HTS and Anthropology: Political Terrain
Jason Motlagh posted a nice short piece about anthropology and HTS at Time.com on Thursday. Motlagh points out some key issues at the heart of the HTS acrimony and makes note of both the AAA’s CEAUSSIC statement and the campaign by the Network of Concerned Anthropologists (NCA).
Despite the piece giving voice to many of us HTS critics’ greatest hits, there are a few more that I feel the need to shout out myself.
Motlagh writes:
Its backers contend that civilian specialists — particularly anthropologists — with in-depth field experience are best suited to “map” Afghanistan’s complex tribal structures and fault lines. […] The prospect of getting blacklisted in U.S. academia has sapped the pool of seasoned anthropologists. Today recruits are more and more likely to have a degree in political science, history or psychology. Some only have a bachelor’s degree.
Certainly some of the credit (or blame, depending on how you slice it) for the lack of anthropologists in these positions goes to the efforts of the NCA and the AAA, but I think the balance is due to the fact that well trained and experienced anthropologists know you can’t ‘map’ culture as if it were mountains: it’s neither static, bounded, nor quantifiable. As Hugh Gusterson points out in theHuman Terrain film, HTS is built on a faulty metaphor.
Because of a fundamental confusion about what anthropologists are and do, and the (understandably) instrumental and operational bent of the program, “in depth-field experience” was never HTS’s main hiring priority. Given a definition of anthropology as a methods suite for gathering information about some thing called culture, it’s technical ability, not experience, that matters most.
Among those speaking for HTS (perhaps from within it, but that’s not totally clear) Motlagh cites Brian Ericksen, “a burly former Army ranger with a political science degree who works with Marines in insurgency-wracked Helmand province.” Erickson dismisses critiques of HTS, saying “For me, the politically motivated criticism just isn’t valid.”
But the politically motivated participation in national military action is? Does Mr. Ericksen’s comment “when your country is at war … you support your armed forces in the vested interest of the country” imply that people should make such decisions on anything but political grounds (which, as I’m sure Mr. Ericksen knows, they actually do all the time)? In any case, dismissing criticism of HTS because it’s politically motivated is, frankly, kind of ridiculous. It’s political criticism of a political project unfolding in a political arena. Seems like solid ground to me.
And for those HTS proponents who dismiss critics by claiming all we do is say ‘nay’, I have something more substantial for you to chew on:
You want to give soldiers and marines some information on the social, cultural, and political worlds they are about to enter? Great idea. The soldiers I worked with at Walter Reed often wished they’d had more of it. But let’s be realistic. As a one former Marine who had served with a Civil Affairs unit in Fallujah told me “think of a soldier who gets as many hours of training on Iraqi culture as you can imagine, 40 hours, 60 hours, and then you send him over and after a month of living with the awareness that all the white guys are safe and all the brown guys might not be, what do you think? That training can’t hold.”
You want to have people in patrol units who have learned qualitative interview techniques and whose job it is to talk to people and get information about social structures in the local area? Terrific. I’m not sure why you can’t just have Civil Affairs folks doing that, but hey, why not make it its own MOS (Military Occupational Specialty)?
You want to have people devoted to providing officers in the field with contextual information about their AO (Area of Operations)? More power to you. Some version of this is already happening. If a National Guard medic I know prepared an in depth presentation on the dangers of Camel Spiders before deployment to Iraq, I’m not sure why other soldiers couldn’t do the same for other kinds of information within the existing practices of training and support. I’m sure the new crop of warrior scholars graduating from various military colleges is up to the task, don’t you?
Clearly, I think that a special, subcontracted HTS project unhelpful no matter who is staffing it. But if General Petraeus wants to have some ‘human terrain’ mapping, he should stop thinking that anthropologists are the folks for the job (or that such mapping is ‘ethnographic’) and start training his own cartographers. It would save everyone a lot of aggravation and ink, not to mention $150 million a year.
Zoë Wool is a NIMH Postdoctoral Fellow at the Institute for Health, Health Care Policy and Aging Research at Rutgers University. Her dissertation, Emergent Ordinaries at Walter Reed Army Medical Center: An ethnography of extra/ordinary encounter, focuses on the dialectic of the ordinary and extraordinary in the lives of soldiers marked by violence.
KL:
Though I wouldn’t say that (all) policy makers are only pretending to care about context, culture, or anything non-kinetic, I think you make some really great points, especially that it is ridiculous to think that what HTS is doing could ever be good social science.
As Ken said
I’d add that
is silly because it’s only of interest (if that) to other anthropologists which is of limited use, since its not like the lack of participating anthropologists has done much to put a dent in the program. I think it was an important point to make to alert anthropologists to HST, but now that we all know about it, we ought to move on, and I think many of us are.
But I’m not sure the next step is as straightforward as exposing HTS as a PsyOp sop for the US public. While it might provide a ‘kinder gentler’ mask for two intractable wars with heavy civilian casualties, the high level DoD acceptance of HTS needs to be understood in the shifting strategic orientation of the forces, from COIN to the ‘humanitarianisms’ of SOUTHCOM, and AFRICOM, as well as the rise of this idea of the Warrior Scholar I mentioned above.
Another part of the context (and one that often gets left out of the list above) is the push toward toward inter-federal-agency cooperation or what’s sometimes Orwellian-ly referred to as ‘The Interagency’. The Interagency is especially appealing in a moment that values ‘flexibility’, ‘transparency’, and structures of ‘jointness’ that are supposed to be more efficient (the Department of Homeland Security being the monstrous offspring of these values with post 9-11 paranoia).
The reason I think this Interagency fetish is relevant to the HTS context is that it is often in supposedly post-conflict situations–or ‘phase IV’ or ‘stability operations’ or the ‘build’ moment of the ‘clear, hold, build’ strategy–that The Interagecy gets to flex its muscles. The fetishization of The Interagency thus lends itself to a focus on the magic of HTS, where volleyball courts save lives and make happy villages (that’s a link to a CNN transcript, look for McFate about 3/4 of the way down, or search “volleyball”) .
Those of you wanting a little more info on The Interagency and its connection to ‘stability operations’ should check out this 2007 Volume a Co-Pro of the Strategic Studies Institute at the US Army War College and Texas A&M’s Bush School of Government and Public Service (now there’s some jointness for you!)
I think talking about HTS as bad anthropology is an attempt to catch the ear of genuine but deeply misguided and profoundly dangerous interest in (ass backward ideas of) culture and ethnography at DoD and beyond. That said, I agree with you that such an approach can’t stop there since it opens the door for what you identify as pro-HTS response 1: “okay, anthropologists, advise us more as to how to do it better!”
This is why my suggestions in the original post were about scrapping HTS based on the idea that its not actually social science at all (your first point above) and having folks already part of the military do what HTS proponents claim is so necessary (which takes care of pro-HTS response number 2).
I’m guessing you might say that’s not enough?
Also, even if I were convinced that HTS was just an alibi for war, I’m not sure shouting it from the rooftops or otherwise attempting to pull off that ‘kinder gentler’ mask in spectacular Scooby Gang style would ever be effective. Sadly, I’m not sure there are enough people who’d care.
Report this comment
Just a clarification: when I said
I meant move on to another strategy, not move on from the trying to get rid of it part.
Report this comment
Rick,
“Look, I don’t blame you for having trouble with this, because it is really one of those things that one’s needs to be trained in. Largely, this is nothing more than a misunderstanding from ignorance and media, mixed with a misunderstanding of the difference between academic and practicing anthropology.”
Are you arguing that these HTS folks are not following a particular agenda, and are just attempting to look at issues in a holistic way? Are they just objective social scientists, or are they fighting a war? I have my doubts about the overall political motives of HTS, which is tied to two war efforts that have been misguided from pretty much day one.
Also, do you really think that the difference between academic and practicing or applied anthropology is THAT clear? I don’t.
“In practicing anthropology the researcher is given his question, and he builds a research design around that question (s), which will give the client pertinent information that can be understood by the client, the various stakeholders, and which can be used to design a set of proposals by the researcher to either fix or improve the problems (often finding the real problems, and not the ones that the client thought they had).”
Right. This is the theoretically perfect version of applied anthropology, which is about as accurate or informative as describing ALL academic anthropology as hopelessly lost in postmodern theoretical clouds of nonsense. Seems to me there might be a little more to the story.
“There was a big problem of academics working with the military, and the academics not realizing that they are no longer academics, but practitioners with a client that demands usable results.”
And those “usable results” are exactly the problem. But instead of acknowledging that, you are trying to make the claim that this is really about the inability of academics to provide practical and usable results? Really? HTS is anything but apolitical, and the expected results certainly have some serious political ramifications. HTS is about war, isn’t it?
“This is a very new and strange situation for many academics, and it causes problems.”
Hmmm. For someone who rightfully questions others who throw generalizations around a little to freely, you sure are comfortable making sweeping claims about a pretty large group of people.
Report this comment
On the question of varieties of anthropology, Veena Das provides some of my favorite answers and provocations in the last chapter of her 2007 book Life and Words: Violence and the Descent into the Ordinary. Of particular relevance to our conversation here is the following:
This approach makes easy dichotomies of ‘applied’ versus ‘academic’ or ‘usable’ versus ‘metaphysical’ pretty hard to sustain and leads to much more broadly productive and valuable kinds of public engagements.
Report this comment
To Seth: In case you don’t know my background, my background as an anthropologist is in alternative methods of counter-terrorism specializing in Islamic theology and the study of Islamic extremist organizations. I was born in Tehran, Iran, spent a few years of my youth growing up in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and have also lived in Indonesia (the largest Muslim population on Earth). I’ve also travelled to Bahrain and Egypt. In addition, I was in the U.S. Army Reserves for 8 years. My research on Islamic extremists basically is simple. I talk to them via the internet on pubic forums in order to better understand their ideologies as well as to test Islamic-based counter-propaganda on them.
What you mentioned about Saudi Arabia is correct. They often use such leverage and are well known for looking the other way regarding Al-Qaeda activity in Saudi Arabia as long as those individuals do not threaten the ruling Saudi royal family and government. Pakistan and Iran have similar policies.
However with that said Saudi Arabia and Iran are definite rivals. The founder of the modern Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini, made it no secret of his wish to take back Mecca and Medina from Sunni rule in order to put it under Shi’a rule. The Guardian Council of Iran has never waivered from this goal either. Yet at the same time, they often appear allied with Sunni countries and/or political/guerilla organizations.
The fact of the matter is that the politics of that region are incredibly complicated riddled with alliances and back-stabbing that shift almost on a daily basis at times. Furthermore, the practice of “Taqqiyah” (Islamic deception/disinformation) is very commonly practiced by Islamic extremists (and governments) even though it falls outside of early descriptions of the practice in the Qur’an and Hadiths. Later Islamic commentators developed it into a term to apply during warfare with non-Islamic nations. So how does this term apply to you? No matter what, until you convert to Islam, you are and will always remain a “kafr” (unbeliever). As such you are fertile grounds for Taqqiyah. It is what Rick was basically talking about. It’s indeed VERY common in Muslim extremist propaganda to reach out to left-wing anti-globalization groups. Here in the United States, very often groups like CAIR have teamed up with left-wing political activist organizations to rally support for Palestinians. I have no problems with this as I am very critical of Israeli policies, however CAIR and more radical Islamic groups ALWAYS without exception, downplay the very real atrocities committed by groups such as Hamas. My information comes not from books, but from my experiences working with left wing and Muslim organizations (as a naive activist, not a spy) as well as from my contacts with Palestinians in Gaza who portray a more sobering picture of the petty politics of the region and the gradual creep of hard-line Islamic laws into previously secular institutions. As romantic as many portray the conflict there on both sides, the fact of the matter is that there are few “good guys” in such a conflict and nothing is black and white. Most of us, Pro-Israeli and Pro-Palestinian alike, are being taken for a ride. Meanwhile, the moderates in the conflict (as in all conflicts in the Middle East) have almost no voice as they are ignored by the media and ridiculed by both sides of the conflict.
As for Hamas being Sinn Fein, I’m sorry, but other then very basic structural/political similarities, they are apples and oranges with entirely different histories, religions, and cultures. Concerning the Turkish activists who were killed by the IDF, absolutely Bernard Lewis exaggerated massively in his portrayal of them. I would not call Mr. Lewis a racist, however he makes his living on fear-mongering and suffers deeply from Islamophobia. With that said, the Turkish organization in question (IHH) had a history of working to derail Turkish-Israeli relations. It is entirely plausible that the IDF was intentionally provoked by these Turkish activists (who only fought the IDF on one of the flotilla boats) as they seemed to have been well equipped and prepared for such a confrontation. Whether the IDF response was over-kill is another matter. Nevertheless it is a good example of what was likely intentional self-fulfilling prophecy. For the Turkish activists it was “mission accomplished” as Turkey moved farther away from its relationship with Israel. This coincides with historical changes inside of Turkey including the arrest of pro-secularist military leaders (accused of planning a coup as they had normally done in the past) and the steady increase in close relations to Iran and Syria, while down-playing relations with the West. So while Bernard Lewis my exaggerate quite often, he is not at all wrong about the desire of Muslims to bring their nations in accordance with Shariat Law and to better united the “Ummah” (Islamic world population) under one Caliphate. Democracy is ironically the easiest way of achieving this.
What remains to be seen is WHO’S version of Shariat. Sunni? Shi’a? From which Madhhab’s influence? Will it be hardline Salafi/Qutbist/Deobandi theology or liberal Tasawuuf (Sufi) theology? Will it mix in secular forms of governance and laws? These are issues which the Western media and our politicians refuse to speak about in any meaningful way. Also I don’t think world-wide Muslims would ever agree on a Caliphate who will unite all Muslims (also known as the Imam Mahdi in Sunni and Shi’a prophecies.
Finally on HTS… one can easily stand on a moral high horse and yell “bad evil social scientists supporting neo-colonialism!!!!” However, if we do indeed leave Afghanistan under popular pressure to do so (and I believe we will) I promise you (mark my words) that the glorious freedom fighters portrayed by the Western radical left will continue to launch terrorist attacks from that region and will not give up as they will be drunk with victory over America. As someone who has studied their ideology in great detail, I can promise you that victory for their most radical leaders and groups, means Islamic domination of the West through democracy or violence. Unlike Bernard Lewis, I do not believe they represent average Muslims, however to be sure their influence is growing steadily. I support HTS not because of politics, but because of pragmatics. I believe in talking to Afghans who may be polite civilians by day and ruthless Taliban by night. The only hope is through developing mutual respect and to respect their desire to practice the Shariat. It is through organizations like HTS, that such desires can be channeled into encouraging more moderate forms of Shariat that remain traditional, but that embrace concepts of mercy and compassion found within Islamic traditional teachings and that do not call for “Jihad until the day of Judgment” against the West. Ironically, the main problem I see is that HTS members are NOT properly trained in Islamic theology. Anthropologists as a whole are, in fact, very very wary of studying the emotional aspects of religion and really immersing themselves within it. However, they come the closest to being able to do this while applying a vast array of other methods of analysis to better understand and interact with hostile cultures.
These are things that CAN NOT be taught in a block of classroom lectures at a military base. I remember what the Army considers “cultural training” and really it’s a joke and mostly laughed off by most young soldiers. No such military classes can replace 6+ years of anthropological training. In order for the military to truly develop their own dedicated “combat anthropologists” it would require them to establish their own dedicated long-term schools for those who qualified and who showed an aptitude for such work. They also would require the ability to suspend their own religious beliefs (or lack of) while being able to understand emotionally/spiritually local Islamic beliefs and the beliefs and ideologies of their enemy intimately rather then just as academic subject matter.
So as tempting as it is to compare the HTS program to movies like “Avatar”, sadly the reality is a vast and complex one where romantic notions of “the other” need to be cast aside in favor of a balanced understanding of the conflict, it’s cultural context, and its primary actors and political operators on all sides. This includes an understanding of the manner in which Pakistani and Afghan political players shift loyalties based upon pragmatic circumstances (something which Western military and civilian leaders find maddening).
Anyways…sorry for the long reply. It’s a complex topic that I can go on and on about.
Report this comment
Zoe, essentially I agree with what you and Veena Das are saying, however I think the problem is in HOW it is said. Academic language in the social sciences are often so full of jargon that a policy maker would need a special translator to sort out what in the hell we are going on about. There’s ALOT to be said for deep description in my opinion. In other-words, being a good writer goes a long ways in terms of conveying complex issues in layman’s terms. Sadly, in the social sciences, we are trained to do the opposite (using as complex language as possible). Is this so that we may become a gate-keeper of knowledge? It sounds pretty and intelligent and all and often its just faster using particular terms when speaking to an academic audience. Still, often I wonder if the true purpose of such vernacular is so that we may be gatekeepers of knowledge…. or worse yet, to avoid the accusation of being nothing more then glorified journalists (otherwise know as “The National Geographic Syndrome”).
Report this comment
Really interesting posts, Chris.
I agree that some “left” groups are willing to overlook some of the messy details in order to show solidarity with the Palistinians, but I’m not sure I follow your logic in thinking that either this, or an eventual withdrawal from Afghanistan, could result in the take-over of Western countries by Islamic radicals.
To the former, these alliances are pretty well-defined by the issues; I don’t see any evidence that solidarity for Palestinian human rights is going to translate smoothly (or at all) into the imposition of Sharia law in secular democracies.
To the latter, it would be a more convincing narrative if a) our actions in Afghanistan showed any signs of stabilizing the region or defusing Islamic militarist fundamentalism, b) we didn’t appear more and more to be supporting a regime that is effectively the same shit (executing journalists for “insulting the prophet”, jailing women for being raped, etc., all in our name or at least with our military oversight), and c) the Taliban or their allies had access to anything like a threatening war machine.
Report this comment
Great summation Chris. I would add to that the fact that the links I gave were not read or watched, because nowhere do I or Daniel Pipes make the issue simple, or say that our enemy are anyone but militant Islamists regardless of their origin. He doesn’t even mention Hamas.
BTW, here’s an unbiased article by someone who lived with the Taliban for over 7 months: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/world/asia/18hostage.html
From the article in the NY Times:
“Over those months, I came to a simple realization. After seven years of reporting in the region, I did not fully understand how extreme many of the Taliban had become. Before the kidnapping, I viewed the organization as a form of “Al Qaeda lite,” a religiously motivated movement primarily focused on controlling Afghanistan.
