AP: 'Jihadist' booted from government lexicon

[selil]

Additionally, an excerpt from Greg Mortensen's 3 Cups of Tea:

“Osama, baah! Osama is not a product of Pakistan or Afghanistan. He is a creation of America. Thanks to America, Osama is in every home. As a military man, I know you can never fight and win against someone who can shoot at you once and then run off and hide while you have to remain eternally on guard. You have to attack the source of your enemy’s strength. In America’s case, that’s not Osama or Saddam or anyone else. The enemy is ignorance. The only way to defeat it is to build relationships with these people, to draw them into the modern world with education and business. Otherwise the fight will go on forever.”

-Pakistani General (Ret) Bashir
Three Cups of Tea: One Man’s Mission to Promote Peace…One School at a Time

When Mortenson was in Pakistan during 911 the flip in how we treated him was pretty much an abomination. Here is a guy who is scraping together money to build one or two western style schools a year (that require girls to be educated too), and he watches hundreds of Madrassa spring up around him and nobody prior to 911 can connect the dots.

Religion and intolerance are as linked in Islam to jihadism as Christianity and the forced conversion process of evangelism (having seen this process well into the 1970s ouch). The militancy of the Christian fundamentalist "right to life" groups bombing abortion clinics are just another side of the counterfeit penny of illogic found in radical Islamic teaching too. Neither view represents either society, but both societies are judged harshly for the existence. Islamofascism, and jihadism rarely represent an entire peoples view, but using those terms can create identity and radicalize populations that never would have considered it.

The American neo-conservative policy position that the wahabism and salafalism (sp?) are truly representative views of the entire population are simplistic but make for great punditry. Similarly American liberalism fails to realize that even one percent of a population radicalized is an imminent threat to stability and peace. In the dichotomy between opposing views one sides polarized views of "kill em all" radicalizes while the other similarly polarized view of "give peace a chance" fails to take even the most basic protective measures.

In an effort to be right the method is to yell louder, create echo chambers of thought, ignore rather than debate, insult rather than consider, and our own process of American radicalization continues. How many conservative or liberal only BLOGs are there? Are CNN and FOX fair and balanced? As an intelligent American population prizing our first amendment rights we should embrace considered debate as a societal obligation and expectation. We should not need a law or rule to enforce courtesy on the field of discourse when it the first and central tenet to the American system. Instead we hide in stovepipes of intellectual stagnation and repress and denigrate views we do not agree with. Denigration has become the center pillar of discourse.

When we start arguing over taxonomies rather than debating solutions we have insured failure and surrendered the high ground.

[Ron Humphrey]

When Mortenson was in Pakistan during 911 the flip in how we treated him was pretty much an abomination. Here is a guy who is scraping together money to build one or two western style schools a year (that require girls to be educated too), and he watches hundreds of Madrassa spring up around him and nobody prior to 911 can connect the dots.

Religion and intolerance are as linked in Islam to jihadism as Christianity and the forced conversion process of evangelism (having seen this process well into the 1970s ouch). The militancy of the Christian fundamentalist "right to life" groups bombing abortion clinics are just another side of the counterfeit penny of illogic found in radical Islamic teaching too. Neither view represents either society, but both societies are judged harshly for the existence. Islamofascism, and jihadism rarely represent an entire peoples view, but using those terms can create identity and radicalize populations that never would have considered it.

The American neo-conservative policy position that the wahabism and salafalism (sp?) are truly representative views of the entire population are simplistic but make for great punditry. Similarly American liberalism fails to realize that even one percent of a population radicalized is an imminent threat to stability and peace. In the dichotomy between opposing views one sides polarized views of "kill em all" radicalizes while the other similarly polarized view of "give peace a chance" fails to take even the most basic protective measures.

