There appears to be some confusion.
First, I'm not questioning the probability there more bad guys about -- you must've missed the fact that I said they probably had gone up -- but that 'fact' is irrelevant IMO. Thus there is no debate on the 'issue.' I'm unsure why you assume I'm debating anything. I'm not.Originally Posted by JeffC
I suggest that there is little data on the issue as you state it but a whole lot of mostly ill-informed conjecture and postulating by folks with differing agendas (on both sides). Forgive me if I don't drink either side's Kool Aid. You may differ in your thoughts on the same 'fact' and that's okay. Two people looking at the same circumstantial evidence and drawing different conclusions is not at all unheard of...
The real fact is there is not a major terrorist organization or operation now that did not exist pre-9/11. The equally real fact is that there are a lot of unemployed and therefor disaffected young Muslim males in all the areas you mention and they're going to find something to do with their spare time. They will join and then leave, rejoin and leave again and switch allegiances with some rapidity any thing that offers an escape from boredom. Thus, 'jihad' is cool.
An equally real fact is that item, strategically, is not a pressing concern. It is more relevant operationally but only a little. It can be locally significant tactically. Whether it will be remains to be seen and in any even will vary widely in net effect from area to area.
Your links pose a problem to me. First, Frontline is not exactly on the cutting edge of anything and anyone or anything associated with Hamilton and Pillar is, IMO, highly suspect of foisting incompetence on the world, so, while I read that link, it doesn't pass the "so what" test. Secondly, Jamestown is a much more competent source but that particular link doesn't tell us anything that wasn't known ten years ago about Muslims in Europe; it merely updates the info.
Here's a LINK you may or may not have seen. Note that it essentially says the same thing I said (my point, as they say...) and that you decided to blow off below; Numbers may be up, however the other side is not making a whole lot of progress...
That is exactly what I said and meant -- in relation to strategy. Numbers in small to middling quantities are not important; intentions and capabilities are all important. The former are not known, the latter are being degraded by the west -- and by Muslim nations -- on a daily basis. I am not privy to the Strategy, nor should I be, however, based on what I can see, the Strategy did and does accomodate your concerns.No offense intended, but I'm not exactly sure I know what you just said. It sounds like you're saying that the documented increase in al-Qaeda fighters world-wide is "irrelevant",...
True, we cannot. All we can get are guesses by folks with agendas. Nor are the numbers at all important strategically....and/or that we "cannot have true numbers"...
I didn't say to ignore the numbers and the geographic spread, I said they were irrelevant to strategy; I'd add in the quantities probable and locations known, the slight improvement in their status in those two areas is significantly offset by their losses in many other areas. The only place they consistently remain well ahead of is in the IO sector -- there, they're creaming us, no question. They always will for many reasons but we could surely do better than we have and are -- that, though is only of small strategic concern for several reasons....I must have missed the memo that said to ignore whether your enemy is gaining ground, both in numbers of fighters and geographical distribution. I have a hard time believing that that's considered sound doctrine in any nation's military, let alone ours.
As an aside, do not confuse the number of adherents and / or supporters with a number of 'fighters' -- the two are not synonymous, far from it. Expanding operations in areas where one has long been present is also not synonymous with 'gaining ground' in the intelligence analysis or operational sense; and it has no strategic connotation at all..
I obviously can't answer for Steve but my solution to your question would be to buy the book and read it before critiquing it or patronizing the author (IMO, of course), even indirectly.To bring this discussion back around to Steve's book, my question still stands for Steve - has this unforseen development been addressed in your book as a factor in our evolving military strategy Post-Iraq?
I question your use of the word 'unforeseen.' By whom? Having seen some early documentation on the invasion of Iraq from several sources, the increases you cite may have been unforeseen by you but State, the CIA and the Army all foresaw them LINK(Go to Conclusion, p.13), LINK. I foresaw them as did many of my acquaintances -- and my kids, including my then 20 something non-military daughter. As did, I suspect, the Administration. They, like me, seem to have decided that the gain was well worth the minor risk. Then there are those that did not foresee them and / or are afraid of risk. Some folks may be prone to both foibles.
Bookmarks