zenpundit.com » Blog Archive » Guest Post: RAND Islam and CIA Islam too…

Guest Post: RAND Islam and CIA Islam too…

Charles Cameron has been guest blogging here in a series on radical Islamism and terrorism. A former researcher with the Center for Millennial Studies at Boston University, his most recent essay, an analysis of the powerpoint presentation of Ft. Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan, appeared in the Small Wars Journal.

This post is a follow up to the previous Guest Post: On al-Awlaki: Constants on the Path of Jihad:

RAND Islam, and CIA Islam too…

by Charles Cameron

i

I came across a phrase today that al-Awlaki originated, and it intrigued me. The phrase was “RAND Islam” and it has a sibling, “RAND Muslims”. My source for the first term is an interview al-Awlaki gave to a California Muslim news journal, InFocus, from which I’ve extracted the following:

IF: One of your most recent lectures is titled “Battle of the Hearts & Minds,” in which you talk about lies and propaganda. Would you briefly summarize the point of this lecture for our readers?IA: There has been a plethora of reports from governmental and non-governmental sources on how to defeat what they perceive as the Islamic danger. For example RAND Corporation, which is a think tank affiliated to the Pentagon, has issued a couple of reports on this. They have openly stated that they are unhappy with the way Islam is and want to change it. They then proceed to delineate the characteristics of their version of Islam and how to promote it. They also describe the type of Muslims that they think might be willing to prescribe to this “Rand Islam.” Because they understand that the masses in the Muslim world have lost trust in the US, they state that the US hand in this effort should be hidden and that their Muslim stooges should be in the forefront.

IF: What tips would you give to Muslims living in the U.S. to win this battle of the hearts and minds?

IA: Muslims need to be able to tell the difference between the real Islam and the RAND Islam and they need to know who their enemy is. Living in the West, they also have a responsibility of refuting such attempts of changing the religion of Allah.

The second can be found in the lecture series titled “Battle of the Hearts and Minds” about which al-Awlaki was questioned in the IA
interview excerpted above, eg on p. 19:

We talked about some of the recommendations that were in the Rand report and how to deal with this issue of separating between the modernists or the Rand Muslims, and the extremists or the real Muslims, true Muslims.

and p. 25:

So it is our duty just as they are intending to change our religion and promote falsehood and to turn us to Rand Muslims, we need
to promote Al Haq.

And the phrase “RAND Islam” has a cousin,”CIA Islam” — which was applied, curiously enough, to al-Awlaki himself by a one-time rival,
Al-Faisal, as Brian Fishman noted in a post on Jihadica yesterday.

Al-Faisal’s lecture on al-Awlaki is listed as “CIA Islam – Sheikh Faisal’s Takfeer of Anwar Awlaki” on www.archive.org. On the recording, Faisal explains that his lecture is about a preacher named “Anwar” from the Masjid al-Rabat in San Diego. He then proceeds to play sections of Awlaki’s lecture for his audience before refuting its points. The voice on the tape seems to be that of Anwar al-Awlaki.

ii

I am going to concentrate on “RAND Islam” here, because al-Awlaki’s lecture series titled “The Battle of Hearts and Minds” takes off from a RAND corporation publication, “Building moderate Muslim networks”, quoting its two opening sentences run together as one, “The struggle under way throughout much of the Muslim world is essentially a war of ideas, its outcome will determine the future direction of the Muslim world” — and references another, “Civil Democratic Islam” (RAND monographs MG574 and MR1716 respectively).

To give his readers a sense of what he’s talking about, he quotes a 2005 piece from US News & World Report:

Today Washington is fighting back after repeated missteps since the 911 attacks, the US government has embarked on a campaign of political warfare unmatched, since the height of the cold war. From military psychological operations teams and CIA covert operatives to openly funded media and think tanks, Washington is plowing tens of millions of dollars into a campaign to influence not only Muslim societies but Islam itself.

That’s the overview, that’s what concerns him in this lecture –that’s his evidence that the US is attacking Islam itself, and not just two
nations that happen to be majority Islamic.

A couple of notes: Al-Awlaki seems at times to confuse the two RAND reports he’s reading, since he references RAND author, Sheryl Benard (five times mentioned and five times mis-spelled “Bernard” by al-Awlaki’s transcriber), and her report, “Civil Democratic Islam”
immediately before quoting from another RAND report (unnamed at that point) which he quotes to show the kind of Muslim that Benard herself, and presumably the RAND corporation, Department of Defense and US Government likewise, wish to encourage: “RAND Islam” in short.

And Sheryl Benard really annoys al-Awlaki — he says she’s “a Jew married to an apostate, it can’t get any worse!” And he’s prepared to
mis-quote her, as when he suggests that one of her recommendations is “We should publish and distribute the works of Rand Muslims at subsidized costs” (p. 14) — when Benard had written (under the heading “Support the modernists first”) “Publish and distribute their works at subsidized cost”. But I don’t think there was an intent to deceive there, just a quiet in-joke for his readers — he had quoted the same bullet-point correctly earlier (p. 9) .

Here’s one specific thrust in al-Awlaki’s lecture that I think would merit detailed study on its own:

From that second RAND monograph, “Building Moderate Muslim Networks” (of which Sheryl Benard is second of four co-authors) al-Awlaki extracts what is effectively a catechism for the mode of Islam he opposes. Indeed, he manages to turn the RAND listing of “Characteristics of moderate Muslims” into both a “RAND Muslim” catechism and, via his responses to the questions she posts, into a counter–catechism for his own version of Islam (RAND MG574 pp. 66 – 70).

I believe this double catechism deserves serious consideration.

iii

I would be failing in my self-imposed duty to ferret signs of end times thinking in jihadist literature if I didn’t mention that there’s at
least one passage in “Battle of the Hearts and Minds” (p. 20) where al-Awlaki not only makes use of the Qur’anic citation I’ve noted before to the effect that while those who oppose him may scheme, Allah is “the best of schemers” (Qur’an 3.54) — he also makes a quiet reference to the (Khorasan and Mahdi-related) tradition of the march of the black flags on Jerusalem:

 So they are failing, and Miss Bernard and her cronies at Rand and Pentagon should know that their plan would fail because Allah is the best of planners! And that the fundamentalists and extremists, whom they despise, are not only going to win in Afghanistan and Iraq, but they will continue their march, until they drag your people, the Jews, out of the Holy Land and plant their black banners on the roof tops of Jerusalem.

iv

The most serious issue raised by this first, hasty skimming of al-Awlaki’s “Battle of the Hearts and Minds” is that of the impact of US (“kufr”) attempts to turn Islam away from the jihadist path (to use a shortcut phrase for now) on the sort of da’wa (preaching :: da’wa or “call” :: recruitment) that al-Awlaki is doing.

If he had read the rest of the paragraph he quoted from US News, he’d have found the words “U.S. officials say they are wary of being drawn into a theological battle” — and so they should be — imagine for a moment the response if the Saudis poured “tens of millions of dollars” into an attempt to remake Christianity or the US Constitution in a manner more to their liking… by means both overt and covert.

The analogy is not exact by any means — the US is attempting to bring acts of horrific violence to a close, the Saudis have no comparable need to change Christianity or the Constitution — but it may give one a sense of the emotion that a well-placed description of US attempts to support “RAND” — ie “moderate” — Islam might draw forth from impressionable young believer…

v

Given time, I could go on. In effect, this post is either a note to myself that further research would be profitable, or a plea for further
research on the part of others, perhaps at RAND — or CIA?

10 Responses to “Guest Post: RAND Islam and CIA Islam too…”

  1. zen Says:

    Hi Charles,
    .
    Great post, as usual. "RAND Muslims"? I would like to think that the great Sheik al-Herman ibn Kahn would have been highly amused by al-Awlaki’s sense of humor.
    .
    On another level, there’s nothing particular to religion or Islam or even Islamism going on here with al-Awlaki. We have seen this kind of IO in many other contexts throughout history, a process of reification that that defines authenticity as the extreme outlier and de-legitimizes the more moderate currents of the overwhelming majority. 
    .
    For example, Black Panthers calling NAACP leaders "Uncle Tom’s"; Bolsheviks calling Marxist rivals "Radish Communists" ( Red on the outside, white on the inside); Rohm’s Stormtroopers and Nazi"Old Fighters" cursing Hitler’s post-1933 "March Violets"; Mao larding abuse on the "capitalist roaders" in the Party, and so on. Even before the French Revolution, literary and Salon circles and bourgeois clubs in Paris heaped withering ridicule and slander on the court at Versailles in a "dry terror" that presaged the real one. What the smirking, smug, al-Awlaki is doing in his videos and in tapping away on his keyboard amounts to a political " dry takfirism" against most of the world’s Muslims.
    .
    Secondarily, and this is less obvious than trying to tar moderates with the stigma of RAND ( using bizarre nonsense is often an effective political smear because it invites the listener or reader to fill in their own negative definitions of the concept) is that al-Awlaki would like to stigmatize and innoculate Muslims from information sources that are drilling down and cracking the previous opacity of radical Islamist discourse which has generally enjoyed a "free ride" from effective Western criticism or challenge. We have seen this too before, when Communists and fellow travelers attempted to discredit Western critics of the USSR ( or of Castro, Mao, Pol Pot or whomever the favored tyrant happened to be) not because they were crude and reckless anti-Communists but because they were well-informed and effective analysts. al-Awlaki would very much like to make RAND and other expert non-Muslim sources of information about Islamist radicals politically untouchable in the Islamic-Arab world.

  2. Steve Metz Says:

    I’ve been arguing for eight years now that the notion of American government agencies or their affiliates promoting what they define as "moderate" Islam is inevitably ineffective.  This is stark evidence of why.

    My greatest fear that sociopaths like Al-Awlaki are able to inspire another massive attack on the United States and Americans then conclude that they tried promoting "moderate" Islam and it didn’t work, so the only solution is to stop even trying to  distinguish between violent sociopaths like Al-Awlaki or Nidal Hasan and the vast majority of Muslims.  This would be a tragedy of epic proportions.

  3. zen Says:

    Hi Steve,
    .
    Agreed. No one here thought that Timothy McVeigh or David Koresh represented Christianity or that the radical racialist Right is anything but a crazed and dangerous fringe, but it is all too easy to generalize from an extreme example if we are dealing with a group about which most Americans arguably know very little. That we still have Congressmen in 2009 who do not know something as basic as the difference between Sunnis and Shia is a disturbing barometer of how poorly political decisions will be made in a crisis. This corrupts any attempt at formulating an effective strategy and lets radicals "play us" in a big picture sense and effectively outmanuver their mainstream co-religionists.

  4. Seerov Says:

    The best model to defeat radical Islam is follow the strategy the Soviet/Western elite used to demoralize their own populations. We need to get Muslims to start questing the legitimacy of their very identities.  We need to slowly inject the poison of cultural and ethnic self doubt into their cultural information systems (media, education, popular media). We also need to separate the genders by introducing feminism. The best way to make a people impotent/controllable is through "active measures."  Here’s link to ex-KBG operative Yuri Bezmenov explaining the concept. He explains the KGB’s strategy at influencing the Western mind.  I can’t recommend this video enough.
    .
     http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=915448763957391352&ei=TrUJS6eILMfdlQf72by0Dg&q=kgb+active+measures&hl=en&view=2#

  5. Seerov Says:

    Of course most of you are correct in pointing out that information isn’t as free to flow in the Muslim world as in the West. So introducing "active measures" to the Muslim would be very difficult.  I would hope that someone is examining this in our national defense apparatus? 
    .
    How do we get Muslims to start doubting/hating themselves as people do in the West? How do we create self-hating Muslims, similar to the self hating Westerners in America’s universities?  Even the so called "moderate Muslims" that I’ve met can’t stop talking about the so called "Golden Age" and will constantly remind everyone of all the great things that Muslims introduced to the world ("did you know algebra is a Muslim word???").
    .
    Contrast this with the typical Western freshman in college who, if nothing else, knows that the West is the source of all the world’s suffering. How do we create such beings in the Muslim world?
    .
    This is how we make the Islamic world manageable?

  6. Charles Cameron Says:

    Hi Seerov — and thankyou for offering us the KBG model of human nature for our detailedconsideration.  Ideologically speaking, that would be a"communist" approach, wouldn’t it?     .     I don’t see much need for us to become like an enemy we’ve already defeated, eh?  ;  ) 

  7. Seerov Says:

    That makes as much sense as calling maneuver warfare "Nazi." 

  8. Charles Cameron Says:

    As you will.  A happy thanksgiving to all…

  9. U.S. Assassination Target, Muslim American, Awlaki on “RAND Islam” | America at War Says:

    […] Cameron, Guest Post: RAND Islam and CIA Islam too…, 22 November 2009, commenting on Awlaki’s […]

  10. Isidro Pinks Says:

    McVeigh was a insane individual that has received way more attention than he ever should have other than as an example of someone who was criminally insane.


Switch to our mobile site