The al-Masri Dialogue
For that, we have to dig deeper into the politico-religious motivations of violent Islamists and listen closely to what our enemies are saying – particularly when they are making an effort to speak to us directly, as al-Masri is doing, his determination to score propaganda points in his little elicitation dance with Farrall notwithstanding. Americans are not very good at listening and our elites are deeply uncomfortable with the entire subject of religion, tending to view pious expressions of Christianity with contempt and Islam as a completely taboo subject. There is a strong preference in government and academia for analytical models of terrorism or insurgency that dwell on DIME spectrum variables because these fit in the personal comfort zones and the educational, social and professional experiences of the American elite. This would be a perfect approach if al Qaida’s leadership were composed of Ivy League alumni and Fortune 500 CEOs.
Economics and military force are always factors in geopolitical conflict, the war of terror included, but until Islamist extremists oblige us by becoming secular Marxist revolutionaries waving little red books, it would behoove us to look with greater scrutiny at the curiously reified religious ideology with which they justify or eschew courses of action to themselves. Our own strategies might be more focused and effective if the operators across our intelligence, military, diplomatic and law enforcement agencies had something approaching a shared understanding of violent Islamism and if they could communicate this understanding along with the benefit of their experience and current intelligence to help political leaders shape American policy.
Page 2 of 2 | Previous page
Fred Leland:
February 9th, 2010 at 4:34 pm
“The strategic game” as John Boyd called it, is one of isolation and interaction. Interaction permits vitality and growth (strength and the ability to adapt) while isolation leads to decay and disintegration (weakness, lack of awareness and unpreparedness).
Boyd went on to say “strategy is “a game in which we must be able to diminish an adversary’s ability to communicate or interact with his environment while sustaining or improving ours”.
Does shutting down dialog shut down interection, which in simple terms shuts down our ability to learn more about the climate (intent and motives) of our adversary? Could this not win an adversary over? My gut and experience says yes it does. So why not learn even from our adversary?
Just a thought!
zen:
February 9th, 2010 at 5:03 pm
Agreed Fred.
.
Liberal democracy has little to fear in any moral debate with radical Islamists, even with an atypically worldly and pragmatic figure like al-Masri who avoids the kind of nonsense spewed by AQ. Islamism on its own terms holds little popular appeal, even among Muslims, but for most Westerners, Islamist beliefs are a complete enigma and adherents are usually written off as being "crazy" when that’s not the case. Fanatical, yes but running an insurgency requires rational planning and forethought. We need to understand their thought processes better and engagement helps us learn something, as you suggested.
onparkstreet:
February 9th, 2010 at 11:28 pm
Our elites seem uncomfortable with reality AS IT IS.
.
I seem to like the phrase "reality as it is" because I used it over at Inkspots, too. I dunno. Frustrated with the governing class, I suppose, like a lot of people these days. Seriously, have you ever seen people in such a foul mood?
.
– Madhu
zen:
February 10th, 2010 at 12:35 am
In my lifetime?
.
1. 1973-75
.
2. 1980
.
3. 1994