The subject of this post is to enlighten you about terrorist strategies and counter strategies. I think this rationalization, provided by the work of Andrew Kydd and Barbara Walter, makes sense out of what has been happening with the 'War on Terror,' as Bush liked to call it.
I am using this information in the context of non-state terrorists, like Al Queda, the PLO and Hamas, who feel they have no other alternative, but I believe states use terrorism as well, covertly and integrated into conventional war strategy.
It's very simple, I will follow each terrorist strategies with its aligning counterstrategy, according to K and W:
Attrition: Showing terrorists are strong enough to inflict considerable costs if target does not change its policy.
fertile ground for attrition:
The said policy is important to the targeted state
The targeted state has the ability to retaliate
The targeted state is sensitive to the cost of violence
counter measures:
Minimize psychological costs (don't over-react)
Concede inessential issues for peace
Targeted retaliation
Deny access to weapons
Intimidation: Showing that terrorists can punish disobedience and that government is weak (this mainly refers to the terrorists home state...i.e. Afghanistan)
fertile ground:
Weak States
Regime change
Rough geographical terrain (hard for state to mount counter-attack)
counter measures:
Retake territory (clear and hold)
Increase law enforcement
Provocation: Induce enemy to use indiscriminate force
fertile ground:
When the enemy is capable of severe military force
counter measures:
Discriminate targeting
Spoiling: Convince enemy that moderates on terrorist's side are not trustworthy
fertile ground:
Moderates on terrorist's side are strong
counter measures:
Build trust with moderates on terrorist's side
Decrease moderate's vulnerability
Power-share with moderates
Use of international organizations (to build strength/legitimacy on moderate's side)
Outbidding: Showing that the terrorist group has the greatest resolve (over, say, the legitimate government or rival home power) to fight rival
counter measures:
Encourage competing groups to unify
Give concessions to non-violent groups, illustrating the greater strength of non-violent groups.
So, this makes sense right? Can you see how this strategy/counter strategy has played out in the 'War on Terror?' Incidentally, using the term, 'War on Terror' is an unwise counter-terrorism strategy. It goes against the advice under attrition- don't over-react.
It is curious that the Bush admin counter measures seemed to have encouraged terrorism i.e. creating a sense of fear in this country, like 'The terrorist are going to get us anyday...everyday!" with the colored warning system: green, yellow, orange, red to tell us how scared we should be everyday. Geez. and, of course, under the strategy of attrition and provocation (which were clearly used on us with 9-11), the use of indiscriminate force. We just bombed the heck out of Iraq. Not discriminate targeting.
Obama, on the other hand, has stopped using the term 'War on Terror,' if you haven't noticed and is focusing on discriminate force, along with other rational counter-terrorist strategies that agree with K and W, which I will allow you to analyze for yourself.
Let's not forget one of the main reasons for terrorism: political POLICY.
I also want to insert here that the main reason for religious and cultural cleavages in societies is politicians.
You can see how this plays out with Islamic, Jewish and Christian fundamentalism in Muslim States, Israel and the US, respectively. Why do politicians use religion as a tool to enrage the masses? Because, it is easy to do.
Evoking nationalism is another easy way for politicians to get the masses to support extreme policy measures.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Monday, December 13, 2010
Middle East Justice Part 5-Terrorism
The Palestinian cause and Western influence in the ME has encouraged terrorism. The PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization), Hizbollah, and Al Queda are all organizations that have arisen against injustices influenced or caused by Western influences.
The PLO was the first organization to try and govern, protect and defend the nationless people of Palestine. They were created as the Palestinian authority by the Arab League in 1967. The PLO was considered a terrorist organization by many western states, though recognized by many non-western states. They won international recognition in the UN and observer status in 1974. They were not recognized by the US as a legitimate authority until 1991, when they agreed to recognize Israel as a state.
Hizbollah was a similar organization, aided by Syria and Iran, to fight Israel from Lebanon. They formed as a force against Israel and Western interests in 1982, when the PLO left Lebanon.
The PLO and Hizbollah, were not only targeted by the US as terrorists, but also, sardonically, by Arab states themselves, who would support the groups one day, and act as enemies the next.
The whole recipe of ME international relations is literally blowing up in the faces of Arab and Western States alike. The ME is on a downward spiral of destabilization, as foundations for Arab interests are eroded (exactly the effect neo-cons proffered in their policy papers); and the US is exposed to more threats and anit-American sentiments around the globe. The US is also suffering from a plague of domestic fear and international isolationism as the unjust nature of our ME policies become transparent to the world. This is exacerbated by our blind loyalty to Israeli leaders.