Living side by side with the Haqqanis’ followers, I learned that the goal of the hard-line Taliban was far more ambitious. Contact with foreign militants in the tribal areas appeared to have deeply affected many young Taliban fighters. They wanted to create a fundamentalist Islamic emirate with Al Qaeda that spanned the Muslim world.”
The only answer I can give to the issue is to promote forms of moderate Islam, which really doesn’t exist beyond a few elites with no real power. If we look at the way western society was made secular, it was through internal voices and revolution. Yet, for some reason many on the left stigmatize these voices in Islam, and promote murderous propagandists. The Bush administration really hurt people and helped out Islamists by saying we were in a war on terrorism, which isn’t true. If the Nazis or Al Qaeda renounced violence, they wouldn’t cease being threats, because what makes them dangerous are their goals. The IRA didn’t have in it’s charter the death and destruction of England proper.
What’s crazy is that they don’t hide this fact. This is straight from the Hamas Charter:
“There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.”
“After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying.”
Just in case you’d still like to compare groups like the IRA to Hamas or other Islamist groups, you should see what they produce for television:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkNE__TiMZo&playnext_from=TL&videos=_J6GzJnWaz0
Report this comment
To Andrew, my apologies for not clarifying myself. I DO NOT fear Islamic extremists taking over the West. I don’t in any way or form believe that or predict that. What I do see is not a war of conquest, but rather a war to see America “brought to justice” by fomenting internal class/racial/political discord and most importantly by bankrupting the United States. If you research alot of the Islamist propaganda, much of it deals heavily with global economic issues. They are vastly more in tune with the manner in which global economies are connected then the vast majority of Americans who are…well…clueless mostly.
They understand (as seen from Islamists remarks about the current global economic crisis) that to bring down the American economy means bringing down the world’s capitalist economies. They then believe that the world will be forced to respect Islam, and that the world will be forced to turn away from material things and rather towards Islam for all the answers.
Even in France, with its large Muslim minority, there would never be a takeover as there would just be a bloody civil war and the rest of the West would no doubt back the non-Muslim French in such a civil-war. Furthermore, there is no Islamic nation even remotely close to challenging militarily any Western powers. Even with nukes, at best they could maybe manage to score one or two successful attacks before being unilaterally erased off the map by Western nuclear counter-attacks. Finally, they are for the most part, dependent economically and technology-wise on non-Muslim nations.
Nevertheless, Islamic extremists can I believe can carry out their vision of destroying America. Terrorist attacks alone will likely result in more extreme Islamophobia which could culminate in some rather draconian, unconstitutional security measures against Muslim-American citizens. How non-Muslim political groups would react is anyone’s guess, but any violence by the growing militia movement (that swear to uphold the US constitution) could easily spiral out of control and into massive internal violence. Two of the fastest growing and most ominous of such groups are the “3-Percenters” and “Oath-keepers” made up of former and active duty military members. Here is an example of one of their popular propaganda videos. They actively recruit on facebook, myspace, gun forums, political forums, gun shows, tea-party rallies, but most often within the military. I even was approached by them to join.
Aside from that, attacks using WMD’s by terrorists (another one of their goals) would almost certainly cause another invasion of a Muslim nation bringing America deeper into debt. The highly predictable massive military counter-strike by the United States would of course cause equally massive civilian Muslim casualties and thus further promote the perception in the Islamic world that America is attacking Islam and that we are out to enslave them. The terrorist attacks on the US would be (as they are now) written off as “false-flag” operations by the CIA or promoted as secret attacks by Israel’s Mossad to frame Islam.
Case in point. I talk to Pakistani Deobandi extremists (who support the Taliban) via the internet and the vast majority of them INSIST that all the horrifically bloodly terrorist attacks in Lahore recently are the work of either:
1. India 2. The CIA or 3. The Yahudi (Jews). You can present them ANY and ALL evidence to the contrary and they will refuse to accept that Muslims killed other Muslims.
I firmly believe that unless Muslims themselves work to counter the extremist ideology that preaches Jihad against the West until judgment day, that this ideology will spread. That is why I am trying to convince policy makers of the importance in engaging Islamic religious leaders on these issues and working with moderate Islamic groups to promote traditional, but alternative Islamic interpretations of the Qur’an and Hadiths (40,000+ verses that provide context to the Qur’an). I also believe that the vast majority of the most extreme interpretations of Islam can be countered theologically and thus promoted using multi-media advertisement targeted towards very specific cultures and regions with the help of anthropologists. Is it manipulating religion? Yes But Islam is ALWAYS being manipulated by political actors.
It’s our choice whether to gently encourage their religion towards Islamic concepts of peace, honor, and Ijtihad (interpretation of Islam in the context of modern times rather then strict literal interpretation), or whether we wish to follow Daniel Pipe’s approach which is to ironically LEGITIMIZE Al-Qaeda as the standard-bearers of Islam and painting all Muslims as essentially followers of that extreme Salafist belief (or not being true Muslims if they don’t).
That’s what drives me nuts about people like Daniel Pipes, Robert Spencer, Bernard Lewis, etc… All of these so called “Islamic experts” essentially PROMOTE the absolute most extreme hard-line Islamic beliefs as being the TRUE ISLAM. They never bother to refute the extremists. Even worse they actively seek to refute any and all moderate Muslims who speak out in public to challenge such perceptions in the West. I’ve tried posting in the past on their forums as well as communicating directly with them and each and every time I’ve been threatened, kicked off, or harshly verbally attacked. I’ve been called an “apologist” for Islam as well as accused of being a secret Muslim Tabliqee practicing “Taqqiyah” (Islamic deception) even though I’m a Theist (I don’t believe in organized religion, but believe in a higher power). Unfortunately these guys in D.C. and others like them are the ones who even today are still playing a massive role in formulating US foreign policy in terms of informing policymakers as well as our senior officers in the military.
The only ray of hope I see are programs like HTS and military leaders like General Patreaus. Case in point: Patraeus not long-ago made the book “3 Cups of Tea” mandatory reading for senior officers heading to Afghanistan. If you’ve never read the book, it is the biography of an American named Greg Mortenson, a former mountain climber who has been building schools (mainly girls schools) in Northern Pakistan and Southern Afghanistan for over a decade winning over the hearts and trust of even feared Taliban commanders. If the US military leadership is taking people like Greg Mortenson seriously, then I believe that the vision that such military leaders have is something tremendous and infinitely worthwhile. Yet, I also see them as being at a loss of how to win trust and respect from Afghanis and Pakistanis while they are killing them at the same time. That is the paradox that they have yet to resolve. Compounding this problem is the lack of soldiers to provide any lasting security along with the utter un-professionalism, lack of loyalty, and corruption rampant within the Afghan police and Afghan National Army (ANA). Meanwhile, the Taliban refuse to negotiate because, as they say, they are winning. In actuality, they were negotiating secretly with the U.N. and the Karzai administration. The United States put an end to that by pressuring the Pakistani government to arrest Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar (2nd in command within the Taliban).
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/18/pakistan-arrests-taliban-un-envoy
This leads me to believe that there is a very serious power-play going on between the old neo-conservatives represented by people such as Daniel Pipes, and the more progressive senior military leadership like Patraeus and McCrystal who had a favorable relationship with Afghan President Karzai and also approved “talking to terrorists”. The media does not EVER mention this, but it was direct disobedience to former President Bush’s orders (that we don’t talk to terrorists) by the United States military that ultimately started the productive dialog between moderate tribal Sunni insurgents and the US military. This, along with a tremendous amount of diplomacy with many factions, finally turned the tide of that war. I believe if the same energy, man-power, funding, and dedication is applied to Afghanistan that the same could be done there. But now the clock is ticking and time is no longer on our side. Defeat in Afghanistan and a long brutal proxy war (punctuated by US bombing and commando raids) is the most likely outcome as the Karzai regime is almost certain to collapse once we depart.
So don’t worry… whether we agree with HTS or not, I don’t think it’ll be around for much longer…at least not in Afghanistan. :)
Report this comment
Hmm..oops I forgot to put in that YouTube Link to the militia propaganda video I spoke of:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfA2A3wJ99w
Report this comment
I have a reply in the spam filter.
“Even with nukes, at best they could maybe manage to score one or two successful attacks before being unilaterally erased off the map by Western nuclear counter-attacks.”
That doesn’t comfort me. I’d like to avoid any nukes. Right now the elites in Iran have a very apocalyptic view of things, and there’s no separation between church and state.
I also fear an economic attack less than terror attacks, propaganda, cyberwar, or lawfare (you see this more in Europe as courts and politics are used to bring about Sharia law through legal means). These are all also very common plans and tactics, and are all more doable than anything economic.
“All of these so called “Islamic experts” essentially PROMOTE the absolute most extreme hard-line Islamic beliefs as being the TRUE ISLAM.”
Don’t go native Chris. There’s no such thing as true Islam, any more than a true Christianity, there is only what people practice, say, do, write and read. That’s all we can go by. Jihad has been central to Islam from day one. True Islam didn’t conquer more land faster than any previous empire before it during Mohammad’s lifetime and 100 years after by being anything but brutal.
Daniel Pipes makes every argument that you’ve made BTW, which makes me wonder if you’ve read him. The people that speak out and say the meanest things about Islam are actually former Muslims like Ayaan Ali, Hasan Butt, or Wafa Sultan.
