When the global strategic balance shifts more in our favor because we are pressing the Islamists hard elsewhere, it will suck “oxygen” away from the insurgency in Iraq. The resources of the global jihadi network are focused on Iraq both in terms of money to indigenous groups and foreign volunteers – a level of support they cannot sustain in ten countries at once if we help all other nations battling Islamist insurgencies press a simultaneous offensive. By that I mean a full-spectrum push with intelligence, police, diplomacy, political message, financial crackdown and a military response where insurgencies are already active. An effort that so far has been desultory, spotty and piecemeal.
The United States needs to fight this war in a way that maximizes the advantages of being a sovereign state rather than in a way that minimizes them.
Page 2 of 2 | Previous page
Dan tdaxp:
December 10th, 2005 at 6:22 pm
(sorry for the junk comment )
When the global strategic balance shifts more in our favor because we are pressing the Islamists hard elsewhere, it will suck “oxygen” away from the insurgency in Iraq. The resources of the global jihadi network are focused on Iraq both in terms of money to indigenous groups and foreign volunteers – a level of support they cannot sustain in ten countries at once if we help all other nations battling Islamist insurgencies press a simultaneous offensive. By that I mean a full-spectrum push with intelligence, police, diplomacy, political message, financial crackdown and a military response where insurgencies are already active. An effort that so far has been desultory, spotty and piecemeal.
What about Islamists in states without insurgency, such as Egypt and Syria? Egypt is running interference against Islamic networks, but in a way that seems counter-productive to minimizing the jihadist influence.
Would an outcome that involves several new Islamist governments coming to power peacefully, but non violently, be acceptable?
Dan tdaxp
Larry Dunbar:
December 10th, 2005 at 10:06 pm
“if we help all other nations battling Islamist insurgencies press a simultaneous offensive.”
Are not most states that are battling Islamist insurgencies totalitarian? We are bringing democracy to the Middle East by using our totalitarian allies? Not sure how that squares with reality. If I understand thing correctly we are not paying for this war, because of tax cuts and increased borrowing, but the Asian countries are. While Japan has an Emperor, I guess they are Democratic in nature so we do have some democratic allies helping to pay our debt.
Zarqawi’s network bill maybe huge in Iraq, but the money is flowing towards him and away from us. While he might spend 100 million a month for network service, isn’t that equivalent to a day in Iraq for us? How are we depleting the Islamist resources, unless you mean the human ones? The money we are sending to the oil producing nations has to be greater than the 9 billion our oil companies earn in a quarter. That doesn’t sound like a depletion of resources to me.
larry
phil:
December 10th, 2005 at 11:05 pm
“By that I mean a full-spectrum push with intelligence, police, diplomacy, political message, financial crackdown and a military response where insurgencies are already active.”
This is right. We needed a place where we could fight a decisive campaign against the jihadists, which is what we are doing in Iraq and we are succeeding. The “full-spectrum push” is the kind of thing that builds on the momentum of a successful campaign. The jihadists are being decimated in Iraq and as we saw in Amman they are making some very bad tactical errors. This puts us in good position if we can recognize it and take advantage of it. This is where the media’s misreporting of the war and the Bush Admin’s mindboggling unwillingness to effectively fight the PR war makes it difficult to have an honest discussion of the larger strategic picture.
Dan’s question about Islamic governments coming to power peacefully is important. Our efforts to encourage democratization in the Middle East have been making some progress. We can expect that Islamist groups will run candidates and win seats. Are we going to be OK with that? I think the answer would be a qualified yes. The goal is to get the Islamists to stop targeting us. If a defeat in Iraq and losing support among the “Arab Street” means they shift from violence to non-violence then that is a victory for us. Maybe not a perfect victory, but then this kind of a war will not have a perfect victory.
mark:
December 12th, 2005 at 5:03 am
Hi everyone,
Please excuse the delay in responding.
Re: Democratic Islamism raised by Dan and Phil
I think we have to accept a democratic evolution to peaceable competition in politics by the Islamists as a ” win”. Arab societies are going to reflect Islamic values in some fashion and an Islamist Party that adheres to a democratic rule-set is far superior to one that is violent and totalitarian.
Re: Larry’s point on other States facing Islamist terrorism having negative characteristics of their own.
Many of the states fighting Islamist movements are undemocratic – notably Algeria, Kazakhstan and Libya. Others like India and the Philipines are democracies or are in-between states like Thailand and Russia. As they are all going to be fighting Islamists regardless of what we do, it would make sense to coordinate our efforts to burn Islamist money and manpower faster than it can be replenished.
Your point aboput oil money is well taken. The KSA remains schizophrenic on Islamist terror and funding.