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.