Keep in mind, there were/are many tit for tat bombings/killings in the Palestinian/Israeli battle, but who has tried to work out a deal that benefits the Palestinians? They had their land/homes taken away with the inception of Israel as a nation, and, in the cases of villages close to roads important to transport to Israel, had their villages burned to the ground. The Palestinians did not have an Army, and their allies were systematically eroded by Western influences, and they had nowhere to address their grievances. A recipe for terrorism.
Let me just insert here that injustices done to the Jewish people during WWII do not justify injustices done to Palestinians. These are two separate issues.
In my view the way to address this ongoing saga is from the root: acknowledging that the creation of Israel was an injustice to the Palestinians, and instituting the land for peace option. Acknowledging the initial injustice create an opening for Palestinian leaders to empathize with the Israeli plight. I think the original partition map must go, and new territories negotiated with congruous borders, not pieces of one State among the other in an illogical pattern. This against the 'peace for peace' option advanced by neo-conservative leaders, who would like to see Israel as such a military threat to its enemies, that they dare not threaten it (including a right to pre-emptive strike as a means of instilling dominance/fear.)
Moving to another terrorist group: Al Queda, according to my political geography teacher was fueled by the US's tactical use of Osama Bin Laden as an 'ally'. I didn't know, until this geography class, that the US employed Bin Laden against Russian forces when Russia invaded Afghanistan. As the history was told to me, upon Bin Laden's return, the US had set up military complexes around the oil fields of Kuwait (as a result of the first gulf war), a threatening move according to Bin Laden. This, according to Ms. Chattergee was the impetus for Bin Laden to rail against America and form Al Queda...NOT as US propaganda said over and over again, because Al Queda hates US freedoms. This agrees with Bin Laden's initial statement, that his attacks on the US were due to extreme resistance to US foreign policy.
This reminds me of another snippet from Holland's book, America and Egypt, about Goha's nail. The goes that a person Goha sold his home to a friend, under one condition: Goha would retain ownership on one nail in the house. Under the agreement Goha frequented the house day and night inspecting the nail, until he eventually married the owners daughter and got his house back. According to Holland, this typifies the fear ME leaders have of the West. The nail = oil, and states in the ME fear US and Western interests taking the whole of their states off the jumping board of oil interests. This is a fear acted upon by Bin Laden.
The question US citizens should have is, "Is the fear well founded?"
Are these terrorist organizations reacting to a real threat? How, exactly are we threatening the people and nations in the ME? What non-violent options do terrorist organization representing Palestine have open to them? What non-violent options do WE have open to US in these conflicts?
The PLO was the first organization to try and govern, protect and defend the nationless people of Palestine. They were created as the Palestinian authority by the Arab League in 1967. The PLO was considered a terrorist organization by many western states, though recognized by many non-western states. They won international recognition in the UN and observer status in 1974. They were not recognized by the US as a legitimate authority until 1991, when they agreed to recognize Israel as a state.
Hizbollah was a similar organization, aided by Syria and Iran, to fight Israel from Lebanon. They formed as a force against Israel and Western interests in 1982, when the PLO left Lebanon.
The PLO and Hizbollah, were not only targeted by the US as terrorists, but also, sardonically, by Arab states themselves, who would support the groups one day, and act as enemies the next.
The whole recipe of ME international relations is literally blowing up in the faces of Arab and Western States alike. The ME is on a downward spiral of destabilization, as foundations for Arab interests are eroded (exactly the effect neo-cons proffered in their policy papers); and the US is exposed to more threats and anit-American sentiments around the globe. The US is also suffering from a plague of domestic fear and international isolationism as the unjust nature of our ME policies become transparent to the world. This is exacerbated by our blind loyalty to Israeli leaders.
Keep in mind, there were/are many tit for tat bombings/killings in the Palestinian/Israeli battle, but who has tried to work out a deal that benefits the Palestinians? They had their land/homes taken away with the inception of Israel as a nation, and, in the cases of villages close to roads important to transport to Israel, had their villages burned to the ground. The Palestinians did not have an Army, and their allies were systematically eroded by Western influences, and they had nowhere to address their grievances. A recipe for terrorism.
Let me just insert here that injustices done to the Jewish people during WWII do not justify injustices done to Palestinians. These are two separate issues.
In my view the way to address this ongoing saga is from the root: acknowledging that the creation of Israel was an injustice to the Palestinians, and instituting the land for peace option. Acknowledging the initial injustice create an opening for Palestinian leaders to empathize with the Israeli plight. I think the original partition map must go, and new territories negotiated with congruous borders, not pieces of one State among the other in an illogical pattern. This against the 'peace for peace' option advanced by neo-conservative leaders, who would like to see Israel as such a military threat to its enemies, that they dare not threaten it (including a right to pre-emptive strike as a means of instilling dominance/fear.)