In fact, in an op-ed for the London Observer Hasan Butt (former member of the British Jihadi network wrote this):
“When I was still a member of what is probably best termed the British Jihadi Network, a series of semi-autonomous British Muslim terrorist groups linked by a single ideology, I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy.
By blaming the government for our actions, those who pushed the ‘Blair’s bombs’ line did our propaganda work for us.”
In fact, here is Daniel Pipes debating against Wafa Sultan in denouncing Islam; she’s the hardliner and he’s making your argument: http://fora.tv/2009/12/01/Moderate_Islam_Western_Ally_or_Western_Myth
Personally I don’t think you can change an ideology thorough an ideology only. It’s like putting out a crappy car and having a good ad campaign. All of these issues have sources which can be located through economic, political, and ecological realities. I don’t think that it’s a coincidence that these new tactics of Islam came about the same time as WWI and our new found need for oil. In fact the founder of OPEC was educated at the U. of Texas, and said he learned everything he needed to know about oil from the Texas Railroad Commission (in charge of oil here).
Report this comment
“Don’t go native Chris.”
What the hell?
Report this comment
Chris, again, very interesting stuff, but I think that there’s a fundamental contradiction of trying to engage someone’s culture via, or alonside, a military occupation.
“Being friends with Hamid Karzai” isn’t really something I’d consider a flattering personal trait; the near-universal problem with this new form of “indirect rule” we have going is that we inevitably drift over to the local powers we’re most comfortable dealing with, which are inevitably very corrupt people whose perceived authenticity is heading nowhere but downhill.
I admit I may be misreading you (I hope you don’t think I’m doing so on purpose!) but if you fear the moral and economic drain of yet a third war on the US, doesn’t this imply that the two wars you have going at the moment are also a net negative, and indeed, a net positive for groups like Al Quaeda?
(And how many “number two men” do they /have/, anyway?)…
Report this comment
Rick, I have indeed read a ton of articles by Daniel Pipes on his blog as well as a couple of his books in the past. I for a long time contributed regularly to his blog until I got fed up with a individuals who would hijack a good debate and turn it into non-stop personal attacks no matter how much I tried to get the discussion back on track. More often then not, these were the moderators behaving in this manner. What you see in this video contradicts ALOT of what he has stated in the past. In addition his ideas of “reform” are very different then what I am talking about. I am not talking about the massive restructuring or elimination of the Shariat that he talks about, nor do I share the same definition of Jihad that he does. There is room to argue whether or not Jihad during the lifetime of Mohammed was truly offensive. The massive expansion of the Islamic state did not occur until after his death.
Furthermore, Daniel Pipes talks out of both sides of his mouth. He rarely refutes Al-Qaeda ideology. Here is example of where he gives all the examples of their ideology and fails to refute them (even though its easy to do so):
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/08/can-infidels-be-innocents
He also warns against Islamism 2.0 which is actually what I advocate seeing in the Middle East to a certain extent.
http://www.danielpipes.org/7770/islamism
In other words he warns against Shariat law being imposed by democratic means. I think that Muslim countries should do this if they want to but that we should be engaged in this process as far as encouraging more progressive interpretations of the Shariat such as what is going on in Turkey right now. Who are we to decide for Islamic nations, what form of laws they should or shouldn’t have. Let them find out for themselves what does and doesn’t work as Iranians have found out. Even in Saudi Arabia, their legal system is always changing and always there are challenges to their strict Salafist interpretations. Some successful, some not-so successful. The only real threat to the West is when we deny sovereign Islamic nations the right to democraticaly choose such systems of government.
That is when we discover that Muslims push back as they see this as a direct assault on their religion.
So I fundamentally disagree with his views on keeping Muslim nations from having any type of Shariat laws.
In the next article below, again Pipes does what I accused of him of doing (talking out of both sides of his mouth) is evident here where he rants against Voice of America for not calling terrorism “Islamic Terrorism”. Again he wishes to legitimize terrorism as an Islamic practice.
http://www.danielpipes.org/6215/the-voice-of-america-silenced-on-radical-islam
I can go on and on and on finding writings of his that contradict what he says in that video where he portrays himself as a supporter of traditional Islam. I call B.S. as the reforms he has always called for included the abolishment of all shariat…something that will never happen in our lifetime and that is completely unrealistic to expect or demand of Muslims.
So while on the surface what I say and what he says may at times sound very similar, they are absolutely not. We approach things from entirely different perspectives and with very different objectives. The biggest difference being that I support developing direct dialog with terrorists including his much hated Hamas and Hezbollah. Here is an example of how he believes counter-insurgency should be run.
http://www.danielpipes.org/5893/must-counterinsurgency-wars-fail
As usual he quotes examples of successful counter-insurgencies even though several of them were massive failures in several ways.
Nowhere does he mention developing dialog with Muslim insurgents (as worked in Iraq), You will never find him ever accepting that.
So yes Rick, I have read his articles for years and only had to select a few of his most recent articles to demonstrate why he is not what he first appears as in this video. He will also never in a million years be trusted by Muslims nor would I ever want anything to do with him or his organizations.
Report this comment
Andrew, yes you are correct about friendship with Karzai being a negative in some eyes. Indeed his government is hopelessly corrupt, however he has been reaching out to the Taliban to try and bring them into the government in return for a cease-fire, peace, and hopefully a swift withdrawl of NATO forces.
You are also correct that the current two wars are and continue to be massive drains upon our nation economically. The withdrawl from Iraq however is ahead of schedule as our involvement is reduced to only that of advising and minor support roles that are relatively low-cost. Afghanistan is the big money burner, but I strongly believe that it is a war that we can ill-afford to withdraw from in haste and one in which we really must think outside the box in order to win. There are many ideas that have never been fully examined.
One idea is to gradually replace NATO forces with Islamic peacekeepers from Muslim nations that do not border Afghanistan. It could be called “the Islamic solution” to steal the thunder from Al-Qaeda/Taliban.
Saudi Arabia proposed such a plan a few years ago but it was quickly shot down by the Bush administration.
Another option is direct dialog with the Taliban in order to outline the beginnings of negotations and a possible peace plan. This process could also include religious dialog in order to encourage honorable Islamic conduct in warfare as defined by the strict codes of conduct found within Islamic rules of war (generally ignored by Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, but not by all)
A third option is to encourage a military coup against Karzai…but he already predicted that and put people loyal to him in all key military leadership and defense ministry positions.
A fourth option is to continue what we’re doing but with many more troops for several years until the ANA are up to snuff to handle things on their own. Until now training for the ANA and Afghan police has been nowhere near the intensity and quality that the Iraqi military and police forces enjoyed.
The fifth and worst option is VP Joe Biden’s plan which is to withdraw and just bomb the snot out of the Taliban by providing close air support to Karzai’s ANA soldiers. That would be a repeat of the Vietnam War due to the very similar cicumstances (unpopular puppet government with a demoralized military ready to shift to the insurgent’s side). The bombing campaigns following the takeover by the Taliban would result in massive civilian casualties providing an even more massive and aluring rallying cry for Jihad by the great Muslim “Victors” of Afghanistan. The global Islamist movement would be strengthened imeasurably by a withdrawl and the “Biden Plan”.
Aside from these and probably a few other possible options, many of these options could be combined together. Whatever the case may be, I profoundly believe that Islam must be part of that solution. To ignore the role of Islam in creating lasting peace is to ignore the reality of the Afghani people as for most of them Islam influences heavily their entire world view along with their ethnic and tribal affiliations. The latter HTS is working on. The former (religion) nobody is really working on as far as social scientists go. At least none to my knowledge.
Report this comment
I’m hoping Zoe will come back and comment on Chris’ stuff, since she’d be able to engage with it on a higher level than I can.
Report this comment
And here I am debating Donald Rumsfeld alias Hasbara Boy.
Chris G,
Whatever you say you are, and which you may or may not be, you’re also an idiot.
On Hamas:
haaretz.com/blogs/a-special-place-in-hell/how-to-win-with-hamas-1.299653
Funny:
On Hamas rule in Gaza
brandeis.edu/crown/publications/meb/MEB41.pdf
thejerusalemfund.org/ht/d/EventDetails/i/9318
On Hamas keeping truces while Israel does not
huffingtonpost.com/nancy-kanwisher/reigniting-violence-how-d_b_155611.html
On women in Hamas
conflictsforum.org/2010/gender-discourse-and-islamist-perceptives-on-feminism-second-monograph-out-now/
salon.com/news/feature/2006/03/14/hamaswomen/
On US and Israel and the beginnings of Hamas
huffingtonpost.com/stephen-zunes/americas-hidden-role-in-h_b_155087.html
On Fadlallah
juancole.com/2010/07/fadlallahs-life-and-the-shiite-wave.html
et. al
arabist.net/
angryarab.blogspot.com/
mondoweiss.net/
themagneszionist.blogspot.com/
landandpeople.blogspot.com/
electronicintifada.net/
Mark Perry and Petreus (again!) and Max Boot
mondoweiss.net/2010/07/petraeus-fed-his-pro-israel-bona-fides-to-a-neocon-writer-including-pathetic-recitation-of-meeting-wiesel.html#more-21773
But of course Chris, everybody but you and yours are dupes. Your the wise men.
“I’m hoping Zoe will come back and comment on Chris’ stuff”
Oy.
I’ve given you a list of experts. Read them.
