US Qaeda strategy fatally flawed: analysts

Yahoo News ^ | Feb 2, 2008 | Michel Moutot

[forkinsocket]

PARIS (AFP) - In its ideological struggle against Al-Qaeda, American anti-terrorist strategy too often overlooks the basic tenets of the infamous Chinese warlord Sun Tzu, namely: know your enemy.

That is the fixed view of leading analysts, who conclude that through ignorance of the enemy it faces, ignorance of its nature, its goals, its strengths and its weaknesses, the United States is condemned to failure.

"The attention of the US military and intelligence community is directed almost uniformly towards hunting down militant leaders or protecting US forces, (and) not towards understanding the enemy we now face," said Bruce Hoffman, a professor at Georgetown University, Washington DC.

"This is a monumental failing not only because decapitation strategies have rarely worked in countering mass-mobilisation terrorist or insurgent campaigns, but also because Al-Qaeda's ability to continue this struggle is based absolutely on its capacity to attract new recruits and replenish its resources.

"Without knowing our enemy, we cannot fulfill the most basic requirements of an effective counter-terrorist strategy: pre-empting and preventing terrorist operations and deterring their attacks," Hoffman added.

Officials said Friday that Abu Laith al-Libi -- believed to have been killed when a missile fired by an unmanned US aircraft hit his Pakistani hideout -- was a top Al-Qaeda commander who led Osama bin Laden's terror network in Afghanistan.

He was in fifth position on a classified US Central Intelligence Agency wanted list seen by AFP, with a five-million-dollar (3.5 million euros) bounty on his head.

But in using the "Al-Qaeda" label when talking about suspects arrested or armed fighters killed -- indiscriminately and sometimes wrongly, whether in Afghanistan, Iraq or elsewhere -- American or Western forces create and feed a confusion which ultimately makes victims of themselves, experts say.

"(Using) body-counts as a criterion to measure effectiveness is a bit like Guantanamo: you produce a tally, you mix up Al-Qaeda members or just hired hands with people who have only the vaguest of connections, people who have none at all and finally even pure civilians," added French academic Jean-Pierre Filiu, author of "Les Frontieres du Jihad" ('The Limits of Jihad').

"When you reach that point, air-strikes and the elimination of 'wanted' individuals not only prove fruitless, but actually become counter-productive.

"These actions only intensify (Al-Qaeda) recruitment, instead of weakening the organisation.

"The problem is this innate tendency within all administrations or bodies to stack up figures, pull out statistics, use them to show how they are winning, how they are liquidating their enemies, etc," Filiu added.

The 'body-count' syndrome is actually a "trap" laid by Al-Qaeda into which the Americans have "fallen" blindly, added Lebanese-American researcher Fawaz Gerges, an international relations specialist at Sarah Lawrence College, New York.

"You cannot win this war on the battlefield, because there is none," said Gerges. "You're facing an unconventional war. The more you rely on military might, the more you lose the war of ideas against Al-Qaeda and the militants.

"In Iraq, we fell into their trap, we gave them more ideological ammunition.

"So many Muslims all over the world are now convinced, and this feeling is so entrenched, that the war in Iraq is not against Al-Qaeda, but against Islam."

Gerges detects a growing appreciation of this phenomenon "even at the heart of the American administration," expressing his belief that a "new understanding" exists which casts the outgoing George W. Bush's war against Al-Qaeda as "counter-productive".

The echoes of Sun Tzu's writings, produced at least 2,500 years ago, are everywhere, viz:

"If you know others and know yourself, you will not be imperilled in a hundred battles; if you do not know others but know yourself, you win one and lose one; if you do not know others and do not know yourself, you will be imperilled in every single battle".

[forkinsocket]

.

[Brilliant]

Even if we knew our enemy, we couldn’t do anything about them because of political correctness.

[SolidWood]

Yaaaaaaawn. If we indeed recognized the enemy for what he is, we would kill them more determined, indiscrimanetly and forcefully than what we have seen in the last years... I doubt that’s quite the contrary of what those liberal dopehead think-turds would suggest.

[Red Badger]

If it weren’t for PC, this war would have ended years and thousands of lives ago..........

[SolidWood]

doubt Correction: doubt = think

[joshhiggins]

When the french figure out how to deal with their “youths” maybe I will take them seriously.

[2banana]

To really know our enemy - ISLAM is the enemy

[PGalt]

Islamic apologist. More commentary here...

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/019790.php#comments

Thanks to Marisol, Hugh and the outstanding posters at jihadwatch.

[JPJones]

"The attention of the US military and intelligence community is directed almost uniformly towards hunting down militant leaders or protecting US forces, (and) not towards understanding the enemy we now face," said Bruce Hoffman, a professor at Georgetown University, Washington DC.

Well.... DUH!!!

[docbnj]

I think that I have read this before, only with the enemy different. We are “fatally flawed” because we do not understand the enemy.

Correction please: actually, I think that we understand this enemy pretty well. I notice that the Yahoo article does not explain what we have wrong, other than we capture a mixed bag of opponents. So? That just means that the enemy is motley. OK? We already knew that.

This Yahoo article is based on intellectually confused thinking, probably coming from the usual subversives in the State Department. Next thing you know, they will be planting leaked analyses (which they themselves have written) with defeatist messages. That is what they did in Vietnam, and since it worked, they will try it again.

[denydenydeny]

Blah, blah, blah. We must understand our enemy, why do they hate us, root causes, blah, blah, blah.

We didn’t need to “understand” Hitler’s grievances. Neither do we need to understand Osama.

[Obadiah]

...said Bruce Hoffman, a professor at Georgetown University, Washington DC.

Although conveniently not noted in the article, one wonders what connection this lefty professor has to either George Soros, the Clinton campaign, or the DNC at large.

[SueRae]

The only thing we need to know about this enemy is where they are hiding so we can eliminate them from the planet. There is no ‘understanding’ of this enemy, certainly no ‘reasoning’ with it. It must simply be utterly destroyed.

[sam_paine]

What is it about this article that even attempts to correlate or question its connection to actual events on the ground.

Sounds like a bunch of professors theorizing on the basis of preconceived conclusions.

No data. No alternative opinions. Not even anecdotal examples. Just suppositions “of monumental proportions.”

[wita]

So many Muslims all over the world are now convinced, and this feeling is so entrenched, that the war in Iraq is not against Al-Qaeda, but against Islam.

Ya think?

But then the general tone is why do anything, because you can’t win.

In this case doing sometning over there, equals less going on over here.

So all in all, I’ll ride the present strategy until we find that anti-pregnancy drug which can be applied to the aquifers, for the long term fix.

[demshateGod]

“In Iraq, we fell into their trap, we gave them more ideological ammunition.”

Was this written two years ago?

[No Truce With Kings]

Considering the source for the conclusions (Fawaz Gerges), I’d say that it is evidence that the current American strategy is working. When your enemy tells you that what you are doing to him is making him stronger and you should stop doing it . . . well . . . I’d say that speaks strongly that what you are doing is really hurting him and he wants you to stop it.

[Little Ray]

Yes, its flawed.
We should hunt down the people who fund Al Qaeda and kill them and their families even if they are in ostensibly “friendly” countries.
We should destroy the organizations that handle money for Al Quaeda, no matter who they are or where they are headquartered.
We kill the people who preach Jihad, and their families, where ever they live.
We should kill the Al Qaeda's recruiters and trainers, and their families, where ever they may be.
We should kill anyone who provides them weapons, and destroy the facilities where they are manufactured.

There should be no mercy, no pity, and no place to hide.

[expatguy]

It ain't over till the fat lady sings.

The Doctrine of Collective Responsibility

[HawaiianGecko]

This reads like a bunch of frivolous BS.  I see absolutely no proof offered in support of what they are saying.  Invoking the name of some ancient Chinese warlord reminds me a bit of voodoo... the echos of Sun Tzu's writings, produced at least 2500 years ago, are everywhere, viz: 'If you know others and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles...'   EWWWW... Yes Grasshopper!
"(Using) body-counts as a criterion to measure effectiveness is a bit like Guantanamo:"  ????  Wow, what genius!  Appears to be misuse of mixed metaphors to me.