Terrorists ARE Losing the War

[ethics]

A French Arabist author, Gilles Kepel, has made a compelling argument (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55504-2004Sep27.html) that as ham-handedly as the West (primarily the U.S.) has handled their Global War on Terrorism they are still not losing the war. Instead, Kepel suggests it is the terrorists themselves who are blundering the battle and losing the war.

Kepel suggests that Islam is caught in a fitna which is an equal and opposite to jihad; "It signifies sedition, war in the heart of Islam, a centrifugal force that threatens the faithful with community fragmentation, disintegration and ruin."

Kepel's book "The War for Muslim Minds (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0674015754/qid=1096557531/sr=8-1/ref=pd_ka_1/102-7343456-7629709?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)" responds that the Islamist terror networks own savagery is working against them. Beheadings, kidnappings and carbombings and ill-conceived demands (such as the ones designed to repeal the French headscarf ban) are turning the strife inward within the Muslim population of extremists and moderates.

Saturated in terrorism alerts and images of violence from Iraq, Americans may miss the essential fact that the terrorists are losing.

[jimeez]

A French Arabist author, Gilles Kepel, has made a compelling argument (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55504-2004Sep27.html) that as ham-handedly as the West (primarily the U.S.) has handled their Global War on Terrorism they are still not losing the war. Instead, Kepel suggests it is the terrorists themselves who are blundering the battle and losing the war.I think it's way too early to make this kind of statement. Give it 12-15 years. Wait for the youth of Afghanistan and Iraq to get a little older and they can actually act out on their frustrations toward America. I fear we're actually creating the terrorists of tomorrow. I hope I am wrong.....but wouldn't you be pissed if someone bombed the hell out of your country day in and day out?

[tke711]

I hope I am wrong.....but wouldn't you be pissed if someone bombed the hell out of your country day in and day out?

Not if it is preferable to what I was living under before.

[ethics]

I think it's way too early to make this kind of statement. Give it 12-15 years. Wait for the youth of Afghanistan and Iraq to get a little older and they can actually act out on their frustrations toward America. I fear we're actually creating the terrorists of tomorrow. I hope I am wrong.....but wouldn't you be pissed if someone bombed the hell out of your country day in and day out?

The scope of Kepel's argument is within Muslims, not so much as the war on Terror from US perspective. Kepel talks about the Fitna, a war internal to Muslims, where Prophet Mohammed had always warned Muslims of getting trapped in Fitna. It weakens them and it pushes them astray from the good teachings and values of the good religion of Islam.

This thread is actually more about the issue that keeps resurfacing here regarding lack of the "moderate Muslim". Well, Kepel provides you not only with the fact that they not only exist they thrive and outnumber the extremists.

[jimeez]

This thread is actually more about the issue that keeps resurfacing here regarding lack of the "moderate Muslim". Well, Kepel provides you not only with the fact that they not only exist they thrive and outnumber the extremists.
Yikes! My apologies. Chalk another one up to reading comprehension.

Hopefully the US campaigns in the Middle East will not strengthen the extremists' positions.

[efuseakay]

I hope I am wrong.....but wouldn't you be pissed if someone bombed the hell out of your country day in and day out?

Yup... the Iraqi's are quite pissed at Iran and Syria...

[el scorcho]

Terrorists are losing the war, but they have an unrealistic agenda to begin with, so the statement in itself isn't particularly revelatory.

In regard to Iraq, this the strength of this theory (if he does intend to apply it as such) is dubious. An arab professor on NOW with Bill Moyer last night argued that the insurgency in Iraq is being fought along two different strains of nationalism. The US is pushing towards an industrial self-ruled democracy, while the insurgents preach for a more classic militaristic 'fists in the air' nationalism. For all the force and resolution that the US has in the region, it is up to the Iraqi people to decide which they prefer and how they view the American forces currently in place.

Algeria stood as an arab French colony for decades before winning their independence through an insurgence rebellion, and in doing so toppling the anemic French Fourth Republic. Vietnam likewise stood as a French colony before their desire for independence (which was painted as a communist uprise) made France realize another brewing quagmire and pulled out.

[ethics]

Surely I didn't see you attempt to compare US with France? ESPECIALLY towards the history of relationship (if I can stretch the meaning of the word) on Algeria and how the French literally targetted Algerians?

[el scorcho]

Partially, yes. In many ways the toppling of regimes and nation-building to enact a friendly government can be seen as the new-imperialism. What I'm appealing to is that the choice is ultimately up to the Iraqis, as it was the Algerians and the Vietnamese in how to view the military occupation and government that is instituted.