Report this comment
Afghanistan
lrb.co.uk/2010/04/19/tariq-ali/obamas-war
lrb.co.uk/v26/n20/chalmers-johnson/abolish-the-cia
It’s not your idiocy that bothers me Mr Rumsfeld, it’s the irresponsible ignorance of those who would follow,
Report this comment
Seth, rather then cast childish insults at me and then rattling off a long list of pro-Hamas propaganda, how about you put forth ONE issue that you disagree with me on and debate the issue yourself in a respectful and logical manner? I’m sorry but after being insulted, I’m not going to spend the next several hours arguing every single point made by Hamas in each one of your links. Why not you might ask (aside from the obvious waste of time)? Because I’m not against the basic rights of Palestinians to resist and only disagree with Hamas as far as their stance on destroying Israel and their methods of resistance. I also do not agree with their intimidation tactics and management of food aid. But other then those major issues, I support the underlying principles of resistance to oppression. Sadly however I believe that they lost sight a long time ago of what they were truly fighting for and now wage a war of legitimacy and political survival mixed in with Islamist goals that have not gone over well with the more secular elements of Palestinian society in Gaza.
That in a nutshell is my opinion of Hamas Mr. Seth. By the way, are you Jewish? I’m just curious as I’ve noticed that some of the most diehard pro-Hamas supporters in the non-Muslim world are Jewish. I’ve always found that fascinating. I figured you were Jewish from the name you used and from you typing “Oy” (one of my Jewish friends says that all the time when he’s doing his best nasally New York Jewish impersonation ). But then again maybe you chose that name and act that way just to be funny. Either way it doesn’t really matter I suppose.
To Andrew, yes I to hope that Zoe responds. She does have a very sharp mind and I have great respect for her knowledge and areas of expertise even if we disagree on some issues. The same goes for Rick. We disagree all the time, but we have solid mutual respect for each other and I will be the first to admit that Rick has a vastly superior understanding of theory then I do.
Report this comment
“The same goes for Rick. We disagree all the time, but we have solid mutual respect for each other and I will be the first to admit that Rick has a vastly superior understanding of theory then I do.”
And, I have training and experience in propaganda analysis and counter propaganda, and well as various forms of information operations. This is why I know three things:
1. The line the Bush admin. used about ‘terrorist subverting the true and peaceful nature of Islam’ was a well calculated lie. They said that in order to counter the very popular narrative in the Muslim world that we are bent on destroying Islam, or that 9/11 was an inside job of the CIA or the Jews. Chris, you are very aware of this narrative.
2. This line of persuasion was used before the “war on terror” by Islamists, and it became even more widely used them after the administration endorsed it. It’s largely the same message that you feel is necessary for the same reasons that the Bush admin. felt it was necessary, but I really hate half truths and double speak. Call a spade a spade, and let people decide for themselves I say. President Obama has done a great service by ending the idiotic use of the “war on terror” and said what it is, the “war on Al Qaeda.” In truth this is as far as he could go without saying what we’re really doing, which is a war with militant Islam. I agree that most Muslims are not our enemy, but that’s because they aren’t very religious. There are certain tenets which are agreed upon by all 4 schools of jurisprudence in Islam, and ever sect. Jihad is one of them, so is Jizya. Even the Sufis are in total agreement with these. Again True Islam is something that exists in the minds of a few people, and is something we are trying to bring about, but I’m an atheist, I see what people do. I see millions of people protest over a cartoon, and rejoice over killing.
My test is this: If the majority of people in the Muslim world are devout, then they support Jihad, because they aren’t saying a thing against it (protests aren’t foreign concepts with things people don’t like there). If on the other hand the majority of the people are simply apathetic to the whole thing, because of honest hardships of life, or whatever, then that doesn’t relieve us from the fact that over 100,000,000 people openly admit that they want you dead or subjugated.
Either way, the last thing that people saying that they represent this True Islam need to do is show moral outrage against everyone but Jihadists. Our Enlightenment which lead to the separation of church and state didn’t happen without a lot of Christians calling out other Christians for brutality, or for allowing people of other faiths to speak truth to power.
3. I’ve been to the Spec. Ops. “Understanding International Terrorism” course. The official military line is not what you say at all. They taught about the Tamil Tigers as much as they did about Al Qaeda, and we probably spent the most time learning about right-wing separatist groups in the US. When experts did talk about militant Islamic groups, they went to great pains to separate these people from the majority of Muslims. I doubt that’s changed in the last 2 years. I’m sure you could go to the course as a civilian, as nothing presented is classified. Its at the USJSOF University in Florida.
Report this comment
I insulted you and called your bluff. The links I give to haaretz and brandeis and mit. Where nancy kanwisher teaches are “pro hamas.”
Next you’ll be telling me the ability to count makes me “objectively pro terrorism”.
You’ve objectively folded.
Report this comment
Hi All,
Apologies for the radio silence, but you seem to be doing just fine on your own! There were a few thoughts I wanted to share, mostly picking up on bits of this thread that are more directly connected to the original post.
But first I wanted to say something Re Chris’ statement
I’m not so keen to pull on this thread, since its been pretty well unraveled here at SM before so I’ll just say this:
I agree that being a good writer goes a long way, but I’m weary of the whole ‘layman’s terms’ idea. There is, of course, some academic writing that is confusing because its bad writing and sometimes people get away with it because of the gate-keeping function you describe.
But there is also lots of writing (academic and otherwise, both descriptive and theoretical) that is challenging to read because it needs to be; because that is the best way to convey the complexity. I think we ALL–academics, applied folk, laymen, whoever–have a responsibility to be good readers and, despite my cynicism, I think almost everyone is, even if they’re out of practice.
A brief example: when talking about my dissertation and describing some of the experiences of soldiers at Walter Reed, I often use the word ‘vertiginous’. This can be a challenging word for some folks and as I describe the various senses of vertigo that I’m invoking (existential, physical, relational…) the conversations can get rather abstract. But this very particular, and I would suggest rather specialized, word and its multilayered meanings has been a trusty guide allowing me to explain the states of life at Walter Reed in a way that is both complicated and comprehensible. I use this word in my dissertation, in the class room, at the dinner table, and the pub.
**************************
Moving on…
I’d like to disentangle a few things that have gotten jumbled up here, as they often do in discussions of and around HTS.
1) I think HTS is a bad idea (more on this below) and a waste of money, in addition to thinking it is, OF NECESSITY, bad social science and not ethnography. And I’m glad Chris thinks it wont be around in Afghanistan for long, but that’s kind of cold comfort since I’m staying put for the Djibouti edition.
2a) I think the fetishization of culture in the military is leading to false hope and false clarity, since the version of ‘culture’ that I’ve seen kicking around lends itself all to easily to ideas like “true Islam” and “the Arab mind” (yes, that old chestnut) and to ideas about social structure that are misused to essentially bribe people into cooperation which is, at best, a band aid (I’m thinking specifically of Odierno’s ideas about, and tactical use of, “Awakening Groups” in Iraq, but I’m sure you all can think of your own examples).
2b) I think improving “cultural training” for the forces is something we need to think about, but always very carefully for the issues I out lined above in reference to a former Marine I knew.
2c) And I think we need to remember that while both HTS and “cultural training” are part of this fetishization of ‘culture’ they are actually two separate issues and plenty of people are anti-HTS and think there should be better “cultural training.”
All of this is connected to perhaps my most fundamental problem with HTS, and a major disagreement with Chris, both of which I’ll elaborate below.
*************************************************
It seems to me that Chris’ enumeration of various unexplored possibilities outlines the difficulty in trying to separate military strategy and civilian policy.
While I imagine we can all agree we want a civilian controlled military, I imagine we also agree that questions of what to do must be considered along side questions of how to do it (and Obama’s commitment of 30,000 troops to Afghanistan was an example of that). I’d also like to say here that I really commend you, Chris, on laying out those options (including the “Islamic Solution which I’d never even heard of”).
My discomfort comes when these lines get too blurred, or even erased. This is where HTS and my issues with Chis’ suggestions come in.
Chris, you suggest that policy makers and politicians in the US should be engaging Muslim leaders to prophetically brace Muslim communities against ‘radicalization’ (I really hate that word but it is an excellent example of the obfustactionist tendency of lay) language). I think you may also be suggesting that public faces of a friendly American Islam and an America-friendly Islam would temper the racist blow-back from any subsequent violence against the US claimed in the name of Islam.
You also seem to suggest that there should be well trained anthropologists (or perhaps other social scientists) with an actual background in Afghanistan (rather than just methods!!) and varieties of Islamic Theology within the military and within HTS, saying that
I agree with you that HTS folks are not properly trained, and also that the Army’s “cultural training” is a joke (something a number of anthropologists, like Kerry Fosher in the Marine context, are working to change), but again these are two separate issues. Preparing actual combat soldiers to enter what you call a “hostile culture” is one thing, and something that I think all the forces have a responsibility to do better. But that is not what HTS is about.
Though there is a lot of confusion around what HTS is, it is NOT meant to do the work that you’re suggesting it is well positioned to do, namely building up a political infrastructure based on moderate Islam.
Leaving aside the issues around such projects and the disastrous lessons that US military forays into Central America have apparently NOT taught us, that kind of ‘nation building’ (lay obfuscationese again!) is not, or at least should not be, a military task.
Your suggestion for something even ‘better’ than HTS (perhaps you wouldn’t characterize it that way?) is this:
Again, this is where my concern about military strategy and civilian policy comes in.
