I plan on focusing on the continued expansion of the global Islamist insurgency in grad school, and have written several papers about it in the past.
I put a few of the papers on my site, but never linked them from here. The following was written for a National and International Security class, last December.
Excellent paper Ian. Thanks for posting the link.
If releasing Al-Maqdesi from the Jordanian prison a few days ago, only to re-arrest him after an interview with Qatari satellite channel Al-Jazeera, was a deal intended to split Al Musab al Zarqawi’s group, then not only was it an awful deal but also an unsuccessful one.
Although we remain oblivious to the reasons for al Maqdesi’s release, history and experience prove that dealing with groups and ideologies that only believe in branding other Muslims as infidels and carrying arms is counterproductive. This is because al Maqdesi and such groups totally rejects negotiation and kills those who believe in a language of mutual understanding.
Al Maqdesi's interview on Al-Jazeera is disturbing, horrifying and frustrating. This man refrains from denouncing killing, instead saying its time has not yet come! He does not condemn suicide operations but supports efforts to rationalize it! He does not say enough to recklessness but believes Arab governments have driven their youth to it. He does not say no to killing security officers, Shiites or to bombing houses and shops. Rather, al Maqdesi calls for focusing all efforts on more important goals, insisting these operations should not delay the journey.
If he had been Bin Laden's advisor, al Maqdesi would not have advised him to refrain from violence. He would, however, have advised Bin Laden not to be hasty and to ensure that he is strong and well prepared. I write this with complete confidence and awareness that Jordan and its people would never bargain with such a man or such an ideology. While it is true that he has not fired a shot, al Maqdesi remains as lethal as those who have.
As for establishing a dialogue, this remains concern for the media, or as we say in the language of press, "a press beat". It is regrettable that al Maqdesi was allowed complete freedom to reply without further probing to reveal to the audience this man's real aim. What a shame! Al Maqdesi derives his authority because of his book "Obvious Indications for Considering Saudi Arabia an Infidel". It is well known that a long history of deep-rooted disagreement exists between Saudi Arabia and Qatar . However, if this conversation took place to spite the Kingdom, then this is surely a clear case of political insolence.
I am unable to decipher Qatar ’s aim in giving airtime to a flagrantly fundamentalist person and another more secular. When Al-Maqdesi is questioned about Egypt and Jordan , he who does not call Saudi Arabia by its name but rather refers to it as "the peninsula", is this freedom of media in action? Why does the presenter refrain from asking Al Maqdesi on his opinion of Qatar and its policies, thereby benefiting the jihadist youth that Al Jazeera glorifies? They may then realize the Emirate features on the map of atheistic countries along with Egypt and Saudi Arabia as stated by the ideology of Al Maqdesi and his followers. The satellite channel even failed to present another guest to counteract the claims of Al-Maqdesi!
After the collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq , we thought that we would see the Arab world deal maturely with its disagreements and conflicts. However, the media games that we are witnessing today compel us to pray for divine guidance for all the major channels, let alone the minor ones!
Good job.
Too few understand it is the first truly global insurgency, and therefore many of the ways we have to think of this war turns on its head what otherwise seems like common sense. This is not conventional warfare. It is unconventional. Fighting it with conventional strategies guarantees defeat.
Like Mao said, the people are the sea in which an insurgency swims. An insurgency does not require active support of the people, only passive neutrality (which they hope to achieve by terrorizing them into meek submission). However, a government needs the active support of its people, not passive neutrality. So the game is rigged. This is why insurgencies take many years to defeat. Most folks grasp what insurgency means as far as the Iraqi people go. Few seem to grasp what a global insurgency means.
If we dry up the ocean of global anti-American sentiment, the jihadi fish cannot swim from nation to nation with no resistance. But if the entire world becomes their ocean, this war will never end. Or it will end badly. The battle of global perceptions (which we are not winning) is not about "sensitivity". It is about survival.
Conventional war is not a "popularity contest". He who is left standing wins. Their hearts and mind don't matter. Grab them in other ways "and their hearts and minds will follow".
But unconventional war by definition *is* a popularity contest. Global insurgency does not need worldwide support, only neutrality. The world does not have to like the Jihad. It only has to hate us and declare neutrality.
We cannot win with the mere passive neutrality of the world, we can win only with its active support. So that is why this is, above all, a worldwide battle of ideas.