5. RAND study supports Powerful Peace on terrorism (probably not intentionally)
[This posting is actually preparatory to the more important one that follows, "Becoming Your Enemy"]
I’m smack dab in the middle of Iraq for the past several months. I expect to remain so for the next several. What we have out here is a whole lot of insurgency with a little terrorism sprinkled in for good measure. It’s important to distinguish between the two, and equally important to remember that the line blurs at many points. Conflict is conflict.
Terrorism has many definitions, because most are written from the point of view of an affected group with its own menace in mind.
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19728-2004Jul27.html)
- Caleb Carr
Insurgency, according to Webster (online) is, “a condition of revolt against a government that is less than an organized revolution and that is not recognized as belligerency”.
Following is a brief point-counterpoint comparison between excerpts from the RAND Corporation study released today on the ineffectuality of military force in response to terrorism and earlier Powerful Peace (P2) postings (“Study urges more police, fewer troops against Al-Qaeda”, Agence France-Presse, July 29).
Rand: “Terrorists should be perceived and described as criminals, not holy warriors, and our analysis suggests there is no battlefield solution to terrorism.“
P2: “If we care to understand well enough, open exchange and cooperation can starve the very roots of terrorism. Statecraft and interpersonal engagement are more important, in the long run, than military might.”
Rand: “This has significant implications for dealing with Al-Qaeda and suggests fundamentally rethinking post-September 11 counterterrorism strategy.”
P2: “Without a hard look at the fight, at the enemy, and especially into the mirror to see what we represent in this global neighborhood, we lack adequate context for a view of the road ahead. How do we develop such an enhanced perspective? By listening.”
Rand: “Based on an analysis of 648 terrorist groups that existed between 1968 and 2006, a transition to the political process is the most common way such groups end.”
P2: “We need to connect with the centers of these populations.”
Rand: The US military should “generally resist being drawn into combat operations in Muslim societies, since its presence is likely to increase terrorist recruitment.”
P2: “This is the perspective of the terrorist, resentful of perceived abuses by his enemy!”
Rand: “The United States has the necessary instruments to defeat al-Qaida, it just needs to shift its strategy.”
P2: “Instead of hand-wringing between sitcoms over issues of terrorism and its roots, instead of waiting for our weary military to solve the problem by shooting every last one of “them”, instead of evading unpleasant facts (how about the concept of accountability on all sides in every conflict?)…why don’t we wade in and begin to unravel the snarl of hurts and hatreds?”
… The above quoted article by Carr concludes with, “The war on terrorism began not as a crusade about ideology but as a pragmatic war about war. It must remain such.”
I agree.
Copyright © 2008 by Jack Oatmon. All rights reserved.
4. Becoming Your Enemy
[I hadn't intended to publish this article in the blog, but the release of today's RAND study on effective counterterrorism made me realize that the time is right to open this dialogue. I originally wrote the piece for a government agency in the early years following 9/11; until today it was considered "internal" material.]
Dead set on...
Understanding is the indispensable key to lasting, effective counterterrorism.
The ancient adage “Know thyself” is similar in concept and scope to the military standby, “Know your enemy”. In the yin/yang symbol, one is defined only by the presence of the other. In physics, we measure a force by studying its equal and opposite reaction.
With humans, we best know who They are only when compared in relation and response to Us. This requires an honest self-image and an understanding of how we influence our world.
Religious extremist terrorism is growing more potent. This is due to a combination of factors, including accelerating advances in technology and fundamentalist determination to combat worsening cultural corruption. The task of those charged with protecting others becomes correspondingly urgent. It requires understanding; not a pep rally look at how we think things are and hope they are going, but an unflinching look at how things really are. Warts and all.
Without a hard look at the fight, at the enemy, and especially into the mirror to see what we represent in this global neighborhood, we lack adequate context for a view of the road ahead. How do we develop such an enhanced perspective? By listening. The US, The West, The Coalition…whatever our identification in each moment of crisis, we are not alone in the neighborhood. Neither is every neighbor hostile or deceitful, and feedback from neutral sources can reveal glaring defects or simple misunderstandings – if we’re able to hear them.
We need to understand in greater depth just what it is the terrorist so violently opposes. We blurt, “Occupation”, “Westernization”, or “Globalization”, feel satisfied with such a pat answer, and rush off to defend against the next attack.
This is analogous to a physician treating a skin condition by lancing each boil as it comes to a head. In contrast to taking a pill to affect the root disease, lancing is painful, protracted, scarring, and ultimately less effective. It can even be fatal. Imagine this living organism to be the world we inhabit, and terrorism the disease. The very real danger of new and worsening symptoms is alarming. An infection of thinking can spread through people groups as swiftly as a virus through the human body.
