The Two Faces of Al-Qaeda

[Aeson]

Arrian

I'm not sure why LOTM picked this one to pre-empt. It's sorta a boring one. The article says what everyone knows, that hardliners have rhetoric they use to appeal to moderates, hoping to draw them into the cause. (This is true of most any faction out there.)

The only real issue I'd take with the article is that it seems to be arguing towards "balance" from a backwards perspective. Highlighted by this part of the article:

Consider the following excerpt — one of many — which renders Al Qaeda's reciprocal-treatment argument moot.

It's not a moot point. AQ knows it has to appeal to more sensible people. We have to realize that that is the real battle to win. Because we aren't going to win the hearts and minds of AQ. That's obvious. The battle is for the hearts and minds of more sensible people.

Our policy has not been to deal with the problem by addressing it in regards to the "reciprocity" argument. We have been acting in a manner which addresses the underlying ideology of AQ (as presented in this article), and ignoring the effect that the "reciprocity" argument has on more moderate Muslims.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Aeson
Arrian

I'm not sure why LOTM picked this one to pre-empt.

You have a better one?


The real zinger is the Daily Mail quote. I know that as soon as certain people see that, they will be all over it. And really theres no defending the DM, whether that has any bearing on the quote or not.

as for Arrian and your responses, you seem to be missing the point. Youre assuming that the "kill Kufr" is for the leaders to tell each other, while the "Its reciprocity" argument is to draw muslim followers. If I read the article right, hes saying the "kill kufrs" is the core of their argument in Arabic (he doesnt seem to read Urdu, Malay, etc) and that the reciprocity stuff is what they put out in Western languages, for western consumption.

Now whether thats true or not is hard to say from his quotes, without access to a more or less fair sample of ALL that AQ puts out in Arabic (and theres lots of quibbles one could make about how much of whats purported AQ on the web is really just assorted wannabes with similar ideologies) Which gets back to who this guy is and whether hes trustworthy, which discussion here can only end up in a flamefest about motivations.

So really its not easily answerable.

WRT to our For Policy, theres a counter argument - that folks are looking for the strong dog, and changing our FP to be less hated makes us look weak, and actually helps get AQ recruits. "Better to be feared than loved" Now im not a raving hawk, and im quite aware it cuts both ways - AQs propaganda WRT to US, is that we are mean to muslims AND that we are a paper tiger. So I dont suggest being tough for the sake of being tough, but Id be wary of doing stuff that makes us look weak in a conventional sense. Its one thing to try to resolve points of friction with the muslim world, its quite another, to, say, abandon support for a long time ally in the belief that our alliance is motivating our enemies.

I would also note that the reciprocity stuff is endless and unlimited, and cynical. We are attacked for supporting non-democratic regimes in the muslim world, when an actual democratic regime in Egypt or KSA is NOT what AQ wants, and no potential AQ recruit who isnt blind and deaf thinks thats what AQ wants. AQ doesnt want Israel to stop expanding settlements - or to withdraw from existing ones - it wants Israel to disappear - and not for a binational secular Palestine, either. They dont want the US to withdraw and leave Iraq in the hands of its people - they want the Shiites and Kurds put back in their place.


Im dont beleive all muslims are bad, or hateful by any means - but not all muslims are even in sympathy to AQ. Im not willing to buy that even the footsoldiers are so motivated by reasonable grievances.

Ive recently read The Kite Runner, by Khaled Husseini. I highly recommend it.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by lord of the mark You have a better one?

Most of the stuff that comes out gets far more knee-jerk reaction that this one, so basically anything that's been posted here.

The real zinger is the Daily Mail quote. I know that as soon as certain people see that, they will be all over it. And really theres no defending the DM, whether that has any bearing on the quote or not.

Well, you can play to the hardliners, or the moderates.

as for Arrian and your responses, you seem to be missing the point. Youre assuming that the "kill Kufr" is for the leaders to tell each other, while the "Its reciprocity" argument is to draw muslim followers. If I read the article right, hes saying the "kill kufrs" is the core of their argument in Arabic (he doesnt seem to read Urdu, Malay, etc) and that the reciprocity stuff is what they put out in Western languages, for western consumption.

I just don't buy that people go from "born" to "hardliner" without intermediate steps.

I fail to see the point of focusing on the rhetoric which only appeals to those we've already lost to the point such rhetoric would appeal. Meaning, we can't combat the problem at that level. If someone has gotten to the point where they truely believe we have to convert or die, it's senseless to worry about their own personal mindset. We have to look to how they can bring others around to accepting that mindset and work to keep that from happening.

WRT to our For Policy, theres a counter argument - that folks are looking for the strong dog, and changing our FP to be less hated makes us look weak, and actually helps get AQ recruits. "Better to be feared than loved" Now im not a raving hawk, and im quite aware it cuts both ways - AQs propaganda WRT to US, is that we are mean to muslims AND that we are a paper tiger.