You’re suggesting that we ought to be advocating, supporting, fomenting, moderate Islam and moderate Shariat in Afghanistan and that we ought to be having both policy makers and these “combat anthropologist” doing it (correct me if I’m wrong). But this seems to me to be boxing the civilian policy makers out of the equation and creating a closed circuit WITHIN THE MILITARY.
This is the very reason why I think the emphasis on The Interagency is dangerous, at least in its current form: its supposed to be about cooperation, but the ‘harmonization’ that ends up happening is in a decidedly military key.
The US military isn’t good at doing the kinds of things you’re suggesting need to be done. The reason is because it’s not their job and I don’t think it should be.
If it wants information for the purposes of tactics, if it wants to ‘map the human terrain’ it should, as Ken and I have both suggested above, train its own cartographers. If HTS is supposed to be something else, some kind of ‘nation building,’ Shariat debating, team of organic intellectual community organizers, well, it ain’t, and I hope we never manage to raise that particular Golem.
Report this comment
Chris says:
I’ll give you a wide berth for hyperbole here, but I’m wondering what “glorious freedom fighters” in Afghanistan and which “radical left” your talking about?
This seems to characterize some of the political discourse around Israel and Palestine, but I don’t think this is an apt description of the fault lines around the Afganistan quagmire. I think its much more relevant to talk about the Biden plan (as you do) vs the ‘Afghan Surge’ (which includes, lets not forget, a ‘civilian surge’) fault line.
The only “freedom fighter” that I can remember really being glorified was Masoud, and I’m sure you weren’t talking about him!
Report this comment
When I was hanging around. U of. C in th late 80s crashing with my old friend the future anarchist anthropologist rumor had it terry turner was running guns for the kayapo.
I say again The immediate question is not simply the vulgarization of higher discouse but the cause it serves.
Lotta graduate degrees in my linklist above. All very high brow.
But still more down to earth closer to the street than the fantasies of rock master rick and chris gangstarr
Report this comment
To Rick:
Believe it or not Rick, I believe the narrative of what you call a well-calculated lie. I do actually believe that Islam has indeed been hijacked by radicals. I believe this because I’ve lived in Islamic nations and have worked closely with Muslims here in South Texas. In those countries I never felt subjugated or oppressed other then in Saudi Arabia having to obey the strict laws that all their citizens had to obey. Egypt and Indonesia weren’t particularly strict in their laws and I never encountered any malice from anyone I met there although in Egypt my old unit was targeted for a terrorist attack, in 1997 but they ended up attacking a German football club instead. But as far as average Egyptians went, they were all very kind and friendly except when they got behind the wheel of a car.
Indonesia however is the nation I’m most familiar with and Muslim extremists barely existed when I was there. It was primarily restrained to the city of Solo, Central Java.
Following the invasion of Iraq however, Salafism and Islamist groups began to spread quite rapidly. They are still a minority however and from Christian missionary friends I have who live there, things have settled down with no serious threats towards their activities there in a long time.
Asides from this, some of my closest friends are Turkish Sufis who are profoundly religious. I’ve lived and worked with them and never found even the slightest or most remote sense of taqqiyah or jihadist inclinations. Their Islamic books, their Imams, and everything they preached were always very much focused on tolerance for other religions, leading by example, doing good works in society (even kafr societies), and in this manner conducting Dawah (evangelizing). They believe in Jihad but do not classify the U.S. as Dar Al-Harb as they are not being oppressed here other then the usual Islamophobia.
They believe Jihad is defensive in nature and they do not support the war in Iraq, but they also have no problems with our fight against Al-Qaeda except when we kill civilian Muslims. They also believe generally that Muslims have the right to defend themselves against US invasion of their land, but that the means of defense can not be via suicide or attack civilians. Essentially they believe what I’ve been arguing about Jihad. Now you can tell them that they’re wrong and that they’re not REAL Muslims or that they are liars. They will laugh and simply tell you that you are entitled to your opinion and that they do not wish to argue. I’ve seen them have the same conversations with Salafis and Deobandis on such issues where they simply choose not to argue with another Muslim over differences in theology because the Qur’an and Hadith instruct them not to fight amongst each other over their religion
Now could they ever become radicalized? Sure anything’s possible, but I very much doubt it as they are very loyal to their Tariqqah (school of Sufism).
From spending time around them, I learned quite a bit about how to interact with more orthodox Muslims which in turn helped me develop better dialog with Muslim radicals via the internet (as I make it a point not to seek them out locally). So anyways… in a nutshell I have a pretty hard time believing that these Turkish boys are just sharpening their knives waiting to cut my head off given everything I know about them, have experienced with them, and have observed in their actions. If there was a massive Islamic conspiracy and millions of Muslims in America were planning and plotting, I have yet to see any evidence of this united effort to bring down America other then the local Salafi and Deobandi loud-mouth Shaykhs who come and go every now and then.
If you truly believe however that a religious Muslim = “The enemy” then I’m afraid you’ve already embarked upon the path of self-fulfilling prophecy. Consciously or sub-consciously, you are going to treat every religious Muslim you meet as a potential terrorist. Knowing you and your very blunt manner of speaking, I’m quite sure you’ll let them know it as well and thus receive a predictable angry response that will re-affirm your belief that indeed they hate you and that they hate America. I’ve seen this approach time and time again by people who read Jihad Watch.org and decided to go hurl accusations at unsuspecting Muslims (such as at M.S.A. meetings in universities).
You’re going to see plenty of US military officers pull that same crap with Muslims and receive the same predictable angry response. They will then say, “AH HA! I KNEW IT!” and feel quite proud of themselves at uncovering the enemy!
Hell, the vast majority of Muslims can’t even answer most of the more difficult questions about Jihad and either respond that you should talk to their Imam or they just get angry and insult or yell at you depending on how the question was asked.
Most only know that their Shaykh says this is so and so it is and they trust those Islamic scholars.
So at any rate, you might say that I have “gone native”. However I have not converted to Islam as I have many other issues with the religion that I could not believe in 100%. The same goes for any organized religion. I do however have no problems praying with Muslims, doing dhiker, fasting, and otherwise helping in their communities. I also recognize Jihad in terms of the natural right granted to all sovereign nations to defend themselves from invaders. I do not define insurgents who solely attack military targets (and never civilian targets) as terrorists for example. I will call them insurgents only and believe it to be important to recognize and seek to understand their reasons (real or perceived) for fighting in order to achieve dialog and peaceful resolution. It may sound naive, but those are my beliefs.
With that said, I’m all for killing, in an intelligent manner, those extremist terrorists who are impossible to develop dialog with even through less radical Muslims. These diehards I believe are legitimate military targets. It would just be a whole lot nicer if Muslims could be convinced to deal with such individuals themselves. I honestly do not believe that a serious effort has ever been made to do so as again, religion is not something the U.S. State Department or Department of Defense is comfortable dealing with. It falls well outside their paradigms of counter-insurgency and hence is a problem and not part of their rigid range of solutions based upon what is probably taught at places like the USJSOF class you mentioned. Just how did they suggest “separating the militants from the majority of Muslims”??? If they use your criteria, they’d have millions of militants to kill or what our boys in uniform call “…a target rich environment.”
You and I both know that sadly, that is the mentality of a lot of soldiers and marines… and one reason why I see programs like HTS as essential but much too small and much too limited in scope.
Report this comment
The Haaretz piece I linked to is misleading also. I should’ve mentioned it, but someone else has.
Pat Lang
Report this comment
Chris, I’m sick as a dog, so I’ll try to answer better later. For now, I think it’s important to realize that your thesis, which is the same proffered by the Bush admin. and Islamists alike, is flawed on it’s face. That is, it’s logically flawed and inconsistent.
If radicals have hijacked over a billion people, then there would be a vast majority who could act as a willing audience, with a ready made cultural discourse which could be used to counter Islamist rhetoric. This doesn’t exist however. Otherwise, you wouldn’t need the HTS and others to find ways to develop such a narrative. Your argument for the HTS counters your argument that there is a true Islam that exists right now among any kind of majority of good sized minority anywhere outside of the US.
A year ago I spoke with a top British, female lawyer who ran an Islamic feminist rights group there. She spoke about how Muslim feminism is still something new and still very much found only at elite academic levels in the Muslim world. She spoke about how Iranian women had begun utilizing Islamic theology to argue for rights, in a way similar to what you’re talking about, but that such discourses were still very nascent.
After her lecture, I asked her one-on-one a hypothetical. The scenario was that I was a ground commander in Iraq or Afghanistan, and I wanted to empower the female population, yet I was limited to dealing only with men. I literally could not speak to the females, and therefore would defacto sanction the norm of male dominance. My question was what could I do? Is there something I could used in Islamic theology, or history, or whatever to help the situation? Her answer was no, and that she didn’t know what I would be able to do. Again, this is a woman from the Near East who spoke Arabic and was raised a Muslim, and still is a Muslim.
Daniel Pipes actually says similar things, in that there have been periods of some coexistence between Muslim and non-Muslim groups in the past and that we should see this as a sign of what is possible. Basically, just what you are saying. The difference is that you’re able to hold a functional contradiction in your mind and not be bothered by it. The fact that if over a billion people have been hijacked by jihadi militants, then they have been hijacked. The process is complete and that is the reality we are facing right now. Remember that the man speaks Arabic and has gotten his PhD in Islamic history, so he has a better understanding of the historical details. Yet, the only difference in what both of you say is that you are saying that somehow there is an invisible majority of people, not in the US but in the Muslim world, and somehow we just aren’t able to find them.
