Defining the Enemy

[Edward Campbell]

I hesitate to (re)join this debate, but ...

We have talked 'round and 'round the war on terror vs insurgency vs clash of civilizations and cult of death issues but I feel a need to restate (maybe refine) my views that:

"¢ We are not "at war with Islam";

"¢ We are not (or, at least ought not to be) at "war against terror" if for not other reasons than that it is impossible to win and we might want to resort to it in the future, as we have in the past;

"¢ We are witnessing a clash of values within one of Sam Huntington's civilizations even as we are involved in a Clash of Civilizations between most of the secular, liberal-democratic West and part of Arabic Islam - the part which is both: Arabic extremist - in its desire to return to medieval Arabic social structures, and fundamentalist Islamic - to the degree that some versions of Islam are rooted in those same medieval Arabic social structures;

"¢ Arabic Islam, certainly, and maybe all of Islam needs a reformation as a (necessary, in my view) precursor to an Arabic enlightenment*; and

"¢ Enlightenments tend to be slow, stately, scholarly affairs which flow out of the bitter lessons of rather bloody reformations.  Both are the work of generations.

It seems to me that we, the secular, liberal-democratic West, ought to be doing all we can, openly and covertly, too, to promote the reformation.  We have, in other words, a vested interest in helping the Osama bin Ladens to destabilize moderate Arab regimes and we have an equally vested interest in helping those (generally friendly) regimes to fight against the fundamentalist terrorists - the jihadis.  We don't want bin Laden to acquire any more countries but we do want him to turn his attention away from us and towards our 'friends' like Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt and even Jordan and the Emirates.  We want the Arab foundamentalists to believe they are strong enough and popular enough to accomplish one of their primary aims: their reform of Islam.  We want them to act, to strike, then we can support our 'moderate' friends - just enough to fight off the extremists.  Such little wars might be enough to stir reformation (and counter-reformation) ideas amongst the people and provoke the sort of internecine, generation long Arabic wars which I believe are necessary to settle issue and to set the stage for an enlightenment which, I believe, again, is what we really need to defeat the Arab foundamentalists who are at the centre of the enemy movements arrayed against us.

In other words, I don't think it matters, much, what happens in Iraq so long as Iraq becomes a base from which one or the other group (secular 'moderates' or Islamic fundamentalists) can attack the others in neighbouring countries.

There are some risks, including.

"¢ A complete regional conflagration could do real, serious economic harm to us (North America and/or the Anglosphere) by sending both Japan and Europe into a 'no oil' depression; and

"¢ The Arab foundamentalists might win - the people in the region (who are mostly Arabs, after all) may decide that their reformation is to go back to medieval social and cultural values.

Another 2 ¢ for the pot.
----------

* I do not believe that Asian Islam (Malaysia and Indonesia, for example) need much of a reformation or any special kind of enlightenment, except to defeat the Arabists who are trying to impose what Canadian public intellectual/author (or lesbian chic gadfly, if you prefer) Irshad Manji calls Arab foundamentalism - that view that Islam is only 'true' when it is practiced in Arabic and when believers adhere to the medieval Arab social mores.

 

[Sapper Bloggins]

Good evening, some interesting points raised here.
We are obviously in a very dark period, at what point do you admit it was a mistake and get the hell out of there?(exit strategy...)
How much more damage has to be done? How much damage has to be done to the credibility of the United States?
These are disturbing times, and you don't have to be of any political persuasion to be disturbed or troubled by it.
I think we're in a time of deliberate cruelty and deliberate lying, and, frankly, I think it's the very bottom of humanity.
It has bothered me how some people have misapplied the story to the invasion & occupation of Iraq. It's like the way Hitler misapplied Norse mythology and literature to validate the Third Reich.

 

[Infanteer]

Okay, I split this thread - the "Conspiracy Theory of Iraq" crap got left behind, and this chunk got renamed - it is a fairly interesting dialogue.

Now, Marc Sageman's was mentioned on page 2, and it is a really good analysis of networking the enemy has in place.   A few parts of his book really stood out in our debate around "Islamofascism" and the relevance/applicability/stupidity of the term.   Sageman's work focuses on a particular brand of Militant Islam (Jihadi kinda works, but we must be careful not to ignore the various interpretations of Jihad), that of the Global Salafist Jihad.   This is Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda, along with its affiliated "cores" in the Mahgreb, Southeast Asia, and the Middle East.   This network is one that orients itself towards global attacks based upon holy jihad focusing on the "far" enemy (the West and the United States in particular) as opposed to the "near" enemy.   The goal is to drive away support for the "near" enemies (apostate regimes in the Islamic world) by those "far" enemies in order to allow for a pan-Islamic state based around the Salafist interpretation of Islam.

