PDA

View Full Version : 60 Minutes - Yemen & war on Terror


MtnGoat
01-17-2011, 20:09
60 Minutes did a piece yesterday and I thought it was a good story. Video (http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7253057n&tag=contentMain;cbsCarousel) I felt it shows how when terrorist bases and training camps are located on foreign soil; how a balancing act is played out between two countries. Recent events of foreign governments unable or unwilling to take action against terrorists. It points out the re-orienting military missions and capabilities from establishing strongholds in places like Yemen to launching quick strikes at terrorist sites. Making foreign governments do the wills of others. Brings out any military strike on another sovereign nation's territory brings international political fallout, US intelligence and military officials must be certain about the target and in sync prior to action.

I think if you look at Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) in Yemen as one of the most urgent threat to U.S. security. Some even say AQAP is a greater threat than the Al Qaeda core in Pakistan. While terrorism knows no borders, we must be mindful of the regional threat of the AQAP threat. This piece shows the evidence that Al Qaeda was building a powerful support base among the tribes. I liked the interviews with the Counterterrorism General, it just shows how messed up this region is.

So, if large-scale military invasions and nation-building are not effective tools of counterterrorism, then how does the US combat terrorism? What are some of the key elements of a global counterterrorism strategy? I do say Al Qaeda has moved to Yemen as a base of support.

Texas_Shooter
01-17-2011, 22:11
The solution is to not destroy the country like we did with Iraq or Afghanistan but to tell the government that we are going to help them combat the threat of terrorism whether they like it or not. We will use special forces and other unconventional war fighters to combat the terrorist. I have always thought that this is the way to have combat this problem. Take the advice of the General and keep it off the books. Expand to more then just trainers and put boots with guns on the ground. Make sure you leave nobody alive to tell of Americans being there in their country.Either you need to kill and capture everyone that you come in contact with. (Now this next part none of you are gonna like what I say.) But in the case that a team is discovered and captured, Reaper aircraft need to target the team to destroy the evidence of the team.

Now for the comments calling me an idiot.

Wolf07
01-17-2011, 23:17
Idiot.

cowboykpy
01-17-2011, 23:18
...Take the advice of the General and keep it off the books. Expand to more then just trainers and put boots with guns on the ground. Make sure you leave nobody alive to tell of Americans being there in their country.Either you need to kill and capture everyone that you come in contact with. (Now this next part none of you are gonna like what I say.) But in the case that a team is discovered and captured, Reaper aircraft need to target the team to destroy the evidence of the team.

Now for the comments calling me an idiot.

While my immediate reaction was to say "What movie did you watch to come up with that plan? Seriously WTF are you thinking?", I will say this:

It's disappointing to read your post. We want mature discussion of the topics at hand on this forum. If you cannot abide by the rules on this site, the admins will take what action they deem necessary. A word of advice for someone who wants to join my unit and our Regiment, search more, read more, post less.:munchin

cmts58
01-17-2011, 23:29
Increased intelligence, first and foremost.

silentreader
01-17-2011, 23:29
The solution is to not destroy the country like we did with Iraq or Afghanistan but to tell the government that we are going to help them combat the threat of terrorism whether they like it or not. We will use special forces and other unconventional war fighters to combat the terrorist. I have always thought that this is the way to have combat this problem. Take the advice of the General and keep it off the books. Expand to more then just trainers and put boots with guns on the ground. Make sure you leave nobody alive to tell of Americans being there in their country.Either you need to kill and capture everyone that you come in contact with. (Now this next part none of you are gonna like what I say.) But in the case that a team is discovered and captured, Reaper aircraft need to target the team to destroy the evidence of the team.

Now for the comments calling me an idiot.


Lol at that last line. I've posted too many things on this site knowing they were going to draw criticism, so I tip my hat for you doing it too :lifter.

That being said, I think your scenario is a little idealistic. Other guys on this forum are much more qualified than I am to talk about this sort of thing. But I think that a few major problems jump out, after all; it does sound like an ideal way to handle the terrorist threat, so there must be some reason we're not doing it already, right?

Problems.

a) How do you separate the "terrorist" from the population? Do we only go after foreign fighters in a given country or do we go after anybody with a gun? What's the threshold for defining terrorist? Do they actually have to have attacked the US already, or do they only need to hold anti-US views?

b) How do you maintain secrecy? You say that we will go into countries like Yemen "whether they like it or not." At the same time, you emphasize that secrecy is of such paramount importance that fratricide would be necessary should a team be compromised. How many people in that chain would need to stay silent in order to maintain secrecy- the operators, the intel dorks, the officers, the state department reps, the (possibly coerced) foreign leader, and a whole bunch of guys in the foreign military*. If wikileaks has taught us one thing, it should be that secrecy is poor protection.

c) Won't the locals notice somethings up? Terrorist groups rely on local support for everything from housing to food to wives. If whole camps of people start disappearing in the middle of the night, it's not going to take very long for them to put 2 and 2 together.

d) While US SOF are some of the finest war fighters in the world, they're not ninjas.** In fact, ninjas aren't ninjas, at least as they're portrayed in popular media. Now this gets to the heart of "things I'm not qualified to talk about" territory, so let me put it this way; if there was a cleaner way to capture or kill high value targets, we wouldn't use drone strikes or cruise missiles as much as we do.


War is an ugly thing. Anything that makes it seem like it's not, is a lie. I agree that we can't go around repeating Iraq every time we think a country may be harboring terrorists, but we're not going to be able to assassinate AQ to death either. If you're interested in this issue, I highly recommend the book The Accidental Guerilla. The author is a guy whose seen insurgencies from every angle and thought a lot about how they relate to the problems of international terrorism. Yemen is interesting and dangerous because it is already a society on the brink of collapse. That sort of social turmoil makes it an easy place for real bad guys to keep their heads low.

*The foreign military/intel guys may very well have different agendas from the civilian leadership in their country. Even if we got the green light from, say, Pakistan's civilian government for stuff like this, there's going to be important people in the ISI and the Pakistani Army working against us.

** To all QPs... if you actually are ninjas, let me know!

Defend
01-18-2011, 01:05
This piece shows the evidence that Al Qaeda was building a powerful support base among the tribes.

Tribal independence is our strongest ally. Urban Arab communities sway easily in mass movements, but tribes function independently. That being said, two specific examples of the Arab tribes uniting strike me as relevant.

The first was during the 7th Century. The Islamic conquest started by Muhammad garnering enough strength peacefully that we could win a few battles, and eventually they were powerful enough that the tribes had to choose to join the mujahedeen or be defeated by them. The summarized version of the story ends with the tribes of Arabia and North Africa being conquered.

The second was through the influence of T.E. Lawrence. In this case, the threat was from an outside force that could destroy any one of the tribes. His influence led to the united defense of the Middle East, in the best interest of the Arab tribes and the western world.

If there is a third unification under AQ, we are in for a war the likes of which we have not seen. So here is the question: How has Al-Qaeda begun uniting the tribes that have historically functioned as independent and are content to go about their daily lives within the tribe without bothering anybody else? Why are tribes Central Asia to Western Africa accepting AQ into their midst? And what is AQ doing that we aren’t and should be?

I believe it is a matter of effective psychological operations. For example, I recently picked up some Ba’athist propaganda in North Africa – but what does the Maghrebi tribesman care about the ba’ath party? Absolutely nothing! But this is the key – the Maghrebi tribesman knows that the Ba’ath party also cares nothing about him. Neither do any other tribes that aren’t Maghrebi. When nobody cares about your tribe, you realize just how vulnerable you are, and will soon be looking for an advocate.

AQ/Ba’athist connections or lack thereof are completely irrelevant in the mind of the Arab. The only thing that matters is that the US removed the Ba’athist regime, and AQ attempted to remove the US. This makes AQ an advocate for somebody that nobody else cares about. Did you ever stop to ask yourself why the Muslim world likes Obama so much? It’s not because they think he is a Muslim. They think he is a Muslim because they respect him so much. The respect him so much because he doesn’t like Bush! They (at least did) view Obama personally as their advocate – while hating the rest of the US government.

So how do we win the confidence of the tribes and prevent them from uniting under AQ? The US needs to be seen as an advocate of tribes. Here is my take on what needs done, some of it in PC language that a politician or diplomat might actually buy:

1) The US needs to increase support of tribal initiatives across the Islamic world. Funding development projects in unrelated tribes who are not given adequate attention by their own government, and then effectively publicizing those projects and the diversity of recipients.

2) Focus on projects that have HN face time in urban settings, not rural. Keep the government on our side, and keep the urban population on the government’s side. Continue to assist HN governments in countering radicalization and recruitment in urban environments.

3) Establish partnerships between independent populations within the US and tribes. Coal miners of county X in WV can be described to tribe Y in Yemen in such a way as to show their similarities – and the protection that this independent group receives from the US. This will make attacks that hurt county X personal, and establish the US as an advocate of independent tribes. (This is just a concept, would need developed further. And no funding needs wasted on a campaign to make sure every miner in county X is aware he’s a partner of tribe Y!)

4) When tribe Z harbors AQ and strikes a US funded project in tribe Y, encourage the elders to push that story to every tribe in the region. Then ask them what they want done, and then at their suggestion and with as much coverage as possible blow the crap out of terrorists hiding in tribe Z.

5) We need to realize that our actions in one country really do influence, for better or for worse, the populations of a much larger region.

These aren’t magic bullets, but they are the tactics that our enemies are using with success. They are supporting groups nobody else cares about, publicizing it, and when the US takes out their reps in that village they publicize that and retaliate. Suddenly they are the accepted advocates of the tribes, and we are enemies trying to conquer their land and deny them their identity. I'll leave it to others to evaluate the merits of a quiet war being fought in the background, but until we "protect" the tribes, we will continue loosing ground.