Moving to another terrorist group: Al Queda, according to my political geography teacher was fueled by the US's tactical use of Osama Bin Laden as an 'ally'. I didn't know, until this geography class, that the US employed Bin Laden against Russian forces when Russia invaded Afghanistan. As the history was told to me, upon Bin Laden's return, the US had set up military complexes around the oil fields of Kuwait (as a result of the first gulf war), a threatening move according to Bin Laden. This, according to Ms. Chattergee was the impetus for Bin Laden to rail against America and form Al Queda...NOT as US propaganda said over and over again, because Al Queda hates US freedoms. This agrees with Bin Laden's initial statement, that his attacks on the US were due to extreme resistance to US foreign policy.
This reminds me of another snippet from Holland's book, America and Egypt, about Goha's nail. The goes that a person Goha sold his home to a friend, under one condition: Goha would retain ownership on one nail in the house. Under the agreement Goha frequented the house day and night inspecting the nail, until he eventually married the owners daughter and got his house back. According to Holland, this typifies the fear ME leaders have of the West. The nail = oil, and states in the ME fear US and Western interests taking the whole of their states off the jumping board of oil interests. This is a fear acted upon by Bin Laden.
The question US citizens should have is, "Is the fear well founded?"
Are these terrorist organizations reacting to a real threat? How, exactly are we threatening the people and nations in the ME? What non-violent options do terrorist organization representing Palestine have open to them? What non-violent options do WE have open to US in these conflicts?
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Middle East Justice Part 4 The Eastern Question
International relations in the Middle East have forged a sort of quadruple edged dagger. A dagger that is persistently stuck in the side of world politics.
The US tries to lasso ME power through local puppets, creating political instability and resistance, and ME leaders routinely suck on the tit of US power and material promises for short term gain, losing the ability for long term, organic growth, and lasting true power for their region. Political structures have been so manipulated over the years, it would take genius political minds and revolutionary determination to move toward sustainable politics for states like Iraq, Iran, Egypt and the Palestinians and Israel.
I will insert here an interesting academic list used by some to describe the political 'rules of the game' for Middle East international relations. It is called the Eastern Question (taken from Matthew Hollands book, America and Egypt: From Roosevelt to Eisenhower).
1. "Alliances and relationships change with every new situation or issue in a series of bewildering tactical moves."
2. ME play major powers to their own political advantage
3. Local problems become entangled in international problems
4. Local moves are made to elicit or reject internat'l support
5. Major powers get involved in the ME for their own advantage, and get entangled in local problems
6. No power, local or internat'l can maintain hegemony over the ME
7. Local and internat'l leaders use 8 main tactics and actions in the ME
a. the 'quick grab'
b. stubborn refusal to accept changes in the status quo
c. refusal to compromise on minor points
d. belief in endless tactical manuevering
e. "diplomatic counterpunching"
f. the habit of using third party negotiators
g. little distinction between tactic and strategy
h. obsession with zero-sum game
US neo-conservative politics have fallen into the traps of this game, and come out with a historical plague of terrorism on the west. The overarching blunder they have made is quick grabs for hegemony in the region; and the consequence has been dire for us and the rest of the world, a fire of terrorism.
All of this leaving Palestinians with no solid, practical ally, and a gaggle of enemies, including erratic Arab states, who may seem like allies one day, and then clam up support the next, for carrots from the West.
The US tries to lasso ME power through local puppets, creating political instability and resistance, and ME leaders routinely suck on the tit of US power and material promises for short term gain, losing the ability for long term, organic growth, and lasting true power for their region. Political structures have been so manipulated over the years, it would take genius political minds and revolutionary determination to move toward sustainable politics for states like Iraq, Iran, Egypt and the Palestinians and Israel.
I will insert here an interesting academic list used by some to describe the political 'rules of the game' for Middle East international relations. It is called the Eastern Question (taken from Matthew Hollands book, America and Egypt: From Roosevelt to Eisenhower).
1. "Alliances and relationships change with every new situation or issue in a series of bewildering tactical moves."
2. ME play major powers to their own political advantage
3. Local problems become entangled in international problems
4. Local moves are made to elicit or reject internat'l support
5. Major powers get involved in the ME for their own advantage, and get entangled in local problems
6. No power, local or internat'l can maintain hegemony over the ME
7. Local and internat'l leaders use 8 main tactics and actions in the ME
a. the 'quick grab'
b. stubborn refusal to accept changes in the status quo
c. refusal to compromise on minor points
d. belief in endless tactical manuevering
e. "diplomatic counterpunching"
f. the habit of using third party negotiators
g. little distinction between tactic and strategy
h. obsession with zero-sum game
US neo-conservative politics have fallen into the traps of this game, and come out with a historical plague of terrorism on the west. The overarching blunder they have made is quick grabs for hegemony in the region; and the consequence has been dire for us and the rest of the world, a fire of terrorism.
All of this leaving Palestinians with no solid, practical ally, and a gaggle of enemies, including erratic Arab states, who may seem like allies one day, and then clam up support the next, for carrots from the West.
Friday, December 10, 2010
Middle East Justice Part 3 cont.
Well, I just don't have time to go and do research for this blog. My thoughts and conclusions come from previous research I did on Lebanon and the Israeli/ Palestinian conflict. I do not have those papers readily handy to pick through, nor can I find substantial evidence to support my conclusions online. Most sources seem to either be too shallow of a pool of info or religiously or politically biased.
Anyway, to get this promised portion over with. Egypt has been one of the strongest players in the Middle East, and was and is one of Palestine's biggest supporters. However, in the 1980's their alliance changed significantly toward the West with the promise of aid for infrastructure development. This is the same story with most Arab nations that have switched back and forth between fighting for Palestinian rights and budging toward Israel, including Syria and Iraq.
So, let me balance the picture out a little bit by saying that it is not just the West's want for control of Middle East oil, or power, but the ME's want for American-like economies/infrastructures and US ally-ship in general for their own political purposes that has been driving this maddening back and forth between support for Palestine and effective indifference.
Neo-conservative policies outline US's position of destabilizing the Middle East for the interests of US domination (which include having Israel as a home base for Middle East aggression). But even before that, the existence of the British policy, from the beginning of the 20th century, promising the creation of a Jewish homeland, are driven by religious fervor, and the specter of the Biblical Jewish state has haunted international relations since.
The US recently partnered with Saudi Arabia for sharing and building scientific research. This kind of nation building (or just mere allowance of ME states to develop!) could have and can be used with the rest of the Middle East for good relations, international stability, and building up of valuable ME contributions to the rest of the world.
Obama has showed signs of changing our blind devotion toward Israel, and moving away from neo-conservative dreams of hegemonic control of the region, but he has also showed signs of buckling under pressures of the Israeli lobby.
The question remains, who supports justice for Palestine, and how has persistent injustice in the Middle East led to the growth of terrorist threats to the US and the rest of the world?
Anyway, to get this promised portion over with. Egypt has been one of the strongest players in the Middle East, and was and is one of Palestine's biggest supporters. However, in the 1980's their alliance changed significantly toward the West with the promise of aid for infrastructure development. This is the same story with most Arab nations that have switched back and forth between fighting for Palestinian rights and budging toward Israel, including Syria and Iraq.
So, let me balance the picture out a little bit by saying that it is not just the West's want for control of Middle East oil, or power, but the ME's want for American-like economies/infrastructures and US ally-ship in general for their own political purposes that has been driving this maddening back and forth between support for Palestine and effective indifference.
Neo-conservative policies outline US's position of destabilizing the Middle East for the interests of US domination (which include having Israel as a home base for Middle East aggression). But even before that, the existence of the British policy, from the beginning of the 20th century, promising the creation of a Jewish homeland, are driven by religious fervor, and the specter of the Biblical Jewish state has haunted international relations since.
The US recently partnered with Saudi Arabia for sharing and building scientific research. This kind of nation building (or just mere allowance of ME states to develop!) could have and can be used with the rest of the Middle East for good relations, international stability, and building up of valuable ME contributions to the rest of the world.
Obama has showed signs of changing our blind devotion toward Israel, and moving away from neo-conservative dreams of hegemonic control of the region, but he has also showed signs of buckling under pressures of the Israeli lobby.
The question remains, who supports justice for Palestine, and how has persistent injustice in the Middle East led to the growth of terrorist threats to the US and the rest of the world?
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Middle East Justice Part 3
There have been numerous attempts by nations in the Middle East to come to the aid of the Palestinians and in almost all cases were deflected by US diplomacy. Now, almost all Arab countries have had some hand in funding or creating 'terrorist' organizations that covertly work on behalf of the Palestinians and other rankled Arab interests.
Unfortunately, I do not have time today to flesh out this blog...long day...but will continue, continue, continue...
Unfortunately, I do not have time today to flesh out this blog...long day...but will continue, continue, continue...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)