Meta-Warfare

[Azor]

In the case of al Qaeda (and to a lesser extent, Daesh), I would argue that it is the Wahhabists of Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations. I am less sure about their support in Persian cultures. In the early days, that was the source of these groups funding. That is the community where their actions are most often morally sanctioned.

I have read a study that indicated that there was wider support amongst the Muslim community in Morocco and a few other Arab Countries for the activities of al Qaeda. It was from Pew and it was on the public support for terrorists. I am cautious of this study, but it would provide support for the idea that the activities of al Qaeda are morally sanctioned by a much wider group than simply some Salafists in Saudi Arabia.

I'm setting my timer. The Spanish Inquisition of Outlaw, CrowBat, RantCorp and others are coming to explain the nuances of Sunni fundamentalism...

I tried to estimate how many Muslims of the total population were part of armed Islamist formations, and basically arrived at half the proportion of Northern Irish Catholics who were members of the PIRA, INLA, etc. I included parts of the Sudanese and Iranian militaries in my estimates, but it does indicate that Muslim conflicts with non-Muslims tend to be local affairs, and in a number of cases are state-sponsored or led e.g. Darfur. Curiously, only the numbers for Hezbollah and Hamas are in the range of "total war" mobilization, although I suspect much of this strength is dead weight collecting or extorting money, or non-combatants.

With respect to technology, were insurgents denied access to the IEDs used to destroy US vehicles remotely or RPGs, the casualty ratio would be simply eye-watering for them, and about as worth the effort as standing fast in 1991 or 2001...

[TheCurmudgeon]

I'm setting my timer. The Spanish Inquisition of Outlaw, CrowBat, RantCorp and others are coming to explain the nuances of Sunni fundamentalism... ...

I am fine with that. I don't find the term "Sunni Fundamentalism" helpful. Fundamentalism offers a level of correctness to their thinking that I don't think it deserves, so they can beat me up on that too.

I tried to estimate how many Muslims of the total population were part of armed Islamist formations, and basically arrived at half the proportion of Northern Irish Catholics who were members of the PIRA, INLA, etc. I included parts of the Sudanese and Iranian militaries in my estimates, but it does indicate that Muslim conflicts with non-Muslims tend to be local affairs, and in a number of cases are state-sponsored or led e.g. Darfur. Curiously, only the numbers for Hezbollah and Hamas are in the range of "total war" mobilization, although I suspect much of this strength is dead weight collecting or extorting money, or non-combatants....

I like your comparison with the IRA. I believe that, in 1975 you would have found that half the population of Boston would have "morally sanctioned" the actions of the IRA. But they did not hop a plane to Belfast (although some did).

I think it is very hard to equate who morally sanctions the actions of the terrorists with who would actively engage in the fight, although it is far to equate that number with who you have to convince that the terrorists are not worthy of their support.

[Azor]

I wish I’d seen this sooner, but the one man blog known as Outlaw can bury the “Recent Council Posts” list inside of an hour.

I am fine with that. I don't find the term "Sunni Fundamentalism" helpful. Fundamentalism offers a level of correctness to their thinking that I don't think it deserves, so they can beat me up on that too.

Well, I used “Sunni fundamentalism” rather deliberately. I do think that those guys do have a good point about distinguishing Salafism from Wahhabism, as the latter involves acquiescing to the authority of church and state, whereas the former involves establishing a revolutionary authority over both the spiritual and the temporal. Neither Bin Laden nor Al Baghdadi recognize(d) any authority higher than themselves, and Al Baghdadi has taken on this role of supreme leader in a way that even Bin Laden never did. Of course, Mohammed and Qutb are both conveniently dead, just as Lenin was in 1929 prior to Russia’s Third Revolution. Certainly, there is a great deal of philosophical overlap between Salafism and Wahhabism as regards asceticism and dismissal of other Muslim sects as heretical, but what should interest us is auctoritas and potestas, and more specifically, who is permitted to do violence to whom and why, as well as who grants permission to do so.

I like your comparison with the IRA. I believe that, in 1975 you would have found that half the population of Boston would have "morally sanctioned" the actions of the IRA. But they did not hop a plane to Belfast (although some did).

I’m a numbers guy. I started out by quantifying insurgency death rates to determine at what point there was acceptance of a problem. The conflict in Northern Ireland was actually the least troublesome of all modern insurgencies in terms of the violence meted out on all sides e.g. the black-on-black homicide rate is actually three times higher than the death rate in Northern Ireland annualized per hundred thousand. My digression helped me to understand racial divides in the United States as some groups were experiencing life in a warzone by any other name, while others had no comprehension of the killing in their own country.

