Future War

[IdleRich]

"Well, what does motivate the terrorist's operating in Iraq, then? You can't have it both ways."

Well, a simple direct cause of the kind you're asking for could be that someone who has his family killed by the Americans goes and kills some Iraqis that he perceives as collaborating with them. But really, like I said before; Iraq at present is a very complicated situation where different factions that have been kept from fighting each other by a leading despot have now had that prophylactic removed. Add to that a lack of facilities, the presence of an increasingly unpopular occupying force, a high incidence of kidnappings for money, revenge killings, mercenaries and, yes, various competing ideologies and you have a huge mess. As far as I can tell most of what is going on in Iraq is virtually aimless (at least as far as an outsider can tell), I would not describe it as exactly the same thing as setting off bombs in America.

Doesn't hold water either because the movement certainly predates US support of Israel.

Does it? The west (in the form of the UK) supported "Israel" since before it was even formed, surely that predates international terrorism.

"Hmm, that's strange distinction to make. Are you saying......"

I'm saying that if you see your brother being tortured by US soldiers you don't need an evil mastermind telling you that America is the Great Satan to make you want to do something crazy. The pictures from Abu Ghraib act for recruitment in itself.

Where is the solid bombardment of the civilian population? I take it that refers to the Lebanese offensive last summer. Well, it's pretty obvious that there was no solid bombardment of the civilian populatoin. What purpose would that serve?

OK, "solid bombardment" is a slight exaggeration but you know full well that they did recklessly bomb (and kill) lots of civilians. As to what purpose it served, it didn't serve any, it was stupid, that was what I said before and I'm surprised that you disagree because it seems to tie in with what you were saying about 4GW. The only difference being that you think it was stupid in military terms as it allowed the more sophisticated Hezbollah to "spin" (without defeating them) it whereas I think it was actually so stupid that it didn't need to be "spun".

We are the battlefield. Hezbollah aimed their rockets at civilians, but you don't see leftists walking around with "we are all Israeli" t-shirts on. Why not?

As opposed to what? "We are all Palestinian"? I've never seen either but I would guess it's probably because during that particular conflict and throughout the years of the Israel-Palestine conflict Israel has used its greatly superior force to inflict vastly more casualties (both civilian and combatant) on an economically repressed and controlled people.
You seem to be saying something along the lines of clever Hezbollah, having a weaker army and more people die - that plays well.

 

[vimothy]

...But really, like I said before; Iraq at present is a very complicated situation where different factions that have been kept from fighting each other by a leading despot have now had that prophylactic removed...

I'm going to try to address this in a different post.

Does it? The west (in the form of the UK) supported "Israel" since before it was even formed, surely that predates international terrorism.

Nope - not even close. Perhaps this is a good example of how 4GW can operate: who sets the tone, who sets the agenda, how and why - that's what's important.

If Israel has always been supported by the West, who were the Irgun? What was the Exodus 1947?

Anyways, I like this model (it has some relevance to 4GW):

Israeli asymmetry (early part of Israeli history, '48, '67, etc)
Israeli-Arab "parity" or equivalence (Yom Kippur)
Arab asymmetry (Lebanon onwards and esp. the first intifada)

Just because Israel are the stronger force now, doesn't mean they always were, in fact quite the reverse is true.

I'm saying that if you see your brother being tortured by US soldiers you don't need an evil mastermind telling you that America is the Great Satan to make you want to do something crazy. The pictures from Abu Ghraib act for recruitment in itself.

Indeed - more grist for the mill: narrative warfare, propaganda, etc.

OK, "solid bombardment" is a slight exaggeration but you know full well that they did recklessly bomb (and kill) lots of civilians. As to what purpose it served, it didn't serve any, it was stupid, that was what I said before and I'm surprised that you disagree because it seems to tie in with what you were saying about 4GW. The only difference being that you think it was stupid in military terms as it allowed the more sophisticated Hezbollah to "spin" (without defeating them) it whereas I think it was actually so stupid that it didn't need to be "spun".

