| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Pay attention to jihad |
| 2007-06-01 |
| "If I were a Muslim, I'd probably be a jihadist. The thing that drives these guys -- a sense of adventure, wanting to be part of the moment, wanting to be in the big movement of history that's happening now -- that's the same thing that drives me, you know?" No. I don't know. And I sorely wish I could tell him so -- "him" being David Kilcullen, senior counterinsurgency adviser to Gen. David Petraeus, senior commander in Iraq. With this bizarro depiction of jihadists-as-swashbucklers, Lt. Col. David Kilcullen, an Australian Army officer "on loan" to the U.S. government, should probably have been sent back with: "And I suppose if you had been a German during a certain world war, you would have been a Nazi, eh? Who more than those Third Reich 'guys' wanted to be in 'the big movement of history'? Grr. Thanks, mate, but no thanks. Go play Abu Robin al-Hood down under." Of course, Col. Kilcullen made his outrageous comment almost six months ago to the New Yorker's George Packer and is still on the job. But when a key counterinsurgency advisor in Iraq identifies with jihadists, it's not just a matter of surrealism -- hallucinations -- at the top. As they say at NASA when things are about to fall out of the sky: Houston, we've got a problem. Why? Such remarks convey either non-comprehension or indifference to the evil nature of jihad. Or both. Such neutrality, if that's the word for it, also marks Col. Kilcullen's discussion of his big, formative idea: lessons drawn from what he refers to as "an Islamic insurgency in West Java and a Christian-separatist insurgency in East Timor." In the latter case, the language is jarring for what Serge Trifkovic has described this way: "In the motivation, patterns, and perceptions of the actors on the ground -- killers and victims alike -- East Timor was an Islamic jihad against Christian infidels" that left as many as 200,000 East Timorese dead. In Col. Kilcullen's Islam-blind view of the world, such events become plain-vanilla conflicts without moral distinction, differentiated only by the advent of global media coverage -- a large obstacle, he maintains, to winning counterinsurgencies. Indeed, he compares Indonesia's role in East Timor (where Indonesia ultimately failed, he says, due to global media) with the U.S. role in Iraq. This is a weirdly shocking way to see the American struggle against varyingly jihadist factions -- particularly for someone advising the U.S. military. It's hard to say what's worse: ignorance of jihad, for which there's no excuse at this advanced stage of war, or indifference to it, for which there's never an excuse. Both attitudes deeply imbue U.S. war policy. As Col. Kilcullen would (and has) put it, "the Islamic bit is secondary." Far more important to this Australian anthropologist are what he calls "social networks." Mr. Packer writes: "He noted that all fifteen Saudi [September 11] hijackers had trouble with their fathers." Oh, brother -- as if half the people in the world don't have trouble with their fathers (but don't hijack airplanes for Allah). The New Yorker story continues: Although "radical ideas" lead young men to become jihadists, "the reasons they convert, Kilcullen said, are more mundane and familiar: family, friends, associates." Sounds like our problem is a cell phone calling plan, not jihadist Islam. Little wonder Col. Kilcullen is also down on the phrase "war on terror." That's because, as Mr. Packer writes, the concept (elliptical as it is) "suggests an undifferentiated enemy" engaged in global jihad. Col. Kilcullen strives to "disaggregate" insurgencies by disconnecting the Islamic dots linking various terror-states and terrorists. He prefers to see jihadist movements in terms of so many local grievances. It's as if he has taken the defunct Bush doctrine "You're with us or you're against us" and changed it to: "You're really not with anyone, and certainly not anyone Islamic." To what end? Difficult to say, particularly when, according to the New Yorker, his example of "disaggregation" is the Indonesian province of Aceh. Here, he maintains, Western tsunami aid and resentment of outsiders prevented Aceh from "becoming," as the article put it, "part of the global jihad" a funny sort of victory to claim in a place where, increasingly, Shariah rules. Of course, maybe the man "disaggregates" Shariah, too, reducing it to so many differentiated social networks. Just the thing, as Col. Kilcullen might say, for family, friends and associates with that jihadist sense of adventure. |
| Posted by:ryuge |
| #5 In the latter case, the language is jarring for what Serge Trifkovic has described this way: "In the motivation, patterns, and perceptions of the actors on the ground -- killers and victims alike -- East Timor was an Islamic jihad against Christian infidels" that left as many as 200,000 East Timorese dead. Remember that name. I'll be posting an article by Trifkovic this weekend. The man truly gets it when it comes to successful strategies against Islamic jihad. Although "radical ideas" lead young men to become jihadists, "the reasons they convert, Kilcullen said, are more mundane and familiar: family, friends, associates." Like a stopped clock, here Kilcullen is quite right. High context cultures are very dependent upon familial ties and their influence in society. Terrorism does run in families, which is what makes it so difficult to ferret out. I will not be surprised if cult-induced homicidal psychosis proves to be a congenital predisposition. Sounds like our problem is a cell phone calling plan, not jihadist Islam. It is, for all the reasons mentioned above and more. Put together, this is one more reason why collective punishment of Muslims will be required in order to have any effect upon global jihad. Little wonder Col. Kilcullen is also down on the phrase "war on terror." That's because, as Mr. Packer writes, the concept (elliptical as it is) "suggests an undifferentiated enemy" engaged in global jihad. A sterling example of how politically correct thinking is strangling the Global War on Terrorism. Islam, not Islamism, not radical Islam, not jihadist Islam, not Salafism, not Wahabbism, not Deobandism, not fundamentalist Islam, but ISLAM is the problem. It is undifferentiated by the central role of Koranic doctrine which is universal to all Muslims and the root of all terrorism. The fanatics are merely a high profile example of the overall malaise. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-06-01 19:02 |
| #4 "islam" is essentially a rape cult. Young men raised in the cult are forbidden to have sex excepting some random-looking young lady wearing a garbage bag chosen by relatives even the dimmest bulb must recognize do not have his interests at heart. So what to do? Well, you may consider a career in jihad, a Gorean (John Norman Gor not al-Gor) exercise in which captive slave-b*tches may be used for sex, literally bought and sold and this is not only above board but emulating the life of the cult's prophet. Age is no barrier either so go ahead and kidnap, rape and kill children as you like (Beslan being the first example which comes to mind perhaps because it was white Russian children being raped as opposed to the literally countless black girls and boys raped and enslaved in Darfur or elsewhere). Best of all, if things go south and you die in the process of this little adventure you go direct to Paradise and rape virgins for the rest of eternity. I am not saying jihadis are bright - after all they really believe this evil nonsense - but one cannot say that lack an incentive. |
| Posted by: Excalibur 2007-06-01 17:58 |
| #3 Don't forget that all those jihadis are being paid pretty well (including per diems for expenses and life insurance going to the wives and kiddies -- at least for those working for Al Qaesa), when most of them would be languishing in more or less educated unemployment otherwise. For all those not wearing bomb vests, this is a career choice as much as anything; and for the rest, this is a way to send a little something home while being fed and housed from someone else's budget. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2007-06-01 10:53 |
| #2 What else is there for third world muslim men to do (30-40% unemployment, abject poverty, martyrdom on the horizon, spreading Allan's will, memorizing the Koran 24/7)? What would you choose? Don't you have to have your counter-insurgency people get down in the muck to figure out what makes the jihadis tick, besides the time bomb? "Such remarks convey either non-comprehension or indifference to the evil nature of jihad." Here's the problem, IMO. Jihadi's aren't going to see the light. Our morals/set of beliefs are so different from the follower's of Allan that breaking it down into a good vs. evil choice is unproductive for a counter-insurgency fighter in figuring out how to break them. Further, that's not what Col. Kilcullen's job is. If you don't or can't understand his responses, have him further explain his findings/reasonings. However, it'll take longer than a 30 min/1 hour interview. |
| Posted by: danking_70 2007-06-01 10:20 |
| #1 Is Kilcullen correct? Is the "wanting to be a part of the movement" as big a factor in joining the jihadists as religious conviction? If so, that changes what sort of propaganda campaign we need to wage--focus on the "jihadist on Muslim" violence to make it look less like an adventure against the great satan and more like gangsterism, for example. Knowing your enemy is very useful. And if I were talking about "disaggregation" I would _not_ talk about ongoing campaigns, but about something relatively innocuous and irreversible. The quotes given don't convince me that Kilcullen is "neutral." On the contrary, if he is on our side (and since Petraeus trusts him I suspect he is), then he may be an extremely useful ally. |
| Posted by: James 2007-06-01 09:46 |