Ideology is al Qaeda's Achilles' heel: study (Reuters)

[Up2Late]

(Do you believe this RAND Corp. B*llSh*t? God, I hope our stupid "leaders" aren't stupid enough to buy into this crap!)

Ideology is al Qaeda's Achilles' heel: study

Thu Nov 16, 2006 7:40pm ET137

By David Morgan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States could discredit al Qaeda in the Muslim world by challenging its violent Islamist ideology and muzzling its leading proponents, an independent report released on Thursday said.

The 364-page study, published by the RAND Corp. think tank, described al Qaeda's Islamist ideology of violent resistance as a "global revolutionary creed" akin to the Marxism-Leninism philosophy that the West defeated with "a robust political warfare" campaign during the Cold War.

"If the ideology is countered and discredited, al Qaeda and its universe will wither and die," concluded the two-part study, entitled "Beyond al Qaeda" and funded by the Air Force. "It follows that a comprehensive U.S. strategy needs to move beyond the boundaries of conventional counterterrorism theory and practice, and address these ideological and political factors," it said.

The study's authors recommended the Bush administration expand "decapitation strategies" to include ideologues, holding up as examples decisions by British and Indonesian authorities to either jail or deport hard-line Muslim clerics....

(more at link) <http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-11-17T004016Z_01_N16176640_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-USA-ISLAMISTS.xml>

[Eric J in MN]

1. Bush should preach non-violence.

The Muslims of the world would be impressed by his sincerity.

Or else they wouldn't be impressed. One or the other.

[Up2Late]

2. Here's a link to the RAND Corp. Press Release and links to this Unbelievably Stupid report!

(And since it looks like only the non-U.S. Press is going to report this dangerously stupid report, here's the full press release)

<http://www.rand.org/news/press.06/11.16.html>

News Release

OFFICE OF EXTERNAL
COMMUNICATIONS
703-413-1100 x5117
and 310-451-6913
[e-mail]

FOR RELEASE
Thursday
November 16, 2006

RAND STUDY SAYS U.S. SHOULD GREATLY EXPAND EFFORTS
TO UNDERMINE SUPPORT FOR TERRORISM

To defeat the global jihadist movement, the United States should move beyond the boundaries of conventional counter-terrorism and seek to undermine support for Islamic terrorism within Muslim nations, according to a RAND Corporation study issued today.

The report says this type of campaign enabled the United States to help nurture opposition to Communism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, culminating in the overthrow of ruling regimes and the collapse of the Soviet system.

The study by RAND, a nonprofit research organization, says a successful campaign against Islamic terrorism requires: attacking the ideological underpinnings of global jihadism; severing ideological and other links between terrorist groups; and strengthening the capabilities of front-line states to counter local jihadist threats.

The report says that if the jihadist ideology “continues to spread and gain greater acceptance in the Muslim world, it will produce more terrorists to replenish the ranks of al-Qaeda and related groups. If the ideology is countered and discredited, al-Qaeda and its universe will wither and die.”

Conventional counter-terrorism alone is not enough to defeat al-Qaeda and other Islamic terrorist groups, according to the two-volume report titled “Beyond al-Qaeda.” The first volume is subtitled “The Global Jihadist Movement” and the second volume is subtitled “The Outer Rings of the Terrorist Universe.”

“Success in the war on terror requires understanding that it is a political and ideological struggle,” said Angel Rabasa, a RAND senior policy analyst and the lead author of the study. “What inspires and sustains the global jihadist movement is an ideology that is radical and Islamist at its core, but also borrows from 20th century Western totalitarian traditions.”

“The war on terror at its most fundamental level goes to the war of ideas,” Rabasa added. “The goal here is to deny extremists the high ground of Islamic politico-religious discourse, which has been adroitly exploited by al-Qaeda to further the appeal of its own radical rhetoric.”

The report looks at four main sources of terrorist threats:

* Al-Qaeda, including the group's strategy, ideology, operations, tactics, finances, changing character and possible future.
* Terrorist groups that have adopted al-Qaeda's worldview and concept of mass-casualty terrorist attacks, even if the groups are not formally part of al-Qaeda.
* Violent Islamist and non-Islamist terrorist and insurgent groups without known links to al-Qaeda that threaten United States interests, friends and allies. These include Hezbollah and Hamas, along with insurgencies in Iraq, the Philippines and other countries.
* The nexus between terrorism and organized crime, including the way terrorists and insurgents use criminal organizations and connections to finance their activities. Such actions also tend to weaken and corrupt political and social institutions.

The RAND study acknowledges that an ideology is inherently difficult to attack by outsiders, but points out that there are weaknesses in ideologies that are susceptible to exploitation.

Al-Qaeda's goals are to mobilize Muslims for a global jihad against the West; topple “apostate” regimes, particularly in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan; and create an Islamic government spanning the Muslim world based on an ultra-orthodox interpretation of Sunni Islam that would isolate the majority of Sunni Muslims as well as Shi'ite Muslims.

But not all terrorist or insurgent groups share al-Qaeda's worldview, according to the study. For this reason, the report calls on the United States to try to sever the links between the local and global jihadist groups, in part by emphasizing the differences between the groups.

Jihadists threaten not only the West, but other Muslims, the report says.

“It is important for Muslim allies to highlight that the Islamic state envisioned by al-Qaeda would exclude the diverse streams of Islam,” the study says. “In the world of (Osama) bin Laden and (bin Laden's second-in-command Ayman) al-Zawahiri, there is no room for Shi'ites and within Sunni Islam there is no place for mainstream interpretation of the religion.”

In addition, the United States should seek to deny sanctuaries to terrorist groups and strengthen the capabilities of foreign governments to deal with terrorist threats, but in an advisory capacity by providing data collection and analytical capabilities, the report says.

Although much of the research for the study was completed in 2004, the authors have updated the information to include recent developments in Iraq, the Palestinian territories, Chechnya, Somalia and Southeast Asia.

The research was sponsored by the deputy chief of staff for the Air and Space Operations, U.S. Air Force. The study was conducted in the Strategy and Doctrine Program of RAND Project AIR FORCE, a federally funded research program that analyzes issues of enduring concern to the U.S. Air Force.

Printed copies of “Beyond al-Qaeda: Part 1, The Global Jihadist Movement,” and “Part 2, The Outer Rings of the Terrorist Universe,” (ISBN: 0-8330-3930-X -- 978-0-8330-3930-9 and 0-8330-3932-6 -- 978-0-8330-3932-3) can be ordered from RAND Distribution Services ([e-mail]) or call toll-free in the United States 1-877-584-8642.

>Read the Full Document — Part 1

>Read the Full Document — Part 2

>Read the Research Brief

>Terrorism and Homeland Security Research Area

>E-mail sign up

About the RAND Corporation

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit research organization providing objective analysis and effective solutions that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors around the world.

<http://www.rand.org/news/press.06/11.16.html>

[wtmusic]

3. Five words: "funded by the Air Force"

tell you all you need to know.

[Up2Late]

4. yep, probably co-sponsored by Lockhead-Martin...

...why think when you can fly lots of Air strikes instead? :crazy:

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. Now you've confused me

Isn't this report saying we should think instead of flying air strikes?

[Nihil]

7. Yes but when this is the level of their "thinking" ...

... it's not surprising they keep going back to air-strikes ...

[wtmusic]

8. "Expanding decapitation strategies" takes lots of money

for intel, recon, etc...and recon is done best with Lockheed-Martin Products!

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002598.html

[Up2Late]

10. No, what this report is saying is that RAND and our current "leaders" have learned nothing...

...over the last 5 years. The thinking is very 20th Century, Cold-War, out of date, "group think."

Everything I've read, so far, from this report looks wrong. Wrong language, wrong direction, wrong strategy.

Let me give you the best and most disturbing example of what I'm seeing here, this is the FIRST line of the RAND Press Release:

"To defeat the global jihadist movement, the United States should move beyond the boundaries of conventional counter-terrorism and seek to undermine support for Islamic terrorism within Muslim nations, according to a RAND Corporation study issued today...."

Now, I'm sure most of the American media has not covered this, or even mentioned it but, the phase "...global jihadist movement..." is a enormous insult to all Muslims! So bad, that if I posted the equivalent phrase against Jewish people, it would most likely get me banned here.

Since I know a lot of people here have turned off NPR, I'm sure most here missed this great explanation of why this is wrong and how the Bush Cabal's complete lack of cultural knowledge, sensitivity, and usage of wrong language (wrong words, not English v. Arabic) are fueling Muslim anger and distrust around the world.

Here's the link to the "Part 1" audio, which is what I'm talking about here, but this is from a Five (5) part series, but this point from part one, I feel, was the most important point they made:

<http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6392989>

The War on the Word 'Jihad'

Listen to this story...(at link above)

by Guy Raz

"...Last year, Islamic history expert Douglas Streusand submitted a paper to the Pentagon which argued that the military should stop using the words "jihadis" or "jihadists" when talking about Islamic militants.

"The term 'jihad' usually means Jihad Fis abu Allah -- "striving in the path of God," says Streusand." Simply by its very definition, striving in the path of God is a good thing to do. If we are calling them 'people who strive in the path of God,' in other words -- if we are calling them meritorious Muslims -- then we are implying that we are fighting Islam, even if we're not."

To draw a comparison, Streusand says, it would be like calling Germans (Nazis) during the Second World War 'National Socialist Aryan Heroes.'

"The question is not whether or not jihad is a good thing, because for a Muslim, jihad is a good thing," he says.... "...If you say we fight jihadists, then you've just offended a billion and a half Muslims," says Streusand.

<http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6392989>

They do go on to say what would be a better phrase to use instead of "jihadists."

Here's the links to the other parts too, but if you only have a little time, be sure to listen to part 1:

<http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6430389>

ABOUT THIS SERIES

Every political generation spawns a new set of terms -- ideas, words, rhetoric to help explain, simplify, advance or destroy a cause. This is the fifth report in a five-part series exploring the political language of our times.

Series Overview: Read an essay on the impetus behind these stories.

Read Part 1: "The War on the Word 'Jihad'"

Read Part 2: "Why 'Islamofascism' May Create New U.S. Enemies"

Read Part 3: "Defining the War on Terror"

Read Part 4: "World Sees 'Imperialism' in American Reach, Strength"

NOTE: This series isn't perfect, I thought Part 2 on "Islamofascism" left out a few major points, and I intensely dislike Richard Perle, who is featured in Part 3, though he does make a few good points here.

[denverbill]

13. Wow. That's a very good point about the word Jihad.

I knew Jihad meant something like 'struggle for God' and that when most Muslims reference it, it means something akin to their own personal struggle to attain salvation, more than it references an actual fight against other people or infidels. I'd never considered the implications of using it to refer to terrorists though.

I wish someone like Randi Rhodes would get this guy on to talk about it, and that someone in the mainstream press would question the administration about the wisdom of glamorizing terrorists.

Good post!

[Up2Late]

14. I just found a link to the paper that was referred to in the NPR story...

...and another report about it guess where? The DoD Website!

The American Forces Press Service article points out a few more words that are being mis-used too:

<http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun2006/20060622_5489.html>

Here's the paper (in pdf):
<http://www.ndu.edu/csc/docs/Choosing%20Words%20Carefully--Language%20to%20Help%20Fight%20Islamic%20Terrorism%2024%20May%2006.pdf>

Loosely Interpreted Arabic Terms Can Promote Enemy Ideology

By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service

BAGHDAD, June 22, 2006 – The pen is mightier than the sword, and sometimes in the war of words we unwittingly give the advantage to the enemy....

...Another word constantly misused in the West is mujahdeen. Again, in American dictionaries this word refers to a holy warrior - again a good thing. So calling an al Qaeda terrorist a mujahid legitimizes him.

The correct term for these killers is "mufsidun," Streusand and Tunnell say. This refers to an evil or corrupt person. "There is no moral ambiguity and the specific denotation of corruption carries enormous weight in most of the Islamic world," they wrote....

...The men also want officials to stop using the term "caliphate" as the goal of al Qaeda and associated groups. The Caliphate came to refer to the successors of the Prophet Mohammed as the political leaders of the Muslim community. "Sunni Muslims traditionally regard the era of the first four caliphs (A.D. 632-661) as an era of just rule," the men wrote. "Accepting our enemies' description of their goal as the restoration of a historical caliphate again validates an aspect of their ideology...."

(more at link) <http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun2006/20060622_5489.html>

[TheBaldyMan]

5. so RAND Corp didn't mention anything about how Arabs are oppressed in the equation?

It's all the fault of Al-Qaida's ideology. The fact that the West (with the full support of the neo-cons) has been backing dictators and denying democracy to huge swathes of the Middle-East for decades has nothing to do with it. The same folk probably think that the Vietnam war was 'winnable' right up until Saigon was overrun.

They are idiots, they can't come up with anything better than that. No wonder the fundie ideologues in Al Qaida are running rings round them. They assume that as soon the rest of the world is spoon fed the same propaganda as they swallow credulously that everything with be peachy.

The Arab and wider muslim world has noted repeated subversions of democratically elected regimes by the west and their factors in the Middle East. It is happening today. They aren't dumb, they can see right through this bullshit. The RAND Corp will need to do a lot better than this if they want to nullify extremist groups.

[Up2Late]

11. Yes, and funny you mention Vietnam...

...did you hear all the Stupid things our current "president" said today as he arrived, for his first time, in Vietnam!

<http://www.afp.com/english/news/stories/061117184207.12wfy8j3.html>

This is not an exact quote, but after he said, ..."We'll succeed unless we quit," he told reporters after talks with close ally Australian Prime Minister John Howard.

"We're not leaving until this job is done, until Iraq can govern, sustain and defend itself."

...Asked whether the US defeat in Vietnam a generation ago offered lessons for Iraq, he responded: "We tend to want there to be instant success in the world, and the task in Iraq is going to take a while."

Then he said something like, "...I think the lesson of Vietnam is not to quit!" <http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6501441>

OMG! He such an embarrassment!:banghead:

Most news services have now edited out those comments.

[denverbill]

9. Frankly, I agree with the study.

You can't beat an ideology with force.

Remember how the Republickers always derisively whined about how the left responded to 9-11 by asking "why do they hate us?", while their solution was to indiscriminately invade and kill and try to make all Muslims fear us.

At least this analysis is a change from 'bomb them until they stop hating us' philosophy.

A propaganda war isn't very likely to succeed either, but at least it's preferable to a shooting war in that it isn't as likely to create more terrorists.

Ultimately, it's the root causes that have to be addressed. I'd guess that they would eventually happen onto that as part of investigating how best to conduct their propaganda war.

[Up2Late]

12. All that might be true, if they had a clue what they were talking about...

...but these idiots don't even have the language right! I posted what I'm talking about above in #10., so I won't repeat it here.

[Up2Late]

15. Oh Boy! I don't like the sound of this! Part 2 Chapter 6! Antiglobalization Movements

And the second half of Part 2 Chapter 7 looks bad too! I hope someone who knows more about International Law will check out this report, especially Part 2!

CHAPTER SIX

Antiglobalization Movements

During the past ten years, political movements based on ideologies
opposed to the spread of global capitalism, the destruction of the natural
environment, and the growth of such transnational bodies as the
European Union (EU) have taken root in Western Europe and North
America, where the presence of international media has given these
oppositionists a vast forum. At its core, this nascent ideological movement
opposes corporate power and the assumed socioeconomic dislocations
that may follow in the wake of the spread of globalized capitalism
across the world.

It is in this context that several commentators have described the
antiglobalization movement as a de facto “New, New Left,” drawing
comparisons to the international radical upheaval that swept France
and other countries in 1968. Although antiglobalization radicals have
been associated with marches and demonstrations, the real importance
of the movement in terms of terrorism and national and international
security considerations lies in its effect on organizations that have
shown, in varying degrees, an explicit penchant for violence....

<http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2006/RAND_MG430.pdf>

CHAPTER SIX
Antiglobalization Movements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Anarchism, the “New, New Left,” and the Extreme Right in Western
Europe and North America. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Anarchists. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
The “New, New Left” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
The Extreme Right. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
An Extreme Right–Islamist Alliance? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Neo-Marxist and Radical Populist Movements in Latin America . . . . . . . . . 94
Radical Indigenous Peoples’ Movements in the Andean Region. . . . . . . . . 97

<http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2006/RAND_MG430.pdf>

[Up2Late]

16. kick n/t

:kick:

[w4rma]

17. We should definitely discredit violence as part of an ideology. (nt)

[Up2Late]

18. I agree, but it should be done carefully, with the correct language. Not like this.

I've posted above what I'm talking about above, but I will say here that the way this is written will make the problem worse.