"No way to wage a war on terrorism"

[a_unique_person]

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opini...e-war-on-terror/2005/07/10/1120934123814.html

Manny's repeated assertions to go and kill all of Al Qaeda worry me as being too simplistic. Here, a moderate Muslim gives his take on why he thinks such an approach is conterproductive.

As he says "Both sides have resorted to extremism, each reinforcing the position of the other."".

Actions such as the war on Iraq have alienated many ordinary Muslims.

The terrorist carnage in London has once again put the spotlight on al-Qaeda as the most likely perpetrator. Prime Minister Tony Blair, President George Bush and their allies around the world have reaffirmed their determination to continue the war on terrorism until a final victory. Yet the London tragedy also reminds us that the war on terror has so far done little to seriously impair the operational capacity of al-Qaeda and its associated groups. How resilient is al-Qaeda and how inadequate has the war on terror been?

Al-Qaeda has certainly proved to be more self-generating and robust than could have been anticipated at the start of the war on terror more than three-and-a-half years ago. The organisation has become highly franchised and dispersed, capable of adapting to changing conditions and circumventing enemy tactics.

The fact that its top leaders, Osama bin Laden and his strategist deputy Aiman al-Zawahiri, have become fugitives seems to have made little difference. They continue to serve as significant symbols of inspiration to galvanise some Muslims to respond to their call.
AdvertisementAdvertisement

Although Muslims are very diverse, two clusters appear to have become increasingly receptive to al-Qaeda's causes, with a willingness to serve as the network's operatives and foot soldiers.

One cluster is made up of radical Islamists, who believe in Islam as an ideology of political and social transformation and the use of violence under special circumstances to achieve their objectives. They are not all narrowly educated and unworldly as has often been claimed. A good number of them have evidently come from well-educated and privileged backgrounds.

The other cluster is made up of neo-fundamentalists, who are very narrowly educated within a particular social and cultural setting as defined by certain conservative Islamic leaders. While a great deal of ideological overlap exists between the radical Islamists and neo-fundamentalists, the latter are far more inward-looking, discriminatory and xenophobic than the former. A prime example of this group was the Taliban, whose remnants are still active in Afghanistan. Elements of this group are recruited as al-Qaeda's foot soldiers, often at the behest of radical Islamists.

These two clusters constitute a small minority compared with moderate Islamists, who share part of the radicals' political platform but reject violence and are open to inter-faith dialogue, peaceful co-existence and good relations with the West. However, they can always draw on the political and social deprivation of Muslims, whether in Saudi Arabia, Egypt or Pakistan, and their disempowerment and humiliation at the hands of foreigners, whether in Palestine, Iraq or Afghanistan, to widen their circles of popular support and recruitment among ordinary Muslims everywhere.

Meanwhile, the way the US and its allies have sought to combat the radical Islamists and neo-fundamentalists has boosted Muslim support and sympathy for them.

The war on terror has so far focused primarily on the symptoms rather than the deep causes underpinning al-Qaeda's resilience. It has given primacy to the use of military force over identifying and addressing the root causes of al-Qaeda's terrorism in order to delegitimise its actions and dry up its sources of moral, human and economic nourishment.

It was a fatal mistake by the Bush Administration and its British and Australian allies to invade Iraq. Instead of concentrating on rapidly securing and rebuilding Afghanistan, resolving the Palestinian problem as a major source of Muslim discontent towards the US and working with democratic forces in the Muslim world to build democracy from within, they diverted their resources to creating a new theatre of conflict for none other than geopolitical ambitions.

.....

Unless Washington and its allies rethink their war on terror strategy to address the root causes of international terrorism, the future looks very grim. A sound political strategy is badly needed to deal with those causes of terrorism that defy military solutions and to rebuild bridges of understanding and trust with Muslims as the best way to delegitimise the position of al-Qaeda and its associated groups.

 

[Ed]

In some ways, I agree with this guy. But then we come to this:

The war on terror has so far focused primarily on the symptoms rather than the deep causes underpinning al-Qaeda's resilience. It has given primacy to the use of military force over identifying and addressing the root causes of al-Qaeda's terrorism in order to delegitimise its actions and dry up its sources of moral, human and economic nourishment.

What were the "deep causes" that caused 19 reasonably well off people to fly planes into buildings? Or bin Laden to countanence it? Not grinding poverty, that is for sure.

If I read this aright, it seems that he is arguing for a Western Jihad against fundimentalist Islam.

n.b. I agree with this

Instead of concentrating on rapidly securing and rebuilding Afghanistan, resolving the Palestinian problem as a major source of Muslim discontent towards the US and working with democratic forces in the Muslim world to build democracy from within, they diverted their resources to creating a new theatre of conflict for none other than geopolitical ambitions.

But that is separate and distinct from what pisses off Osma (Poo for short). It is also facile to suggest that "rebuilding Afganistan" means much to a culture that seems pretty indifferent to the plight of thier fellow muslims who are murdered or otherwise abused by their co-religionists on a regular basis (most recently in Iraq). And, you may recall, that the plight of the Palistinians was not part of the original set of demands for remidies of things that Poo. It was an afterthought.

Moslem appear to be part of a culture in denial of their own responsibility for what ails them. It is rare for them to say "we have to..." rather they say "this is what you must do".

 

[a_unique_person]

In some ways, I agree with this guy. But then we come to this:



What were the "deep causes" that caused 19 reasonably well off people to fly planes into buildings? Or bin Laden to countanence it? Not grinding poverty, that is for sure.

He didn't claim it was.

If I read this aright, it seems that he is arguing for a Western Jihad against fundimentalist Islam.

I think he believes fundies are a danger to everyone.

n.b. I agree with this


But that is separate and distinct from what pisses off Osma (Poo for short). It is also facile to suggest that "rebuilding Afganistan" means much to a culture that seems pretty indifferent to the plight of thier fellow muslims who are murdered or otherwise abused by their co-religionists on a regular basis (most recently in Iraq). And, you may recall, that the plight of the Palistinians was not part of the original set of demands for remidies of things that Poo. It was an afterthought.

Moslem appear to be part of a culture in denial of their own responsibility for what ails them. It is rare for them to say "we have to..." rather they say "this is what you must do".

I don't believe they are indifferent to it. He certainly doesn't seem to identify with extremists, but he does point out that actions taken appear to them to be extreme. Eg, starting a war, for me, is an extreme act, only to be undertaken for very specific reasons.

 

[Giz]

It's fine to say that the root causes should be addressed (and I agree, in that a carrot and a stick works better than a stick alone, and if we are being unethical in our foriegn policy we should review it - we are supposed to be the good guys).

The problem is that what some fundementalists (say OBL) view as a root cause - Spain (or is it all Europe? Perhaps tomorrow the World?) should be Muslim, Israel must be destroyed, yadda, yadda, yadda... are not things that we can compromise on.

Just as a Darwinian and a young earth creationist cannot meet and agree that they will compromise by both teaching that Intelligent Design is correct, we may have to take a view that some of what Al Qiada want we just cannot give them (and remain liberal democracies with freedom of expression, equal rights, etc).

Also, the article you quote doesn't say what root causes we can address in order to make OBL love us again. What do you think? How should we kill them with kindness?

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

As he says "Both sides have resorted to extremism, each reinforcing the position of the other."".

I agree with that. I also think that some world liders, like bush, still believe in the kid tales about "good and evil persons". Yes, they must believe that the others are "bad" and "evil" and that they are "the good ones".

WOO WOO WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

(sorry for the scream)

 

[a_unique_person]

It's fine to say that the root causes should be addressed (and I agree, in that a carrot and a stick works better than a stick alone, and if we are being unethical in our foriegn policy we should review it - we are supposed to be the good guys).

The problem is that what some fundementalists (say OBL) view as a root cause - Spain (or is it all Europe? Perhaps tomorrow the World?) should be Muslim, Israel must be destroyed, yadda, yadda, yadda... are not things that we can compromise on.

