Terrorism: What's Coming

[Ron Humphrey]

Sorry, but the world does not operate in black and white. Although ideology is a critical component of jihadist terrorism, it is certainly not the only influence nor the single root of what we see in Jihadist terrorism today.

I do agree with you that understanding ideology and doctrine is key to understanding the operational characteristics of the terrorist group in question. However, how their ideology and operations are influenced by a myriad other factors is even more important. Understanding the former is but a learning step to enable the CT analyst to perform the latter.

Again, if you wish to discuss terrorist ideology specifically, whether just Al Qa'ida or violent Salafists in general, then look through the Adversary/Threat forum for the appropriate discussion thread.

my thoughts on this I come back to Elementery school realities.

Who done who wrong and what's to be done about it. Yes there are immense complicating factors which truly determine the difference between the two but if you step back and look at it what besides the scope of the problem and the capability or knowledge of the actors, is it really any different.

If a teacher doesn't pay attention to how the children interact on the playground or in class, or worse only seems to notice when the child being picked on reacts in small ways, then eventually that child or multiple children in many cases; will eventually find a larger scale way of responding or revert to size over number. Either way how far are we from really intepreting the actions of jihadist, terrorist, criminals, anyone in the same context.

What is the root cause, the same thing it always is, was and will be.

Just my 1 1/2 ....

[Norfolk]

my thoughts on this I come back to Elementery school realities.

Who done who wrong and what's to be done about it. Yes there are immense complicating factors which truly determine the difference between the two but if you step back and look at it what besides the scope of the problem and the capability or knowledge of the actors, is it really any different.

If a teacher doesn't pay attention to how the children interact on the playground or in class, or worse only seems to notice when the child being picked on reacts in small ways, then eventually that child or multiple children in many cases; will eventually find a larger scale way of responding or revert to size over number. Either way how far are we from really intepreting the actions of jihadist, terrorist, criminals, anyone in the same context.

What is the root cause, the same thing it always is, was and will be.

Just my 1 1/2 ....

For the most part I agree with you Ron, although I would add the absolutely necessary element of the gravity of the matter concerned. I absolutely agree that what is Black and what is White and the necessary distinction between the two must not be lost in what is otherwise an overwhelming sea of various greys. Just as there are dangers in naivety and idealism, so there are dangers in pragmatism and realism. And to complicate matters, very often there is not just one side in the fight that is, or has been, in the wrong.

The gravity of the matter in question is utterly critical in that regard, and the gravity of terrorism, crime, etc., gives it a very different and very serious character by comparison to (most) of what occurs with school teachers and the young children in their classes, as an example. That said, you're quite right that who done wrong and what's to be done about it must be addressed to the extent that it is possible, otherwise the basic injustices that led to the problem, and subsequently the problem itself, may be impossible to rectify or at least mitigate.

[Ron Humphrey]

For the most part I agree with you Ron, although I would add the absolutely necessary element of the gravity of the matter concerned. I absolutely agree that what is Black and what is White and the necessary distinction between the two must not be lost in what is otherwise an overwhelming sea of various greys. Just as there are dangers in naivety and idealism, so there are dangers in pragmatism and realism. And to complicate matters, very often there is not just one side in the fight that is, or has been, in the wrong.

The gravity of the matter in question is utterly critical in that regard, and the gravity of terrorism, crime, etc., gives it a very different and very serious character by comparison to (most) of what occurs with school teachers and the young children in their classes, as an example. That said, you're quite right that who done wrong and what's to be done about it must be addressed to the extent that it is possible, otherwise the basic injustices that led to the problem, and subsequently the problem itself, may be impossible to rectify or at least mitigate.

Regarding the matters at hand related to current and future issues, I would propose that as with everything else there often are factors at work which even the most informed of us are unaware.

Recognizing this then how do we seek to address that which we do not see. Though a leaking pipe behind the wall may not readily show itself to us we non-the-less are able to locate it by seeking those signs which represent it's presence. So it goes with human nature and all else in the world. There is (I would assert) never a time in which everyone can be happy all the time about everything. Also as is often the case we humans have this need to find our direction through belief or faith in someone or something, even if that be ourselves.

Considering that this has been the case in as much of history as we have recorded then how else do we really approach it except through this context and in relation to our own capabilities to change what we can change.