So, suffice it to say, Northern Ireland is my benchmark, or more accurately my floor, against which I compare other episodes of violence, from the Malayan Emergency to Vietnam to America’s occupations in the Middle East. Curiously enough, whether we are talking about Northern Ireland or Irish political violence from 1919 to 1999, the conflict was overwhelmingly one of islanders killing islanders, with under 10% of the fatalities being residents of England, Scotland or Wales.

Throughout the Troubles in Northern Ireland, roughly 0.08% of both the Protestant and Catholic populations were members of paramilitaries. Currently, roughly 0.14% of the Pashtun people are members of the Taliban, so clearly their “hearts and minds” aren’t won over. You probably have more of a feel for Afghanistan than I do, but I am convinced that Pashtun ethno-nationalism was subverted by Pakistan into radical Islam in order to: (a) prevent secession and (b) give Pakistan a hand in Afghan affairs, not unlike what Putin seeks by way of “Novorossiya”. One might suggest giving the Pashtuns a nation carved out of Afghanistan and Pakistan, but the latter could never accept that lest the Balochis fly the coop as well, and it does have nuclear weapons. Therefore, the only sensible solution would be to abandon southern Afghanistan as a no-man’s land, build up the state in the north and keep the Pashtuns out so long as they accept Taliban rule.

With regards to “moral sanctioning”, I appreciate Outlaw’s updates on the Russo-Ukrainian War, but I am apprehensive of some of the sentiments expressed in Ukraine, particularly the lionizing of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army and the Zaporizhian Cossacks under Khmelnytsky. I am supportive of Ukraine’s right to self-determination, but unfortunately, the Ukrainians’ two great bids for independence (17th and 20th Centuries) saw Ukrainians spend more time annihilating Jews (vast majority of deaths inflicted) than fighting for an independent state (killing foreign soldiers). Again, the devil is in the numbers.

I think it is very hard to equate who morally sanctions the actions of the terrorists with who would actively engage in the fight, although it is far to equate that number with who you have to convince that the terrorists are not worthy of their support.

Well, unless one is prepared to use Stalinist methods , one has to convince the guerrillas/terrorists’ supporters to abandon them. Northern Ireland went through a tragic cycle of Protestant supremacists successfully suppressing Catholic egalitarian integrationists, and then being forced to deal with violent Catholic supremacist separatists. After three decades of conflict, the Catholics finally accepted the terms that they had originally asked for in the early-to-mid-1960s, and supremacists on both sides were forced to more or less go along with it.

[OUTLAW 09]

I am fine with that. I don't find the term "Sunni Fundamentalism" helpful. Fundamentalism offers a level of correctness to their thinking that I don't think it deserves, so they can beat me up on that too.



I like your comparison with the IRA. I believe that, in 1975 you would have found that half the population of Boston would have "morally sanctioned" the actions of the IRA. But they did not hop a plane to Belfast (although some did).

I think it is very hard to equate who morally sanctions the actions of the terrorists with who would actively engage in the fight, although it is far to equate that number with who you have to convince that the terrorists are not worthy of their support.

I will not beat anyone up....but think about this....all ideologies and or religious beliefs have a "fundamentalist side to them"...."fundamentalist" meaning "conservative".....AND that since the Romans....actually even earlier than that at least if it was ever physically and verbally recorded....

If one takes say the simple term "terrorism" and places it at the top of a drawn "violence" circle and then moves to the "right" and moves then to the "left" from the starting point....AT some point all "violence" from "left and right" meets in the circle at the 6 oclock point on the "violence circle".......AND then continues onward meeting again at the top of the violence circle so when the violence from "left and right" crosses and merges and runs parallel as both share the same dislikes and enemies what do you call it then???

Violence in some form always has and always will exist even in the 21st century....

What is new is the cyber and info war side of this equation ....using both of these key cornerstones of hybrid warfare...will there ever really be another "war" as we know the term war means?

IMHO...the answer is yes there will be some form of "war violence" accompanying the two cornerstones.....

Where humans interact..is always some form of "violence"....we all are not yet robots driven by AI.....

BTWE...if one really goes back into the history of the US from the 1600s until say VN .....how many true "wars" were there VS....truly how many "small wars" as defined by the SWC/Marine definition of a "small war".....IF we count the US Civil War....then five from 1600s onward....

How many "small wars" tens of tens.......in some ways....the 21st century will be seen as the century of the "small wars" fought using cyber...trade...economics...personal development ...information warfare....religion..........with the new political ideology being "populism"......with a tinge of nationalism....

[Azor]

BTW..this is the most perfect example of just how info warfare is flowing these days....

The first tweets under the hashtag #SyriaHoax came from Russia. Cernovich picked up on it; now it's trending in the U.S via the US alt right sites....Infowars and Breitbart.com and Drudge Reports.....