-out

Dusty
01-18-2011, 06:21
... in the case that a team is discovered and captured, Reaper aircraft need to target the team to destroy the evidence of the team.

Now for the comments calling me an idiot.


PM me for help with the "pink" font app.

JJ_BPK
01-18-2011, 06:51
in the case that a team is discovered and captured, Reaper aircraft need to target the team to destroy the evidence of the team.

Now for the comments calling me an idiot.

IDIOT

is an understatement..

I think your stay here will be brief,, but amusing..

Thank you for a unique point of view..

Pete
01-18-2011, 07:02
...... (Now this next part none of you are gonna like what I say.) But in the case that a team is discovered and captured, Reaper aircraft need to target the team to destroy the evidence of the team.

Now for the comments calling me an idiot.

Why bother with that - most SECRET stuff ends up on the front page of the NYT anyway.

So - yes - you are an idiot - so far. Your next few posts will indicate if you can learn & grow.

Now think captured - short term or long term. Short term has hopes of rescue. Long term? We ain't doing so well locating what's his name - the guy who walked away from his post. So you're saying if we do locate him we should target him?

Richard
01-18-2011, 07:57
RE Post #2

Time to bring back the "L" pill - and we've found a volunteer to test it.

And so it goes...

Richard :munchin

Texas_Shooter
01-18-2011, 09:57
I will leave the mission planning up to QP next time. I will continue to just read for now on, no more posting for me.

uplink5
01-18-2011, 10:03
I will leave the mission planning up to QP next time. I will continue to just read for now on, no more posting for me.

Good plan,
Try to stay on this side of reality for awhile....jd

blue02hd
01-18-2011, 10:36
/facepalm

Richard? At what point can I start yelling again?

Surgicalcric
01-18-2011, 10:48
... At what point can I start yelling again?

At what point did you stop Brother??? :D

Crip

MtnGoat
01-19-2011, 18:13
At what point did you stop Brother??? :D

Crip

When did you start asking to ask???? :p

RC-Cola
01-19-2011, 23:10
One of the basic methods Terrorist Organizations tend to use is Over Simplification. Or in other words, making things purely back and white. Either you're with us, or against us. That being said, the method that the US has been using backfires most of the time.

Let's walk through this. Policy Makers understand that there will be almost 0 support for going into Yemen. So what do we do? We fund money to the Yemeni Govt. thinking that if we throw money at the issue, it will be solved. Well not so much.

The Problem with the Yemeni Govt is that it is more corrupt than the Mexican Govt. And for those who don't know, that's a metric Sh** ton of corruption.(Goolge Mexican Drug wars if more info is wanted) Back to the point. We give money to the Yemeni Govt. which is supposed to be used to A: Assist and support the military operations and B: Win the hearts and minds of locals. To achieve B, the plan is to provide the basic needs that most people require; Food, Shelter, and basic medical care/education. Doing this the people and the Govt. become united again and can together work to oust the AQAP: Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (This is the group of Al-Qaeda which Operates in Yemen, and is headed by our own Anwar Awalaki)

But this plan gets cut out at the knees, the Govt. is corrupt. The money that is meant to filter down to the people, sits in the laps of the Officials. While this is happening, the people are suffering and began to get angry with the Govt. What does Al-Qaeda do? They use this to their benefit. They show the people that the Govt is just another puppet of America and that they are not cared for at all. While people die of basic health issues, the Rulers are growing richer by the minute. Then the line begins to be drawn. Black and white comes into play. The people know that the Govt. won't help them, so what can they do? Well they look to who can. And Al-Qaeda happens to have all the money and the food they need! So who do you think the people will go to?

Long story short. We give money to the Govt. of Yemen to help the people and Military Operations. The money sits in the laps of the Officials and nothing gets done. AQ gains the upperhand by oversimplifying and turning the people against their own Govt.

Team Sergeant
01-20-2011, 08:44
One of the basic methods Terrorist Organizations tend to use is Over Simplification. Or in other words, making things purely back and white. Either you're with us, or against us. That being said, the method that the US has been using backfires most of the time.

Let's walk through this. Policy Makers understand that there will be almost 0 support for going into Yemen. So what do we do? We fund money to the Yemeni Govt. thinking that if we throw money at the issue, it will be solved. Well not so much.

The Problem with the Yemeni Govt is that it is more corrupt than the Mexican Govt. And for those who don't know, that's a metric Sh** ton of corruption.(Goolge Mexican Drug wars if more info is wanted) Back to the point. We give money to the Yemeni Govt. which is supposed to be used to A: Assist and support the military operations and B: Win the hearts and minds of locals. To achieve B, the plan is to provide the basic needs that most people require; Food, Shelter, and basic medical care/education. Doing this the people and the Govt. become united again and can together work to oust the AQAP: Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (This is the group of Al-Qaeda which Operates in Yemen, and is headed by our own Anwar Awalaki)

But this plan gets cut out at the knees, the Govt. is corrupt. The money that is meant to filter down to the people, sits in the laps of the Officials. While this is happening, the people are suffering and began to get angry with the Govt. What does Al-Qaeda do? They use this to their benefit. They show the people that the Govt is just another puppet of America and that they are not cared for at all. While people die of basic health issues, the Rulers are growing richer by the minute. Then the line begins to be drawn. Black and white comes into play. The people know that the Govt. won't help them, so what can they do? Well they look to who can. And Al-Qaeda happens to have all the money and the food they need! So who do you think the people will go to?

Long story short. We give money to the Govt. of Yemen to help the people and Military Operations. The money sits in the laps of the Officials and nothing gets done. AQ gains the upperhand by oversimplifying and turning the people against their own Govt.

Let's not. It hurt my head to read that.... tell you what you do more reading and in 20 years you start posting your "Terrorist Strategies" again, but for now you read.

RC-Cola
01-20-2011, 08:49
"Let's not. It hurt my head to read that.... tell you what you do more reading and in 20 years you start posting your "Terrorist Strategies" again, but for now you read."

Understood. Came out a little more complicated than intended. Apologies.

Team Sergeant
01-20-2011, 08:53
So, if large-scale military invasions and nation-building are not effective tools of counterterrorism, then how does the US combat terrorism? What are some of the key elements of a global counterterrorism strategy? I do say Al Qaeda has moved to Yemen as a base of support.

I think you have the million dollar question there.

Someone needs to change the way they think, either us or them. This is not a war on terrorism but a battle of ideologies and as many have suggested it's "the same shit different day".

If we cannot change the way they think through pain then another approach is required. Education might work if their ideology would allow it......

Someone is stuck in the 13 century and until they get their collective asses unstuck I'm afraid we will continue to suffer the actions of morons for decades to come.

silentreader
01-20-2011, 12:28
I think the answer to Mountain goat's question, while obviously still unresolved, has to be addressed at several levels.

1) Isolate the unreconcilables. As TS says, we are in a battle of ideologies. However, and perhaps this is where I would differ from the Team Sergeant, we are not in a battle of ideologies with the vast majority of Muslims, rather we are in it for them with a handful of 13th-century extremists. The real question, in my opinion, is how do we balance our desire to promote American ideals with our own needs. The American brand of freedom and prosperity has a huge, global appeal- our foreign policy objectives have not always emphasized that brand. If we let Yemen become a symbol of what life with AQ is like, the vast majority of Muslims will want nothing to do with it.

2) Take appropriate security measures with the goal of securing our most vulnerable areas and protecting ourselves against a catastrophic attack. Nuclear materials, in particular, must be closely monitored. Reasonable security measures at obvious targets (like airports) and not-so obvious targets (water filtration plants) must also be adopted/continue to be used.

3) Accept some degree of risk as an acceptable cost of living in an open society. 40,000 people or so are killed by cars every year. Yet not only do we still drive, our government saved the American auto industry. Why? Because cars are, simply put, worth the risk. Terrorists have, so far, yet to come even close to exacting the same death toll on America as cars do in a single year.

4) Use invasion and nation-building as a tool, but only when absolutely necessary. I'm not one of those we-invaded Iraq for oil conspiracy theorists. But for the life of me, I can not understand how it advanced our strategic position in the Middle East. However, if we do invade a country, it is of paramount importance that we have a clear and realistic plan for the aftermath of the invasion. If we're planning on toppling a government, nation-building has to be part of that plan.

ETA: This is obviously an incomplete list.

Defend
01-20-2011, 12:33
If we let Yemen become a symbol of what life with AQ is like, the vast majority of Muslims will want nothing to do with it.

I'm curious how you derived that conclusion.

-out

silentreader
01-20-2011, 13:01
I'm curious how you derived that conclusion.

-out

From the CIA worldfactbook

Economy - overview:

Yemen is a low income country that is highly dependent on declining oil resources for revenue. Petroleum accounts for roughly 25% of GDP and 70% of government revenue. Yemen has tried to counter the effects of its declining oil resources by diversifying its economy through an economic reform program initiated in 2006 that is designed to bolster non-oil sectors of the economy and foreign investment. In October 2009, Yemen exported its first liquefied natural gas as part of this diversification effort. In January 2010, the international community established the Friends of Yemen group that aims to support Yemen's efforts towards economic and political reform, and in August 2010 the IMF approved a three-year $370 million program to further this effort. Despite these ambitious endeavors, Yemen continues to face difficult long term challenges, including declining water resources and a high population growth rate.

If AQ becomes established to the point they were with the Taliban, international aid and investment are out of the picture. Even with major international aid, Yemen could very well be the next country to collapse and will almost certainly be the first country to deplete its water table (link) (http://www.theglobalist.com/storyid.aspx?StoryId=6550).

If you were asking how do I know Muslims don't want that; it's anecdotal and based on my experiences. What TV shows were popular in the muslim countries I've been to? What sort of fashions? What did people talk about in general conversation? The answer, to a surprising degree, has to do with wealth. Ever seen the clothes women wear under there heavy clothes, especially at weddings? Or watched the TV show Noor (Gumus, in the original Turkish)? Islam lacks the general discomfort with wealth that Christianity has. Remember, Mecca (especially) and Medina were merchant communities. While some might view the "chaos in the desert" future of Yemen as desirable it is my impression that the vast majority don't.

Pete
01-20-2011, 13:08
.....1) Isolate the unreconcilables. As TS says, we are in a battle of ideologies. However, and perhaps this is where I would differ from the Team Sergeant, we are not in a battle of ideologies with the vast majority of Muslims, rather we are in it for them with a handful of 13th-century extremists. ......................

Ah, you need to check with your local Imam and the Koran.

Both will tell you there is only one Islam - everyone else is an aspostate or infidel.

Islam is the sea in which the terrorist shark swims. It aids and comforts the shark on it's journey. The deeper the sea the larger the shark can grow.

silentreader
01-20-2011, 13:11
Ah, you need to check with your local Imam and the Koran.

Both will tell you there is only one Islam - everyone else is an aspostate or infidel.

Islam is the sea in which the terrorist shark swims. It aids and comforts the shark on it's journey. The deeper the sea the larger the shark can grow.

This may be true- but every Imam I ask will have a different definition of what, exactly, that Islam is. In fact, since you bring it up, you might find this article interesting. (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/09/09/inside_americas_mosques)

Pete
01-20-2011, 13:25
This may be true- but every Imam I ask will have a different definition of what, exactly, that Islam is. In fact, since you bring it up, you might find this article interesting. (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/09/09/inside_americas_mosques)

I'll believe in moderate Muslims when I see them being more active in the process of stamping out the hard liners.

Oh, by the way, how are things gong for Christians these days in Egypt. Things going just great in the land of tolerance?

Thkn about it when I say "Islam is the sea......."

Defend
01-20-2011, 17:44
. Double post .

Defend
01-20-2011, 18:11
SilentReader,

I’m going to be direct in order to make my points, but realize I’m challenging the accuracy of your perceptions, not attacking you personally.

From the CIA worldfactbook
Your quotation about foreign programs investing/aiding Yemen don’t prove your point. The pockets of Al-Qaeda may very well run deep.

it's anecdotal and based on my experiences.

Your experiences appear to be narrow – To answer your question, yes I have seen the pop culture, been to (and in) the weddings, and watched the TV shows. I’m not saying that all Arabs are hardliner Muslim terrorists, but the vast majority have some fundamental beliefs that affect their view of ‘radical’ groups, and allow them to define those groups as ‘moderate’. Do you remember what the 9/11 hijackers (I’m assuming all avid supporters of AQ) did in the days leading up to 9/11? They went to strip clubs and participated in other “sinful” activities, while still supporting AQ. What a woman wears (or doesn't wear!:eek:) under the Hijab does not tell you her views on AQ, and the number of Russian prostitutes a man has slept with does not tell you his view on Sharia Law.

While some might view the "chaos in the desert" future of Yemen as desirable it is my impression that the vast majority don't.

That is because you view total Islamic domination as “chaos in the desert”. That statement reveals a lot about your perception of the Islamic mindset. To the Muslim, Sharia is the perfect systematic governance of society given to Muhammad by Allah. Muslim religious leaders mourn the fact that there are no fully Islamic governments, including Saudi Arabia.

but every Imam I ask will have a different definition of what, exactly, that Islam is

I disagree. Islam is submission to Allah – no room for discussion. I have never met a Muslim, and certainly not a religious leader, who would disagree with that. I’m curious how much time you spent in religious circles while you were in the Arab world. Your descriptions of your experiences sound very much like an observer – not like an immersed (and aware) student of the culture and religion.

I challenge you to find a single Middle-Eastern trained Imam who would even deny that physical Jihad is mandated by Allah. The only room for discussion there is in what order the three calls to Jihad take precedent (Physical, Societal, Spiritual). If you find one who claims physical Jihad is not mandated, do a search on these forums for “Taqiyya”. There have been many great discussions here on the subject of authorized lies in Islam. A cab driver once explained to me that there are three circumstances under which a Muslim can lie:

1) Speaking to his wife
2) In time of war
3) To further the cause of Islam (i.e. to protect a Muslim)

Take that into consideration the next time you engage in a discussion with a Muslim about terrorism, Sharia, or AQAP.

One of the most important lessons I have learned in life is this- nothing is ever as it seems. The Islamic world is no exception.

But don't take my words for it:

I have witnessed their capacity for courage, and though we are worlds apart, like us, there's more to them than meets the eye.

-out

MtnGoat
01-20-2011, 18:30
Great to see this discussion going on!!

Last year, the U.S. was spending $300 million on Yemen — split between development aid and military assistance. Yemeni CT units reportly streamed into the streets of the Yemeni capital last fall after a deadly attack on intelligence services by alleged al-Qaida gunmen. Yemeni Government will only focus on the Capital and two other key cities IMO. So without U.S. helping out the Government with something more than just a Million dollars.

silentreader
01-21-2011, 02:07
SilentReader,

I’m going to be direct in order to make my points, but realize I’m challenging the accuracy of your perceptions, not attacking you personally.



No problem, I appreciate the discussion.


Your quotation about foreign programs investing/aiding Yemen don’t prove your point. The pockets of Al-Qaeda may very well run deep.



Perhaps I should have added this as #5 on my list. Make sure those pockets don't run deep. While I am not "in the know" it is my impression that one of the great successes of US intelligence in the years since 9/11 has been decimating the once-significant funds of AQ and its ability to move those funds.

Your experiences appear to be narrow – To answer your question, yes I have seen the pop culture, been to (and in) the weddings, and watched the TV shows. I’m not saying that all Arabs are hardliner Muslim terrorists, but the vast majority have some fundamental beliefs that affect their view of ‘radical’ groups, and allow them to define those groups as ‘moderate’. Do you remember what the 9/11 hijackers (I’m assuming all avid supporters of AQ) did in the days leading up to 9/11? They went to strip clubs and participated in other “sinful” activities, while still supporting AQ. What a woman wears (or doesn't wear!:eek:) under the Hijab does not tell you her views on AQ, and the number of Russian prostitutes a man has slept with does not tell you his view on Sharia Law.


This is a complicated point and deserves a thorough answer. You're getting the short version, at least for now. 1) You're right, some hard-line terrorists engage in "sinful" behavior. On the other hand, far more muslims engage in "sinful" behavior than do in terrorism. 2) Yes, many Muslims have sympathies towards AQ's cause. My point was never that we have these Muslims in our pocket. Rather, it was that these people, with some AQ sympathies, are the very people we're competing for. Their TV viewing habits might not show their loyalty, but it does show their interest.


That is because you view total Islamic domination as “chaos in the desert”. That statement reveals a lot about your perception of the Islamic mindset. To the Muslim, Sharia is the perfect systematic governance of society given to Muhammad by Allah. Muslim religious leaders mourn the fact that there are no fully Islamic governments, including Saudi Arabia.

To the contrary, I view Yemen's future as "chaos in the desert." I actually think that Sharia could save Yemen; if implemented perfectly. However, Sharia may be the perfect system of governance in Islam, but the history of Islamic society is the history of debating exactly what Sharia is and who gets to decide it. Yemen is far too divided to be dominated by what remains of AQ: its future is that of intense tribal warfare over a dying and over-crowded land.


I disagree. Islam is submission to Allah – no room for discussion. I have never met a Muslim, and certainly not a religious leader, who would disagree with that. I’m curious how much time you spent in religious circles while you were in the Arab world. Your descriptions of your experiences sound very much like an observer – not like an immersed (and aware) student of the culture and religion.

Submission is, of course, the very definition of Islam. Derived, not coincidently, from the same root as Salaam, or peace. However, the thing about Allah is this; it is really tricky to figure out what he wants, especially in the modern world. Is Allah pro or anti-democracy? That's really tough to say, considering it was never addressed. The Qur'an is a notoriously...tricky... document. English translations barely begin to do justice to the ambiguities and the poetry of the language in it. It's easy to demand submission to god, but beyond the 5 pillars of Islam, it's really hard to know what God wants out of his devotees.

I challenge you to find a single Middle-Eastern trained Imam who would even deny that physical Jihad is mandated by Allah. The only room for discussion there is in what order the three calls to Jihad take precedent (Physical, Societal, Spiritual).

Perhaps this is correct, but there is still a lot of room for grey area. Instead of your three distinctions of Jihad, I would use two groups of two: Inner (greater) vs outer (lesser) and defensive vs offensive. It would be EXTREMELY rare to find an Imam advocating offensive Jihad. Said Qutb is generally cited as an intellectual architect of radical Islam, yet even in his most influential work (Milestones) it is far from clear that the Umma is ready for any Jihad outside of correcting its own behavior. Like the punishment for adultery, some of Islam's most sever precepts are deliberately built on impossible standards (the punishment for adultery is death, but only if 4 witnesses can perceive the actual act in progress.)


If you find one who claims physical Jihad is not mandated, do a search on these forums for “Taqiyya”. There have been many great discussions here on the subject of authorized lies in Islam. A cab driver once explained to me that there are three circumstances under which a Muslim can lie:

1) Speaking to his wife
2) In time of war
3) To further the cause of Islam (i.e. to protect a Muslim)

Take that into consideration the next time you engage in a discussion with a Muslim about terrorism, Sharia, or AQAP.

One of the most important lessons I have learned in life is this- nothing is ever as it seems. The Islamic world is no exception.


When I travel, I neither give nor expect complete truth. I lived in two pretty conservative Muslim neighborhoods, and I found the actions of people to be far more instructive than their words. Bottom line is this: they eat, work, fuck, raise families, and fight like any other human beings. Their religion is a strong source of identity, but it is not the only one. Even if you're completely right about the demands of Islam on its believers, the vast majority of Muslims would not answer the call to arms against the west unless they believed they literally had no other choice (this was a common source of frustration amongst Arab politicians who found themselves long on constituents demanding war with Israel and short on recruits willing to fight Israel).


But don't take my words for it:

I like that quote. It has been my experience that most people are capable of extraordinary things.

Finally, in-between you and Pete, strong criticisms of my understanding of Islam have been launched on this board. Like I said earlier, no problem, I appreciate the discussion and will gladly concede many points. However, I do ask this: do these critiques fundamentally change the points made in my earlier post in response to MtnGoats question? If Islam demands Jihad, do we concede 1.5 billion people to the terrorists? Do we poison the sea to kill the sharks, to use Pete's analogy? Or do the four main points I listed still apply? Isolate and neuter the radicals, support those who deserve it, and accept some degree of risk? If the Islam as diametrically opposed to Western society hypothesis is right, what can we do? Kill them all? What would happen to us in such a scenario?

Pete
01-21-2011, 05:48
.........

Perhaps this is correct, but there is still a lot of room for grey area. Instead of your three distinctions of Jihad, I would use two groups of two: Inner (greater) vs outer (lesser) and defensive vs offensive. It would be EXTREMELY rare to find an Imam advocating offensive Jihad...............

There is no gray area in Islam. What Islam is - is not what you think - it is what the Koran says.

'Ol Ruth came here saying she wanted to pick and chose the best parts of Islam - and got slammed on her blog by Muslims.

As long as Muslims believe the Koran there will be Jihad.

I asked Richard one time to name a Muslim majority country where Christians and other religions enjoyed the same protection under the law as Muslims - the best he could do was a country in the Balkins.

So I'll ask you - name the countries with an Islamic majority where other religions are treated equally under the law. Not that has a good size population.

So I'll ask you again how Christians are fairing in Egypt theses days.

Defend
01-21-2011, 11:30
While I am not "in the know" it is my impression that one of the great successes of US intelligence in the years since 9/11 has been decimating the once-significant funds of AQ and its ability to move those funds.

You don’t think total domination and control of Yemen would affect their financial resources? From my understanding, although we have made it much more difficult for AQ to get their funding their resources still exist. This would be an interesting subject for further study. I might have to find a way to use it for an International Business assignment this semester.

Rather, it was that these people, with some AQ sympathies, are the very people we're competing for.
We’ll never win. Instead, we can make it so they don’t give enough of a $#!% to engage in activity or support of activity against us (=success). That is what I was addressing in my first post on this thread.

However, Sharia may be the perfect system of governance in Islam, but the history of Islamic society is the history of debating exactly what Sharia is and who gets to decide it.

And who keeps winning that argument?

Yemen is far too divided to be dominated by what remains of AQ: its future is that of intense tribal warfare over a dying and over-crowded land.

Again, go back to my first post on this thread. AQ’s strategy is to unite the tribes. Today Yemen is too divided to be dominated by the US backed government, because we haven’t taken the necessary steps to make AQ look less attractive to the tribes. No matter how much aid we give a tribe, they still won’t like the US Government. They will however give less of a $#!% about us going after AQ, and be less likely to accept AQ into their district, village, etc. It’s the same concept as Baksheesh. If you can make me happy, I don’t really care what you do.

Derived, not coincidently, from the same root as Salaam, or peace.

And which do you think comes? The world living in submission to Allah, or peace?

However, the thing about Allah is this; it is really tricky to figure out what he wants, especially in the modern world. Is Allah pro or anti-democracy? That's really tough to say, considering it was never addressed. The Qur'an is a notoriously...tricky... document.

Really tricky to figure out what Allah wants? Have you read the Qur’an? Have you read ANY of the Hadith? The Sunnahs? Mohammad did a pretty good job of defining what Allah meant. And any subject Mohammad was silent on meant he consented. For the last 1300+ years Islamic scholars have nitpicked the meanings of the Hadith and Sunnah. They have it down to a science. Imams across the world seem to have a pretty good mutual understanding of what Allah wants. Total global domination.

Instead of your three distinctions of Jihad, I would use two groups of two: Inner (greater) vs outer (lesser) and defensive vs offensive. It would be EXTREMELY rare to find an Imam advocating offensive Jihad.

The two groups of Jihad you present are the FIELDS of Jihad, not the levels. Now, within the levels, there are METHODS of Jihad. Those are Physical, Social, and Economic. Yes, that means you can use physical force to obtain spiritual victory in yourself. If my math is correct, there are 18 possible combinations of Field, Method, and Levels.

On the issue of offensive/defensive, how are you defining offensive? To me suicide bombers in crowded marketplaces of women and children is offense. To most Muslims, it is defense.

Even if you're completely right about the demands of Islam on its believers, the vast majority of Muslims would not answer the call to arms against the west unless they believed they literally had no other choice

This goes back to the level of $#!% they give. The less they give, the better off we are.

If Islam demands Jihad, do we concede 1.5 billion people to the terrorists? Do we poison the sea to kill the sharks, to use Pete's analogy? Or do the four main points I listed still apply? Isolate and neuter the radicals, support those who deserve it, and accept some degree of risk? If the Islam as diametrically opposed to Western society hypothesis is right, what can we do? Kill them all? What would happen to us in such a scenario?

Once again, my answer from my perspective of what our government can/should do is contained in my first post in this thread. We concede that we can’t trust 1.5 billion people and that 1.5 billion people are prone towards support of Islamists. You can’t isolate and neuter the “radicals”.
I think Pete already covered a lot of it.

-out

silentreader
01-21-2011, 13:39
There is no gray area in Islam. What Islam is - is not what you think - it is what the Koran says.

'Ol Ruth came here saying she wanted to pick and chose the best parts of Islam - and got slammed on her blog by Muslims.

As long as Muslims believe the Koran there will be Jihad.

I asked Richard one time to name a Muslim majority country where Christians and other religions enjoyed the same protection under the law as Muslims - the best he could do was a country in the Balkins.

So I'll ask you - name the countries with an Islamic majority where other religions are treated equally under the law. Not that has a good size population.

So I'll ask you again how Christians are fairing in Egypt theses days.

Pete,

Obviously, what is happening in Egypt right now is bad. Christians throughout the Middle East live in a tenuous position. In some countries such as Syria, Lebanon and Morocco, it's a better position. In others its worse, much worse in countries like Iraq right now or Egypt. William Dalrymple wrote an interesting travelogue about Middle Eastern Christian communities and the challenges they face if you're interested (From the Holy Mountain).

I'm not here to argue that Islam is this new-agey feel good religion. It's not. You and I clearly have different perspectives on what Islam is, and I doubt these will be reconciled in this thread, though I certainly appreciate being forced to think critically about my assumptions. However, even if I concede you're right, or we'll go farther and assume Pastor Terry Jones is right and Islam is of the Devil, what then? How does that effect the grand strategy of the United States of America? Should it? I still hold that our best option is to attempt to isolate, contain and marginalize Takfiri radicals while working with and through the rest of the Muslim world to strengthen our bonds of common interest. This is not something I'm pulling out of my ass either, David Kilcullen's book The Accidental Guerilla is a great read and a much more detailed response to MtnGoat's original question than I could ever give in this forum. If there were a PS.com book of the month club, I would lobby for it to be read every day until Uncle Sam takes away my internet privileges.


edit: didn't see Defend's last post before I put this up. Short answer is this: "them" not giving a shit is good enough for me.

second edit: I reread your first post. It's good. However, I think you give too much credit to the tribes, both in your historic examples and in the context of today. The Islamic expansion in the 7th and 8th centuries is explained as much by the effects of the devastating wars in-between the Byzantine and the Sassanid empires as it is by the fervor and prowess of the Arab tribes. The Arab revolt of World War I also exploited a rotting Empire and was a completely regional conflict that utilized guerilla tactics designed to stretch the already thin resources of the Ottomans to the breaking point. It was also highly dependent on the simultaneous presence of a conventional British Army on its Western flank. Today, the tribes certainly are powerful actors, especially in areas such as Yemen and Iraq. However, they remain largely regional forces and have seen their influence erode as the process of urbanization has radically changed the basic realities of life for many within the Arab world. The unified tribes of the Arabian peninsula do not pose an existential threat to American power, unless we are drawn into a never ending series of small wars.

Defend
01-21-2011, 17:30
...I think you give too much credit to the tribes, both in your historic examples and in the context of today.

Historically, I still say what has happened could not have happened without the tribes uniting. Other factors were at play, but tribal unity was still a requirement.

Have you ever tried to get two Arab offices (Government, University, or anything else with bureaucracy) to coordinate? It won't happen - until you figure out who in Office A is from the same tribe as the director in Office B, and you "just so happen" to be friends with somebody from that tribe as well. Bingo, you have your transcripts released early, or you are out of trouble for XYZ:rolleyes:, and you have the social protection of both offices.

Tribal power has not been eliminated by urbanization. It has simply taken a different form of expression.

Learn how to use tribal division and unification to accomplish your mission, and you will go far! :lifter

-out