For any given populous the underlying grievances will exist yet how they addressed by that society will largely relate to the Opportunities, or options which those who make up the have not's see as viable. The key difference interwoven by todays terrorist groups is that they-

1- Rely mainly on those within the middle to upper class to orchestrate their overall operations

2- Take advantage of any lacking of options for the lower class in recruiting
( This really is nothing new)

3- Are multi-purpose in their overall structural development
( They incorporate multiple organizational backgrounds into their overall presence)
a: Religious
b: Criminal
c: Military
d: international
The epitemy of equal opportunity workplace

In relation to the overall discussion-

I think we will find the base for future terrorism focally somewhere near those
in mid level power with the most to lose from changes due to globalism in all it's parts

Just my take on it..

[J Wolfsberger]

I think we will find the base for future terrorism focally somewhere near those
in mid level power with the most to lose from changes due to globalism in all it's parts

Or, perhaps, those most fearful of the change brought about by cultural globalism. (For example, traditionalist Muslim men who see young Muslim girls wearing skin tight jeans.)

Or, perhaps, those who see the world moving past them with no hope of being able to join the parade, and looking for someone to blame. (For example, young men from Sudan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc. who have an engineering degree without the family connections to find appropriate work.)

Or, perhaps, a parent whose children died in an cholera epidemic brought about by lack of clean water, in a country governed by a kleptocracy. (Pick your third world country.)

Or, perhaps, a normal, everyday sociopath/psychopath who just enjoys killing.

Some of these we could address, at least in part. But in 2003 we took strong action to remove a kleptocrat from power, and I don't need to comment on how that turned out. (I'm not referring to the incompetence displayed by our DoD in managing the occupation prior to Petreus. I'm referring to the behavior of the MSM and social "elites" in condemning the US for ending the reign of terror in the first place.) As to whether we will address them ... I don't see any serious move to remedy problems in Darfur - beyond "elites" wringing their hands about how tragic the situation is, and, of course, holding conferences on the "crisis" at five star hotels. (The same "elites," by the way, who didn't do anything in Rwanda.)

Just as a focal point, what do we expect to happen in Zimbabwe over the next few years? What kind of terrorist activities can we expect from the Mugabe government against its people? What kind of response can we expect from those people in return? How long before wide spread famine begins? What bill are we going to be told to pick up, without, of course any interference in the "internal politics" of Zimbabwe's ruling kleptocrats/lunatics, who created the crisis to begin with? And how will the victims spread the pain? Will they use terrorism to involve other African countries? European countries?

I could not agree more

...that we need a strategy that is multidimensional, that more effectively engages the international community, and that does a better job of preserving basic values, even while changing the doctrines and rules that govern our response.

However, before that can occur, the West in general, and the US in particular, need to do some serious soul searching. A few of the topics might include: the difference between moral position (committing troops and dollars to ending a situation such as Darfur) and moral posturing (viewing Darfur with alarm and forming a discussion group to talk about how awful it is); the difference between journalism and propaganda (referring to the "Global War on Terror" as opposed to renaming it "The So-Called Global War on Terror"); do we really have any moral obligation to band aid the problem (e.g. food aid to Zimbabwe) if we don't have a right or obligation to fix the problem (e.g. food aid to Zimbabwe delivered by the 82nd Airborne and a couple of MAUs)?

I know it will be controversial, but one the Bush had dead on right: we are going to have terrorism with us until we remove the root causes that lead people to adopt it.

[/rant]

[Norfolk]

Or, perhaps, those most fearful of the change brought about by cultural globalism.

Or, perhaps, those who see the world moving past them with no hope of being able to join the parade, and looking for someone to blame. (For example, young men from Sudan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc. who have an engineering degree without the family connections to find appropriate work.)

Or, perhaps, a parent whose children died in an cholera epidemic brought about by lack of clean water, in a country governed by a kleptocracy. (Pick your third world country.)

Or, perhaps, a normal, everyday sociopath/psychopath who just enjoys killing.