So is this to be considered "a small war being fought via information warfare"....or is it "political warfare"....or "hybrid warfare"......or just good ole fashioned everyday politics"

In the 21st century these terms are fluid and will constantly change....but there is an underlining term that covers them all..."war short of violence".....

Hey now! Is this meta-warfare or is every thread going to be about the Syrian CW attack and US airstrike?

[OUTLAW 09]

Hey now! Is this meta-warfare or is every thread going to be about the Syrian CW attack and US airstrike?

BUT in theory...when one questions just how a population supports say the IRA and Boston was a main support center both for manpower and money ......propaganda and fake news drove that narrative....

I know spent a lot of time in Boston and my MA is from Boston University....and I lived in "Southy"....and still have family there...

If you do not thoroughly understand just how information/money drives events and how that information/money can be twisted to support just about anything then you cannot move onto anything else.....

BTW....was I correct or not with Russian election involvement when you gave me grieve about my positions....was I correct on Syria and Ukraine....the current problem is that I do not believe we have in the US any capable leader that can lead the US out of a wet paper bag these days....

And that Steele dossier....largely proven to be correct especially since we are now at four dead Russians mentioned in the dossier later....

[OUTLAW 09]

Azor...here is the critical sentence that triggered this thread......

If war is essentially a political act, then the sophistication of warfare follows the sophistication of political systems. War, in essence, reflects the political system from which it emerges.

My argument is that with the advances in 1) cyber warfare and 2) information warfare that we are literally in the midst of.....until one thoroughly research's the far reaching impacts of both of these.....on the "political system"......Then you are simply spinning empty cycles of time/space ....and going nowhere...

I might have argued that actually the sophistication of warfare ACTUALLY drives the sophistication of industrialization and finance which in turn drives "globalization" WHICH then impacts squarely the "political system"....WHICH then struggles to even try to catch up with the developments going on around it.

Why did I include the term "financial"....check all recent from say 1975 fair trade agreements including the proposed TTP and TTIP....they all have had difficulties in formulation during negotiations in this key area...."Services".......

"Services" meaning banks...hedge funds...investment flows ie money and how it flows and how it will be taxed and or not taxed....etc....

Example......check out the total amount of the current UK yearly budget and how much of that budget is earned in taxes by the financial services industry located in the "City" of London....

[OUTLAW 09]

BTW...perfect example of just how fast this world of ours is turning right now.....

Who would have thought the Iraqi Shia Mullah Sadr would be calling for the removal of an Alewife aligned with Iran....

So in the middle of the Syrian "war" suddenly a "political" voice stands up and makes a far reaching statement....so is the sophistication of war driving the sophistication of politics...OR in this case vice versa?

Sadr issues a statement calling on Assad to resign.
via @alsumariatv
http://www.alsumaria.tv/news/200223/alsumaria-news/ar#

Moqtada al-Sadr calls on all military forces (Russia and the armed factions) to withdraw from #syria

[AmericanPride]

Azor...here is the critical sentence that triggered this thread......



My argument is that with the advances in 1) cyber warfare and 2) information warfare that we are literally in the midst of.....until one thoroughly research's the far reaching impacts of both of these.....on the "political system"......Then you are simply spinning empty cycles of time/space ....and going nowhere...

I might have argued that actually the sophistication of warfare ACTUALLY drives the sophistication of industrialization and finance which in turn drives "globalization" WHICH then impacts squarely the "political system"....WHICH then struggles to even try to catch up with the developments going on around it.

Why did I include the term "financial"....check all recent from say 1975 fair trade agreements including the proposed TTP and TTIP....they all have had difficulties in formulation during negotiations in this key area...."Services".......

"Services" meaning banks...hedge funds...investment flows ie money and how it flows and how it will be taxed and or not taxed....etc....

Example......check out the total amount of the current UK yearly budget and how much of that budget is earned in taxes by the financial services industry located in the "City" of London....

So to sum up our differences, we see the direction of the relationship as different. I think this is a chicken vs egg question: what emerged first, war or the state? Most material historical explanations generally start with the creation of economic relations which in turn produce a political system to sustain it, and a security apparatus to protect it. In the 20th century, many of the military technological advances were produced by states intent on maximizing their chances of victory in an environment of total war. The great powers entered World War I with the old world sense of horse trading territories before recognizing that revolutionary nature of the war that imperialism had created. In this sense, the political system pushed states to the logical extremes of total state destruction, to be repeated again in WW2.

But I also recognize that this process is a negotiation between political sophistication and military sophistication. Many things today, such as cyber warfare, would not be possible without technological advancement.