In an effort to be right the method is to yell louder, create echo chambers of thought, ignore rather than debate, insult rather than consider, and our own process of American radicalization continues. How many conservative or liberal only BLOGs are there? Are CNN and FOX fair and balanced? As an intelligent American population prizing our first amendment rights we should embrace considered debate as a societal obligation and expectation. We should not need a law or rule to enforce courtesy on the field of discourse when it the first and central tenet to the American system. Instead we hide in stovepipes of intellectual stagnation and repress and denigrate views we do not agree with. Denigration has become the center pillar of discourse.

When we start arguing over taxonomies rather than debating solutions we have insured failure and surrendered the high ground.

Thats why I enjoy coming here to debunkoops debate such things with those who are willing to reflect on more than simple accepted protocol

[MikeF]

Only one exception to the voice....

"Greg established western style schools..."

On the contrary, he established schools that did not have western influence nor did they try to convert to catholicism or christodem....that's the beauty of his work.....he simply wanted to educate the children (both boys and girls) in english, math, science, history, etc.....in doing so, he broke the barriers of religion and idealogue.

The Grand Ayatollah of Iran issued fatwah's promoting his work and protecting him.

Greg's project was a mixture of a simple structure and an adhocracy.

Now, this is what I've been wrestling with....I've spent my entire adult life killing bad guys and burning towns in the hope of building schools. Is it possible for any bureacracy (US included) to adopt Mortenesen's creed? Specifically, can battalion's adopt his approach in Iraq and Afghanistan???

Standing by....

[MikeF]

It appears to me through my own blunt trauma of experience and through every extensive study of COIN models available that the only net result is security- a short term effect....How/Can you move to stability without the thorough cooperation of the host-nation and the indigenous people and tribal structures (ie Iraq and the surge).

From the blinders of this captain's eyes, it appears that there is a significant gap between security and stability that can only be bridged by the people....

During the surge (diyala in particular), we secured diyala for a short amount of time; however, we could not settle the underlying centuries of tribal disputes (AQI and JAM aside).

From my perspective, that's not our fight. When they're done fighting, I'll come in and build schools.

Again, standing by...

[Ken White]

...Is it possible for any bureacracy (US included) to adopt Mortenesen's creed?

I'd say very difficult and probably somewhat less effectively but the bureaucracy can do it.

Specifically, can battalion's adopt his approach in Iraq and Afghanistan???

Some have, more are to the extent they are able. I suggest a better question is; should they?

They as opposed to OGA or NGOs who are far better suited for the role...

Edited to add; More questions, more answers.

...How/Can you move to stability without the thorough cooperation of the host-nation and the indigenous people and tribal structures (ie Iraq and the surge).

Not being facile, serious answer -- you can't. Not reliably, anyway. All you can do is give it your best shot.

...From my perspective, that's not our fight. When they're done fighting, I'll come in and build schools.

Once again, a serious answer. I understand and agree with you but IMO that's not our call. Bad jobs go with the territory. Many do not like that and I understand that. Some accept it for various reasons while others elect to not do so. Choice each of has had to make...

[Uboat509]

I would disagree that OGA is an answer. NGOs are are better option but many of them won't work in Iraq and many of them do tend to create a lot of friction with the military. Many of them also have competency issues. There are some great NGOs our there doing great things but there are also some idiots out there with big hearts and small brains making things worse. It would be great if we could get some quality control on these guys and then start organizing packages of NGOs to go do what needs to be done but I suspect that there is probably a lot of distrust of the government amongst many of those who join the NGOs. I can guarentee that the military would be all to happy to get the hell out of the rebuilding effort and would happy to let someone else do it.

SFC W

[Ken White]

Agencies, plural, as in State, Ag, etc. -- not that OGA

Realize that's hard to do but we're trying, finally, and hopefully we can make it work -- finally did in Viet Nam and in about the same amount of time; thus I'd hope this time we institutionalize in case of future need.

Agree with the rest of your post, particularly this:

I can guarentee that the military would be all to happy to get the hell out of the rebuilding effort and would happy to let someone else do it.

True dat...