Bullying our way around in that part of the world (military, economics, espionage, politics) is what we're cleaning up after now. (Stupidly enough by bullying our way around that part of the world some more.)

So I dont suggest being tough for the sake of being tough, but Id be wary of doing stuff that makes us look weak in a conventional sense. Its one thing to try to resolve points of friction with the muslim world, its quite another, to, say, abandon support for a long time ally in the belief that our alliance is motivating our enemies.

If I ever suggest abandoning an ally because our enemies dislike the alliance, feel free to bring that up.

I would also note that the reciprocity stuff is endless and unlimited, and cynical. We are attacked for supporting non-democratic regimes in the muslim world, when an actual democratic regime in Egypt or KSA is NOT what AQ wants, and no potential AQ recruit who isnt blind and deaf thinks thats what AQ wants.

Their hypocrisy does not make our actions right.

AQ doesnt want Israel to stop expanding settlements - or to withdraw from existing ones - it wants Israel to disappear - and not for a binational secular Palestine, either. They dont want the US to withdraw and leave Iraq in the hands of its people - they want the Shiites and Kurds put back in their place.

And there are white supremicists in the US who want to kill or enslave all darkies. The key as always is to keep the hardliners from gaining support from the masses, and promote tolerance and understanding. (To do so, we have to first be tolerant ourselves.)

Im dont beleive all muslims are bad, or hateful by any means - but not all muslims are even in sympathy to AQ.

Not sure why you use "but" there.

Im not willing to buy that even the footsoldiers are so motivated by reasonable grievances.

There are people who we will have no ability to sway with our actions. Those are the people we seem to have chosen to deal with, design our policy around, while we ignore everyone else.

Just seems ridiculous to me.

Ive recently read The Kite Runner, by Khaled Husseini. I highly recommend it.

I started reading it before moving in April, lost the copy in the move.

[Agathon]

Tedious article.

Everyone knows that Al Qaeda's primary political program is to bring Sunni Islamists to power in the Arab world. Since that is a hopeless task, it's never going to happen, although they are doing OK on stage 1, which is discredit the US enough so that it won't be able to effectively prop up the regimes they really want to take down.

As for them being able to wage a world jihad. Give me a break.

[Berzerker]

Sole causes are rarely the cause of war, but there's usually one that breaks the camel's back. They hate infidels or the infidels have invaded - pick one. The world is full of infidels, did Al Qaeda and bin Laden kill the infidels living in Pakistan and Afghanistan before attacking us? Did they go around the Middle East targeting infidel communities within the Muslim world? Or did they target the invading infidels? Actions speak louder than words...

I do know this, if the USA hadn't spent the last 60 years over there with a heavy and hypocritical hand making sure we get oil, we would not have seen 9/11. If we had left Saudi Arabia after expelling Saddam from Kuwait, we would not have seen 9/11. To deny the chain of events and cause and effect is to place theory above reality. They didn't attack Brazil, so yeah, I'd say foreign policy was the catalyst, not being an infidel.

Oh, one more point, hatred of the US within the Muslim world is primarily based on... foreign policy... not a hatred of infidels. Without us in the picture the bin Laden types live in frustration of the fact most Muslims dont buy into their Bu****. But give them invading infidel armies and their recruitment goes way up and they gain support and safe havens within the Muslim world.

They attacked us because we are free is a lie designed to justify our continued presence in the Middle East and perpetual war...

[GePap]

The question that matters in winning the "war of ideas" is not, do our actions make the most difference in the actions orf a few clear fanatics. The question is, when these fanatics act, how are their actions received by a wider audience.

Why some AQ member blows himself up is important to know. But if you want to know how to win the war of ideas, more important is knowing why some petty bourgeouis shopowner in some city in the ME might approve of his actions, or at the least, equate them with some Western action as a form of rationalization.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Aeson

I just don't buy that people go from "born" to "hardliner" without intermediate steps.

They have to grow up first. You seem to imply they have to go from "neutral" to "concerned about US for policy" to "hardliner" The point of the article, whether you agree with its reading of the data or not, is that jihadis DONT follow that path. They reach hardliner by being taught a hardline ideology. Period. Not by moving through a series of steps of hatred, increasingly less justifiable.

We have to look to how they can bring others around to accepting that mindset and work to keep that from happening.

Why do people become fundamentalist Christians? Out of bad experiences with abortionists? No, they do so because they have a spiritual crisis in their lives that leads them to turn to religion, and in parts of the West christianity is what you turn to, and fundamentalism has more appeal, for a variety of reasons from the weak outreach of the liberal churches, to simplicity of message, and then, having become fundies, they are taught to oppose abortion.

AFAICT its not that different in the muslim world (And why would we expect it to be?) Folks dont decide to stop drinking whiskey, stop eating pork, wear a beard, decide that Sufism is heresy, etc because of a headline about the Israeli govt. They reach a spiritual crisis, cause of their personal life, or cause of the aches of modernization, and they turn to Islam. And the extremist forms are more appealing, for a variety of reasons.

You cant impact that by what you do wrt Israel, or Algeria, or Kashmir.

To the extent its folks resident in the west going bad, you can discourage or ban radical preachers, you can encourage moderates, or you can even discourage Islam, or all religion, as a solution to spiritual crises. To the extent its happening elsewhere, theres not many levers, other than perhaps encouraging economic and political development that in the LONG run will reduce the pain of modernization, and provide a wider range of options.

If I ever suggest abandoning an ally because our enemies dislike the alliance, feel free to bring that up.

I wasnt necessarily referring to you. Im not going to avoid the elephant in the room though. Lots of folks think if we only changed our policies on Israel this would go away. And it cant mean changing from Bushs policies, as AQ was targeting us under Clinton. So it means abandoning even Clintons pro-peace policies. Whether going to a policy less supportive of Israel than Clintons constitutes abandoning an ally, can of course be debated.

Their hypocrisy does not make our actions right.

But then we have to decide what actions are right. Is it better to pressure Egypt to democratize, at the cost of losing their support in advancing the Israeli-Pal peace process? Not an easy question. One we struggle with anyway. Surely the author of the article did not say "they Islamists want to kill us, so lets do BAD things in our foreign policy" He merely implied we should make our judgements independent of the reactions of the jihadis.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Aeson

Not sure why you use "but" there.

Not all muslims are hateful - but not all muslims are jihadis - therefore its possible that all jihadis ARE hateful, rather than having reasonable motivations.

Thats why the "but"

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Aeson

There are people who we will have no ability to sway with our actions. Those are the people we seem to have chosen to deal with, design our policy around, while we ignore everyone else.

I dont think thats true at all. We are dealing with muslims of all kinds, from the PA govt of Fayed-Abbas, to benazir Bhutto in Pakistan, to the govt of Jordan and Morrocco and Indonesia, to the Kurds and Shiites who support the govt of Iraq, and even in recent months to Sunni tribal elders in Iraq who previously fought us. We certainly DONT build our policy only around AQ.

Now its true there are Islamists, like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, or Hamas, who arent AQ, and whom many in our govt consider adversaries. There are arguements both ways. I certainly dont think that opposing the growth of the Muslim Brotherhood is ridiculus, though I think policy makers should continue to examine options.

I do think your charecterization of US policy is incorrect.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
They have to grow up first. You seem to imply they have to go from "neutral" to "concerned about US for policy" to "hardliner"

No. They may be impacted by US policy along the way. I don't think it requires an active concern for it.

Simply put, if we commit crimes against "their" people, or themselves personally, the rhetoric that we are evil is more persuasive. In doing so we've given some credence to the claim.

The point of the article, whether you agree with its reading of the data or not, is that jihadis DONT follow that path. They reach hardliner by being taught a hardline ideology. Period. Not by moving through a series of steps of hatred, increasingly less justifiable.

I'm not disputing that there are people like this. I grew up around areas where there were neo-nazi/militia compounds in N Idaho. The kids who grow up in those environments are going to grow up with that mindset, or at least a very strong tendancy towards it. While those just miles away with different upbringing find the ideology absurd.

But if for some ludicrous reason the US government was to start bombing towns in N Idaho to flush out these militia groups, patroling streets with armored vehicles and troops, then the anti-government stance becomes far more reasonable to everyone else.

It's the "reasonable" people who matter.

Why do people become fundamentalist Christians? Out of bad experiences with abortionists? No, they do so because they have a spiritual crisis in their lives that leads them to turn to religion, and in parts of the West christianity is what you turn to, and fundamentalism has more appeal, for a variety of reasons from the weak outreach of the liberal churches, to simplicity of message, and then, having become fundies, they are taught to oppose abortion.

This is a very poor analogy (at least the abortion part), but we'll go with it.

Since you drew the analogy of our policies in the ME to abortion, the proper context of the analogy would be to say what drives a fundamentalist Christian to bomb a clinic? And that would be the affront that abortion that occurs there presents to them.

The fundamentalist has a potential for violence, and an affront sets them off. This is why it's a bad analogy, it actually works against your position. (Even though I don't think that it properly depicts all fundamentalists' motivation.)

Our actions have consequences, and affect the affected people's view of us. No, it won't affect everyone exactly the same, but the sure thing is that it's more likely to lead to resentment or hatred if we wrong someone than if we don't.

(It bears noting; fundamentalist (Muslims, Christians, or otherwise) are not necessarily terrorists or condone terrorism.)

I wasnt necessarily referring to you. Im not going to avoid the elephant in the room though.

If you wish to address it, why quote me to do so?

But then we have to decide what actions are right. Is it better to pressure Egypt to democratize, at the cost of losing their support in advancing the Israeli-Pal peace process? Not an easy question. One we struggle with anyway. Surely the author of the article did not say "they Islamists want to kill us, so lets do BAD things in our foreign policy"

You'll note my first post where I make my only reservation with the article clear, and that assertion was not part of it. My responses to you are to you, not the article.

As for the right thing to do, it's a difficult road. We have generations of mistakes counting against us, we're occupying territory, arming various factions, ect. Things which are nowhere near "good" in my opinion. Before we can do the right things, we have to come to grips with the reality that our actions have played a role in creating the mess that exists.

We have decent relations with some nations in the area, so it is possible for Muslims to not just wish to wipe us off the face of the earth "simply because we're infidels".

I do think your charecterization of US policy is incorrect.

We obviously deal with other people.

I was refering to our recent major "investment" in the area, and more importantly, on how we've sold those actions to ourselves and the world.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Agathon

As for them being able to wage a world jihad. Give me a break.

A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

[Zevico]

When the September 11 attacks occurred, I was in Fresno, Calif.,

Could this be the War Nerd?!

[Sirotnikov]

Since you drew the analogy of our policies in the ME to abortion, the proper context of the analogy would be to say what drives a fundamentalist Christian to bomb a clinic? And that would be the affront that abortion that occurs there presents to them.

The fundamentalist has a potential for violence, and an affront sets them off. This is why it's a bad analogy, it actually works against your position. (Even though I don't think that it properly depicts all fundamentalists' motivation.)

This line seems to suggest that you support closing abortion clinics because it would reduce violence against them?

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Aeson

I'm not disputing that there are people like this. I grew up around areas where there were neo-nazi/militia compounds in N Idaho. The kids who grow up in those environments are going to grow up with that mindset, or at least a very strong tendancy towards it. While those just miles away with different upbringing find the ideology absurd.

But if for some ludicrous reason the US government was to start bombing towns in N Idaho to flush out these militia groups, patroling streets with armored vehicles and troops, then the anti-government stance becomes far more reasonable to everyone else.

Then that would mainly matter to people in Iraq. And to Sunni Arabs in Iraq, not to the Kurds and Shiites who have generally been the victims of AQ. If you want to focus specifically on the creation of support for AQ in Iraq you may, though youd be more persuasive if you were more specific and dealt with the details of whats currently going in Anbar and Diyala provinces.

I did not read the article as being mainly about Iraq.

Since you drew the analogy of our policies in the ME to abortion, the proper context of the analogy would be to say what drives a fundamentalist Christian to bomb a clinic? And that would be the affront that abortion that occurs there presents to them.

The fundamentalist has a potential for violence, and an affront sets them off. This is why it's a bad analogy, it actually works against your position. (Even though I don't think that it properly depicts all fundamentalists' motivation.)

But as the article asserts, the existence of Jews and Christians in non-dhimmi, status, or their existence at all. Its NOT the litany of political claims.

Our actions have consequences, and affect the affected people's view of us. No, it won't affect everyone exactly the same, but the sure thing is that it's more likely to lead to resentment or hatred if we wrong someone than if we don't.

Yes, if we withdraw precipatately from Iraq, the Kurds will hate us. But no one cares, cause the Kurds wont attack us.

My responses to you are to you, not the article.

One of my reasons for preempting. Folks go round and round on what we've already discussed ad nauseum. The ONLY reason for a new thread is cause Siro found a new article, with (allegedly) new data. If we're not going to focus on that, Im not going to play.

As for the right thing to do, it's a difficult road. We have generations of mistakes counting against us, we're occupying territory

By the definitions of international law the US occupies no territory in the muslim world.

arming various factions, ect.

In Iraq and Afghanistan we are arming two states, each internationally recognized as the legitimate govt. In Iraq we have recently started to arm tribal groups that are willing to fight against Al Qaeeda. Is it your intent to discuss the morality of that program?

Things which are nowhere near "good" in my opinion. Before we can do the right things, we have to come to grips with the reality that our actions have played a role in creating the mess that exists.

Before we do that, we have to be specific about what actions we are talking about.

We have decent relations with some nations in the area, so it is possible for Muslims to not just wish to wipe us off the face of the earth "simply because we're infidels".

And most dont. Many in fact, are fighting beside us against Al Qaeeda. Unless you want to dismiss anyone who fights along our side as simply a member of an armed faction.

I was refering to our recent major "investment"

I was referring to our overall interaction with the muslim world, and on a history that goes back well before 2001.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
This line seems to suggest that you support closing abortion clinics because it would reduce violence against them?

Nope.

It's LOTM's analogy, to illustrate the "jump" from believer to terrorist (or militant). Obviously there are differences in other regards where the analogy will break down.