I'll be back to blogging later today. I'm going to try and wrap up the last 100 or so pages of Ron Suskind's new book, "The One Percent Doctrine."
In the interim, from page 65, here's an excerpt on non-state actors to ponder:
September 11, 2001, would herald the arrival of the nonstate actor. The only thing that was sudden was his destructive debut, the moment of shared recognition. The nonstate, or transnational, actor had been waiting impatiently in the wings. The primacy of states and borders had been eroding steadily for decades, and more swiftly after the bi-polar U.S.-Soviet structure gave way. The new transnationalists, (I don't like this word, as I prefer nonstate actor, for reasons I will explain later ~spk) like bin Laden and Zawahiri, said, in essence, that state-based power was illusory, or at least overstated. The duo had operated within countries and between them, recruiting thousands of jihadists, training them, and organizing them into a flexible, global network. They had inflicted damage onthe American mainland that no hostile state had dared. They were carrying forward destabilizing ideas to a worldwide constituency. Their point was that the march of globalization meant that borders didn't matter, and states even less so.
Essential to solving the question of terrorism, and destroying al Qaeda is the distinction between nonstate actors and transnationals. The use of one versus the other says much about an individuals worldview. And make no mistake: this is the essential, key debate of our time, because Suskind is largely correct, if he overstates the powerlessness of states.
Using the word transnational allows us to easily confuse and misunderstand the nature and origins of non-state actors and to conflate them with their possible, but usually non-existent state sponsors. States are more often used by nonstate actors, as opposed to states using nonstate actors (although Hezbollah is a unique exception). This was the key mistake of the neocons when it came to fighting al Qaeda; it was the underlying flawed assumption that led us into Iraq. Until we, as a nation, are able to make this distinction, we're not going to win the war on terror, either.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 30
The object or function of that word must be understood, not destroyed.
What does the word 'base' mean to we that throw it around so much?
Describing people and the object of there affections is about all that we can do. It is they that have these objects which are their affections, but not the others in the world, and they are really the ones that should develop their education systems such that they don't believe their religious leaders.
But we do indeed know how difficult it is to disobey out own religious leaders and cast them to asunder, and change our Christian beliefs.
Fill that blank with anything you want. We cannot "defeat" an intangible -- a concept.
As long as there are people capable of being terrified, and causes perceived to be furthered by terrifying them, there will be terrorism. Furthermore, nihilists cannot be deterred.
The point of leverage is "causes perceived to be furthered." If an action (e.g., the invasion and occupation of Iraq) produces more such causes, that action (no matter how well-intentioned) is yet another reason for terrorism.
State-inspired terrorism.
As to the rest of your comments: I don't disagree with them, but they are rather long on philospohy and short on actionable steps.
And for the record: I opposed the Iraq war.
How does one change a religion?
That usually can't be done from the outside, only from within can that be done.
Who in this Islamic religion do you trust to do that?
What clerics does one prefer to change that religion?
The best hope for this kind of change is for the US to stay in Afghanistan and Iraq for the next three or four generations. And as the old clerics die off, they will be replaced by others.
That would equate to something like 80 or more years, the US must be there to guide them in that effort.
I would suggest that if one is not familiar with this that they must read and understand.
I'll see if a link works for those that are not aware of this.
From Link
And as there is more to this I'd suggest more reading.
From Link 1
From Link 2
From Link 3
I still hear the tune over-throw the dictator and establish an Islamic rule (a bunch of Islamic clerics) with sharia, the religious law of Islam in full force.
Something akin to what many Christian fundamentals desire for the United States also I might add.
Anyway the thought that Qutb had a problem with women, which can't be an aside, as his views were somewhat set in place by what he saw as 'bad women', and educating the masses that Qutb's views were erroneously developed on what could be called bad psychological profiling of women, needs to be better understood.
40 years of education has brought us nowhere, and if left alone in another 40 years we will all be in the same boat. Religious ideals must be revised. And in my position that includes Islamic, Christian and Jewish fundamentals need to be abandoned as we can all eat pork now. Eating pork is no longer a problem. Killing folks not of ones religion, just because they believe in some other religion is a problem.
Generations of religious leaders must die and be replaced by more intelligent religious leaders for the world to even have a shot at improving in this area.
That's why I say that the US military most stay in Afghanistan and Iraq for another 80 years as they will need guidance.
It is none of my business what happens in your bedroom. Same principle applies here.
The idea that we need to kill off a generation of religious leaders is deeply repugnant and deeply antithetical to our nation's core values.
That can't be done anymore as the world is in reality a small place and everyone that lives on this Earth is in the same global society.
"The idea that we need to kill off a generation of religious leaders is deeply repugnant and deeply antithetical to our nation's core values.'
I said nothing of the sort. What I said is that they need to die and be replaced by others.
And as most folks I know do indeed die. That is all I said.
It's not repugnant that folks die. It's natural.
But what I find repugnant is what you suggested which was 'are flesh and blood and we should stop at nothing to imprison them, failing that, killing them.'
Education and guidance is much preferable in my opinion.
Education, Education, Education for generation after generation will be necessary.
Do you a.) throw them a book on Gandhi?
or
Do you b.) kill them?
or
Do you c.) Toss them the book and then kill them?
However, for all the others education is appropriate.
A, B, or C?
Two is the the Fundamentalists that are very insistent that only the strictness of the old and historic ways will suffice. They fear the direction society is going and want to change it all to their standards. They are often very zealous about it all.
The third and little known about, are the Mystical esoterics. They look to the future with inclusion of all other and others. They are the ones that have a higher and truer spiritual relationship that values all in peace and love. None of the others accept them though because they would have to change their ego driven ways to advance to such a level...and too few even want to.
So we will have wars and rumors of wars until all learn their lessons the hard way...you aint seen nuthin yet !!!
Well as I have no weapons at my personal disposal I'll just toss the Gandhi book and talk Gandhi.
And if that doesn't work I'll just be killed.
Do you a.) throw them a book on Gandhi?
or
Do you b.) kill them?
or
Do you c.) Toss them the book and then kill them?
Sean-Paul Kelley, Jun 30, 2006 "
How 'bout D:
Kill them and throw the book at their kids and the survivors ala Germany and Japan?
I believe a solution would be less rich, less poor, and more middle-class. Societies are most unstable when there are only the mega-rich and the poor. A strong world-wide middle-class means less people willing to take up arms against someone who doesn't worship the way they do, look the way they do, or view the world the same way. They have too much to lose in conflict and little to gain from it.
Bin Laden became Bin Laden because he was a bored rich boy looking for spiritual enlightenment and adventure. I dare say that most who are willing to lay down their lives for him and others like him come from lower SES, tend to be less educated, and believe their sacrifice will bring about change. It does bring about change, but seldom the change they desire.
I submit we had other options leading up to this point that weren't perceived (out of ignorance) or were rejected (our of arrogance). Better prior awareness, analysis, and yes, empathy might have prevented the whole ugly scene.
Just as it's rather late for the vaccine when you're dying from a disease, it's rather late for the teachings of Gandhi when you're facing a street fight to the death. You've already pissed away your chances for most nonviolent options.