The Killing of al-Qaeda's No. 3: Does It Matter? (Time.com)

Lot of good points from both sides, butlet's remember some basic truths:

1. A "terrorist" cannot exist without local support, they are part of the society and requie support from that society.
2. The acts they commit are not any different to acts of a criminal - the intentions may be different, but the actual act is the same, therefore dealing with terrorist should be police led and criminal court driven.
3. Acts of violence do little to gain allies, you do win more friends by sugar than the stick!
4. How is it that a suicide bomber who blows himself up in a bazaar is any different to a drone missile strike on a house? They kill people, destroy neighbourhoods and ruin lives?

If we are serious about tackling terrorism (and I recall many other threads talking about this) we need to look at fundamentals, the why, not just the how. Then we tackle the why. Can't say that I'd do a better job than those currently hamfisting it, but I'd bring a new perspective - engagement over assassination.
 
Out of the minds put to the matter right now I am sure someone or a group of people somewhere has already come to that conclusion.

As for terror being a criminal but the threat is military. As for dealing solely on the why, and not the how, you can not abandon looking at how they attack, I am pretty sure that any militant group of extremist are nt going to take a convenient break, for their enemies to study why they attack, and I don't that would so hard to understand, considering they advertise why they do it all the time. And any sub reason for attacking might not be that deep.
 
Al-Quaeda was dying after the events in Afghanistan...

Thanks to the US invasion in Iraq, they are hiring like madmen... Iraq turned into a breeding area for them, they popped their heads in every dark area like mushrooms...

Terrorism was born from the use of military power against civilian populations. Iraq is a good example, the military where crushed in matter of days... And 7 years after the country isnt safe yet...
 
Then how in the hell did the Iraqi army keep ther country terror free? So all the worlds powers should disband their armed services to avoid reprisal by terror groups? Isn't that almost exactly what they militants are hoping for? To disrupt their enemies ways of life so drastically that they can achieve their goals more easily?
 
Muslims just hate invaders... They can find a way to live with a dictatorship, but when it's an invading army, they just lose their minds.

The situation is very complex.

They can "negociate" with their brethren, they can join their ranks, they can do a lot of things to survive a dictatorship... But when it's a foreign power, these options arent available.
 
LeMask said:
Muslims just hate invaders... They can find a way to live with a dictatorship, but when it's an invading army, they just lose their minds.

The situation is very complex.

They can "negociate" with their brethren, they can join their ranks, they can do a lot of things to survive a dictatorship... But when it's a foreign power, these options arent available.
Click to expand...

This is a really good explanation if you want to understand the Afghans and their views.

This is also the answer to why it went wrong with the western intervention in Afghanistan - you do not see Afghanistan in its historical, cultural, ethnic and religious context, and you do not see all the Afghan people as a multitude of self valuable cultures with their own ideas, value systems, religion, history, ethnic groups, historical experience, incorporating attitudes of pride. But you invade with 70 to 80,000 foreign soldiers from 46 countries, lots of money, strategies that are changed each year and disagreement between the 46 countries.

Guess what that does to a country where pride and local patriotism and nationalism have strong roots and has a national legacy of foreign intervention, which they have a history of reacting against.

Also outside the cities and also partially in cities Westerners are viewed as infidels, as having a second and completely different religion than Islam. It is no problem if you come as a guest or in small quantities, but the ISAF assistance is being judged from the Afghans religious cultural perception of us.
 
SeeHund, just a little detail to add...

The nationalism in Afghanistan, well we shouldnt call it "nationalism" but rather "holy landism"... Or something like that... Because they dont really recognize a flag, nation, official borders...

But rather the "spiritual" and "religious/historic" value of these lands... It's like defending a church, you dont do it because it's your or because you want to live there... You do it because you consider it as holy or because you give a value to it's symbolic and historical background and that you dont want to see foreigners or people that dont respect these values near that place...

We should stop explaning "alien" concepts with things we have in our cultures... It's sterile.
 
LeMask said:
SeeHund, just a little detail to add...

The nationalism in Afghanistan, well we shouldnt call it "nationalism" but rather "holy landism"... Or something like that... Because they dont really recognize a flag, nation, official borders...

But rather the "spiritual" and "religious/historic" value of these lands... It's like defending a church, you dont do it because it's your or because you want to live there... You do it because you consider it as holy or because you give a value to it's symbolic and historical background and that you dont want to see foreigners or people that dont respect these values near that place...

We should stop explaning "alien" concepts with things we have in our cultures... It's sterile.
Click to expand...

Your understanding of Astan would fit in a thimble wouldn't it?
 
Once again, on the topic of life in Astan, I would prefer the opinion of the professionals in harms way who work there, and have served there.

Their experiences on this topic are invaluable for understanding what the situation is in the fight against the militants.

I am not the expert here, this is more or less their story along with the inhabitants of the region.
 
Seehund said:
This is a really good explanation if you want to understand the Afghans and their views.

This is also the answer to why it went wrong with the western intervention in Afghanistan - you do not see Afghanistan in its historical, cultural, ethnic and religious context, and you do not see all the Afghan people as a multitude of self valuable cultures with their own ideas, value systems, religion, history, ethnic groups, historical experience, incorporating attitudes of pride. But you invade with 70 to 80,000 foreign soldiers from 46 countries, lots of money, strategies that are changed each year and disagreement between the 46 countries.

Guess what that does to a country where pride and local patriotism and nationalism have strong roots and has a national legacy of foreign intervention, which they have a history of reacting against.

Also outside the cities and also partially in cities Westerners are viewed as infidels, as having a second and completely different religion than Islam. It is no problem if you come as a guest or in small quantities, but the ISAF assistance is being judged from the Afghans religious cultural perception of us.
Click to expand...


No it's really weak when trying to explain Astan and the culture and tribal conflicts.

Your explanation doesn't explain the concept of Dhimmi, or kafir and misrepresents the term infidel and how it used outside the jihadist arena the majority of Afghani's and Iraqi's are not jihadist, taliban and or insurgent.
 
Do you think that the soldiers in harms way in Afghanistan are experts in Afghan culture?

I dont think it's the case. Not every soldier is a trained ethnologist... And I'm sure that most dont really care, they make find some interest in learning some practical informations... But It takes more than that to have an authority to speak on the subject...

We use "nationalism" to explain the relation between, I dont know, an American and the united state, or a Japenese and Japan... But even these relations arent the same... American nationalism could be compared to Japenese nationalism, but there is some subtle things in the culture that will give different behaviors...
Same for the Afghans...
 
03USMC said:
No it's really weak when trying to explain Astan and the culture and tribal conflicts.

Your explanation doesn't explain the concept of Dhimmi, or kafir and misrepresents the term infidel and how it used outside the jihadist arena the majority of Afghani's and Iraqi's are not jihadist, taliban and or insurgent.
Click to expand...
No, that may well be correct, but they are usually totally corrupt and completely without the concept of loyalty or honesty. This is the reason why most tribal Afghans are the way that they are. Loyalty can only be bought, and it only lasts so long as there is an advantage to them.

Power in Afghanistan does not originate from the Ballot box. These people elected to power only have the following of those who stand to gain from their position of power. The instant that these elected persons buddy up to an outside power they lose the trust of those who followed them, this is ten times so when those buddies are Dhimmam.

LeMask said:
We use "nationalism" to explain the relation between, ---snip---
Click to expand...
Afghans do not see themselves as a "Nation" within our meaning of the word, they are first and foremost, individualists,... by our standards they are essentially Anarchists. Their loyalty is firstly to themselves,... then male family, clan and tribe, above this, it is realy of little interest to them. Where we see a leader, they see a target.

The big trouble for us is that this system has worked for them for longer than we are aware of. This to them, is what democracy is to us, it works for them and that is all that they care about.
 
Last edited:
senojekips said:
No, that may well be correct, but they are usually totally corrupt and completely without the concept of loyalty or honesty. This is the reason why most tribal Afghans are the way that they are. Loyalty can only be bought, and it only lasts so long as there is an advantage to them.

Power in Afghanistan does not originate from the Ballot box. These people elected to power only have the following of those who stand to gain from their position of power. The instant that these elected persons buddy up to an outside power they lose the trust of those who followed them, this is ten times so when those buddies are Dhimmam.

Afghans do not see themselves as a "Nation" within our meaning of the word, they are first and foremost, individualists,... by our standards they are essentially Anarchists. Their loyalty is firstly to themselves,... then male family, clan and tribe, above this, it is realy of little interest to them. Where we see a leader, they see a target.

The big trouble for us is that this system has worked for them for longer than we are aware of. This to them, is what democracy is to us, it works for them and that is all that they care about.
Click to expand...