It is also easy and convenient to assume that an enemy is unreasonable, crazed or evil. This has been an effective indoctrination tool for military commanders throughout history. It is the same justification fundamentalist leadership preaches, about us, to incite followers. (Ironically, it was prudent and open-minded Muslim leaders many centuries past who are remembered for their tolerant attitude toward non-Muslims. The Crusades effectively severed those relations, creating a bottomless well of bitterness for generations of Osama bin Ladens.)
“Crazed” thinking represents an extreme deviation from commonly shared values and beliefs. The commonly shared values of the United States reject 9/11-type attacks on a civilian populace. However, every community around the world has its own perspective on the motivation that resulted in that fateful event. Many admire the killers with some sympathy.
Please note: if we look back just six decades in U.S. history we will see that, however revolting in human tragedy, Americans generally accepted the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a necessary step to prevent worsening aggression by the Japanese military machine. As the lesser of two evils, it effectively ended the war in the Pacific.
Beyond this rationale, though, how many Americans felt a sense of grim satisfaction at our counter-attacks? This devastation, unleashed on a civilian population, served as payback for the suffering inflicted at Pearl Harbor.
This is the perspective of the fundamentalist, resentful of perceived abuses by his enemy!
When we can look through his eyes, we can see where he desires to act next.
Some commonly shared values are universal. Individuals on every continent take pleasure in celebrations with family and friends, local arts, and good food. These represent the Human Aspect of Life. At the core of HAL is a nature that is the same, common ground upon which we could all “get along” if not for cultural paradigms and local competitions that have grown so drastically apart over the millennia.
Each terrorist is a person and has a family of origin. Each family has a neighborhood of origin, sharing similar experiences and belief systems. Each of these neighborhoods is a member of a town, and a region, and a nation. Nations themselves are members of a neighborhood unique to their continent.
Despite scattered disagreements at each level of association, these represent various masses of humanity with some shared values.
As the result of thousands of years and thousands of miles of separation, significantly different worldviews have developed. Yet these frameworks are essential, to each of us, in understanding our personal life in context. A challenge to our way of thinking can mean a challenge to our identity or an affront to loved ones. It can even inspire hostility within us.
Millions in each camp, therefore, see others not only as very different, but as very wrong. The notion of wrongness stirs up a tendency to reject or oppose different cultures without due consideration. Thoughtless opposition then provokes a reaction within the opposed party.
Bin Laden himself came from a family that shared vacations, parties, and weddings. Although the family has publicly denounced his methods, rivers of money continue to flow to al Qaeda from Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. The root feelings of bin Laden’s terrorist agenda are thus not anomalous, or some “extreme deviation”, but a way of thinking that is shared by many.
The strategy toward persistent success is twofold: immediately, by using proven methods to counter ongoing hostilities; ultimately, by understanding and satisfying (as able) the simple, human hopes and dreams of terrorism’s human resource pool.
We need to connect with the centers of these populations. Western agencies already have representation in many global communities, and non-governmental organizations have countless individuals connected into most levels of most societies. The infrastructure is in place; all that remains is to institutionalize a concerted effort to engage with reasonable representatives.
This essay does not promote placation or impotent dependency on world opinion, as is charged in criticism of the United Nations. What is crucial is a case-by-case use of the most effective methods for each problem. Some crises of hostility can be resolved with dialogue to reduce misunderstanding; some, for now, demand a “kinetic solution” from the business end of a rifle.
The violence option, however, is a double-edged sword in more than rhetoric. Each of our kinetic actions has the potential to radicalize others within an affected population. If an unintended victim is an adored toddler or revered grandmother, resulting hostility is far greater. This hostility is also easily understandable, if we simply stand in the other’s shoes.
Further complicating the issue is the matter of public opinion. America has been soundly and constantly criticized for its cowboy-like manner in the worldwide response to terrorism, and while desperate times do indeed call for desperate measures, complex times likewise call for complex measures.
Antagonizing the international neighbors draws energy away from the real fight (and encourages the enemy) as we bicker. It is counter-intuitive to foul the global playing field by ticking off the referees, whose opinions we might sway by seeking deeper, mutual understanding. Accountable individuals understand that real cooperation requires give-and-take. What America sometimes overlooks is that, in relationship, “give” means more than simply “write checks”.
Some crises can be preemptively avoided by using existing methods of intelligence and diplomacy. Best of all, however, will be the next evolution of threat mitigation: elimination, before the hateful cause exists, by working with the source. Thoreau said, “There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.” If we care to understand well enough, open exchange and cooperation can starve the very roots of terrorism. Statecraft and interpersonal engagement are more important, in the long run, than military might.
Realistically, as long as mankind is composed of flawed and fallible human beings (in other words, as long as mankind exists), we can safely assume that an absolute, final peace will not occur. The highest goal would be the attainment of international harmony with no loss of national sovereignty. Yet the further we progress in peace and leisure, the more free space exists within society for self interest to grow, shared urgency to fade, and personal, zero-sum desires to take hold. When one group inevitably succeeds in flourishing at some expense to another, dissatisfaction inevitably leads to conflict. Just as with the healthy condition of the human body, therefore, global security will always require consistent, measured effort to sustain.
Copyright © 2008 by Jack Oatmon. All rights reserved.
3. The Softer Side of the “war on terror”
[Warning: The following content may not be appropriate for small children.]
On the wall of our traditional Japanese dojo hangs a sign I will paraphrase:
If you can walk away from the fight, walk
If you cannot walk away from the fight, talk
If you cannot talk your way out of the fight, threaten
If you cannot threaten your way out of the fight, then fight only to end the fight
As a member of the aforementioned school, a retired US commando, and a so-called authority in the discipline of fighting terrorism, I am compelled to speak out on behalf of a better way to wage the “War on Terror.”
“Soft” power, the term coined by Joseph Nye in 1990, is the concept of exercising international influence by attraction – using national culture, values and institutions.
Liberal use of the “hard” (violent) option may seem efficient and productive. Without considering the human cost, however, this tool is inhumane and irresponsible. Hard power casually applied will harden those on both sides.
The US and other nations have declared that there are basic human rights. These include (look it up – there are more): life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Presumably, this also includes not being blown up. There must be some burden of caution for destruction-capable powers.
Consider the now common term “collateral damage.” What does it really mean?
According to the American Heritage Dictionary, collateral damage means, “Unintended damage, injuries, or deaths caused by an action, especially unintended civilian casualties caused by a military operation.”
Actually, though, that’s not a complete enough definition. Let me offer an expanded picture, taken straight from recent newspaper bylines:
“…For example: collateral damage is that circumstance in which go to the market in the morning while your family eats breakfast…you return home…you find that your wife and four children, ages 6, 4, 3, and 1, have been blown apart by an explosive weapon.”
The definition continues, “…collateral damage means that the home (and family) around the shattered corpses of your babies is similarly shattered. Two of your other children are ‘badly wounded’ and hospitalized.”
Finally, “…collateral damage also means that the two warring parties who caused this will be too afraid of showing ‘weakness’ under the world spotlight to express remorse and deep consolation.”
A person who believes war should be used only as a method of last resort is called a “Dove”. I think Hawk sounds much cooler, but call me what you will. I have no aversion to the selective use of violence.
Let’s take a look at some famous warriors and get their takes on this matter…General MacArthur?
“The soldier, above all other people, prays for peace, for he must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war.”
Hmm…. Apparently Douglas MacArthur and his praying soldiers were Doves…General Schwarzkopf?
“War is a profane thing.”
Hmm, again…President Washington?
“My first wish is to see this plague of mankind, war, banished from the earth.”
Final hmm.
It seems that many of those we have admired most for their courage and “manliness” were, in fact…sissies. Or Doves, to use the vernacular.
Or maybe…
…maybe we don’t have to arrogantly label individuals as Hawks or Doves just because, sitting at home in front of the tube, we feel awesome courage and willingness to pull a trigger – or rather, have someone else pull a trigger – to achieve a quick end to an irksome problem.
Maybe the war movies have put a little too much starch in some civilian britches.
War hurts.
War hurts men and women when bullets tear deep into unresisting flesh and bone. It hurts little old ladies and little old men. It hurts children profoundly to experience the unimaginable shrieks of rockets, shrapnel…and torn men and women.
Hurting all these people (or rather, permitting all these people to be hurt) by casually indulging in war reaps a corresponding harvest of ill will and cyclic violence that always returns to the source.
Please don’t hijack my words to claim support for any cause I haven’t specifically endorsed.
To be specific, I will declare that this posting is not an indictment of any administration, nor of any military service, government agency, political party or commercial venture.
If it is any indictment at all, it would be against all of us together; against anyone who has any say (and each adult does) in our way ahead as a society.
This essay is intended to communicate ideas that I believe are worth sharing.
Please do share them!
In the end, why sweat and bleed in the dojo? Why get so very, very good at putting bullets where they will do the most harm?
I would defer once more and offer the final word to the great leader whose failure would have cost not only his own life and holdings, but the very existence of this country which now has so much to offer to the world…President Washington:
“To be prepared for War is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.”
Copyright © 2008 by Jack Oatmon. All rights reserved.
Subscribe here!
