Future War

[vimothy]

One other positive US action:

Defense of Kuwait. Are the Islamists grateful?

 

[IdleRich]

Why do you think they are only bothered by the involvement of the US, and not the actual oppressive policies and regimes themselves?

I think that rightly or wrongly when they see two groups of Muslims arguing they have sympathies with both sides and see it as a complex internal problem. When the US is involved and does some oppressing in a country where it oughtn't to be it's a lot clearer.
I guess a simpler way to say that might be "better the devil you know".

The US is there, it's big, it's decadent and it's polluting the mind of the Muslim world with its TV shows, it's big macs and its dangerous ideas about political freedom (show me one Muslim leader who doesn't feel this last point!). Bin Laden or Jihadists in general are not bothered about Msulims being oppressed just as they are not bothered about US foreign policy, except when it is directed at them (indeed you can easily make the same point about the war/low intensity conflict in Iraq: it's only a recruiting tool). Islamists want the old Mulism empire back (inc Andalusia, remember), all of it, "end the occupation of Muslim lands", and they want to return to the goal of the Islamic Empire, Jihad, to open the House of War to the House of Islam.

A number of people think that, this number is swelled by less radical people when bombs from the US start falling on their heads. The bigger the number of people who agree with you the more power you have. I think I may have said this already.

"The terrorists are killing ordinary Iraqis for the same reason that they would happily kill you or I given the chance - because they wish death upon those who have left the true path, who are infected with Jahilya, who are not like them. Islamists are nihilists in love with death in the name Allah (inc their own), not political agitators who's demands can be met through negotiation."

Don't necessarily agree with that. Some people are killing people 'cause their uncle got killed by a Sunni last week, yes the lines may be drawn on religious grounds but that doesn't mean that every killing is for reasons of religious fundamentalism.

Anyway, gotta rush and play football now but will be back at work tomorrow (unfortunately) so keep it coming.

 

[vimothy]

At best you can argue that US foreign policy has shifted this way and that. Some of the people they dealt with turned out to be arseholes, but, you know, that's just life, isn't it?

 

[Mr. Tea]

Oh yeah, and Mr Tea: is initial US support for Afghan jihadists now also one of the reasons jihadists hate America?

You misunderstand me: you said "good and bad in equal measure". I would call support for the (proto-)Taleban a very BAD thing indeed. Bad for the people of the region and the security of the wider world. I wasn't talking about the rational justification, or lack thereof, for Islamism and its beef with America.
Of course the Taleban couldn't give two shits either way where their weapons came from; they're equally happy to turn them on Soviet soldiers, American soldiers or, more often, their own terrorised people.

Edit: although, to be fair, the justification/lack-thereof thing *is* what we were talking about a moment ago, sorry for the confusion.

 

[vimothy]

Yup

 

[vimothy]

A number of people think that, this number is swelled by less radical people when bombs from the US start falling on their heads. The bigger the number of people who agree with you the more power you have. I think I may have said this already.

What bombs? Let's be specific.

 

[vimothy]

It seems obvious from our discussion that Islamists are going to hate the West, particularly America, regardless of its actions, because its not what the West does or doesn't do that bothers Islamism but what the West is, i.e. the problem is internal to Islam, it cannot be solved by action or non-action, by "realism" or the Bush doctirne.

 

[vimothy]

Anyway, gotta rush and play football now but will be back at work tomorrow (unfortunately) so keep it coming.

Likewise - well, not the football, worse look, but there's plenty more where this came from.

Also, where does this stand in relation to 4GW and narrative warfare?

 

[Mr. Tea]

What bombs? Let's be specific.

I think that's a bit disingenuous - did or did not the US heavily bomb Iraq in 2003?
Obviously they weren't trying to inflict civillian casualties, but equally obviously, lots of them happened.

 

[vimothy]

I think that's a bit disingenuous - did or did not the US heavily bomb Iraq in 2003?
Obviously they weren't trying to inflict civillian casualties, but equally obviously, lots of them happened.

No, no - you're missing my point. Islamism predates Iraq by a number of years. Is Iraq the only cause of Islamic terrorism? What about 9/11? What about the attack on the USS Cole? etc, etc...

Also, if the Islamists now fighting in Iraq, killing lots of Iraqis because the Americans bombed Iraq, haven't they got some serious mental issues to work through?

 

[Mr. Tea]

Oh, sorry, I thought you meant "what bombs?" as in "there are no bombs!". I really ought to read stuff more carefully.
Anyway, gotta dash, see you around.

 

[Guybrush]

I object to a lot of what has been vented recently. First of all, the description of the civil war in Iraq is far too simplistic. For an excellent analysis of that, I highly recommend James Fearon’s excellent Foreign Affairs article on the subject. I pretty much agree with what IdleRich has written: 1. There is an irredeemable kernel of bad guys that are going to hate the West no matter what actions we take. Those blackguards must be eliminated (preferably put before an international tribunal). 2. Their influence and recruitment base, however, is very much affected by the actions of the West. 3. It follows that the most efficient strategy ought to be one where the the two points are addressed simultaneously. In my opinion, Vimothy is overestimating the need to combat the hardcore fanatics, and underestimating the importance of catering to the second, and infinitely larger, group.

 

[crackerjack]

Only just caught up with today's additions, but in brief: wot Guybrush and Idle Rich said. I think Vimothy's belief that Islamist recruitment is unaffected by western foreign policy is fairly fanciful.

 

[IdleRich]

"Likewise - well, not the football, worse look, but there's plenty more where this came from.
Also, where does this stand in relation to 4GW and narrative warfare?"

Got fucking dicked on 8-2 - anyway, you're probably right, it has been derailed from what you originally wanted to talk about but I disagreed so strongly with some of the premises in the original post that I had to say so.
There could be a discussion of 4GW without those assumptions, maybe should go back to that?

What bombs? Let's be specific.

Well, I was talking about after/during the Iraq (and Afghan) war here where there have been a number of civilian targets hit. I'm pointing out that this is likely to radicalise people and that in principle radicalisation can happen through the actions of a country - I'm not saying that this is a specific cause of 9/11.

But, let's get back to the original point.
If I'm understanding (and remembering) you correctly, 4GW is an asymmetrical battle fought by a dispersed group against a more technologically advanced and numerous enemy utilising modern media to highlight this disparity (and the inevitable(?) killing of civilians) and win public support. You're saying that this is being used effectively by Jihadists - how should the West respond?

 

[IdleRich]

"Likewise - well, not the football, worse look, but there's plenty more where this came from.
Also, where does this stand in relation to 4GW and narrative warfare?"

Got fucking dicked on 8-2 - anyway, you're probably right, it has been derailed from what you originally wanted to talk about but I disagreed so strongly with some of the premises in the original post that I had to say so.
There could be a discussion of 4GW without those assumptions, maybe should go back to that?

What bombs? Let's be specific.

Well, I was talking about after/during the Iraq (and Afghan) war here where there have been a number of civilian targets hit. I'm pointing out that this is likely to radicalise people and that in principle radicalisation can happen through the actions of a country - I'm not saying that this is a specific cause of 9/11.

But, let's get back to the original point.
If I'm understanding (and remembering) you correctly, 4GW is an asymmetrical battle fought by a dispersed group against a more technologically advanced and numerous enemy utilising modern media to highlight this disparity (and the inevitable(?) killing of civilians) and win public support. You're saying that this is being used effectively by Jihadists - how should the West respond?

 

[vimothy]

Well, I was talking about after/during the Iraq (and Afghan) war here where there have been a number of civilian targets hit. I'm pointing out that this is likely to radicalise people and that in principle radicalisation can happen through the actions of a country - I'm not saying that this is a specific cause of 9/11.

And these people who witness American bombs falling on civilian targets are so infuriated that they go out to Iraq to become insurgents and kill huge numbers of civilians?

And prior to the invasion of Iraq, what drove Islamist recruitment? It is after all, an old movement.

Where do we fit Saudi sponsored madrassas and mosques into all of this?

I'm not saying that these ideas and narratives (US "occupation" of Iraq) aren't used as recruitment tools (in fact, that's 4GW), but that these are not the cause, they are not the reason why the Islamists are fighting.

But, let's get back to the original point.
If I'm understanding (and remembering) you correctly, 4GW is an asymmetrical battle fought by a dispersed group against a more technologically advanced and numerous enemy utilising modern media to highlight this disparity (and the inevitable(?) killing of civilians) and win public support. You're saying that this is being used effectively by Jihadists - how should the West respond?

And how is 4GW being used effectively by the jihadis? Who has the stronger stories, for instance? Martin van Creveld says that you can't defeat a much weaker opponent because in doing so you loose the moral high ground. Discussing Israel's problems since they acheived military dominance over their arab neighbours, he notes that:

They [Israeli soldiers] are very brave people... they are idealists... they want to serve their country and they want to prove themselves. The problem is that you cannot prove yourself against someone who is much weaker than yourself. They are in a lose/lose situation. If you are strong and fighting the weak, then if you kill your opponent then you are a scoundrel... if you let him kill you, then you are an idiot.

- Martin van Creveld, http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/stories/s511530.htm

Hence the IDF no longer enjoys the reputation it had twenty, twenty-five years ago. I guess there are important parallels.

 

[IdleRich]

"And these people who witness American bombs falling on civilian targets are so infuriated that they go out to Iraq to become insurgents and kill huge numbers of civilians?"

No, but if they were involved in some way in the flying of a plane into a US building (or something similar) a few years down the line I wouldn't be surprised.

"And prior to the invasion of Iraq, what drove Islamist recruitment? It is after all, an old movement."

Well, I would guess the biggest single thing has been US backing of Israel.

"I'm not saying that these ideas and narratives (US "occupation" of Iraq) aren't used as recruitment tools (in fact, that's 4GW), but that these are not the cause, they are not the reason why the Islamists are fighting."

They may be "used as "recruitment tools" - but they don't need to be, they are recruitment tools in themselves. (obviously I think that they are part of the cause/reason but you know that).

"And how is 4GW being used effectively by the jihadis? Who has the stronger stories, for instance? Martin van Creveld says that you can't defeat a much weaker opponent because in doing so you loose the moral high ground"

I would say that the IDF, the US whatever are making it pretty easy for them at times. Keeping up a solid bombardment of a civilian population regardless of casualties doesn't need to be spun. Nor does Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib etc In terms of your 4GW these things are pretty much the equivalent of blue on blue.

 

[vimothy]

No, but if they were involved in some way in the flying of a plane into a US building (or something similar) a few years down the line I wouldn't be surprised.

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

Well, I would guess the biggest single thing has been US backing of Israel.

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

They may be "used as "recruitment tools" - but they don't need to be, they are recruitment tools in themselves. (obviously I think that they are part of the cause/reason but you know that).

Hmm, that's strange distinction to make. Are you saying, to continue with the same example, that the Islamist's historicist narrative that the US' overthrow of Saddam and installation of a democratic government is an "occupation of Muslim lands", i.e. an occupation of land which rightfully (by decree of God, remember, they are religious people) belongs to the Islamic Empire, is not something which is being "used" by Islamism in the sense that it has been created or picked up as a useful tool, becuase it is in fact true?

I would say that the IDF, the US whatever are making it pretty easy for them at times. Keeping up a solid bombardment of a civilian population regardless of casualties doesn't need to be spun. Nor does Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib etc In terms of your 4GW these things are pretty much the equivalent of blue on blue.

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? Israel went in to destory Hezbollah, Hezbollah "went in" to resist and embarass Israel. Hezbollah succeed and Israel did not, in part because of peceptions just like yours. 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?

IdleRich, I think that some of your observations betray the fact that they have already been spun. That's 4GW - it's already happening.

 

[vimothy]

I pretty much agree with what IdleRich has written: 1. There is an irredeemable kernel of bad guys that are going to hate the West no matter what actions we take. Those blackguards must be eliminated (preferably put before an international tribunal). 2. Their influence and recruitment base, however, is very much affected by the actions of the West. 3. It follows that the most efficient strategy ought to be one where the the two points are addressed simultaneously. In my opinion, Vimothy is overestimating the need to combat the hardcore fanatics, and underestimating the importance of catering to the second, and infinitely larger, group.

These arguments ignore the fact that this has been going on for a lot longer than the US has been involved in Iraq.

I'm not refering only to Iraq but to the wider War on Terror, of which Iraq is but one part.

Regarding point three, the whole purpose of my essay is to note how difficult it will be to fight and defeat the range of networked terrorist organisations and sub-state groups bent on violence and totalitarianism in the Middle East, in a conventional military way, because the battlefield has been dispersed across the whole of public opinion in the West and East. Hence it follows (it seems obvious to me at least) that the real struggle is non-military, certainly non-conventional-military warfare which aims its sights at Guybrush's second group, his first and also public opinion in the West.

 

[vimothy]

Also I think anyone who thinks that Islamism is not a threat isn't paying attention. It's certainly a very real and immediate threat to the Middle East.