Senjo, I have to say that I think that you are off the mark - but that is my opinion, I have not been to Afghanistan and have only spoken to 1 Afghan, although if I recall he said he was a Pashtun, from Afghanistan.

From what I have read and understand about Afghanistan, their value system is different to ours in the West, as it is with many other countries. Thier loyalties lie in different directions, country, province etc mean nothing. The land is free, to be held be the ablest and strongest. If your land is threatened by someone stronger, then you seek an ally, who has something in common (language, religion, culture etc) and then work to defeat the foe, once the fight is over it is back to status quo ante.

The big question is can that thought process be changed? I think yes, but it will take more years than the current NATO nations have patience or money for, so yet again, the Kushans and other tribes will have received promises of help but little to show.

We have shown little benefit to the tribes to work together, but have offered lots of money to play nicely, whilst we're in country. When we leave, it will go back to the same way of operating, not because the "Afghans" don't want democracy, they just don't feel that they need it!
 
Do you reckon that there might be a way to make a Taliban free Afghanistan based on those premises? A way NATO can work with that?
 
LeMask said:
Do you think that the soldiers in harms way in Afghanistan are experts in Afghan culture?

I dont think it's the case. Not every soldier is a trained ethnologist... And I'm sure that most dont really care, they make find some interest in learning some practical informations... But It takes more than that to have an authority to speak on the subject...

We use "nationalism" to explain the relation between, I dont know, an American and the united state, or a Japenese and Japan... But even these relations arent the same... American nationalism could be compared to Japenese nationalism, but there is some subtle things in the culture that will give different behaviors...
Same for the Afghans...
Click to expand...

I know that the troops deploying to Afgh are given significant blocks of instruction on Afghan culture, when was the last time you had a block of instruction from individuals that had multiple tours in country living with the Afghani's ?

Yeah thats what I thought. So once again it's you waxing intellectual without a grounding in the subject matter.
 
Maybe not on Afghanistan, but when I travel, I take the time to learn about the local culture... By curiosity.

And some soldier are so young, you cant label them as "scholars" even if they took the time to read on these subjects...

You need time to process the knowledge you read... And it takes experience and practice to be able to make bridges between theory and reality.

If they had the chance to go through college before joining the military to learn how to learn... I might believe you.

How many soldiers in Astan who speak the local languages you know? How many can intervene with the locals without an interpreter? How many can understand when the interpreter is accurate or not?

And how can you understand the culture if you cant live with the people there or just speak their language?

And how many of US soldiers is an expert in Islamic laws to negotiate with the locals using terms they might accept?

I'm sure even the white collars in the Pentagone dont have this knowledge...
 
"And some soldier are so young, you cant label them as "scholars" even if they took the time to read on these subjects... "


I guess multiple tours of over a year sometimes in the country just is not good enough, guess they just went on holidays for 13 months. Must still be oblivious of how the country may kinda work.

"How many soldiers in Astan who speak the local languages you know? How many can intervene with the locals without an interpreter? How many can understand when the interpreter is accurate or not? "

Then how exactly are you interpreting the situation?

"If they had the chance to go through college before joining the military to learn how to learn... I might believe you. "

There are, they are called officers of the U.S. Armed Forces, each one commissioned by Congress, many from the four U.S. Armed Forces Military Academy's,or Merchant Marine Academy.

"And how many of US soldiers is an expert in Islamic laws to negotiate with the locals using terms they might accept? "

You mean Islamic customs and traditions and how they function into everyday life? Laws? The place is the wild west.

Oh and you mean the blue, khaki, and green collars in the Pentagon? Guess they must be still clueless after almost 10 years.

Also I would like to bring up one of your points earlier, of not trying to decide policy in Afghanistan if you don't in your opinion have an Ivy league education or have been there. Then do not look at the region through our eyes and try to understand it.

So then, please, do not look at Afghanistan through an American policy makers eyes, you do not understand the culture of everyday life here or how the average American see's the policies of the war planning.
 
Last edited:
They are not all officers mate.

And multiple tours cant make the difference if they are locked up in some military base... And even when they are on the field, they are there as soldiers, the behavior of the locals change.

And Islam is a religion of law. I was told by a scholar, who is teaching economics in my university that among Muslims, religious knowledge can make you an authority in no time. You have to agree on the fondamentals of course... A shiite Scholar would have poor results in a country like Afghanistan...

But you can have interesting results when you use something like religion... Ben Laden isnt the scholar in religion by definition, and he got pretty good results.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top