They didn't recklessly do anything because they were fully aware that any civilian casualties would act in Hezbollah's favour (and Hezbollah were aware of this as well - hence positioning artillery near villages).

If it wasn't spun then it wouldn't register at all, regardless of how you feel about it.

As opposed to what? "We are all Palestinian"?

"We are all Hezbollah" - from placards at anti-war marches during the Lebanese conflict, obviously parodying the "we are all american" slogans from the days after 9/11.

I've never seen either but I would guess it's probably because during that particular conflict and throughout the years of the Israel-Palestine conflict Israel has used its greatly superior force to inflict vastly more casualties (both civilian and combatant) on an economically repressed and controlled people.

Again, you are quite wrong in your history of Israel. What you are talking about basically starts with the first intifada.

You seem to be saying something along the lines of clever Hezbollah, having a weaker army and more people die - that plays well.

That's not what I'm saying and you know it. I'm saying clever Hezbollah, they fought the better campaign, took advantage of their strengths and the enemy's weaknesses. Have a read of the Peters (US military writer) article I linked to at the start of the thread.

 

[vimothy]

Maybe we should be discussing who the Salafists and the Islamists are and where they've come from?

People do read about these guys, right?

 

[IdleRich]

Does it? The west (in the form of the UK) supported "Israel" since before it was even formed, surely that predates international terrorism.

Nope - not even close. Perhaps this is a good example of how 4GW can operate: who sets the tone, who sets the agenda, how and why - that's what's important.
If Israel has always been supported by the West, who were the Irgun? What was the Exodus 1947?

I don't really understand how this contradicts what I said (because it doesn't); when the UK made the Balfour Declaration basically advocating the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine they were supporting "Israel" before it existed and, I think, before international (Islamic) terrorism had even been conceived. Nothing to do with 4GW, the Irgun or anything else that you mentioned.

Israeli asymmetry (early part of Israeli history, '48, '67, etc)
Israeli-Arab "parity" or equivalence (Yom Kippur)
Arab asymmetry (Lebanon onwards and esp. the first intifada)

Just because Israel are the stronger force now, doesn't mean they always were, in fact quite the reverse is true.

No, of course (though why not go back further than '48?). So what?

Indeed - more grist for the mill: narrative warfare, propaganda, etc.

So you agree with me here?

"They didn't recklessly do anything because they were fully aware that any civilian casualties would act in Hezbollah's favour (and Hezbollah were aware of this as well - hence positioning artillery near villages)."

They were aware of what would happen and they did it anyway?

Definition of reckless from the online free dictionary: Indifferent to or disregardful of consequences

I still say that they were reckless (in fact you said it too).

If it wasn't spun then it wouldn't register at all, regardless of how you feel about it.

What does that mean? By "spun" you mean reported?

Again, you are quite wrong in your history of Israel. What you are talking about basically starts with the first intifada.

Fair enough, they have only been the superior force in relatively recent years.

"That's not what I'm saying and you know it. I'm saying clever Hezbollah, they fought the better campaign, took advantage of their strengths and the enemy's weaknesses."

Maybe that's what you think you are saying. When you say the civilian deaths in Lebanon wouldn't have registered at all if they hadn't been spun I think you're saying something a lot dodgier.

 

[vimothy]

I don't really understand how this contradicts what I said (because it doesn't); when the UK made the Balfour Declaration basically advocating the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine they were supporting "Israel" before it existed and, I think, before international (Islamic) terrorism had even been conceived. Nothing to do with 4GW, the Irgun or anything else that you mentioned.

Western support of Israel is fairly recent. Jihadism or Islamism predates it by some time. The Balfour declaration (not support of Israel in any case as the country didn't exist) was basically the British "solution" to the Jewish problem, which was also paralleled by the early Nazi solution - Jews go back to Palestine. British support was negligable and in fact soon moved to no support whatsoever (turning back the Exodus 1947; Irgun calling for the end to British mandatory rule; etc), it was just a pain in the ass that they didn't want.

Islamism predates the founding of Israel. The Muslim Brotherhood, al-Ikhwan, for instance, was founded by al-Banna in 1928.

The reason I think this is relevant to 4GW is because the way we view the history of the conflict (Arab-Israeli or WoT) obviously impacts upon how we perceive the conflict now. Perception is important.

No, of course (though why not go back further than '48?). So what?

I'm only going back to '48 because that is the date of the fiirst Arab-Israeli war athe founding of the State of Israel.

It's relevant because you seem to be saying that the extreme disparity between Israeli and Arab forces is a reason that so many people are angry with Israel and a reason why people might become involved with Islamism. I am trying to point out that for much of the history of Israel there was no disparity and for some of it at least there was Israeli asymmetry. It was Israel who was under the cosh, which kind of collapses your argument. Or does it?

So you agree with me here?

I'm saying that if you see images of your "brothers" being abused by Americans then obviously you are going to feel differently about them. The stories told about the War on Terror or the war in Iraq are all important.

They were aware of what would happen and they did it anyway?

Definition of reckless from the online free dictionary: Indifferent to or disregardful of consequences

I still say that they were reckless (in fact you said it too).

Don't remember saying that they were reckless. They certainly weren't very clever.

I think that if the Israeli's could fight the same war with hindsight, they would have acted very differently. And I don't think that they acted without regard for human life - Hezbollah can take the credit for that.

What does that mean? By "spun" you mean reported?

For the purposes of this discussion, yes.

Maybe that's what you think you are saying. When you say the civilian deaths in Lebanon wouldn't have registered at all if they hadn't been spun I think you're saying something a lot dodgier.

There's a difference between what I think I'm saying and what I am saying?

It's not that difficult - Hezbollah sought to make Israel look as if they were acting like the IDF always seem to act - shooting innocent civilians and rampaging all over their poorer Arab neighbours with no thought for the consequences. Whether this happened is less important to 4GW than whether this is the widespread perception.

 

[vimothy]

On the subject of the social background of Islamic terrorists, Sageman's Understanding Terror Networks is brilliant. This post at Gene Expression sums up some of his findings:

Salafist radicals are not impoverished and uneducated. In fact, the Central Staff + Core Arabs, who are the main actors, are extremely privileged and well educated (even by Western standards, but they are off the charts in the context of their nations of origin). The Maghreb Arabs, many of whom were actually raised in relatively (though not in absolute terms) deprived circumstances in France are much less affluent and well educated than the dominant personalities in Al Qaeda. The Southeast Asians tend to derive from the pesantrans (the Southeast Asian version of madrassas) of Indonesia, and are associated with one or two relatively top-down organizations.

http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2005/07/profile-of-salafi-jihadists.php

 

[IdleRich]

"Western support of Israel is fairly recent. Jihadism or Islamism predates it by some time. The Balfour declaration (not support of Israel in any case as the country didn't exist)"

Come on, read what I said (twice), something like "The UK supported "Israel" before it existed". I put the quotation marks around Israel to show that I did not literally mean the country of Israel (because it didn't exist), just in case that wasn't clear I said "before it existed", twice - you can't come back and say "that wasn't support for Israel, it didn't exist then".

"Islamism predates the founding of Israel. The Muslim Brotherhood, al-Ikhwan, for instance, was founded by al-Banna in 1928."

Yes, but so does Western (UK) support for the thing that was to become Israel (not Israel though - it didn't exist before it was founded). For example the Balfour Declaration of 1917 - did I mention that?

British support was negligable and in fact soon moved to no support whatsoever (turning back the Exodus 1947; Irgun calling for the end to British mandatory rule; etc), it was just a pain in the ass that they didn't want.

True, support wavered and there were various acts of parliament to restrict the number of Jews heading in to Palestine but these were never enforced so they were hardly that important. The Balfour Declaration is still used by someas the legal justification for the formation of the state of Israel and is argued about to this day.

The reason I think this is relevant to 4GW is because the way we view the history of the conflict (Arab-Israeli or WoT) obviously impacts upon how we perceive the conflict now. Perception is important.

Even if no-one had ever coined the phrase 4GW the UK government would still have been supporting Israel before it existed as I said above. It was not relevant to the simple fact I gave.

It's relevant because you seem to be saying that the extreme disparity between Israeli and Arab forces is a reason that so many people are angry with Israel and a reason why people might become involved with Islamism. I am trying to point out that for much of the history of Israel there was no disparity and for some of it at least there was Israeli asymmetry. It was Israel who was under the cosh, which kind of collapses your argument. Or does it?

I see what you mean. You certainly have to hand it to the Israelis that from when they began entering Palestine from the end of the last century (er one before that I mean) they outwitted the indigenous Arabs at almost every turn.
But to answer your original question, I suspect that people wear the one t-shirt over the other because in their lifetime Israel has been superior and it has used that superiority to oppress the Palestinians in ways that most people do not find acceptable. Furthermore, though more controversially I suspect, people also don't wear Israel t-shirts because they would say that when the Israelis were the underdog they were the invaders in a country that was already extant. People have less sympathy with a weak group of invaders than a weak group of people who no-longer have a country because that group of invaders proved stronger than they appeared. I didn't really want to say that last point because I fear it will open up a whole new can of worms so feel free to ignore and concentrate on the first bit if you prefer or even just leave it at "I don't know, I've never worn either".

The stories told about the War on Terror or the war in Iraq are all important.

The US mcsoldiers took the pictures at Abu Ghraib, they appeared on US tv - what did Islamists have to do with it?

Don't remember saying that they were reckless. They certainly weren't very clever.

You said that they weren't reckless but the description you gave of their actions was the same as the dictionary definition of reckless. I was just pointing that out.

It's not that difficult - Hezbollah sought to make Israel look as if they were acting like the IDF always seem to act - shooting innocent civilians and rampaging all over their poorer Arab neighbours with no thought for the consequences. Whether this happened is less important to 4GW than whether this is the widespread perception.

They may have sought to do so but Israel made it very easy for them by doing just that. You're not really suggesting that all those civilians didn't die are you?

 

[IdleRich]

Hmmm, didn't get too much done at work today. Oh well, have a nice weekend...

 

[zhao]

if terrorists would just leave us a lone if we left them alone, everything would be gravy and we could happily let them oppress and torment the Muslim world (the dream of many anti-warriors?) as they have done in the past. However, we know, we know that that isn't what will happen. Remember 9/11?

The jihad against the West has been occuring for some time, swears. We have only recently recognised it, but it is not something which we have begun or initiated, so it is not something which is in our power to stop. Although offensive battles are occuring, in the grand scheme of things the WoT is a defensive war.

sorry coming to this thread late and have not read what responses there might have been against these... one dimensional? ill-informed? a-historical? fucking absurd? statements written by someone with the memory span of goldfish.

the rise of fundamentalism in the mid-east is a direct result of U.S. meddling. from the coup in Iran which got rid of a democratically elected leader and installed a fundamentalist Shah, to training the Taliban to fight the Russians, and just leaving these rabid dogs in control of Afghanistan --- America just does what is good for the elite in its own country with zero regard for others, thereby setting the mid east back decades if not a century with its foriegn policy. The US is directly responsible for the rise of extremism and Jihadism in the mid east.

and the War in Iraq will create 100,000 more anti-US jihadists.

frankly surprised to see such brain-washed statements being posted on Dissensus.

 

[zhao]

what's more, the poor people in the mid east, including Muslims, love Beyonce, American Idol, and Coca Cola. the children of the rich love jazz music, designer clothing, and posh cars.

what David Cross said is appropriate here: "if the terrorists really hated freedom Amsterdam would have been bombed flat a long time ago."

 

[craner]

Sorry, who's brainwashed?

A lot of things have happened since the Shah was deposed (who wasn't 'fundamentalist', by the way - a bastard, but not, in any way, fundamendalist, and maybe the opposite) and the Soviets who, uh, invaded Afghanistan.

You'd do well to pay attention to this thread, sir. To Vimothy, in particular, who's humiliating people who don't even realise they are being humiliated.

 

[zhao]

Sorry, who's brainwashed?

who ever claims that the US had nothing to do with the rise of Jihadist Extremism in the middle east. or believes Fox News type bullshit like "they hate our freedom".

 

[Mr. Tea]

who ever claims that the US had nothing to do with the rise of Jihadist Extremism in the middle east. or believes Fox News type bullshit like "they hate our freedom".

I think an equally 'brainwashed' (or at least dangerously one-sided) view is to say that the actions of (mainly) America are *exclusively* responsible for the rise of Islamic fundamentalism. Why are there Islamists in the UK, who live in far greater wealth and freedom than they could hope to in the their (or their parents') countries of origin, who want to destroy the entirety of the native culture of Britain? If they hate white secular/Christian Britons because of the actions of the country's armed forces in Afghanistan and Iraq - wars which were massively unpopular with the British people - this attitude can only be described as racist, just like a white person who hates all Muslims because some of them are suicide bombers.

I take the middle view that this movement has arisen spontaneously within Islamic society (or societies) itself, but also that its flames have been fanned by the actions of America and other Western (and not-so-Western: remember the actions of USSR/Russia and India towards Muslim countries and indigenous Muslim minorities?) countries.

 

[zhao]

if i sounded like i meant "exclusively the result of U.S. foreign policy", which i don't think i did, it was only to counter the "in a vacuum" comments. Mr. Tea you are not too far off from where i stand. but i do still need to educate myself much more concerning the whole thing.

 

[IdleRich]

"I take the middle view that this movement has arisen spontaneously within Islamic society (or societies) itself, but also that its flames have been fanned by the actions of America and other Western (and not-so-Western: remember the actions of USSR/Russia and India towards Muslim countries and indigenous Muslim minorities?) countries."

Bingo.

 

[vimothy]

What about the actions of Muslim countries?

 

[vimothy]

The US is directly responsible for the rise of extremism and Jihadism in the mid east.

What about what the fundamentalists themselves say? Do they not have a proactive programme of their own?

 

[vimothy]

frankly surprised to see such brain-washed statements being posted on Dissensus.

Happy to oblige

 

[vimothy]

Listen to the voice of Islamism:

Still, one way or the other, Qutb is the father of Islamism. Here are the chief tenets he inspired: that America, and its clients, are jahiliyya (the word classically applied to pre-Muhammadan Arabia - barbarous and benighted); that America is controlled by Jews; that Americans are infidels, that they are animals, and, worse, arrogant animals, and are unworthy of life; that America promotes pride and promiscuity in the service of human degradation; that America seeks to 'exterminate' Islam - and that it will accomplish this not by conquest, not by colonial annexation, but by example. As Bernard Lewis puts it in The Crisis of Islam

'This is what is meant by the term the Great Satan, applied to the United States by the late Ayatollah Khomeini. Satan as depicted in the Qur'an is neither an imperialist nor an exploiter. He is a seducer, 'the insidious tempter who whispers in the hearts of men' (Qur'an, CXIV, 4, 5).

- Martin Amis, http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/politicsphilosophyandsociety/story/0,,1868839,00.html

But you're already reading and researching these dudes whose actions you are attempting to rationalise and justify, right?

 

[IdleRich]

"But you're already reading and researching these dudes whose actions you are attempting to rationalise and justify, right?"

If you're talking to me then I would like to say that I'm not trying to rationalise or justify anything. I was simply pointing out the, I thought, fairly uncontroversial fact that regardless of the level of fundamentalism in the middle-east and its aims, Western action has tended to act to increase that fundamentalism. My main point is that this has occurred for a long time, way before September 11th, so it's totally dishonest to claim that that was some kind of starting point.
I honestly don't see how you can disagree with that Vimothy.