Page 5 of 14 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 279

Thread: Studies on radicalization & comments

  1. #81
    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/

  2. #82
    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.

  3. #83
    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/

  4. #84
    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)

  5. #85
    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?

  6. #86
    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.

  7. #87
    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.

  8. #88
    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)

  9. #89
    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)

  10. #90
    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

  11. #91
    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)

  12. #92
    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.

  13. #93
    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.

  14. #94
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default Be sure to add the chapter about Protestantism

    Quote Originally Posted by Tukhachevskii View Post
    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.
    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. #95
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    589

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    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.

  16. #96
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default Don't worry, you are in good company

    Quote Originally Posted by Tukhachevskii View Post
    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.
    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. #97
    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

    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.

  18. #98
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Hi Bob,

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    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 .

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    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 .

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    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.
    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/

  19. #99
    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

  20. #100
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default A somewhat silly series of semantic comments...

    Hi Wilf,

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    Well then why are you using violence to set forth a policy? Are you killing people to make them like you?
    You know, the Inquisition had this one solved - it wasn't about making them "like" you, it was about saving their souls (too bad about the bodies, but....).

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    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.
    Why not drop the term "war" as well? I mean, think about how it has been stretched all out of shape - the war on terror, the war on poverty, the war on obesity, etc. ad nauseum.

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    ....and winning a war requires you destroy the enemy. It works. It works better than anything else and it is proven to work.
    Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    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/

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
  •