Fighting & Winning The Global War on Terror (WW IV)

[pbi]

A couple of comments:

Afghanistan, while nowhere near out of the woods yet (Kharzai hasn't even been inaugurated yet, and the Parliamentary elections are still months away) shows far more progress and potential than the Western media is willing to credit. There are very clear signs of improvement here. The real longer term threat here , IMHO, is not the "Red" forces (AQ, TAL, HIG) but rather the potential for "Green on Green" if Kharzai cannot effectively extend the mandate of the central govt by co-opting some of the regional brokers such as Dostum and Ishmael Khan. Internal fragmentation is a real possibility, but that is as much a political/economic issue to resolve as it is military;

I don't hear or see alot of indication that Iran has much interest in disturbing things here. In fact, Regional Command West, the portion of the country adjoining Iran, is presently the most calm and stable (relative terms...) after the North. Iran is at severe strategic risk if it further pisses off the US, Russia and China, all of whom are concerned with Islamic troublemakers and would not look kindly on a state that fomented them. I am not so sure that the internal struggle in Iran is over yet: the posturing about  their missiles may be very much along the lines of the same act by North Korea: to provide an internal rallying point and to boost its status as a "player" rather to actually launch them against a neighbour. Just my guess.

Cheers.

 

[Acorn]

While it is true that from a "practical" point of view, taking down the West is an impossible task for the Jihadis, "We will inconvenience Western interests!" is hardly a rallying cry for the troops. The Fatwas issued by Osama bin Laden and his friends all have an apocalyptic ring to them to inspire the Jihadis to do as much damage to us as possible, break our will and force us out of the fight. Think "Thousand Year Reich" and you will see what the Jihadi leaders and their supporters are trying to achieve with their new "Caliphate".

Your comments above are something less than the idea that they seek the fall of the west. "Break[ing] our will and forcing us out of the fight" is not "the fall of the west." The driving of "crusader" forces from the lands of the umma, and the establishment of the caliphate, is not necessarily practical either, and that is the stated goal of the jihadis (your use of the term is probably the most accurate, certaily more so than "Al Qaeda" to describe what we are up against). Using Nazi references doesn't entirely fit with the model (and one could make a point about invoking "Nazi" in any discussion). They are not Nazis, and ideologically are very different. Our greatest vulnerability in this fight is misunderstanding our enemy.

North Korea is a wild card, like I said. They are quite free about selling ballistic missile technology, and as the A.Q. Khan story shows, selling nuclear weapons technology is attractive even if the rational plan would be to keep your nukes at home. I don't claim special knowledge of North Korean plans, but past behavior is one way of gauging future intent.

True, they are not reluctant to sell technology. However, looking at it from a practical standpoint, their nuclear technology is in its infancy. The technology they sell is stuff they have developed to its operational state, and in quantity. They learned at the feet of the Soviets - they aren't likely to start sharing anything cutting edge unless they can see a definite benefit. Yhey aren't insane, regardless of what the National Post's editorial page proposes. Sure, they might take the risk of providing nuclear tech to terrorists, but one needs to apply a certain amount of logic to the problem.

I don't think it's likely in the current context.

I have a little time, so let me offer this:

The Jihadi is an individual that has chosen to interpret jihad as a physical struggle, involving warfare. He still has goals, in the case of the stated goals of UBL and his ilk, to establish a Caliphate over Muslim lands. It's worth noting that this ideal is rooted in Arab culture, and has limited following outside the Arab world. This is the formation boundary we need to exploit in our attack. Islam is no more monolithic than Christianity. To win this fight we need to exploit that. We need to demonstrate to the vast majority of Muslims (the bulk are non-Arab) that our fight is not with Islam, it is with the Jihadi philosophy. This is easier said than done, and sometimes we are our own worst enemy. It doesn't help that the US is a near-fundamentalist state in many respects. It also doesn't help that much of Europe can be considered "godless" by outside observers.

The Arab Muslims have their heads in Palestinian sand. To them, and their propagandists, everything is rooted in the Palestinian problem. A solution there, or at least the beginning of a solution, would cut the legs out from under the Jihadi recruiters. There will always be extremists (on the Israeli side as well), but their base of recruits come from the populations that see no future. Give them a future beyond strapping on an explosive belt and seeking martyrdom and they will take care of the rest.

The problem is, unfortunately, the exception to the rule that any problem can be solved through sufficient application of high explosives (though this problem could be so solved, involving mega-tonnage, and not distinguishing between Arab and Israeli).

Acorn

 

[winchable]

We need to demonstrate to the vast majority of Muslims (the bulk are non-Arab) that our fight is not with Islam, it is with the Jihadi philosophy.

Education education education.
It's might sound stupidly idealistic but it's one of the many fronts we have to fight this war on.

 

[a_majoor]

The Arab Muslims have their heads in Palestinian sand. To them, and their propagandists, everything is rooted in the Palestinian problem. A solution there, or at least the beginning of a solution, would cut the legs out from under the Jihadi recruiters. There will always be extremists (on the Israeli side as well), but their base of recruits come from the populations that see no future. Give them a future beyond strapping on an explosive belt and seeking martyrdom and they will take care of the rest.

Acorn

Another factor is the poisioned propaganda which Jihadi leaders and autocratic state governments use to deflect the blame for their economic and social plights onto America, Isreal and the West in general. The Palestinians live across the fence from a relatively peaceful and prosperous Isreal, but rather than wonder "what are we (our leaders and institutions) doing wrong", they are conditioned to believe the peace and prosperity of Isreal is the result of the Jews stealing from the Palestinians in 1948. Far better to blame the Jews and Crusaders than admit you might be part of the problem.

So long as people have this sort of world view, it will be almost impossible to effect changes. This will not be accomplished in the time of this administration, and may take a generation. The conflicts in the Balkens had similar antecedents: the Serbs spoke of the battle of Kossovo Polje as if it happened yesterday, not in 1389, and I remember the Greeks and Turks in Cyprus were also obsessed with events dating back to the Ottoman invasions in the 1500's.

We find this hard to understand, since Western cultures tend to be ahistorical in temperment. While we recognize problems may be rooted in the past, we also look for practical solutions in the here and now. I think the hope of the Americans is the practical demonstration of democracy in action in Iraq and Afghanistan will challenge the cultural values which are poisioning the Arab lands and leading to the hopless conditions there

 

[Acorn]

Another factor is the poisioned propaganda which Jihadi leaders and autocratic state governments use to deflect the blame for their economic and social plights onto America, Isreal and the West in general. The Palestinians live across the fence from a relatively peaceful and prosperous Isreal, but rather than wonder "what are we (our leaders and institutions) doing wrong", they are conditioned to believe the peace and prosperity of Isreal is the result of the Jews stealing from the Palestinians in 1948. Far better to blame the Jews and Crusaders than admit you might be part of the problem.

Absolutely. At the risk of sounding as a bigot, I've observed that Arab culture has a number of quirks that make it difficult for them to get out of their loop. They are culturally incapable of accepting responsibility for mistakes. "My fault" does not seem to be in their vocabulary. It's exacerbated by governments that use the blame game to deflect attention from their own fault.

Acorn

 

[a_majoor]

George W Bush has been reelected, and the left flanking by Democrat lawyers has been averted. The question for the moment becomes "Is the US going to consolodate in Iraq and Afghanistan, or will they make a move to take the initiative again?"

If the answer is "B", where will they go?

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

B: Iran (through political subversion, if possible) ... in better words than I could put it (albeit from an obviously American perspective):

Is Iran Next?
By Ken Adelman Published  06/25/2003


Is Iran next? Yes -- at least I hope. But, no -- not like Iraq.

Yes, Iran sure deserves going next, right onto the ash-heap of history.

Since the fall of the Shah in 1979, the Iranian regime has been distinctly corrupt and tyrannical to its own people. Plus it's a clear and present danger to its neighbors, and to us, by backing terrorism and pursuing a nuclear weapons capability.

What Michael Ledeen cleverly calls the "mullahcracy" has disintegrated into an incompetent clique of corrupt mullahs, straining to govern a major Islamic state. Iran today, like Afghanistan yesterday, stands as the poster child of a fanatical Muslim state.

In one respect, at least, that's fortunate. The birth of a new, democratic and competent Iraqi government -- America's prime goal now -- comes at a prime time. The long-pulverized Iraqi people can glance across their border -- or afar, across Iran's border into Afghanistan -- and see what disasters arise when fanatics seize power.

In 1991, former U.N. Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick and I journeyed to South Africa to meet with President F. W. de Klerk and ANC leaders around Nelson Mandela. When we asked about the ANC's communist rhetoric and links, the just-freed South African blacks shrugged that off. Look, they told us, at what disasters came from communism in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. We're bound to make new mistakes, they delightfully admitted, but surely not to repeat mistakes made before.

By then, communism was a known failure. Likewise, by now, radical Islamic rule is a known failure. Thinking Iraqis today will want to make their own mistakes, and not rerun the ruins of the Taliban or the mullahcracy.

Ditto for thinking Iranians today. That's why, yes, the Iranian regime may be the next to fall.

But, no, not by a liberation of coalition forces. For unlike in Saddam's Iraq, which was competent in its tyranny, Iranian students, workers, and academics can liberate themselves. And that's precisely what they're doing now. Hardly a week goes by without protests in a major Iranian city.

The mullahs will crack down, as best they can, but eventually they too will face a "Ceausescu moment" -- the stunning instance when the decades-ruling tyrant of Romania, Nicolae Ceausescu, stood on the balcony delivering another vapid speech when "his" people suddenly rose up. For a few seconds, Ceausescu tried to continue his babble. Then, suddenly, he and his dastardly wife froze, and fled. They too realized that their people had quite enough. A few days later, the pathetic pair were caught, and on Christmas Day 1989, tried and shot for their crimes against Romania.

But great historical events don't just happen. They're made to happen.

Hence, the Bush administration has a big role to play in the third great liberation of oppressed Muslims (fourth, if you count Kosovo).

The big "don't" is to avoid legitimizing the Iranian government through State Department contacts. Playing "hawks versus doves" within the mullahcracy will work no better than did playing hawks vs. doves within the Sovietocracy. It gained us nothing, but gained some of those rulers legitimacy.

The main "do" is accordingly to legitimize, and assist, the Iranian liberators. The Bush administration should take the playbook used by the late Carter and Reagan administrations in Poland, when Solidarity was getting going. Both presidents spoke directly to the oppressed people, subtly encouraging them.

Secretly, both supplied tools of liberation -- outside broadcasting of the truth, especially about the ongoing protests, plus some walking-around money to fund internal communications, money for striking workers, publications, etc.

Back then, in Poland, we used the AFL-CIO to launder our funds. Where there's a will, there's surely a way to pass along sums to the Iranian protestors now.

With some un-American subtlety, we could help bring liberation on the cheap. That would be another major achievement of this Bush administration for Muslim decency -- and for our security.  http://www.techcentralstation.com/062503D.html

 

[MissMolsonIndy]

Haven't been in here for awhile...

I'm not expecting an abundance of military personnel to jump at this opportunity, but I thought I'd get it out there anyways...

I am a young, political science student, and I am in the midst of conducting research for an academic paper. My area of focus is the justification and conduct of the 'war on terrorism', comparing and contrasting the issue through the lens of Canada and the United States. While I understand that this is a bit of an 'iffy' subject for many, I am on the prowl for military veterans/personnel who are willing to voice an opinion on the matter. I have been in touch with the Human Rights Commission of Canada, several units located in the lower mainland, as well as organizations associated with the Canadian military. For those willing to participate, I require 15 or 20 minutes of your time for a one-on-one interview; I have several questions that I would like to pose, all of which are conducive to my research. Participants may be left anonymous, if they so wish it. If you are located in or around the Vancouver area, this is something that interests you, and/or you are willing to help a gal out, please send an email to lzibrik10@yahoo.ca.

I would appreciate it.

Thanks,

Lindsay
[lzibrik10@yahoo.ca]

 

[Infanteer]

I've been wondering where you'be been!

Now, about the interview, I may be able to help....

 

[Cloud Cover]

Sounds like a good topic. Which perspective will you analyse from .. i.e.  realism etc? Cheers.
P.S.:  I think you should contact the Canadian office of Amnesty International on this issue ... they will have tons of information on this topic. If you need contact, info then post here and we'll get back to you.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Does it have to be face to face?  I'd be willing to commit some answers to your question to the electronic medium, if it helps.

 

[Glorified Ape]

They accept anecdotal evidence?

 

[KevinB]

I have several question to this, and wonder if you are aware that we as members of the CF cannot speak beyond our scope.  IE as an 031 PPCLI Infanteer I cant give comments about policy etc.

Secondly given that you are limting yourself to the Vancouver area you are subjecting your paper to a reserve only bias.


Cheers
Kevin

 

[pjocsak]

I might be able to help in a different way,

I'm at the University of London in the UK and studying Politics at the post graduate level as well. One of my electives is in International Law with a specialisation in the Law of Armed Conflict. It's being taught by a former RN flag officer who was the principal author of the current RN and British MOD issued doctirne manuals as well as being a practicing international lawer. I might be able to have some of your questions addressed by him if it might be of help to you.

Patrick

 

[Infanteer]

Honestly Miss Molson Indy, I don't think you'll get much help from soldiers - the questions you are asking (justification) is the realm of the policy makers.  A soldiers viewpoint may or may not be in line with stated policy, and you'd most likely get conflicting viewpoints. 
Perhaps going to the US Consulate and phoning your MP would be better.

All us guys here can do is give you our informed opinions as private citizens (and you know from these forums that we have enough of those), but the opinions of Joe Blow citizen isn't really what you're looking for in an academic paper.   If you want the official skinny you have to go to the root.

 

[McG]

Your topic is pretty broad/vague as posted.  Are you contrasting Canada's definition of the war on terror with the US definition (which included Iraq), or are you exploring something else.  Perhaps your looking at issues of human security vs national security?
Did you want to post your questions here?  It could give guys a feel for what you are asking, and if they have the background to answer.

 

[MissMolsonIndy]

I've done the run down. To answer most, if not all, of your questions:

The issue will be analyzed from several different points-of-view, including my own, in an attempt to fairly represent both sides of the coin. My paper aims to evaluate and critique this phenomenon in light of several sectors of Canadian and America society: government, non-governmental institutions, multinational/transnational corporations, interest groups, military, and the public-at-large. Naturally, my paper will slant, and my own views will take precedence, but it's conducive to my own findings that I thoroughly explore the issue, as well as provide points-of-view that contradict my own. People have a tendency to exclude and overlook evidence that does not fit into their framework of thought. It is my aim to use this information, not to weaken, but to strengthen my arguments.

I would appreciate contacts for Canadian Office of Amnesty International.

Haha, Michael. I won't demand for you to meet me face-to-face. I do find that it's nice to put a face to a voice. If you object, would you mind if I asked you a few questions via email?

Glorified Age: I'm not entirely after anecdotal evidence, but in answer to your question, yes, academic papers welcome most forms of evidence. All universities, however require that you evaluate the accountability of your resources. I'm interested in what both experts and the populace have to say, and I think it's vital to evaluate both, especially if the issue is one that affects people from all walks of life.

Kevin: If I had it my way, I'd pay a visit to every institution (governmental, or not) across Canada, and the United States. That's a lot of ground to cover. I will be conducting interviews in the United States, via the telephone, but it's impossible for me to cover everything, especially given the amount of time I have. The approach that will be most useful to me is one that allows me to account for views that run contradictory to mine, by opening up my doors to individuals of varying political, social and economic backgrounds. I disagree that CF members cannot speak beyond their scope, in fact, I think if anything, that's where individual soldiers will be able to help me out the most. Naturally, a soldier's views will be influenced by his/her line of work to some extent, but overall, you follow your own intellectual framework. If this isn't the case, then how does one account for desertion, draft dodgers, and soldier revolt? I'm looking for a soldier's individual point-of-view, which happens to be influenced (and it will vary person-to-person) by the position he/she holds in the military. You're right. It's nearly impossible to avoid bias, but there are certain approaches I can take to reduce it.

Pjocsak: That would be incredibly helpful. Would you mind dropping me your email? I would appreciate it.

Infanteer: You're absolutely correct. A soldier's viewpoint may or may not be in tune with stated policy, but I think that this will be case, regardless of where you go. Ideology is extremely subjective, and it's common to find individuals that follow the same ideological framework in disagreement. I think that exploring different perspectives will put my own beliefs and values into check. On issues that directly, and indirectly affect Joe Blow, such as this one, I deem it necessary to hear from Joe Blow. For a system of government that upholds direct and indirect citizen participation in public policy, and more importantly, a system led by a state leader who is elected bottom-up, I don't think that overlooking the viewpoints of your everyday citizen, is going to the root of the issue.

I'm not here to thrust my line of thinking upon you. I'm here to ask for a few more voices, that run parallel or counter to mine, in a matter that I consider to be a public one.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

As interested as I would be in a face to face, time and space unfortunately don't permit.  My email is madorosh@shaw.ca - I don't know that I'd be able to provide much in the way of insight in my answers, but I'll do my best, and at worst perhaps I can help you focus the questions, since that seems to be a concern here....

 

[Infanteer]

So, what's your thesis?

 

[pjocsak]

Ok,

First things first, my e-mail is pjocsak@hotmail.com.

Secondly, I can probably help you narrow down your topic abit by providing you with some of our course reading list. If you decide to drop me an e-mail, I can probably forward a couple of titles that would be of great help to you. Most of it would be regarding the legality of the use of military force, but I would think that any research paper which proposes to look at the conflict in question would invariably have to deal with the legal justification for it at a very early stage in the discussion. I would add these titles to the list now, but I don't have my reading list on me at the moment. Sorry, I should be more prepared.

Patrick