Studies on radicalization & comments

[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.