Just as a Darwinian and a young earth creationist cannot meet and agree that they will compromise by both teaching that Intelligent Design is correct, we may have to take a view that some of what Al Qiada want we just cannot give them (and remain liberal democracies with freedom of expression, equal rights, etc).

Also, the article you quote doesn't say what root causes we can address in order to make OBL love us again. What do you think? How should we kill them with kindness?

I don't think he expects OBL to love us again. I think he wants the 'moderate majority' to love us. That is half the war won. Eg, when the four SEALs were attacked, one lived because tribesmen saved his life. Pirate Lads experiences in Iraq seem to show that for each trooper who tries to be reasonable, there is another who is going to ruin the whole effort.

I don't think the majority of Muslims want to hate us, but they view with distrust what is happening. If their religion appears kooky to us, well, I can find plenty of kooky religions out there.

 

[Chaos]

It's fine to say that the root causes should be addressed (and I agree, in that a carrot and a stick works better than a stick alone, and if we are being unethical in our foriegn policy we should review it - we are supposed to be the good guys).

The problem is that what some fundementalists (say OBL) view as a root cause - Spain (or is it all Europe? Perhaps tomorrow the World?) should be Muslim, Israel must be destroyed, yadda, yadda, yadda... are not things that we can compromise on.

Just as a Darwinian and a young earth creationist cannot meet and agree that they will compromise by both teaching that Intelligent Design is correct, we may have to take a view that some of what Al Qiada want we just cannot give them (and remain liberal democracies with freedom of expression, equal rights, etc).

Also, the article you quote doesn't say what root causes we can address in order to make OBL love us again. What do you think? How should we kill them with kindness?

I´d be really, really surprised if more there are than a few millions of Muslim who are such fundies that nothing we could ever do (short of collectively converting to Wahhabism) would stop them from hating us.

That leaves about a billion or so Muslims who you CAN influence with something else than bombs. And the Bush administration is doing a crappy job at this - to put it diplomatically.

 

[Giz]

I´d be really, really surprised if more there are than a few millions of Muslim who are such fundies that nothing we could ever do (short of collectively converting to Wahhabism) would stop them from hating us.

That leaves about a billion or so Muslims who you CAN influence with something else than bombs. And the Bush administration is doing a crappy job at this - to put it diplomatically.

So what do we do with the few "millions" that are incorrigable? Are you OK with manny's "kill em" remedy for those few million?

 

[a_unique_person]

So what do we do with the few "millions" that are incorrigable? Are you OK with manny's "kill em" remedy for those few million?

How do you just "Kill em". It sounds simple, about as simple as invading Iraq and setting up a democracy.

The simplest way is to isolate them from the Muslim majority, not drive a wedge between East and West.

There were Muslims killed in those trains, don't forget. But there are also Muslims dying in Iraq.

 

[zenith-nadir]

Giz: "The problem is that what some fundementalists (say OBL) view as a root cause - Spain (or is it all Europe? Perhaps tomorrow the World?) should be Muslim, Israel must be destroyed, yadda, yadda, yadda... are not things that we can compromise on."

That is the fundamental issue that so many people refuse to accept. Some feel if we all play nice and do everything the muslim fundamentalists want it'll all be over and we can drink from rivers of wine together in harmony. What a load of crap.

The fundamentalist muslims and their terror organizations reject our way of life. It is only through jihad they hope to cleanse the "kafir, pl. kuffar" - a person who refuses to submit himself to Allah - from the earth. So before some of you start woo wooing I am clarifying that is not what all muslims want, it is what f-u-n-d-a-n-m-e-n-t-a-l-i-s-t muslims want.

Saddam - a lothesome dictator - is gone and the Iraqi people have the beginnings of democracy yet the fundamentalist muslim groups still hate us, Afghanistan had their first elections in 1 billion years and the fundamentalist muslim groups still hate us, the Palestinians will get a state and the fundamentalist muslim groups will still hate us. The only thing that will change with time is the excuse why they want to kill us, ultimately the real reason is because they reject our way of life.

The fundamentalists are blowing up more muslims than westerners in Iraq, doesn't that raise a red flag for anyone but me? There is no negotiation with people like that, especially ones willing to kill themselves to kill you. And no article in a newspaper is going to change that.

Just my two cents.

 

[karl]

So what do we do with the few "millions" that are incorrigable? Are you OK with manny's "kill em" remedy for those few million?

Since there is no way of sorting more than a tiny fraction of the incorrigibles out from the rest anyway, the question is moot.

The type of terrorism that al-Qaeda represents needs external funding to survive. Save perhaps for kidnappings, it has no other source of income. It relies on donations from the more reasonable majority. Cut that off, by swaying the public opinion, and these groups become marginalized and powerless.

 

[RandFan]

Re: Re: "No way to wage a war on terrorism"

I agree with that. I also think that some world liders, like bush, still believe in the kid tales about "good and evil persons". Yes, they must believe that the others are "bad" and "evil" and that they are "the good ones".

Let's be real clear on this. The folks who blame the US for all their ills and choose to terrorize US citizens are, to us, the bad guys. Make no mistake about that. We can play relativistic moral good guy bad guy games untill the cows come home but in the end we are still the Great Satan and we are still targeted for destruction. There is no reasoning with people who are willing to sacrifice their lives only to kill innocent human beings.

 

[Ed]

That is the fundamental issue that so many people refuse to accept. Some feel if we all play nice and do everything the muslim fundamentalists want it'll all be over and we can drink from rivers of wine together in harmony. What a load of crap.

The fundamentalist muslims and their terror organizations reject our way of life. It is only through jihad they hope to cleanse the "kafir, pl. kuffar" - a person who refuses to submit himself to Allah - from the earth. So before some of you start woo wooing I am clarifying that is not what all muslims want, it is what f-u-n-d-a-n-m-e-n-t-a-l-i-s-t muslims want.

Saddam - a lothesome dictator - is gone and the Iraqi people have the beginnings of democracy yet the fundamentalist muslim groups still hate us, Afghanistan had their first elections in 1 billion years and the fundamentalist muslim groups still hate us, the Palestinians will get a state and the fundamentalist muslim groups will still hate us. The only thing that will change with time is the excuse why they want to kill us, ultimately the real reason is because they reject our way of life.

The fundamentalists are blowing up more muslims than westerners in Iraq, doesn't that raise a red flag for anyone but me? There is no negotiation with people like that, especially ones willing to kill themselves to kill you. And no article in a newspaper is going to change that.

Just my two cents.

My point exactly. With some segments of muslim society it is a fight to the death and it is religious. The lack of condemnation for outrages suggests to me at least that we are not dealing with "a few" extremists. I find it odd that some believe that a sense of morality from mislems is predicated on a quid pro quo. Interesting morality, that.

 

[Giz]

Since there is no way of sorting more than a tiny fraction of the incorrigibles out from the rest anyway, the question is moot.

The type of terrorism that al-Qaeda represents needs external funding to survive. Save perhaps for kidnappings, it has no other source of income. It relies on donations from the more reasonable majority. Cut that off, by swaying the public opinion, and these groups become marginalized and powerless.

You don't think that:
a) some (like OBL himself) will be rich
b) a few million is enough for millions of donors/funders and thousands of operatives/bombers... I wouldn't call "a few million" jihadists "marginal and powerless"!

 

[Ed]

Re: Re: Re: "No way to wage a war on terrorism"

Let's be real clear on this. The folks who blame the US for all their ills and choose to terrorize US citizens are, to us, the bad guys. .

It is not "ills" it is us. The notion of "just grivences" is crap, IMHO.

 

[Drooper]

Re: Re: Re: Re: "No way to wage a war on terrorism"

It is not "ills" it is us. The notion of "just grivences" is crap, IMHO.

I agree.

The issue here is terrorism - murder. There is no "grievances" or "issues" or "aims".

The IRA got away with that semantic game for too long.

 

[Manny]

As he says "Both sides have resorted to extremism, each reinforcing the position of the other."".

Saikal is actually an interesting guy with some interesting thoughts to contribute. He was, for example, calling for the UN to oust the taliban well before 9-11.

But there's a few things he's overlooking and a few other things he just doesn't get.

For one, he's an internationalist who believes strongly in the role of the UN. Until John Bolton is Sec. Gen. (not just US Ambassador), the UN is useless. We saw this in central Europe, we're seeing this in Africa, we see this almost everywhere the UN intervenes and (more importantly) where they don't. Leadership comes from leaders, and the UN just doesn't qualify.

For another, he doesn't see some of the contradictions in his own prose. The Arab world is suspicious, he says, of the coalition's resolve to democratize Iraq because of our past support for dictators in the region (including Saddam himself). OK, that's certainly fair analysis. So what are the alternatives? We could have left Saddam in power -- how would that have eased suspicion? We could cut and run now -- that would increase suspicion . Indeed, it would confirm the Arab world's worst fears that we're not only a bully but we're a paper tiger of a bully or a hypocritical one. No, the only way to allay that suspicion is to succeed.

He also either fails to understand or fails to explain what he means by the "Palestinian problem." The problem is that radical Muslims want to eradicate Israel and all too few moderate Muslims object openly to that goal. In addition to being among the most pro-Israel presidents ever, President Bush is the most pro-Palestinian president ever. He's the very first president since the creation of Israel to openly call for a Palestinian state. All they have to do to get a nation is stop killing Israeli civilians. The fix to the Palestinian "problem" lies squarely within the borders of Palestine. Prof. Saikal either doesn't get that or doesn't admit it. At the beginning of the liberation of Iraq, Prof. Saikal said that Australia would become an al Qaeda target not for its general participation in the campaign but for the specific act of disabling those of Saddam's missiles which were a violation of UN sanctions and which had the capability to strike Isreal. Perhaps he was right. Too bad. Those missiles had to go whether Saddam himself did or not. Anyone "radicalized" by the simple act of protecting Israel against SCUD attacks wasn't a moderate in the first place.

Finally, he recognizes that appeasing these terrorists is as bad or worse than fighting them but he doesn't have a prescription in between. What are these "root causes" he says have to be identified and addressed? One of them is pushing Israel into the sea. Ain't gonna happen, and Muslims, moderate or radical, will have to get used to that. There're gonna lose that one. Others are poverty, desparation, hopelessness and (most importantly, I think) powerlessness. The cure for most of that, frankly, is democracy. The US has seen the error of its ways in sustaining dictators and we have reversed the policy. The Muslim and Arab worlds are correct to be suspicious of that until we've succeeded, but that does not mean that we should not continue to try to succeed. Failing, again, would be what confirms those suspicions.

This is going to be a long war. But really the only way we'll lose is if we quit.

 

[zenith-nadir]

I find it odd that some believe that a sense of morality from mislems is predicated on a quid pro quo. Interesting morality, that.

I was in a debate in another thread regarding a propoganda technique called "turnspeak".

It is essentially when you attack someone and then turn it around 180 degrees and claim they attacked you. In essence, the fundamentalist muslim terror groups - Al Queda, Islamic Jihad, Hamas, etc, make the victims of their terror - Londoners on a bus, Israelis eating lunch, Iraqis joining the police force, Australians partying in Bali, the guilty party... because of their governments' policies. The sick part is that many people start to belive this turnspeak propoganda and write articles in newspapers blaming Al Queda terrorism on "American geopolitical ambitions" and "fatal mistakes by the Bush Administration and its British and Australian allies". It's called Turnspeak.

 

[aerocontrols]

Yet another advocate of addressing root causes who doesn't identify the root causes we should address?

How helpful.

 

[zenith-nadir]

Re: Re: "No way to wage a war on terrorism"

We could cut and run now -- that would increase suspicion.

The biggest mistake the west made was to cut and run out of Beirut in '84 after Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah blew up 241 American servicemen and 58 French paratroopers. The result of that retreat was 9-11 in my opinion. The West did not "save face" after being attacked. Pulling out of Iraq today would have similar future consequences.