Posted on 11/16/2006 7:33:56 PM PST by IntelliQuark
To defeat the global jihadist movement, the United States should move beyond the boundaries of conventional counter-terrorism and seek to undermine support for Islamic terrorism within Muslim nations, according to a RAND Corporation study issued today.
The report says this type of campaign enabled the United States to help nurture opposition to Communism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, culminating in the overthrow of ruling regimes and the collapse of the Soviet system.
The study by RAND, a nonprofit research organization, says a successful campaign against Islamic terrorism requires: attacking the ideological underpinnings of global jihadism; severing ideological and other links between terrorist groups; and strengthening the capabilities of front-line states to counter local jihadist threats.
The report says that if the jihadist ideology "continues to spread and gain greater acceptance in the Muslim world, it will produce more terrorists to replenish the ranks of al-Qaeda and related groups. If the ideology is countered and discredited, al-Qaeda and its universe will wither and die."
Conventional counter-terrorism alone is not enough to defeat al-Qaeda and other Islamic terrorist groups, according to the two-volume report titled "Beyond al-Qaeda." The first volume is subtitled "The Global Jihadist Movement" and the second volume is subtitled "The Outer Rings of the Terrorist Universe."
"Success in the war on terror requires understanding that it is a political and ideological struggle," said Angel Rabasa, a RAND senior policy analyst and the lead author of the study. "What inspires and sustains the global jihadist movement is an ideology that is radical and Islamist at its core, but also borrows from 20th century Western totalitarian traditions."
"The war on terror at its most fundamental level goes to the war of ideas," Rabasa added. "The goal here is to deny extremists the high ground of Islamic politico-religious discourse, which has been adroitly exploited by al-Qaeda to further the appeal of its own radical rhetoric."
The report looks at four main sources of terrorist threats:
Al-Qaeda, including the group's strategy, ideology, operations, tactics, finances, changing character and possible future.
Terrorist groups that have adopted al-Qaeda's worldview and concept of mass-casualty terrorist attacks, even if the groups are not formally part of al-Qaeda.
Violent Islamist and non-Islamist terrorist and insurgent groups without known links to al-Qaeda that threaten United States interests, friends and allies. These include Hezbollah and Hamas, along with insurgencies in Iraq, the Philippines and other countries.
The nexus between terrorism and organized crime, including the way terrorists and insurgents use criminal organizations and connections to finance their activities. Such actions also tend to weaken and corrupt political and social institutions.
The RAND study acknowledges that an ideology is inherently difficult to attack by outsiders, but points out that there are weaknesses in ideologies that are susceptible to exploitation.
Al-Qaeda's goals are to mobilize Muslims for a global jihad against the West; topple "apostate" regimes, particularly in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan; and create an Islamic government spanning the Muslim world based on an ultra-orthodox interpretation of Sunni Islam that would isolate the majority of Sunni Muslims as well as Shi'ite Muslims.
But not all terrorist or insurgent groups share al-Qaeda's worldview, according to the study. For this reason, the report calls on the United States to try to sever the links between the local and global jihadist groups, in part by emphasizing the differences between the groups.
Jihadists threaten not only the West, but other Muslims, the report says.
"It is important for Muslim allies to highlight that the Islamic state envisioned by al-Qaeda would exclude the diverse streams of Islam," the study says. "In the world of (Osama) bin Laden and (bin Laden's second-in-command Ayman) al-Zawahiri, there is no room for Shi'ites and within Sunni Islam there is no place for mainstream interpretation of the religion."
In addition, the United States should seek to deny sanctuaries to terrorist groups and strengthen the capabilities of foreign governments to deal with terrorist threats, but in an advisory capacity by providing data collection and analytical capabilities, the report says.
Although much of the research for the study was completed in 2004, the authors have updated the information to include recent developments in Iraq, the Palestinian territories, Chechnya, Somalia and Southeast Asia.
### The research was sponsored by the deputy chief of staff for the Air and Space Operations, U.S. Air Force. The study was conducted in the Strategy and Doctrine Program of RAND Project AIR FORCE, a federally funded research program that analyzes issues of enduring concern to the U.S. Air Force.
Printed copies of "Beyond al-Qaeda: Part 1, The Global Jihadist Movement," and "Part 2, The Outer Rings of the Terrorist Universe," (ISBN: 0-8330-3930-X -- 978-0-8330-3930-9 and 0-8330-3932-6 -- 978-0-8330-3932-3.) can be ordered from RAND Distribution Services (order@rand.org) or call toll-free in the United States 1-877-584-8642.)
Looks like an interesting report. The fight against terrorists needs to be expanded, not pulled back, as the Dems want.
BTW RAND is considered leaning liberal, so if they came up with this assessment, you know the threat is serious.
To defeat the global jihadist movement, the United States should move beyond the boundaries of conventional counter-terrorism and seek to undermine support for Islamic terrorism within Muslim nations, according to a RAND Corporation study issued today.
Friggen rocket science here folks - how much in the millions did this useless piece of information cost us to tell us what we already knew.
Rand, the original "think tank" that helped get us mired in Vietnam, then developed the metrics to show us we were "losing", and finally patented the doctrine of "cut and run". Former home of Daniel Ellsberg.
I think RAND does lean left, but they do it honestly and their reports are well researched. For something like this to come out of RAND is wonderful, because most people on Capitol Hill take their reports as if they were written by the Lord Himself.
Ideology is al Qaeda's Achilles' heel - U.S. study
I think they are saying what President Bush said way back when, that their ideology of violence needs to be challenged. RAND is saying that we need to use some of the same techniques we used in the cold war -- one of which was to get the truth to the people, who heard nothing but propaganda from their government. But when Rumsfeld wanted to have a "public relations" dept ( that's not what it was called, I forgot) to put articles into foreign papers favorable to us, i.e. tell the truth -- the Dems had a big public uprising that we shouldn't do that and the project was scrapped.
Is Captain Obvious nearby?
True Grit To Counter Terror, We Must Conquer Our Own Fear
Rand Corp. ^ | Summer 06 | Brian Michael Jenkins
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1739562/posts
We Americans and our allies have made undeniable progress in reducing al Qaeda’s operational capabilities since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, but we have neither dented the determination of the jihadists nor blunted the appeal of al Qaeda’s ideology. Its leaders, although in hiding, communicate frequently. Their message continues to inspire angry young men to prepare and carry out violent attacks on civilian populations. The terrorist threat is more dispersed but still lethal. The insurgency continues in Iraq. The fighting has intensified in Afghanistan. Radicalization continues worldwide. This will be a long conflict. It will require a sustainable strategy. It will require psychological strength as well as physical strength.
At home, we in America have spent the past five years scaring the hell out of ourselves. Terrorism is either violence or the threat of violence calculated to create an atmosphere of fear and alarm. As we have seen, terrorism often works. Unfortunately, the unceasing public discussion of America’s vulnerabilities, the alarming alerts that followed 9/11, the proliferation of barricades and bollards, and the media reports of government officials holed up at secret sites have all added to the national anxiety.
Instead of puncturing the terror by educating and engaging the public in its own preparedness and response, Washington consigned citizens to the role of helpless and frightened passengers while it went after the bad guys. What else but fear can explain the readiness of Americans to tolerate tossing aside the very Geneva Convention agreements the United States had fought to implement? What else but fear could have led Americans to even entertain public arguments in favor of torture and against any restrictions on how we might treat those in custody?
There has always been an alternative, a strategy more consistent with American tradition — a strategy aimed at reducing public fear through a different style of communication and governance and at more actively engaging citizens in their own preparedness and response. Such an approach, if adopted, would attack the terror, not just the terrorists. It would see the White House working closely with the legislative and judicial branches to increase security without trespassing on liberty. It would aim at preserving national unity. In sum, it would be a strategy that seeks lasting strength.
There is much concerning the conduct of the war on terror with which I agree: the muscular initial response to 9/11, the removal of the Taliban government in Afghanistan, the relentless pursuit of al Qaeda’s leaders and planners, the increasingly sophisticated approach to homeland security, and, although I have deep reservations about the invasion of Iraq, President George W. Bush’s determination to avoid an arbitrary timetable for withdrawal.
The list of things with which I do not agree is longer. These aspects of the war on terror have, if anything, undermined our campaign: the needless bravado, the arrogant attitude toward essential allies, the exploitation of fear, the exaggerated claims of progress, the persistence of a wanted-poster approach while the broader ideological struggle is ignored, the rush to invade Iraq, the failure to deploy sufficient troops there despite the advice of senior military leaders and the head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, the cavalier dismissal of treaties governing the conduct of war, the mistreatment of prisoners, the unimaginable public defense of torture, the use of homeland security funding for political pork barrel spending, and the failure to educate and involve citizens.
I am not attempting to serve any political agenda. My sole objective is to reckon how America can defeat its terrorist foes while preserving its own liberty. Throughout the Cold War, Americans maintained a rough consensus on defense matters, despite substantive disagreements. Unity did not require the suspension of honest differences or of civilized political debate.
(snip)
If I knew how to post pictures, it would already be there.
myopic analysis as it fails to acknowledge what is proving to be the most effective strategy of all, which is really the mirror image of what they say the west should be doing against the jihadists, namely to turn segments of the west against one another. First Euro vs. America over Palestine; then US elite vs. US sovereignty by extending full Constitutional protection to enemies of the state; so much so that American Jews and Moslems vote together to oust Republicans, then conservatives at National Review blame evangelical Christians for the outcome. I wonder if they needed a think tank to devise their strategy.
True Grit To Counter Terror, We Must Conquer Our Own Fear
Rand Corp. ^ | Summer 06 | Brian Michael Jenkins
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1739562/posts
This article is drawn from his new book, Unconquerable Nation: Knowing Our Enemy, Strengthening Ourselves.
(snip)
Political warfare targets those on their way into enemy ranks, those among the ranks who might be persuaded to quit, and those in custody. It sees enemy combatants as constantly recalibrating their commitments. It accepts no foe as having irrevocably crossed a line. It sees every prisoner not merely as a source of intelligence, but as a potential convert. It accepts local accommodations to reduce violence, offers amnesties to induce divisions and defections, and cuts deals to co-opt enemies. It is infinitely flexible and ferociously pragmatic. The United States today has no strategy for political warfare.
Break the cycle of jihadism. The U.S. strategy must be broadened to address the entire jihadist cycle, from entry to exit. The cycle begins with the radicalization of eager acolytes and ends with their indefinite imprisonment or death (see figure). U.S. efforts now focus on only the operational portion of this cycle, the visible tip of the iceberg: from late in the recruitment process to death or capture. Insufficient attention is paid to defeating radicalization, indoctrination, and recruitment at the front end or dealing with detainees at the back end. We have concentrated on eliminating jihadists but not on impeding recruitment, inducing defections, or persuading detainees to renounce jihad.
(snip)
In Yemen, Islamic scholars challenged a group of defiant al Qaeda prisoners to a theological debate. “If you convince us that your ideas are justified by the Quran, then we will join you in the struggle,” the scholars told the terrorists. “But if we succeed in convincing you of our ideas, then you must agree to renounce violence.” The scholars won the debate, and a number of the prisoners renounced violence, were released, and were given help in finding jobs. Some have since offered advice to Yemeni security services. A tip from one led to the death of al Qaeda’s top leader in the country.
Iraq was an attempt at this solution. Setup a free and Democratic Islamic state and use that model to undermine the "Ideology." To date, the experiment has failed.
In general, and in hindsight, I think it's an overly simplistic view. How do you undermine a religion that has been ingrained into the entire population since childhood? How do you undermine what these people believe is the literal, dictated word of God? How do you outspend the Gulf oil States who fund the religion and the indoctrination? How do you undermine a religion that is looking forward to the "end of days." How do you defeat a western media who refuses to tell the truth and would never cooperate in any effort to spread "the truth." How do you get western governments who are fearful of their own unassimilated Muslim population (like France) to help?
I'm not saying we stop trying but we need a Plan B and C.
No way! I heard Chuck Schumer and that nitwit from Harlem say that by fighting terrorism, we are making more terrorists. So if we just stop fighting them, they will just go away and leave us alone, right...
The West had better move damn fast because the terrorist ideology - and instruction-book methodology - is being spread daily at the speed of light through the world via the media, internet and such adjunct areas as simple DVD's and CD's.
The recommendations in this study are excellent because they (Rand) again bring up the subject to disturb the culture of mass, acute amnesia.
The new Democratic leadership in congress will totally undermine every ounce of American will to fight ANY war for decades to come.
The new rule is this: Absolutely every opportunity to display weakness must be employed in the war with Islamic Beheaders. Every effort must be made to compromise our security, our basic culture and our leadership position in world affairs. American culture MUST be put in its place. We MUST be as weak as possible in order to let France and the UN know that we aren't 'bullies'. We must send a message to the world that Islamic Hatred is the fault of the USA. All of our security decisions must first be approved by countries that have no real interest in US security. And above all, for God's sake, don't offend any muslims.
Once congress has accomplished that, the solution to this problem will be up to us.
That's it, by golly, mandatory firearms training for all competent, non-criminal adults. (I'll bet that's not where this is going though.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.