Now, this "Global Salafist Jihad" (and by extention, Al Qaeda) is what I assume is alluded to when the term "Islamofacist" is used.   Instead of trying to pull at strings to highlight how Militant Islam is fascism in disguise, Sageman's analysis of the terrorist organizations that make it up (his background is in psychology) brings up a few unique points that show that the difference between the two is pretty big once you look at the details (emphasis mine):
 

Unlike many political organizations, Salafi groups are careful to avoid a cult of personality, for they believe that everything belongs to God.   Indeed, they take seriously the notion of Islam as submission, and this is not compatible with a narcissistic cult of personality, which often degenerates into a pyramidal organization, with all the controls lying with the leader.   Al Qaeda's structure is quite opposite, with a large degree of local autonomy and initiative.

Marc Sageman, Understanding Terrorist Networks; pg 87.

The revived Authoritarian Personality formulation results in a series of propostions characterizing charismatic leader-follower relationships.   It postulates that the group uncritically follows the leader's directives and that the leader has a history of violence.   Neither is true of the global Salafi jihad, which prominently features local initiative and decentralized decision-making.   Bin Laden had no history of violence before joining the jihad.

Authoritarianism is contrary to the tenets of Salafism, which preaches that only God is superior to men, who should relate to each other as equals.     Qutb stressed that all authority belongs to God.   Intentionally or not, the leadership in al Qaeda is not an authoritarian one.   There is no consolidation of decision-making in its leader.   Its structure is not hierarchical or modeled after a military organization, and there has been no split as a result of leadership decisions.   All these factors are assumed to have high relevance in predicting terrorism.   They do not apply to the global Salafi jihad, which is characterized by decentralization in decision-making, a horizontal fluid structure, and a surprising absence of periodic purges of leadership that are so common in other terrorist organizations.

Marc Sageman, Understanding Terrorist Networks; pg 90.

Clearly, these are two very "unfascist" principles; both in ideal and in physical organization.   Infact, I'd argue that these two points, along with others in his book, seem to highlight the fact that the only commonality between the Militant Islam of the Global Salafist Jihad and Fascism in any of its forms is that they are ideologies that clash with Western liberalism.   Equating the two with that single premise is ridiculous.  

Furthermore, "Islamofascism" often leads to incorrect assumptions about the enemy, as all the uses of it that I've come across it is applied with a very broad brush.   Sageman is careful to point out that his study ignores the networks of other Miltant Islamic groups that the West is entangled with such as Shi'ite organizations, the Palestinians (who are a subject all on their own), regional/local groups aimed at a "near" enemy (such as those in Egypt, Algeria, or Chechnya), and tribal groups that really play to their own tune (Taliban) - he avoids these because their groups have different aims, motivations, organization and character that the Global Salafist Jihad and Al Qaeda have, and mixing them up would muddy any idea of who the enemy is.   I've never seen "Islamofascist" attempt to make this distinction; it paints the enemy as one mass of Koran-pounding, goose-stepping, Jewish hating martyrs ready to convert the world by the sword - clearly this is an interpretation that will do us no favours in attempting to interpret the motivations and the actions of the enemy in an effort to find better ways of killing him.

Infanteer

 

[Brad Sallows]

"Dar el Islam" and "Dar el Harb".  You are either in the house of submission, or the house of the struggle for submission.  Don't kid yourself you're not at "war" in some people's views.  It only takes one party to make war; you can either respond or not.

 

[DG-41]

Life is never that simple. You cannot paint all Islam with the same brush, any more than you could Christianity. Consider the differences between Roman Catholics, Greek Orthadox, Seventh-Day Adventests, and Mormons - all ostensibly Christian, but with vastly different philosophies and intentions.

There is also tremendous value in developing empathy for the enemy; understanding his motives for fighting, what he seeks to gain, what has driven him to the extremes that he has chosen. Understanding the enemy helps you defeat the enemy.

There is also no shame in if, during one's analysis of the enemies motives, you discover a big fat "mea culpa" and then seek to rectify the situation. Defeating the enemy by removing his motivation to fight - by fixing the problems that you may have caused - is every bit as effective as killing every single last enemy soldier, far easier to attain, and morally right.

It is right and proper to combat the people who are doing bad things to you. It is equally right to fix the problems (assuming they exist) that drove them to doing bad things to you.

In a way, one can see the entire Marshall Plan following WW2 as both a rejection of and a restitution for the Treaty of Versailles following WW1.

This can indeed be slippery and nebulous philosophical territory - the WW1 Allies did not put Hitler in power, did not create Nazism, did not explicitly put Germany on the path to war. But the onerous sanctions imposed by Versailles created the conditions that allowed Hitler and friends to come to power and proceed from there, so there is a certain degree of culpability amongst the Allies of WW1 for what happened during WW2. So too there exists a certain degree of culpability in the West for what has been going on in the Islamic states, and it behooves us to identify those cases and rectify those situations, every bit as much as it behooves us to hunt down those responsible for acts of violence. The two tasks are not at odds with each other.

Now it seems to me that the large part of the history of the 20th century involves the West getting involved with regional conflicts without understanding the complete situation, taking action based on completely unfounded assumptions, and making things FAR worse in the process. The war in Vietnam is the poster child for this (watch "Fog of War" to see how and why) and I think Iraq is a repeat of the same mess. Our actions in Afganistan, at least so far, appear to be better founded and better conducted.

But it also seems to me that a fair amount of the animosity towards the West in Middle Eastern, Islamic countries stems from Western meddling in affairs poorly understood. It seems to me that every time the West gets involved, we serve more as a distraction and a focal point, than problem solvers (although the pressure applied to Israel to fix the Palestinian problem may be a case of positive meddling)

I think the West would be best served by cleaning up the messes in which we are directly involved (Israel, Afganistan, and sadly, Iraq) and otherwise staying clear of meddling in the politics of the area, and let Muslims sort out their internal development free of our ham-handed attempts to influence things.

This, of course, runs the risk that the "bad guys" win - but that then sets the stage for direct, conventional conflict, rather than all the shadow war stuff.

DG

 

[Infanteer]

Huh?

 

[paracowboy]

Huh?

what he said

 

[KevinB]

WTF?

DG - here's a hint they won't rest till your dead or converted to Islam (and they even kill 'less Islamic' Islamics)

But I'm sure your appoligist attitude will get you far  :

 

[Brad Sallows]

Some adherents of Islam have stated frankly their intentions to export and impose the religion and its values and rules everywhere.  Whatever fraction of Muslims living in non-Islamic nations doesn't directly participate, be it 99.99% or more, may not be lifting a finger to advance that aim but the interesting question is whether they are lifting any fingers to prevent it or will simply be content with the result if the activists are successful.  There is assuredly a conflict of values and policy.  Some may choose not to call it "war" if that soothes sensibilities, but the mere absence of army groups and fleets shouldn't distract us from the policy which is being pursued by other means.  A rose by any other name...

Doubtless our enemies have something resembling campaign plans or at least visions, and I am confident that in all cases one of the intermediate goals is to establish a toehold state or superstate with the appropriate religion, laws, and ruling caste.  It is surely "western interference" if we thwart that intermediate goal.  Should we stand aside and grant that decisive point unfought if we believe there is a greater and longer term struggle at stake?

 

[Infanteer]

Some may choose not to call it "war" if that soothes sensibilities, but the mere absence of army groups and fleets shouldn't distract us from the policy which is being pursued by other means.   A rose by any other name...

Bingo.

 

[Good2Golf]

Interestingly, the Qur'an does in fact state that other religions are unacceptable to God if one knows the ways of Islam (The Qur'an, 3:85)

This is qualified in the following link on the website of the University of Southern California's Department of Muslin Studies...Islam as the only valid religion?

!السلام عليكم
Duey

 

[paracowboy]

Interestingly, the Qur'an does in fact state that other religions are unacceptable to God if one knows the ways of Islam (The Qur'an, 3:85)

This is qualified in the following link on the website of the University of Southern California's Department of Muslin Studies...Islam as the only valid religion?

!السلام عليكم
Duey

the problem is that certain people will always pick and choose which parts of their religion they will follow devoutly, and which rules they will follow, and which part of which books they will read to enforce their beliefs. (If you can follow that.)

Certain types of people will use their religious faith to enforce their personal agendas. Nothing new, there. The bad part is the scale of damage possible is so much greater.

 

[Infanteer]

Paracowboy is right.  The problem is not what is contained in the Qu'ran, but how people attempt to use it.  Like the Bible, the Qu'ran is filled with verses that are reflective of the time and culture in which it comes from.

Equally important are the maddhabs, the schools of jurisprudence that built upon the Qu'ran and the Hadith.  There are additional prescriptions on how a good Muslim should carry out his life on earth - many of these would be useful when attempting to fight the enemy through his own frame of reference.  One notion I've touched upon is Dar al-Ahd (I've also seen it mentioned as Dar al-Suhl), which legitimizes nations outside of Islam that have treaties with the Islamic world (thus proscribing jihad against them).  I can't speak for the veracity of globalsecurity's info, but here is a nice list of the Maddhabs to give you an idea of the branches within Islam.