Some of these we could address, at least in part. But in 2003 we took strong action to remove a kleptocrat from power, and I don't need to comment on how that turned out. []As to whether we will address them ... I don't see any serious move to remedy problems in Darfur []

Just as a focal point, what do we expect to happen in Zimbabwe over the next few years? What kind of terrorist activities can we expect from the Mugabe government against its people? What kind of response can we expect from those people in return? How long before wide spread famine begins? What bill are we going to be told to pick up, without, of course any interference in the "internal politics" of Zimbabwe's ruling kleptocrats/lunatics, who created the crisis to begin with? And how will the victims spread the pain? Will they use terrorism to involve other African countries? European countries?

I could not agree more

However, before that can occur, the West in general, and the US in particular, need to do some serious soul searching. A few of the topics might include: the difference between moral position (committing troops and dollars to ending a situation such as Darfur) and moral posturing (viewing Darfur with alarm and forming a discussion group to talk about how awful it is); the difference between journalism and propaganda (referring to the "Global War on Terror" as opposed to renaming it "The So-Called Global War on Terror"); do we really have any moral obligation to band aid the problem (e.g. food aid to Zimbabwe) if we don't have a right or obligation to fix the problem (e.g. food aid to Zimbabwe delivered by the 82nd Airborne and a couple of MAUs)?

I know it will be controversial, but one the Bush had dead on right: we are going to have terrorism with us until we remove the root causes that lead people to adopt it.

As to how many such threats may be dealt with, and indeed how many of them become direct threats to us, is in some measure both limited, and in some measure due to our own failures to recognize and observe our own limitations. That the overeducated and underemployed 20- and 30- something sons of the Saudi middle classes can't get good work (and subsequently cannot marry), and have been conditioned by their families to refuse menial work (which is considered degrading and to be done by hired foreigners) because of social favouratism/nepotism in particular and the sheer weight of resources that go to support the Saudi ruling classes in general, is something that we cannot change, nor can we change the fact that the aforesaid marginalized young men of the Saudi middle classes subsequently form the single largest recruiting pool for Al-Qaida. We can and must make political efforts to encourage and assist the Saudi Goverment to undertake the necessary social reforms to change or at least mitigate the situation, but we cannot do that by ourselves, nor make the Saudis do that, let alone overcome the powerful resistance of the ruling classes to such reforms.

Furthermore, to the extent that we appear to support (in particular by the past or present stationing and operations of our troops in "Muslim" areas, and especially Saudi because it contains Mecca), even tacitly, the ruling classes in Saudi Arabia, seems to provide a pretext to hate us. Additionally, the presence of "Western"-style popular culture that offends many local sensibilities (said popular culture also offends many Western sensibilities too) aggravates the situation. Conveniently for the Saudi ruling classes, of course, we then become the target of anger and hatred of those whom the ruling classes have marginalized. And we can do no more to disengage ourselves from those ruling classes, practically speaking, than what the global need (including our own ) for ME petroleum resources in turn necessitate our having good working relations (relatively speaking) with the Saudi ruling classes. Couple that with our relations with Israel, and we provide a convenient whipping-boy for the frustrations of the marginalized classes there. Until we can lessen or eliminate our dependence upon ME petroleum and have our relations with Israel somehow become a non-issue in the ME (the prospects for which are extremely remote), we are stuck with the hand we've got.

Extending this to other situations, such as Zimbabwe and perhaps even Sudan, one of the common threads that emerges is that one of the fundamental problems is the relationship of the ruling classes to the rest of their society; typically, the ruling classes are inclined to kleptocracy and even to ethnocentrism/tribalism. Saudi Arabia is more or less a case of kleptocracy, and at the very least social favouratism; I hesistate to say tribalism as well because I am not sufficiently familiar with the tribal memberships of the middle classes and their relations with those of the upper classes. Zimbabwe is clearly a case of both kleptocracy and tribalism, although the terrorism generated is directed against against its own citizenry, especially those outside of the ruling tribe (the latter of course forming the power base of the ruling party and providing its armed muscle). Sudan is not as clear to me, although certainly the element of "African" versus "Arab" is in play alongside tribalism (I believe at least) amongst the various rebel groups through the country (Darfur included); an element of kleptocracy is also seemingly present, particularly given the fighting between the various sides over specific areas that contain mineral and especially petroleum deposits. And Sudan has hosted Al-Qaida in the past; present indications of said are (publicly) muted.

In all three cases, the ruling classes either create the conditions for terrorism, such as in Saudi Arabia, create and wield the terrorism themselves, as in Zimbabwe, or there is a mix of both, as in Sudan. To the extent that we may be able to spur the ruling classes of such countries to remove or substantially mitigate the conditions that they have created or to cease using or sponsoring terrorism themselves, then this is largely the extent to which we can do something about the creation of bases for terrorism and the like. Unless said countries actually attack us with grave and certain damage inflicted or to be inflicted by them, the military option is very limited, or even non-existent. It may even be wasteful and perhaps counter-productive anyway.

We will not be free of the scourge of their terrorism until the ruling powers of the countries from which it originates change their own ways. We cannot do that for them. We can only try to hold the line, and try to lend assistance (if they will accept it) while they (if they) try to reform themselves. In any case, we must see and accept our own limits in what we can and cannot do about the sources of terrorism and within those limits do what we actually can and should to mitigate the problem. Finally, we must recgonize above all that it is not just our problem, but mainly their (the ruling classes of the countries that are the sources of terrorism) problem; they have to fix it, and they may, or they may not. Either way, we have to live and deal with it as best we can.

[Ron Humphrey]

We will not be free of the scourge of their terrorism until the ruling powers of the countries from which it originates change their own ways. We cannot do that for them. We can only try to hold the line, and try to lend assistance (if they will accept it) while they (if they) try to reform themselves. In any case, we must see and accept our own limits in what we can and cannot do about the sources of terrorism and within those limits do what we actually can and should to mitigate the problem. Finally, we must recgonize above all that it is not just our problem, but mainly their (the ruling classes of the countries that are the sources of terrorism) problem; they have to fix it, and they may, or they may not. Either way, we have to live and deal with it as best we can.

For the breakdown ,
I feel so much better now

[Norfolk]

For the breakdown, I feel so much better now

Sorry Ron, didn't mean to come across as a pessimist (I actually thought that I was kind of hopeful!)

[Ron Humphrey]

However, before that can occur, the West in general, and the US in particular, need to do some serious soul searching. A few of the topics might include: the difference between moral position (committing troops and dollars to ending a situation such as Darfur) and moral posturing (viewing Darfur with alarm and forming a discussion group to talk about how awful it is); the difference between journalism and propaganda (referring to the "Global War on Terror" as opposed to renaming it "The So-Called Global War on Terror"); do we really have any moral obligation to band aid the problem (e.g. food aid to Zimbabwe) if we don't have a right or obligation to fix the problem (e.g. food aid to Zimbabwe delivered by the 82nd Airborne and a couple of MAUs)?

I know it will be controversial, but one the Bush had dead on right: we are going to have terrorism with us until we remove the root causes that lead people to adopt it.

[/rant]

I agree with what your saying but it just reminds me of the part about humanities I hate so much.(because it's so confusing)

Sometimes you have to do the right thing, but sometimes the right thing is the wrong thing, unless your someone else looking at it then the right or wrong things might be something different all together.

[J Wolfsberger]

Sometimes you have to do the right thing, but sometimes the right thing is the wrong thing, unless your someone else looking at it then the right or wrong things might be something different all together.

indeed.

One of my standard fallbacks is the old axiom: If it's stupid but it works, it ain't stupid.

Another one is: the right thing happens so rarely, when it does it's churlish to look too closely at why.

[J Wolfsberger]

In any case, we must see and accept our own limits in what we can and cannot do about the sources of terrorism and within those limits do what we actually can and should to mitigate the problem. Finally, we must recognize above all that it is not just our problem, but mainly their (the ruling classes of the countries that are the sources of terrorism) problem; they have to fix it, and they may, or they may not. Either way, we have to live and deal with it as best we can.

I took the above as a succinct, pragmatic assessment. The point of discussion I was trying to get at is the need for a more sober and responsible assessment of what we can and should do. By that, I mean proactive effort to alter the situation in a timely manner, with military force if necessary, and not the endless, inactive deploring that seems to be the norm.

e.g. Queen Victoria deplored the sub Saharan slave trade, but she also sent Chinese Gordon to Khartoum to try and end it. (Her Majesty might also have sent a bit more in the way of troops for him to do it with, but that's another topic.)