populace is a slippery slope indeed.


    As to sending one's military to conduct FID through that same MSCA construct in support on another nations COIN efforts; that is another thing as well.

    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.

    Bob
    Robert C. Jones
    Intellectus Supra Scientia
    (Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

    "The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

  17. #17
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    Agreed. But I don't think COIN is war.
    Well then why are you using violence to set forth a policy? Are you killing people to make them like you?

    If you want to drop some silly words, try getting rid of "COIN." - Thanks to CNAS and the like, it is now utterly meaningless and a block to clear and effective thinking.

    ....and winning a war requires you destroy the enemy. It works. It works better than anything else and it is proven to work.
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

Similar Threads

  1. Strategic Studies Institute Seeks Visiting Professors
    By SteveMetz in forum RFIs & Members' Projects
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-26-2010, 01:53 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •