The western way of war in the 21st century is a pale shadow of the warfare it waged in the 20th. The reason is simple: for western societies war is no longer existential. Instead, it's increasingly about smoothing market flows and tertiary moral concerns/threats. As a result of this diminishment of motivation, western warfare is now afflicted with the following:
* Operations of low lethality. Western militaries do not have the desire, nor the sanction, to conduct the high casualty operations typically associated with real wars. Technology has been leveraged to increase the precision of attacks to limit collateral damage and save the lives of civilians. The corollary to this is that western militaries are also fiercely protective of the lives of their soldiers. Warfare, increasingly, is supposed to be costless. What this means is that we will not see Sherman's 'March to the Sea' or Hama in the near future - and - the loss of a hundred soldiers in southern Lebanon will be enough to stop the Israeli army.
* Marginal placement within national priorities. Militaries are increasingly professional (with a trend towards the use of mercenaries) and conscription has become impossible. This drastically limits the number of soldiers that can be applied to any conflict. In addition, to retain competitive positioning on the global stage, states and their economies are operated as if war is not going on. To wit: military budgets are considered just another line item on a more complex national budget. Gone are the days of massive mobilization and economic restructuring for war.
* Muddled objectives. Given the lack of the cohesive and singular reason for war -- the survival of the state and its people through the elimination of its enemies -- the reasons for warfare will drift. This translates into a constantly shifting landscape of military objectives, where current objectives recede in favor of replacements before they can be reached. The result is confusion, mission creep, and conflict escalation.
Playing with War
The upshot of this diminishment of warfare is that wars will become increasingly difficult to win. The reasons are straightforward:
* Asymmetric motivation. In almost all instances, the opposition will approach the conflict as an existential war. This motivation both allows them to fight harder and longer than those western forces sent against it. The only aspects of warfare left in the west's favor are training and technology.
* New methods of warfare will emerge to level (flatten) the playing field Since warfare is a conflict between minds, its natural to expect that as the rest of the world gains capacity through globalization, the delta in training and technology will diminish. We have already seen this in the emergence of open source warfare (Iraq, Nigeria, Afghanistan, and more) and 4GW light infantry (Hezbollah).
* Proliferation of opposition. As we have often seen, as western militaries apply violence, they often destroy the structures that hold together societies. This results in the proliferation of groups that adopt violence. Much, if not all, of that violence will eventually be directed at the western militaries themselves.
Learning to Live with Limits
Ultimately, western societies will need to learn to live within the limits of this new framework. It is not possible for us to reverse the clock on this trend. Any mass mobilization for war that lifts existing limitations will be severely punished by both global markets and opinion (both domestically and abroad) if it ever was attempted. Given the inevitability of the limited nature of western warfare from now and into the future, we should avoid the following traps:
* Nation-building as a global social policy. Historically, counter-insurgency against an established enemy has almost never worked (and when it has, it usually involves bloody exterminations). Any attempt to build a nation will likely, particularly in the current environment of globalization, yield an opponent that will be impossible to defeat through limited means. Further, the durations of these conflicts will exceed the capacity of the western states to maintain a cohesive set of objectives -- they will shift with opinion polls and political winds.
* Collapsing rogue states. In almost all instances, despite how easy it is to collapse a weak state with modern weapons, those wars launched to collapse rogue states will not yield positive results. The collapse will necessitate calls for revival (see item one). Unless states are willing to live with partial collapse without resolution, they should not undertake the action in the first place.
* Escalation of tension. Given an inability to resolve conflicts through nation-building and state collapse, western states should endeavor to deescalate conflicts rather than ignite them. Escalation is a false God that promises a return of the motivational clarity found in the wars of the 20th Century. It cannot deliver this.
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Osama's on the Move Again by Syed Saleem Shahzad
"Osama bin Laden and other terrorists are still in hiding. Our message to them is clear: no matter how long it takes, America will find you, and we will bring you to justice."
- President George W Bush, September 11, 2006
"On the anniversary of 9/11, the trail [of bin Laden] is stone-cold."- US intelligence official
Osama bin Laden is on the move, and Tuesday's terror attack on the US Embassy in the Syrian capital, Damascus, could be a tangible result of this.
Exclusive information obtained by Asia Times Online shows that the al-Qaeda leader recently traveled from the South Waziristan tribal area in Pakistan to somewhere in the eastern Afghan provinces of Kunar and Nooristan, or possibly Bajour, a s mall tribal agency in the Federally Administered Tribal Area of Pakistan in North-West Frontier Province.
According to a witness, bin Laden traveled in a double-cabin truck with a few armed guards - not in a convoy. Apparently, this is how he now prefers to move around.
Bin Laden, with a US$25 million bounty on his head, has not been sighted for some time, and he has not been seen on any new videotape since late 2004, although audio tapes purporting to be him speaking surfaced this year.
At the same time, a close aide responsible for bin Laden's logistics and media relations told Asia Times Online that bin Laden had recovered from serious kidney-related ailments.
In Tuesday's attack in Damascus, four men tried to drive two explosives-laden cars into the US Embassy compound. Four of them and a security official were killed. One of the cars exploded outside the compound.
The incident not only carries al-Qaeda hallmarks, it is also very much in line with the al-Qaeda leadership's focus, agreed on during the Israel-Hezbollah war, to extend the flames of conflict across the region.
In this vein, bin Laden's No 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, warned on Monday that the Persian Gulf region and Israel would be the next targets of al-Qaeda. He was speaking in a video message released to coincide with the fifth anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States.
In addition to bin Laden's improved health, al-Qaeda has in the past few months gained some breathing room to regroup and solidify its logistics as a result of the situation in the semi-autonomous North and South Waziristan tribal areas.
This area has long been home to al-Qaeda elements, but until recently they had been under intense pressure from Pakistan's security forces. However, as the tribals gained more strength - some Taliban-affiliated districts have even been declared independent of Islamabad - the authorities realized they were fighting a losing battle.
This culminated last week in security officials and the "Pakistani Taliban" agreeing to a temporary ceasefire. Previously choked channels between the Waziristans and other parts of Pakistan were now fully opened, allowing al-Qaeda to start moving money again.
The Bigger Playing Field
A new dynamic among militant groups has emerged in Egypt to complement al-Qaeda's designs in the Middle East. Tuesday's Damascus attack could also be an illustration of this.
Many youths previously associated with the militant Gamaa Islamiya of Egypt have formed independent cells, while some Egyptian youths of Palestinian origin have created underground organizations to target the pro-Israeli Egyptian government and US interests.
Credit goes to al-Qaeda that in the past six months it established inroads into these organizations, to the extent that they are now directly under the command of the al-Qaeda leadership.
This was confirmed by Zawahiri last month in a videotape aired on Al-Jazeera news network: "We announce to the Islamic nation the good news of the unification of a great faction of the knights of the Gamaa Islamiya ... with the al-Qaeda group."
Al-Qaeda has evolved into more of an ideological inspiration to sharpen Muslim reaction against the West and create a backlash than a militant group. Five years of the US-led "war on terror" damaged its structure and it was forced to melt into the local resistance movements of Iraq and Afghanistan. Already, the Taliban and Iraqi resistances complement each other, sharing experience, skills and even logistics.
From this position, al-Qaeda will work to bind all local resistance movements into one coordinated unit against the US and its allies, with the ultimate aim of creating a universal Muslim backlash against the West.
The Israel-Hezbollah war proved the ideal starting point for this plan. The successful defense of Lebanon by Hezbollah was largely taken in the Arab world as the first Arab victory against Israel. Sentiment on the streets of the Middle East turned noticeably against the US, Israel and pro-West Muslim rulers.
Al-Qaeda wants to keep this mood, and inflame it even further. Attacks like the one in Damascus could be such pot-boilers. More, and bigger, ones are most likely being plotted by the masterminds sitting in the tribal areas between Pakistan and Afghanistan.
- President George W Bush, September 11, 2006
"On the anniversary of 9/11, the trail [of bin Laden] is stone-cold."- US intelligence official
Osama bin Laden is on the move, and Tuesday's terror attack on the US Embassy in the Syrian capital, Damascus, could be a tangible result of this.
Exclusive information obtained by Asia Times Online shows that the al-Qaeda leader recently traveled from the South Waziristan tribal area in Pakistan to somewhere in the eastern Afghan provinces of Kunar and Nooristan, or possibly Bajour, a s mall tribal agency in the Federally Administered Tribal Area of Pakistan in North-West Frontier Province.
According to a witness, bin Laden traveled in a double-cabin truck with a few armed guards - not in a convoy. Apparently, this is how he now prefers to move around.
Bin Laden, with a US$25 million bounty on his head, has not been sighted for some time, and he has not been seen on any new videotape since late 2004, although audio tapes purporting to be him speaking surfaced this year.
At the same time, a close aide responsible for bin Laden's logistics and media relations told Asia Times Online that bin Laden had recovered from serious kidney-related ailments.
In Tuesday's attack in Damascus, four men tried to drive two explosives-laden cars into the US Embassy compound. Four of them and a security official were killed. One of the cars exploded outside the compound.
The incident not only carries al-Qaeda hallmarks, it is also very much in line with the al-Qaeda leadership's focus, agreed on during the Israel-Hezbollah war, to extend the flames of conflict across the region.
In this vein, bin Laden's No 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, warned on Monday that the Persian Gulf region and Israel would be the next targets of al-Qaeda. He was speaking in a video message released to coincide with the fifth anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States.
In addition to bin Laden's improved health, al-Qaeda has in the past few months gained some breathing room to regroup and solidify its logistics as a result of the situation in the semi-autonomous North and South Waziristan tribal areas.
This area has long been home to al-Qaeda elements, but until recently they had been under intense pressure from Pakistan's security forces. However, as the tribals gained more strength - some Taliban-affiliated districts have even been declared independent of Islamabad - the authorities realized they were fighting a losing battle.
This culminated last week in security officials and the "Pakistani Taliban" agreeing to a temporary ceasefire. Previously choked channels between the Waziristans and other parts of Pakistan were now fully opened, allowing al-Qaeda to start moving money again.
The Bigger Playing Field
A new dynamic among militant groups has emerged in Egypt to complement al-Qaeda's designs in the Middle East. Tuesday's Damascus attack could also be an illustration of this.
Many youths previously associated with the militant Gamaa Islamiya of Egypt have formed independent cells, while some Egyptian youths of Palestinian origin have created underground organizations to target the pro-Israeli Egyptian government and US interests.
Credit goes to al-Qaeda that in the past six months it established inroads into these organizations, to the extent that they are now directly under the command of the al-Qaeda leadership.
This was confirmed by Zawahiri last month in a videotape aired on Al-Jazeera news network: "We announce to the Islamic nation the good news of the unification of a great faction of the knights of the Gamaa Islamiya ... with the al-Qaeda group."
Al-Qaeda has evolved into more of an ideological inspiration to sharpen Muslim reaction against the West and create a backlash than a militant group. Five years of the US-led "war on terror" damaged its structure and it was forced to melt into the local resistance movements of Iraq and Afghanistan. Already, the Taliban and Iraqi resistances complement each other, sharing experience, skills and even logistics.
From this position, al-Qaeda will work to bind all local resistance movements into one coordinated unit against the US and its allies, with the ultimate aim of creating a universal Muslim backlash against the West.
The Israel-Hezbollah war proved the ideal starting point for this plan. The successful defense of Lebanon by Hezbollah was largely taken in the Arab world as the first Arab victory against Israel. Sentiment on the streets of the Middle East turned noticeably against the US, Israel and pro-West Muslim rulers.
Al-Qaeda wants to keep this mood, and inflame it even further. Attacks like the one in Damascus could be such pot-boilers. More, and bigger, ones are most likely being plotted by the masterminds sitting in the tribal areas between Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
US embassy: Assad Allows Attack, Offer "Protection" and Aim at Confusion by Walid Phares
According to well informed Syrian sources, today's Terrorist attack against the US embassy in Damascus is one of the "Machiavellian" Assad operations. Let's remind ourselves that the Syrian regime's senior strategists and intelligence officers were trained by the sophisticated "intox" schools of the former Soviet's KGB. One of the main tactics of this old school, refined by Hafez Assad during his rule of Syria is based on the following concept: If the equation is to your disadvantage, create a new problem, offer to solve it, obtain recognition; and by that you'd change the equation.
The strategic objective of the Assad regime today is to deter Washington from further pressures against Syria, in the form of the Hariri investigation, the US pressure through the Security Council to deploy forces along the borders with Lebanon and the American ongoing support to the anti-Syrian Government in Beirut. Tehran-Damascus-Hezbollah axis is in dire need to "contain" Washington's pressures and gain time, as much possible of time. Why would they need time? Because they have to rearm Hezbollah, crumble the Lebanese Government, and face off with UN pressures on the nuclear. Syria has the marching orders to disorient the United States, and hence it adopted a twin approach:
a. "Allow:" a Jihadist-type terror attack to take place against a US interest in Damascus. And how can that be possible? The seasoned experts on Syria knows all too well that the Assad Mukhabarat are in control of, or have "access" to the overwhelming Terrorist organizations in Syria and Lebanon. They've had thirty years of deep involvement to accomplish this take over. In addition to Shiia Hezbollah, Syria has a control, a remote-control of, or an access to Sunni Salafists groups, including networks that connects with al Qaeda. In short, Syria's intelligence services can prepare the ground to "persuade" Jihadists to strike at some point. The Jihadists have an ideological and strategic enmity with the US; the Assad regime has the ability to have the "mob" unleash attacks, in the same way the Baath regime of Syria has "allowed" thousands of Jihadists to cross the border to Iraq to kill US and coalition troops. Assad the father also "allowed" Jihadis to attack U.S and French interests in Lebanon during the 1980s. More recently, Assad "allowed' violent demonstrations to attack embassies in Damascus. Knowing that Syria's State police controls the country with an iron hand, these precedents are too bright to ignore. In today's apparatus two men dominate the Terror web from their security intelligence positions: Mohammed Nassif, the director of State Security and Ali Yunis, the assistant of Asaf Shawkat, the regime's security commander. Nassif and Yunis are the team that controls and connects with the Jihadist underworld in the Levant.
b. Stage the "Protection:" After the operation happens, the regime allows some of their men to be killed in action against the "Terrorists." Obviously, this move will be hard to absorb by Western and American public psychologically. Maybe Hollywood movies writers can. In short (as an analytical projection) the regime "allowed" the operation to happen, "knew" it would happen, and let the security guards on the ground sacrifice themselves in the line of diplomatic duty.
The Dividends:
1. Sending a message to the U.S as follow: al Qaeda can strike you in our midst (Syria and Lebanon) and we can't do much about, except the classical protection once the "cells" would be about to engage or have already engaged. In short we are extending the measures under international laws, not more.
2. "But, can stop them." Meaning that our "powerful" intelligence and security agencies can go after these Terrorists (who aren't Syria's friends to start with) and "offer them to you," as we used to do in the good old days: We'd send Hezbollah to kill your Marines in Lebanon and allow the Salafists to kill the Marines again in Iraq, but at the same time we can do business with you and "protect your" embassies from the Terrorists we are harboring anyway. Yes a good Levantine maze.
3. Your public, via international media, "saw" that we are defending your embassy and have "lost" security guards while defending it. So what are you going to tell your public? That we, the Syrian regime, "are" the terrorists? It will look bad when after we sacrificed our men for your diplomats, your diplomats would call us Terrorists.
4. Secretary Rice "had" to issue a statement to "thanking" Syria. In Assad's mind, it would be an embarrassment for the U.S to attack Syria for being a harbor to Terrorism when Damascus has just being thanked for fighting those Terrorists. This, basically, would gain some more "time" for Assad. Enough time needed to:
5. Rearm Hezbollah, prepare attacks against UN and other multinational forces to come closer to the Syrian borders, and of course to allow the other pressures to recede.
6. Extra dividend: Unleash the school that supports "dialogue and friendship" with the Syrian regime in Washington to advance its arguments in this regard.
A question has been fusing in the media about Zawahiri's calls for the Levant Jihadists, including the Jund al Sham to attack targets in Syria and Lebanon. Are these video messages coordinated with Syria and Iran. While no evidence is surfacing yet, but these are two Jihadi wars taking place against the US and its allies at the same time. In the midst of an Al Qaeda war and of a Khumeinist-Baathist campaign, both directed against democracies in the region, overlapping actions aren't impossible. Otherwise, how to explain that al Qaeda waited so long before it issued a direct Jihad-guideline on Lebanon and Syria after 14 years of war on the US and three years war in Iraq? Why would the no 2 of al Qaeda suddenly develop an interest in the Lebanese-Syrian battlefield, immediately after the cease fire was concluded between Hezbollah and Israel? Who needed whom to begin the next stage in troubles after the issuing of UNSCR 1701?
Let's call it the quiz of the month: you'd find your answer in Machiavelli's writings.
The strategic objective of the Assad regime today is to deter Washington from further pressures against Syria, in the form of the Hariri investigation, the US pressure through the Security Council to deploy forces along the borders with Lebanon and the American ongoing support to the anti-Syrian Government in Beirut. Tehran-Damascus-Hezbollah axis is in dire need to "contain" Washington's pressures and gain time, as much possible of time. Why would they need time? Because they have to rearm Hezbollah, crumble the Lebanese Government, and face off with UN pressures on the nuclear. Syria has the marching orders to disorient the United States, and hence it adopted a twin approach:
a. "Allow:" a Jihadist-type terror attack to take place against a US interest in Damascus. And how can that be possible? The seasoned experts on Syria knows all too well that the Assad Mukhabarat are in control of, or have "access" to the overwhelming Terrorist organizations in Syria and Lebanon. They've had thirty years of deep involvement to accomplish this take over. In addition to Shiia Hezbollah, Syria has a control, a remote-control of, or an access to Sunni Salafists groups, including networks that connects with al Qaeda. In short, Syria's intelligence services can prepare the ground to "persuade" Jihadists to strike at some point. The Jihadists have an ideological and strategic enmity with the US; the Assad regime has the ability to have the "mob" unleash attacks, in the same way the Baath regime of Syria has "allowed" thousands of Jihadists to cross the border to Iraq to kill US and coalition troops. Assad the father also "allowed" Jihadis to attack U.S and French interests in Lebanon during the 1980s. More recently, Assad "allowed' violent demonstrations to attack embassies in Damascus. Knowing that Syria's State police controls the country with an iron hand, these precedents are too bright to ignore. In today's apparatus two men dominate the Terror web from their security intelligence positions: Mohammed Nassif, the director of State Security and Ali Yunis, the assistant of Asaf Shawkat, the regime's security commander. Nassif and Yunis are the team that controls and connects with the Jihadist underworld in the Levant.
b. Stage the "Protection:" After the operation happens, the regime allows some of their men to be killed in action against the "Terrorists." Obviously, this move will be hard to absorb by Western and American public psychologically. Maybe Hollywood movies writers can. In short (as an analytical projection) the regime "allowed" the operation to happen, "knew" it would happen, and let the security guards on the ground sacrifice themselves in the line of diplomatic duty.
The Dividends:
1. Sending a message to the U.S as follow: al Qaeda can strike you in our midst (Syria and Lebanon) and we can't do much about, except the classical protection once the "cells" would be about to engage or have already engaged. In short we are extending the measures under international laws, not more.
2. "But, can stop them." Meaning that our "powerful" intelligence and security agencies can go after these Terrorists (who aren't Syria's friends to start with) and "offer them to you," as we used to do in the good old days: We'd send Hezbollah to kill your Marines in Lebanon and allow the Salafists to kill the Marines again in Iraq, but at the same time we can do business with you and "protect your" embassies from the Terrorists we are harboring anyway. Yes a good Levantine maze.
3. Your public, via international media, "saw" that we are defending your embassy and have "lost" security guards while defending it. So what are you going to tell your public? That we, the Syrian regime, "are" the terrorists? It will look bad when after we sacrificed our men for your diplomats, your diplomats would call us Terrorists.
4. Secretary Rice "had" to issue a statement to "thanking" Syria. In Assad's mind, it would be an embarrassment for the U.S to attack Syria for being a harbor to Terrorism when Damascus has just being thanked for fighting those Terrorists. This, basically, would gain some more "time" for Assad. Enough time needed to:
5. Rearm Hezbollah, prepare attacks against UN and other multinational forces to come closer to the Syrian borders, and of course to allow the other pressures to recede.
6. Extra dividend: Unleash the school that supports "dialogue and friendship" with the Syrian regime in Washington to advance its arguments in this regard.
A question has been fusing in the media about Zawahiri's calls for the Levant Jihadists, including the Jund al Sham to attack targets in Syria and Lebanon. Are these video messages coordinated with Syria and Iran. While no evidence is surfacing yet, but these are two Jihadi wars taking place against the US and its allies at the same time. In the midst of an Al Qaeda war and of a Khumeinist-Baathist campaign, both directed against democracies in the region, overlapping actions aren't impossible. Otherwise, how to explain that al Qaeda waited so long before it issued a direct Jihad-guideline on Lebanon and Syria after 14 years of war on the US and three years war in Iraq? Why would the no 2 of al Qaeda suddenly develop an interest in the Lebanese-Syrian battlefield, immediately after the cease fire was concluded between Hezbollah and Israel? Who needed whom to begin the next stage in troubles after the issuing of UNSCR 1701?
Let's call it the quiz of the month: you'd find your answer in Machiavelli's writings.
France on Elevated Alert by Olivier Guitta
A September 1 report of the French Anti Terrorism Unit leaked to Le Figaro stated that France was next as a target of Islamist terrorism. Indeed France has been one of the countries most mentioned in Al Qaeda and affiliates tapes and messages as one of the Crusaders. This really started after France voted in 2004 a law banning all religious signs including the hijab in public schools. Also the Algerian GSPC considers France as its #1 enemy.
In light of this, French authorities are closely monitoring a dozen individuals with connections to cells linked to Iraq, Afghanistan/Pakistan and the Maghreb. They are also watching around 50 mosques attended by radical elements. But most than anything French counter terrorism officials are worried about the young French jihadis who traveled to fight in Iraq and could come back anyday to France well trained and motivated to attack the "Infidel nation".
Last reason of concern is the Lebanese situation and France's involvement on the ground. Hezbollah could decide to attack French targets around the world or Jewish targets in France.
I have been writing at length about the potential future terror attacks executed by Hezbollah against France in the style of the 1986 wave of terror in Paris.
In light of this, French authorities are closely monitoring a dozen individuals with connections to cells linked to Iraq, Afghanistan/Pakistan and the Maghreb. They are also watching around 50 mosques attended by radical elements. But most than anything French counter terrorism officials are worried about the young French jihadis who traveled to fight in Iraq and could come back anyday to France well trained and motivated to attack the "Infidel nation".
Last reason of concern is the Lebanese situation and France's involvement on the ground. Hezbollah could decide to attack French targets around the world or Jewish targets in France.
I have been writing at length about the potential future terror attacks executed by Hezbollah against France in the style of the 1986 wave of terror in Paris.
Sunday, September 10, 2006
9/11, Religious Faith, and Ignorance by Jeffrey Imm
In the September 10 Washington Times article "Unanswered Questions of September 11", one of the apparent "mysteries" of 9/11 is "What motivated 19 relatively well-off Arab men, all Muslims, to become such horrific suicide bombers?" In an interview with the Washington Times, "Lee Hamilton, vice chairman of the national September 11 commission, says motivation was the 'big question' the panel could not answer. 'We were never able to answer why the 19 were willing to kill themselves. What was the motivation? I am talking in a very personal way,' Mr. Hamilton, a Democrat who represented Indiana's 9th District in the House for 34 years".
There is no mystery behind the 9/11 Jihadists' motivation at all. It has been clearly and unambiguously spelled out by the Jihadists and their successors - it is "Death to America", death to the infidels, and the establishment of a global Islamist caliphate - what Jihad is all about.
Counterterrorism that does not understand the role of Islamist extremism religious faith in Jihadist terrorism is no more than blindly groping in the dark -- focusing on logistics, groups, bombs, timelines, targets -- but completely incapable and ignorant of WHY Jihadist terrorism exists.
The motivation of the 9/11 Jihadists may (disturbingly) be a mystery to vice-chairman of the 9/11 Commission, but it is certainly not a mystery to Walid Phares, Robert Spencer, Steve Emerson, and countless others over the past five years who have clearly and unambiguously tied Jihadist terror attacks to the religious faith of the Jihadists, who acted based on their faith.
Even considering that the mainstream media only presents a portion of the global Jihadist war, how can Americans be ignorant of the role of religion in Jihadism - five years after the 9/11 attacks? Wasn't it just eight days ago that an Al Qaeda video was released to the American people warning them to convert to Islam - or else? And the motivation of Jihadists is still an "unanswered question"?
In this world war, are the Jihadists the only ones acting based on their faith? Clearly, the above-mentioned scholars of Jihadism have described the threat and religious basis. They have explained why Jihadist terrorists hate us. And the constant calls by Jihadists for a global Islamist caliphate are frequently repeated in report after report. The Jihadists are acting on their religious beliefs - they believe that their terrorist goals are Allah's goals.
Jihadists rightly understand that faith without action is nothing. The challenge to Americans of faith and others in world religions is to rise to challenge the Jihadists' religious and totalitarian worldview of an Earth dominated by an Islamist caliphate. Ignoring the role of religion in Jihadist terrorism allows the fires of Jihad to burn with no visible way of truly countering them. Counterterrorism is about countering terrorism - not simply countering individual terrorist attacks.
So if an honest analysis of counter-Jihadist-terrorism requires an understanding of religion, does it not also demand that others of religious faith speak out and actively stand against the Jihadists? In the current issue of the Futurist, Professor Thomas McFaul warns of the threats of exclusivity in religion and the global future civilization, which he expands on in his book, calling for a more inclusive future between religions.
To reach this goal in counter-Jihadist-terrorism of pluralism among religious groups, it is imperative that those of faith, other than Jihadists, speak out and stand up against the Jihadist global threat. Tolerance of intolerance will not spread peace or pluralism among the religions of the world, but only emboldens the totalitarian vision of the Jihadists.
And where do we stand on this? We remember the symbol of St. Peter's Church near NYC's Ground Zero as a place for WTC rescue efforts. But what about the ongoing faith of Americans after 9/11 and how that faith is being used to counter Jihad? We are told of how "Americans used religion as Band-Aid" after the 9/11 attacks and threw it away. We have reports of religious faith was abandoned after the attacks. Some grew in faith, and some lost their faith. Members of some religious groups became radicalized and spread Jihad. Some members of other religious groups sought to appease Jihad - such as those Presbyterians who supported Hezbollah and used Presbyterian publishing houses to print 9/11 conspiracy screeds blaming USA.
And the sad truth is that the overwhelming majority of religious leaders have done little to stand up against Jihadism. I remember listening to "Restoring Faith - America's Religious Leaders Answer Terror with Hope" on the Washington DC subway and hearing more appeasement than hope. I remember hearing Desmond Tutu demanding that we forgive the Jihadist terrorists as "they are children of God". But religious leaders actually challenging people of faith to condemn Jihadism around the world and its religious tenets? Many religious leaders are either too afraid of being branded "Islamophobic", afraid of Jihadists, or unwilling to face the totalitarian threat of Jihadism to step up and speak out about it. And many more just hope that Jihadism will go away, or that "someone else" will deal with Jihadism. "Tolerance and understanding" of Jihad will not stop the next 9/11 attack on America.
Last week, the Washington Post reported on Islamic Salafists as victims of 9/11 whose "theology and practices were suddenly suspect", ignoring that the theology of Salfism "is a clear, straightforward statement of belief that calls on the faithful to carry out jihad." Clearly, there is not an understanding here that acting in faith against Jihadist terrorism means to actively reject those philosophies of Jihadism. Nor will false "fatwas" by Islamic groups that refuse to condemn Jihadism.
Small achievements have been made in reformist and moderate Islamic groups, with individual leaders such as Irshad Manji. Reformist Muslim Irshad Manji has challenged "Muslim Myopia", urging Muslims to seek reform of Islam and take accountability for the actions of Jihadists, and not to use the crutch of foreign policy, economics, etc., to ignore the obvious that the Jihadists are acting on their faith. Small Muslim protest marches against Jihad in Washington DC and Arizona have happened. Those acting in faith against Jihad need to be encouraged and supported. But we have not yet seen a "Million Man" march of peace-loving Muslims condemning Jihadism in Washington DC, and five years after 9/11, this is long, long overdue.
We need to see more faith in action in fighting Jihadism. Members of all religious groups need to also act in faith against Jihad. This is a responsibility for all Muslim and non-Muslim religious leaders who seek peaceful co-existence. People of faith need to roll up their sleeves in action to seek the survival of their religion and their people from Jihadist totalitarianism.
Because in addressing counter-Jihadist-terrorism - it is all about RELIGION. And 5 years after 9/11, it is past time that people with faiths -- other than the Jihadists -- ACT based on their faith.
There is no mystery behind the 9/11 Jihadists' motivation at all. It has been clearly and unambiguously spelled out by the Jihadists and their successors - it is "Death to America", death to the infidels, and the establishment of a global Islamist caliphate - what Jihad is all about.
Counterterrorism that does not understand the role of Islamist extremism religious faith in Jihadist terrorism is no more than blindly groping in the dark -- focusing on logistics, groups, bombs, timelines, targets -- but completely incapable and ignorant of WHY Jihadist terrorism exists.
The motivation of the 9/11 Jihadists may (disturbingly) be a mystery to vice-chairman of the 9/11 Commission, but it is certainly not a mystery to Walid Phares, Robert Spencer, Steve Emerson, and countless others over the past five years who have clearly and unambiguously tied Jihadist terror attacks to the religious faith of the Jihadists, who acted based on their faith.
Even considering that the mainstream media only presents a portion of the global Jihadist war, how can Americans be ignorant of the role of religion in Jihadism - five years after the 9/11 attacks? Wasn't it just eight days ago that an Al Qaeda video was released to the American people warning them to convert to Islam - or else? And the motivation of Jihadists is still an "unanswered question"?
In this world war, are the Jihadists the only ones acting based on their faith? Clearly, the above-mentioned scholars of Jihadism have described the threat and religious basis. They have explained why Jihadist terrorists hate us. And the constant calls by Jihadists for a global Islamist caliphate are frequently repeated in report after report. The Jihadists are acting on their religious beliefs - they believe that their terrorist goals are Allah's goals.
Jihadists rightly understand that faith without action is nothing. The challenge to Americans of faith and others in world religions is to rise to challenge the Jihadists' religious and totalitarian worldview of an Earth dominated by an Islamist caliphate. Ignoring the role of religion in Jihadist terrorism allows the fires of Jihad to burn with no visible way of truly countering them. Counterterrorism is about countering terrorism - not simply countering individual terrorist attacks.
So if an honest analysis of counter-Jihadist-terrorism requires an understanding of religion, does it not also demand that others of religious faith speak out and actively stand against the Jihadists? In the current issue of the Futurist, Professor Thomas McFaul warns of the threats of exclusivity in religion and the global future civilization, which he expands on in his book, calling for a more inclusive future between religions.
To reach this goal in counter-Jihadist-terrorism of pluralism among religious groups, it is imperative that those of faith, other than Jihadists, speak out and stand up against the Jihadist global threat. Tolerance of intolerance will not spread peace or pluralism among the religions of the world, but only emboldens the totalitarian vision of the Jihadists.
And where do we stand on this? We remember the symbol of St. Peter's Church near NYC's Ground Zero as a place for WTC rescue efforts. But what about the ongoing faith of Americans after 9/11 and how that faith is being used to counter Jihad? We are told of how "Americans used religion as Band-Aid" after the 9/11 attacks and threw it away. We have reports of religious faith was abandoned after the attacks. Some grew in faith, and some lost their faith. Members of some religious groups became radicalized and spread Jihad. Some members of other religious groups sought to appease Jihad - such as those Presbyterians who supported Hezbollah and used Presbyterian publishing houses to print 9/11 conspiracy screeds blaming USA.
And the sad truth is that the overwhelming majority of religious leaders have done little to stand up against Jihadism. I remember listening to "Restoring Faith - America's Religious Leaders Answer Terror with Hope" on the Washington DC subway and hearing more appeasement than hope. I remember hearing Desmond Tutu demanding that we forgive the Jihadist terrorists as "they are children of God". But religious leaders actually challenging people of faith to condemn Jihadism around the world and its religious tenets? Many religious leaders are either too afraid of being branded "Islamophobic", afraid of Jihadists, or unwilling to face the totalitarian threat of Jihadism to step up and speak out about it. And many more just hope that Jihadism will go away, or that "someone else" will deal with Jihadism. "Tolerance and understanding" of Jihad will not stop the next 9/11 attack on America.
Last week, the Washington Post reported on Islamic Salafists as victims of 9/11 whose "theology and practices were suddenly suspect", ignoring that the theology of Salfism "is a clear, straightforward statement of belief that calls on the faithful to carry out jihad." Clearly, there is not an understanding here that acting in faith against Jihadist terrorism means to actively reject those philosophies of Jihadism. Nor will false "fatwas" by Islamic groups that refuse to condemn Jihadism.
Small achievements have been made in reformist and moderate Islamic groups, with individual leaders such as Irshad Manji. Reformist Muslim Irshad Manji has challenged "Muslim Myopia", urging Muslims to seek reform of Islam and take accountability for the actions of Jihadists, and not to use the crutch of foreign policy, economics, etc., to ignore the obvious that the Jihadists are acting on their faith. Small Muslim protest marches against Jihad in Washington DC and Arizona have happened. Those acting in faith against Jihad need to be encouraged and supported. But we have not yet seen a "Million Man" march of peace-loving Muslims condemning Jihadism in Washington DC, and five years after 9/11, this is long, long overdue.
We need to see more faith in action in fighting Jihadism. Members of all religious groups need to also act in faith against Jihad. This is a responsibility for all Muslim and non-Muslim religious leaders who seek peaceful co-existence. People of faith need to roll up their sleeves in action to seek the survival of their religion and their people from Jihadist totalitarianism.
Because in addressing counter-Jihadist-terrorism - it is all about RELIGION. And 5 years after 9/11, it is past time that people with faiths -- other than the Jihadists -- ACT based on their faith.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)