[ethics]

I don't see how your point raised is in any different than in the capacity of the issue raised by the author? He states that the fight is within Islam and within Muslims.

How is this different than what the author already stated?

[el scorcho]

He's painting the insurgency in Iraq as just a terrorist uprising by Al Queada, akin to how the US painted the Vietnam War simply as a battle against communism. It's jumping past bigger trends, even though the conclusions we both reach are somewhat similar.

[ethics]

He's painting the insurgency in Iraq as just a terrorist uprising by Al Queada, akin to how the US painted the Vietnam War simply as a battle against communism. It's jumping past bigger trends, even though the conclusions we both reach are somewhat similar.


First of all, do you deny that some of the insurgents are also terrorists?Secondly, do you deny that some of those terrorists are AQ?

Kepel mentions the insurgents exactly one time and he is specific as to the type that he focuses on: Kepel argues that the insurgents' brutal tactics in Iraq -- the kidnappings and beheadings, and the car-bombing massacres of young Iraqi police recruits -- are increasingly alienating the Muslim masses. No sensible Muslim would want to live in Fallujah, which is now controlled by Taliban-style fanatics.

No one is under the impression that all insurgents are terrorists or vice versa.

[araina]

Why is some of your text pink?

[Sierra Mike]

Looks like he's highlighting a quote to me.

SM

[el scorcho]

In the context of the entire article (and his particular phrasing of the title) he's implying that the insurgency is dominated by terrorists. I don't deny that terrorists could be taking an active part in the insurgency, but I question the train of thought that (I'm inferring at last) that states "If A, then B". The fact that terrorists are linked to the uprisings alone does not mean that the insurgency is primarily based on Al Queda/terrorist principles, hence the analogy to Vietnam.

[ethics]

In the context of the entire article (and his particular phrasing of the title) he's implying that the insurgency is dominated by terrorists.


Since there's no way to tell how much of Iraq is comprised of insurgents, I would think it's even harder to attempt to estimate how much of that insurgency is from terrorist organizations.

I didn't get that feel and my highlighted text from the article shows me that Kepel was very specific in describing the focus of his article which were the extremist fanatics.

[araina]

Since there's no way to tell how much of Iraq is comprised of insurgents, I would think it's even harder to attempt to estimate how much of that insurgency is from terrorist organizations.

FWIW: a US General put the figure at 1% earlier this year and called it a misconception that foriegn fighters had flooded Iraq.

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2004/05/04/2003154092/print


In July, the figure was pegged at less than 2%:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-05-detainees-usat_x.htm

[el scorcho]

Then we respectfully disagree. My own personal feelings are slanted to a point as both my parents lived in Vietnam during the War, leaving Saigon a day before it fell. The news they've told me between what the war stood for them and their friends is much different than the US government view, hence my hesitance towards blanketing all the insurgencies as that of an 'islamic terrorist' bent.

My view of the reading is based on how it argues that terrorists are losing the war and how the authors supports this with an annedote about the kidnappings/beheadings. Arguing that the beheadings are in effect polarizing the muslim public also contrasts with another news report I've read where the beheading videos are sold on the open markets. This also clashes with a public that seems to be more moderate in their views towards death and violence/murder. As far as I understand it Al Jazzeera, for instance, has had no problem showing vivid images of death and bleeding bodies.

[el scorcho]

While i hate what Drudge stands for in journalism, I admit to reading it quite a bit when I'm bored.

<a href="http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&u=/ap/20041004/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_complex_insurgency_2&printer=1">This is from the site now - noting 'Complex Insurgency in Iraq...'</a>. Simply affixing the term terrorist (which Kepel doesn't state outright, but is mentioned quite explicitely in the title of his article) and 'Islamic Holy Warriors' is a misleading slant. There are Al Queda/Islamic extremeists in the mix, but also Iraqi 'nationalists', Hussein loyalists and disgruntled citizens.

[ethics]

Then we respectfully disagree.




I don't have a problem with this. :)

[el scorcho]

I concur, respectfully. :)

[efuseakay]

FWIW: a US General put the figure at 1% earlier this year and called it a misconception that foriegn fighters had flooded Iraq.

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2004/05/04/2003154092/print


In July, the figure was pegged at less than 2%:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-05-detainees-usat_x.htm

Hmmm... I guess my friends that are there being shot at now, who have actually killed/taken custody a bunch of guys with Iranian and Syrian passports have gotten lucky in finding the 1-2%... ;)

I guess now, we need to get the General's definition of "flooded"... :lol: