The Generational War
It is not a popular thing to say in public circles, but there is a growing awareness of the the nature of the Islamist threat to the United States and the West in the Pentagon and elsewhere.
In an interview with the Washington Times, Brig. Gen. Mark O. Schissler, deputy director for the war on terrorism within the strategic plans office of the Pentagon’s Joint Staff, stated that the enemy is “absolutely committed to the 50-. 100-year plan” to establish a caliphate.
This is not news. But this type of public assessment has been sorely lacking since 9-11. People in the Intelligence Community here and abroad, who read the jihadi literature and pay attention to what they say, know this. But there has been an extreme reluctance to make this case publicly and constantly, so people are aware of not only what the stakes are but of the need for an over-arching, long-term strategy.
There is very little work being done in looking at the 10 to 20 year horizon on where Islamists are now, where they are moving and what the potential future threats and opportunities are for moving against them. Almost everything in the Pentagon and IC are geared to the 3 to 5 year horizon. In real terms, this is extremely short.
Most of the thinking that does exit over longer periods are for the military component-that is, where to have troops, where to be prepared to deploy, what the direct military threats can be.
While this is necessary, it is not a strategic plan to counter the Islamist plan and agenda. There is no real public diplomacy component that is functioning, no way to reach out to the moderate Arab and Islamic world without burning them to a crisp on contact.
Furthermore there is no real understanding now of where the jihadis are, what their relative strength in different regions is, how the Sunni and Shia groups cooperate and compete in different areas of the world, no map of the infrastructure of NGOS and mosques. This is a huge setback after 5 years.
Knowing the order of battle of the enemy, in any war, is crucial. We do not know the order of battle of our enemies. At least we are now willing to say they have a plan to carry out, and we better get one too.
commenting closed for this article
Why Jihahdis Are Feeling Good A Chilling Look at the Taliban's Success
Counterterrorism efforts have the short-term goal of preventing terrorist group operations and the long-term goal of preventing the recruitment of new generations of terrorists i.e. the next wave.
President Bush has poured billions into the short-term goal re: the military solution vis-a-vis ‘kill them all’ but there is not now nor has there ever been an effort for what is referred to as countermotivation.
President Bush never had a plan for post-war Iraq. It is unlikely that President Bush has plan for post-war Iraq even if 140,000 troops are left there until 2008 to train the Iraqi army.
Countermotivation will be the long-term solution if it is the goal derived from a consensual agreement of nations via the UN i.e. a ‘global peacebuilding initiative’ e.g. ”...five lessons can be summed up as five principles, which I believe are essential for the future conduct of international relations: collective responsibility, global solidarity, the rule of law, mutual accountability, and multilateralism. Let me leave them with you, in solemn trust, as I hand over to a new secretary-general in three weeks’ time… ” (Kofi Annan).
— Philip Henika Dec 13, 14:23 #
Well Mr. Farah, I’m very disappointed to hear this news.
Note that even the Pentagon apparently doesn’t have a “defeat and contain” strategy on the table: defeat immediately and contain long term. This despite the fact that one of the inspirational and funding power centers of this frenzied murderous mass movement is plainly in sight in Iran as Mr Farah reports. (Note that Iraq was not and is not such a center and thus the object of the wrong war fought the wrong way.)
I think our basic plan should be to make sure that the jihadis know that an Islamic state attempting world jihad (the motive of the terrorism) will not be allowed to exist (it will be destroyed) and their fantasy is finished. Secondarily, maybe some Muslim intellectuals will develop a much less toxic Islam or a new Enlightenment in the West will sweep all religion and its infantile myths into the history books where it can never again kill us or take away our freedom or try to wreck our science.I am not interested waiting for massive attacks on the U.S. for the next 50 or 100 years while the Pentagon tries to trim the branches of the jihadic tree and the State Dept hands out soccer balls, welfare, stupid grins, and endless appeasement. The jihads want massive crippling attacks on the U.S. What doesn’t the Administration, the Pentagon, and the Congress understand about that? Do we have to have the populations of major cities running from blast centers or nerve gas on the wind before they figure this thing out? Mr Farah, I’m really afraid that this is the way it’s going to happen. We’ll do “out reach” while the jihadis burn us to a crisp. Ahmadinejad and the other jihadis count on this mentality every single day as they work to “eliminate us.”
The lack of a “defeat and contain” strategy is a supremely important fact: a fact that could mean the deaths of many many Americans for no reason at all: a massive failure to defend America. I urge anyone (especially the Pentagon) who quickly rejected a “defeat and contain” strategy because “terrorism doesn’t have a country” to reexamine and reject this premise.
— MelM Dec 13, 19:49 #
What?
“But there has been an extreme reluctance to make this case publicly and constantly, so people are aware of not only what the stakes are…”
Why? How can the American people make political decisions if the government doesn’t explain what’s going on? Why haven’t the American people been told who the enemy is, what their motive is, and where their power centers are located? Most Americans work all day and even think about their projects into the evening. They can’t spent time reading jihadi literature or web sites. They need facts from those who do these things and most importantly, straight talk from our military and political leaders. They don’t need a bunch of stinking spin which seems to be all that anybody in Washington does anymore (and they are sooo slick at it). An ancient philosopher thought the world was made of water; these idiots think the world is made of spin—the spin they created. Just watch Bush a few seconds. Watch him spin spin spin. I’ve got a lot of disagreements with most of the American people but their not fools.
“An extreme reluctance to make this case publicly” JHC! #x%x*!
I would like to see Senate Foreign Relation Committee hearings that examine the nature and goals of Islamic totalitarianism. Maybe that would help. But, then we’d need some leader(s) to explain it all to the American people. I’d hope there’s some respected “Old-dog” Senators around who’d be able to do this. I don’t see any though! Maybe Biden and Warner could handle it; I’m not sure. Biden really cares but he gets some fantasy solutions at times.
— MelM Dec 13, 20:56 #
MelM and Douglas:
If a terrorist group is to succeed with a large scale attack on US soil then it will require inside help. Hence the unanswered questions re: the 1993 and 2001 attacks on the WTC.
So, in brief, we are left with defeat, contain, defend and oversight such that all the fundamentals are in place for the preservation of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness not only in the good ‘ol USA but globally as well.
As for the two missing from the defeat and contain list i.e. defend and oversight, I have observed some improvements in the defend e.g. NYC counterterrorism efforts and Wall Street cybersecurity.
However, I see no oversight on the order of Senate oversight of the Viet Nam War. I see no effort also, as I stated above re: a global peacebuilding initiative.
— Philip Henika Dec 13, 21:17 #
I couldn’t agree more – I’m an Aussie and can’t help but feel people just can’t join the dots or see past next week or next year. Unless you really take an interest, I don’t know what it will take to really convince joe average what could potentially confront our kids or their kids.
— Skippy505 Dec 14, 00:50 #
For a Map on major U.S. mosques check here:
http://libraries.mit.edu/guides/subjects/islamicarchitecture/visual/usamosques.htmlIt’s textbook strategic placement for a simultaneous multi-stage WMD attack.
— Scott Taylor Dec 14, 03:09 #
Heard an interesting theory from Sen. Rick Santorum on radio yesterday. He says he believes another major attack on U.S. soil like 9/11, is probably not a priority among terrorists right now, because it would undo the recent Islamist gains in MidEast by galvanizing American support for the war on terror, which has gradually been fading as the Iraq war lingers on.
I’d be interested in others’ opinions on that theory.
— verballistic Dec 14, 03:53 #
Honestly, the flow of this debate is directed toward fear-mongering i.e. the fear that radical Islam is entrenched and that there isn’t any long-term solutions. Historically, radical Islam has risen and fallen in the 1400 year Muslim history so what is inferred here – a long-term and empowered radical Islam – would be unprecedented.
Because I am not an expert I will ask some questions related to long-term fall of radical Islam and the treat to the US.
First, “verbalistic” suggests that the treat may be directed away from the US. My question – if Hizbollah takes over Lebanon will the threat be directed more toward Israel and if the “Islamic State of Iraq” takes root will the threat return to Saudi Arabia (the original OBL obsession with the protection of the Holy Sites in Mecca and Medina)?
Second, what is being done with regard to a global peacebuilding initiative i.e. closer US ties with the UN and peascebuilding? Peacebuilding is considered a valid counterterrorism measure, IMO (based on a consensus re: premise of my email Group)?
Third, where have we succeeded in counterterrorism measures i.e. NYC counterterrorism efforts and Wall Street cybersecurity
Fourth, who were the insiders for 9/11? Who knew?
Fifth, why hasn’t Osama bin Laden been captured and extradited to the US for trial?
— Philip Henika Dec 14, 08:44 #
The CTC Atlas on militant thought gives a rough ‘ideological’ order of battle, viewed as nesting concentric circles.
Is perhaps a long term solution to exploit differences and create divides within these groups.
With an amoral view to the suffering and loss of life, Suuni v. Shia violence in Iraq is becoming the “new Palestine”, and one where the US’s role is increasingly irrelevant to the discussion.
Europe only approached the Westphalian method of setting aside religious principles as a cause for war after over a hundred years of un-ending religious conflict. I hope it doesn’t take that long – but perhaps allowing, or at least not stepping forward to stop, a Suuni v. Shia version of the 30 years war might be the long term answer.