Now, the problem with dealing with the Salafists is, as I understand, that they refuse to accept any of the maddhabs (or the Shia), denouncing them as apostates.  Anything after the initial generation of Muhammed and his companions (the Salaf or predecessors) is Islam gone bad - they believe pure Islam can only be found in the Qu'ran and the Hadith.  Salifism doesn't necessarily have to be militant - it exists peacefully in the Tablighi branch - but when it does, it breeds revivalists extremists.  Much of what we see is the product of Qutb, who modernized Salafist thought by reaching back to Taymiya's notion of jahiliyya, which was drawn up to allow Muslims to fight Mongols who converted to Islam without breaking the Golden rule of Muslims fighting Muslims.

It seems to me that the Salafists will be a do-or-die group to deal with.  Cut off their supply and deliver hell and brimstone upon them.  The trick is to do this without throwing the rest of the Muslim world in their corner....

Cheers,
Infanteer

 

[paracowboy]

Paracowboy is right.  

at all times, and in all things!

It seems to me that the Salafists will be a do-or-die group to deal with.  Cut off their supply and deliver heck and brimstone upon them.  The trick is to do this without throwing the rest of the Muslim world in their corner....

well, they seem to do that pretty well themselves. By blowing up innocents in the various Muslim nations, they rapidly turn the local populace against them. It seems to me, from reports on the ground (at the sharp end, and not the view from the air-conditioned bar in the local hotel), that in every nation, the Salafists are more dis-liked than the Crusader armies in place, or the tourists partying.

 

[KevinB]

Listening to the boys on the ground in Iraq, the locals are WAY more accepting them these days than they where months ago.  Especially with a legitimate government forming in Iraq, and the attacks on it and its security forces, the same folk the Americans are being atacked by...

 

 

[48Highlander]

This can indeed be slippery and nebulous philosophical territory - the WW1 Allies did not put Hitler in power, did not create Nazism, did not explicitly put Germany on the path to war. But the onerous sanctions imposed by Versailles created the conditions that allowed Hitler and friends to come to power and proceed from there, so there is a certain degree of culpability amongst the Allies of WW1 for what happened during WW2.

:
If you ever get robbed, I hope the cops tell you that you're "culpuable to a certain degree" because you were carrying a wallet.

I think the West would be best served by cleaning up the messes in which we are directly involved (Israel, Afganistan, and sadly, Iraq) and otherwise staying clear of meddling in the politics of the area, and let Muslims sort out their internal development free of our ham-handed attempts to influence things.

This, of course, runs the risk that the "bad guys" win - but that then sets the stage for direct, conventional conflict, rather than all the shadow war stuff.

That's been discussed before.  Isolationism doesn't work.  It never has.  And in our modern global economy it would be an even worse failiure than it was when the yanks and japs tried it.  Wether you like it or not, we're all connected to eachother and we cannot afford to sit on our asses.  Trying to make tihngs better, and making mistakes along the way, will always be better than sitting back and hoping things turn out ok.

 

[Infanteer]

Interesting look into Islam today.   I was going through some MEMRI translations of Hadji TV and I found this interview.   It is my own opinion that this is going to be one important facet of winning the war - convincing much of the Islamic world within its own frame of reference that many of its actions are not those of a good Muslim.   Call it Psyops or whatever, but this will be important to undercut the support of Militant Islam.

We will have to seek out the thoughts and ideas of men like this Saudi scholar - these learned men of the Ulema have much weight in determining what is the action of a good Muslim (so much so that Osama bin Laden adopted his own shura of alim to justify his jihad against America - Islam is probably one of the most communal of religions and, as I understand it, demands consensus).   Muslims are more likely to listen this man then they are to an Westerner.

http://memritv.org/Search.asp?ACT=S2

Anyways, going through Islam to undercut Militant Islam will probably be a vital tool in winning - not the only tool, but an important one none-the-less (as an example, look to how the US courted al-Sistani following the fall of Iraq).

Anyways, just more grist for the mill
Infanteer

[edit: fixed the link]

 

[paracowboy]

I would have thought this to be self-evident. That's what Hearts and Minds campaigns are: convincing the locals that you are the good guys and your enemies are the bad guys, and using their own frame of reference to do so. That's what the SAS did, US SF, USMC CAP, etc. It does no good to try and apply your mentality to the PsyOps campaigns. You gotta get in their (whomever "they" may be, this campaign) heads.

 

[Infanteer]

Well, I knew you would know the answer Paracowboy....