Containment in this case comes from physically containing the conflict from spilling worldwide, and morally containing (to the extent pragmatically possible) human suffering by civilians within the war zones. But a long term Shia v. Suuni conflict would exhaust both sides, depleting manpower and will for religious extremism just as it faded in Europe.
Long term from the containment approach the US and other allies could maintain a lighter presence, and would probably be much stronger than whichever side emerged (if one side did) victorious in such a struggle.
This is why I advocate a US withdrawal and retrenchment from all of Iraq into established bases in Kurdistan to the north, and south to Qatar or Saudia Arabia.
Let a crescent from Iraq, Gaza, Lebanon (and if it falls that way) Jordan become the new “Plaestine” that motivates that radical street of Islam. But in this “Palestine” cause celebre the western world has no pony. Let the mujahedeen from both sides of the schism travel there to fight, not us, but one another.
Contain the conflict, let both sides exhaust them selves, and over time this will give breathing room to more moderate voices.
Just some rambling thoughts.
Tim C.
— Tim Clancy Dec 14, 10:34 #
We do know the strategy of the Terrorists? It has been identified on web site, WWW.USAWakeUp.Org
#1. Break the WILL of your enemy;
#2. Use Lidell Hart’s Strategic Approach Called “The Indirect approach” updated and called, ‘The Trojan Horse’ of the 21st Century.
#3. The strategy is long term-as long as it takes to bring America down.
#4. How? Very simple, by slowly degrading America’s Four Instruments of National Power.
#5. What are the 4 Instruments of National Power? POLITICAL, ECONOMIC, PSYCO-SOCIAL, & MILITARY. Show some examples:
POLITICAL: Watch the news! Is our POLITICAL System not in chaos? ECONOMIC: A shambles, no gold standard since 1971 when America defaulted the world by going off the gold standard. Today all the world’s monies are backed by nothing but paper; America’s deficit/debt is so high it can NEVER be repaid. PSYCHO-SOCIAL: Compare our social values today with those of the Founding Fathers. What impact does the ACLU, Television and Hollywood have on changing Americas’s values? MILITARY: A Politico-military defeat in Vietnam, body bags every day on TV, military ordered to win a political ‘Hearts & Minds’ war/conflict [NOT A BREAK YOUR WILL WAR] that no military has ever been ask to do.Why and how can the Terrorists exert such pressure within America? How could we resolve these issues in our past history AND NOT TODAY? There two main reasons: #1. Terrorists would rather fight, blow themselves up, die and go to ‘72 Virgin’ Heaven than live under West’s value system. #2. CBR TECHNOLOGY, Chemical, Biological & Radiological WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION provides one individual soldier with more power than any army in history.
— StewGable Dec 15, 12:33 #
SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
Volume 2006, Issue No. 128
December 15, 2006
**ARMY COUNTERINSURGENCY DOCTRINE CHARTS A NEW COURSE
“The U.S. Army has completed a long-awaited new manual presenting
military doctrine on counterinsurgency. It is the first revision
of counterinsurgency doctrine in twenty years.
In several respects, the new doctrine implicitly repudiates the
Bush Administration’s approach to the war in Iraq.
“Conducting a successful counterinsurgency campaign requires a
flexible, adaptive force led by agile, well-informed, culturally
astute leaders,” the foreword states.
The new manual emphasizes the importance of planning for
post-conflict stabilization, and it stresses the limited utility
of conventional military operations.
“The military forces that successfully defeat insurgencies are
usually those able to overcome their institutional inclination
to wage conventional war against insurgents.”
A copy of the new 282 page unclassified manual was obtained by
Secrecy News.
See “Counterinsurgency,” U.S. Army Field Manual 3-24, December 15,
http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-24.pdf2006 (12.9 MB PDF):
— Philip Henika Dec 15, 15:35 #
Comments:
“Conducting a successful counterinsurgency campaign requires a flexible, adaptive force led by agile, well-informed, culturally astute leaders,” the foreword states” ( “Counterinsurgency,” U.S. Army Field Manual 3-24, December 15, 2006:
http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-24.pdf ).
Once again I am struck by similiarities, in principle, between how the military wants to initiate a change in course and how peacebuilders actually work.
In the first example, General Abizaid shares a basic principle with the Carter Center re: “helping people to help themselves”. The Carter Center looks for the same attributes stated for leadership when they are asked to do peacebuilding. They want leaders who are
flexible, adaptive, well-informed, and culturally astute.
It is interesting to find the military and the Carter Center on the same page when presented with the change-in-course challenge.
— Philip Henika Dec 15, 16:45 #