Remember that we are going nuts in the media with the death sentences of gay men in Ghana right now, yet that is the normal state of affairs in every Muslim state. Iran just buckled to international pressure to not stone a woman to death for having an affair, and instead give her life in prison.
Report this comment
Thanks Zoe for that very well written and well-thought out reply. I’m not sure I quite agree with you on the issue of language still however. Take your example of the word “vertiginous” for example. Indeed it’s a great word, but insisting that others learn it does not generally work with a non-academic audience. If I were to use such words at a pub…well ok we don’t have many pubs here in Texas…a bar I should say….then everyone around me would look at me like I was speaking a foreign language. Even worse, they’d tell me to quit talking to them like they’re stupid by trying to sound all educated and such.
Quite frankly, a lot of our policy makers are not that much different in their thinking then a typical working class guy at a bar. Such language screams “liberal elitism” for some and “ivory tower” for others and so they shut down any effort to understand what is actually written or spoken.
More often then not however, such research is never even seen by policy makers directly but instead is digested by their staff who are often made up of college interns and individuals with no more then a bachelors degree. Those staffers are probably going to skim through all of it anyways and probably miss the nuances that you may have carefully structured with great care and effort. Fellow writers and academics certainly will appreciate your depth of understanding and your command of the English language, but sadly it’s lost on many. What I was basically arguing is for the importance to be able to shift writing styles between academic styles and layman styles (aka-National Geographic style). I had one archaeology professor in graduate school who was a master at doing this. I had the privilege of working for him as a research assistant and was amazed at how he was able to write in the most in-depth scientific manner imaginable for submission to top archaeological journals… but then write a rich and detailed layman’s narrative using minimal terminology and more commonly used vocabulary. Even so, he was quite good at describing the exact same research (as he wrote for the academic journals) perfectly when writing for popular archaeological magazines who’s subscribers are mainly kids and amateur archaeologists.
So while it is tempting to “Learn’em good” and force higher concepts and vocabulary on people, I find that often it is wasted time and effort at best…and at worst I find that it causes a complete misunderstanding of what I was trying to say or simply outright rejection.
______________
Regarding HTS, well chances are that HTS is already in Djibouti and in fact early insertion of HTS into regional hot-spots is probably the most effective usage of them so as to ascertain a much clearer and more in-depth understanding of the region then any previous CIA analytical report could possibly provide. Now whether or not HTS team members do good ethnography…well that’s another matter that I can’t judge without reading their field reports or observing their methodology. I can only assume, that at least the anthropologists amongst them hopefully are using good methods. What is interesting is that anthropological methods are actually not that different then the methods employed by field operators within intelligence agencies as well as their analysts.
Now…with that said…. the daunting part where they may fail is in the area of long-term immersion. This is almost impossible to do in a safe manner if the indigenous people they are working with are in fact the very enemy America is fighting. Even more difficult is the fact that they walk into those communities with heavily armed soldiers and are often armed themselves with M4 carbines.
As for the Awakening Councils in Iraq, I would not characterize them as motivated purely by bribes. These Sunni tribal organizations were having their authority and autonomy threatened very seriously by foreign Al-Qaeda fighters entering their communities and telling their elders how to run things. Their other main concern was protection from Shi’a death squads. When the latter issue was dealt with, it was not exactly difficult to convince those tribes to side with the United States and the central Iraqi government. There also has been a tremendous amount of diplomatic work in merging Awakening militias with official Iraqi police forces. It hasn’t been 100% successful always and is still a work in progress but that was, in my opinion, a massive success in fighting Al-Qaeda as it removed their primary staging areas of operations.
At any rate, there is still a lot of discord and Iraq is not out of the woods yet as far as unity and stability goes, but for certain there has been much improvement in security and the professionalism of their military and police forces. The less Iraqis see of American presence as well, the more they believe that we are truly leaving their country as far as being an occupation force. That can only be a good thing for everyone.
——————-
Concerning your observations on my comments, yes those are more or less accurate and I agree with you that HTS is not designed to do what I’d like to see it doing even though, as you said, they are in the perfect position to do so.
From what I know of their operations, they are MUCH too limited and mainly focused on short term instead of long term goals. This is typical of military operations and thinking that demand body counts, rapid intelligence, and quick decisive actions. In essence, the military is a short-term results oriented machine and HTS is tailored to fit that machine. With that said however, occasionally they do have positive long-term impact but it is still secondary to short-term goals while at the same time being hampered by military/security issues. They are the same issues that prevent the United Nations from doing any meaningful work in the region. They tried that early on in Iraq and were rewarded with an Al-Qaeda attack and the loss of some of their best and brightest leaders and field workers. It is for that reason why I emphasize the importance of shifting the focus to direct dialog with Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. HTS could easily do it, but as far I know they are not allowed to do such a thing. I would assume that anyone who they came across admitting to be Al-Qaeda or Taliban would likely just get hauled off for interrogation by the soldiers who are with them. Rick could probably affirm or refute whether or not that in fact is standard operating procedure (SOP) for HTS affiliated Army or Marine combat units.
Yet even so, the military managed to reach out to insurgents in Iraq. So it is not beyond the realm of possibilities that HTS could be used in such manner, but I see no evidence of that. It would be VERY interesting to find out if any US military commanders are quietly disobeying official policy and actually taking part in negotiations. This was done in Iraq but so far has been sabotaged by the State Department (and possibly from within the DoD as well) in Afghanistan from what I’ve gathered from open-source information. Example: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/18/pakistan-arrests-taliban-un-envoy
As for your concerns about the creation of military trained “combat anthropologists”, those are absolutely valid points. Once you enter the military, almost everything is run in a military fashion, and almost all training is along military modes of thinking. It is very difficult to break out of this. Nevertheless often rather liberal education from civilian professors can be found at West Point , the Naval Academy, etc…
These are examples of successful efforts to broaden the scope of thought amongst our military leaders. They are also areas where already there has been massive efforts to improve cultural training. But do they focus on anthropology? Do they endeavor to understand from a human perspective what reality is like through the eyes of the enemy that they have been ordered to kill? Are they given any better theological training then the typical Daniel Pipes and Robert Spencer text books on Islam??? Occasionally perhaps but clearly not enough. That is where the practical and rational military mindset steps in and worries about overly sympathetic individuals who might convert to Islam and join or support the enemy… or who may just refuse to fight aggressively and spread ideology that could reduce troop morale (a constant worry amongst military commanders). Given that you work with wounded warriors in your research… you have seen the psychological cognitive dissonance amongst soldiers who have had the brutally dehumanizing and ultimately frustrating experience of telling apart friendly Afghanis from the Taliban…or realizing that they are all one and the same in some circumstances.
It’s the great paradox of war when the natural process of dehumanization (which always occurs in warfare) comes face to face with the humanity of their enemy during humanitarian phases of modern counter-insurgency warfare. It’s a hell of thing to put a young man or woman through. Perhaps that is what is at the root of what you are getting at concerning the civilian/military disconnect when it comes to conflict resolution and understanding culture?
Finally regarding my hyperbole, I apologize for that. When people like Seth piss me off I have a tendency to go into “sarcasm mode” so please take what I say to him with a grain of salt. Those comments were not directed towards you in any way or form. Having spent most of my college years working with progressive student groups (because I believed in many of the same causes they did), I had to endure many of what I called “conservative liberals.” By that I mean extreme left-wing liberals who are quick to rush to judgment and who see the world in very narrow black or white terms based upon an almost fanatical devotion to a particular left-wing ideology. An example would be some of the anarchists I knew and some of the fanatical RCP (Revolutionary Communist Party) people I ran into. They drove me insane with their speeches about freeing the working class and wage slavery while drinking their $5 cups of Starbucks latte… only to be disrupted by shifts in conversation about the status of their trust funds or the latest trends in hipster fashion and music. I have a HUGE bias against such people although I am often forced to work with them on many issues because they have the financial resources, connections, and education often to make things happen. Part of it is jealousy I’m sure given that I’ve never had much money and have not been able to live the dashing lifestyle of an avant-garde revolutionary/hipster armed with I-phone and Das Kapital. However it’s mostly just anger at a lot of the hypocrisy and arrogance I’d encounter from many such people when I would try to talk to them about the importance of understanding the opposing views of the people they ranted and raged against. Seth reminds me of such people even though apparently he is much older then I first thought (and should know better) if he was in university back in the 80′s when I was still in elementary and middle school.
The real irony is that I’m arguing both sides between Rick and Seth. Nobody likes a moderate who doesn’t take sides. But I’m glad that you’ve always given me a fair listening and very good critical analysis and commentary without getting rude about it. I’m also really sorry for the lengths of these posts…I’m way too wordy and need to focus more on summarizing my ideas better.
Report this comment
“The real irony is that I’m arguing both sides between Rick and Seth. Nobody likes a moderate who doesn’t take sides.”
“Moderate” without context is a free floating signifier, and all that you’re left with is your tone.
The only source you’ve given is Pipes, and how many from me.
Any from the RCP?
On Iraq try Raidar Visser
Zoe: “I’ll give you a wide berth for hyperbole here, but I’m wondering what “glorious freedom fighters” in Afghanistan and which “radical left” your talking about?
This seems to characterize some of the political discourse around Israel and Palestine…”
Have I used the term “glorious freedom fighters”? It’s simply war. The history of the conflict, the interests of the combatants and of their supporters and their backers all need to be assessed equally. Whatever my politics I’m a realist. I’ve got money in Deepwater, now in more ways than once thanks to BP. Does that give me more cred? Or maybe since they’re now been accused of dealing with Iran I’m suspect for another reason.
And the “famous anarchist anthropologist” has been sourced on this page enough as an expert. Though in fact we’re not in contact these days and aren’t going to be anytime soon.
In the aftermath of the Hamas election victory; “The Dayton Plan”
Report this comment
comment in moderation
Report this comment
Hmm… I thought seriously about what you said Rick and for me there are no contradictions in my thesis unless I were to operationalize the word “hijack” as you have done. I suppose that would be what Zoe correctly called me out on as using hyperbole. I do not deny that strains of what we see today in radical Islam, indeed have ancient roots. Also yes, like Pipes I likewise do look at relative periods of peace and enlightenment in the Islamic past and use those examples in my debates with extremists. Unlike Pipes however I do not believe in perpetuating the Salafist concept of Jihad as he does (along with other Salafist concepts) and I constantly seek to counter every aspect of radical Islam using whatever I can find from the Qur’an, Ahadith, and traditional Islamic scholars. For me it is not about arguing about which is the TRUE Islam. That is a fool’s errand as is, I believe Pipes vision of radically changing Islam using a carrot and stick approach. For me, it’s making change via baby steps by using mass media to gradually spread a counter-narrative that refutes the most extreme interpretations of radical Islam, while accepting other aspects that do not directly promote conflict but rather de-escalate tensions between the Islamic world and the West.
I also completely disagree with your feminist Muslim friend. If you want to talk to a highly conservative Muslim man about women’s rights (say a Taliban Pashtun man for example), you don’t need to talk to their wives or female relatives and you don’t need to even talk about their wives. You talk about their daughters and their future. You talk about family income. You talk about what the shariat says about women’s rights and examples of noble female figures who were prominent in Islamic history. You ask “Where in Islam does it say that a woman can not receive an education?” You mention the fact that Mohammed’s first wife was a powerful business woman and that he WORKED FOR HER for many years and that he sought council from her and never married anyone else until after she died (she was quite a bit older then he). You also mention Aisha and her role against the Shi’a separatists and her role as a teacher of men regarding the Ahadith. You then ask, “Are your women not strong like the hills of this land? Do they not bear for you sons who grow to be strong Mujahadeen and daughters who serve Allah and bring honor to their parents? Then why do you hinder that half of your people? If your son/s perish in jihad, will your daughter/s be able to find work to help you in your old age? Will you depend on your son-in-laws only if that happens?”
I mean I can go on and on and on with what is a very gentle persuasive argument based on Islamic principles but also that tug to daily realities of existence for many of them. They may have some counter-arguments such as their fear of corruption form Western ideas or financial reasons, but all are such things that can be dealt with. If you don’t believe me I HIGHLY recommend that you read that book I mentioned earlier, “3 Cups of Tea” about Greg Mortenson. I promise you that you will find it impossible to put down and that it will really illuminate to you the possibilities of that region when it comes to such issues as women’s rights. As far as I’m concerned Greg Mortenson is a true American hero at a time when we don’t have very many real heroes left these days. He was also nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize but Obama won it instead.
As for the execution of gays in Ghana, first Ghana DOES NOT HAVE SHARIAT LAW. Second, homosexuals have been getting executed all over Africa in recent years, not just in nations with shariat law. Ironically the Taliban have primarily given out lashes for that offense (as apparently its quite common amongst them). As for Iran and that particular case, man, don’t even get me started on Iran’s horrific legal system. There is an unbelievable number of reasons why even under shariat law she is absolutely innocent due to the enormous amount of evidence needed (including 4 male witnesses) to hand out a capital punishment. Under strict shariat law, she should have only received l00 lashings (which she did receive already) and no jail time. Even then there must be a substantial amount of evidence. But Iran’s judicial system is insanely corrupt and the Shi’a method of interpretation is VERY different the Sunni methodology. Within Shi’a tradition, under some circumstances laws are based off of an Ayatollah’s fatwa that is given the same credibility as anything from the Qur’an because of the Ayatollah position and because he is a descendant of Mohammed. At any rate, even aside from that, their legal system is a broken system by both Islamic and secular standards. You can ask any Iranian about how screwed up it is.
Meanwhile, dozens of other Muslim countries are getting along just fine without being in the headlines. Hell it’s not like you can’t find some outrageously unjust court case here in America just about every week if not every day. I can dig up mountains of articles on human rights abuses in the Texas prison system alone, let alone the entire United States. The fact of the matter is that horrible things happen in almost every country in the world, just some make bigger headlines then others due to the broader political context and narrative that our media conjures in our collective psyche.
Finally, concerning the “hidden majority” amongst Muslims as you call them… Well what can I say other then that I never referred to them as “hidden”. If I speak about moderate Muslims, then I am speaking about Muslims who have actively been speaking out against terrorism and if you like I can rattle off a list of groups and leaders. But I never really talked much about those groups in this particular discussion On the other hand you seem to have claimed that all those Muslims who are serious about their religion and who seriously practice it, are essentially all out to get us and are all terrorists in waiting. The problem is that I haven’t seen the evidence of that other then Daniel Pipe’s writings and a poll suggesting 7%-13% . I should then mention that John Esposito explained much of these statistics in context (unlike Pipes) in his book “Who Speaks For Islam?: What a Billion Muslims Really Think” which I would highly recommend. This leaves the other 85% believing what exactly? The hell if I know, but if they’re not out to kill us, then hey Thumbs Up! Let’s not give them any more reason to hate us and lets work to insure better relations with the Islamic world.
What’s the alternative? Doing what the Al-Qaeda leadership is hoping that we do which is to truly go to war openly against the Islamic religion. Treating every religious Muslim like a terrorist is a sure-fire way of speeding us towards that goal don’t you think?
Report this comment
BTW, Seth, I totally agree with you about all the dirty business that went on after those elections that legitimately brougth Hamas to power. That’s no surprise. I’m not sure what any of that has to do with HTS or in both Rick’s and my own assertion that Islamic extremist groups are extremely good at encouraging left-wing secular activists in the West to overlook the attrocities they have committed in the name of Islam. You tend to fit that bill, but perhaps I am wrong. If I am wrong then my apologies Seth.
But again, like I said, I do not dispute many of the horrible things that Israel has done as well. I think both extreme sides of that conflict are full of stubborn idiots who use the conflict for political gain while the average people in the middle of the conflict have to suffer.
Report this comment
Chris, a beautiful argument beautifully stated. I will stand with you on this one.
Report this comment
“Rick’s and my own assertion that Islamic extremist groups are extremely good at encouraging left-wing secular activists in the West to overlook the attrocities they have committed in the name of Islam.”
Where did you ever get the idea that I would fit that description, other than your own imagination? And who in the west has a history of supporting the atrocities of Islamic fundamentalists more than the CIA?
My links on Islam and women concerned Hamas, not the Pashtun.
On Afghanistan the discussion was of the old US client, the acid-throwing Hekmatyar, the new client Matiullah Khan and the one in-between, Karzai who the US chose over the king, as Steven Cook wrote about Mubarak: “to create a regional order that makes it relatively inexpensive for the United States to exercise its power’”
On Afghan women I would mention Malalai Joya who’s sick of the US, their warlords and the Taliban.
I can’t stand him but you’re not even Abu Muqawama.
Report this comment
Abu Muqawama
Exum is on good terms with some of the writers I linked to, including the nice Quaker lady tasked to warn Palestinian politicians of Israeli threats, and Issandr El Amrani, Arabist. Here’s Exum debating Nir Rosen, the nice Quaker lady and Andrew Bacevich.
I’m bored I’m done.
Report this comment
again in moderation.
and I’m done.
Report this comment
“Unlike Pipes however I do not believe in perpetuating the Salafist concept of Jihad as he does (along with other Salafist concepts) and I constantly seek to counter every aspect of radical Islam using whatever I can find from the Qur’an, Ahadith, and traditional Islamic scholars.”
Jihad dates back before Salafism. Mohammad practiced jihad, and he insisted that it was the duty of every Muslim to either do jihad, or practice it if possible. That’s in every holy book and Hadith they have. That’s a tenet of every sect, and every school. Again, what’s new is a type of jihad that has the ability to fly planes into buildings and killing civilians. I agree that this form is new, but so does everyone else. How can you study the first 500 years of the movement and tell me this this is Salafism? That’s just the new cultural strain of jihad.
As for talking to men in Afghanistan, or elsewhere, about womens’ rights- that’s a fools errand. Kafirs don’t get to lecture Muslims about the law. There are some things you can say to influence people, but you seriously need to go back over and try to do that today. They educated their little girls until they’re at child baring age, around 10 or 11, and they give them away as wives. You try to argue with them and they remind you that Mohammad married a 9 year old when he was an old man, and that he is Allah’s perfect example of a man.
You’ll never get anywhere until you deal with the material realities that create a social environment that values males for war and protection, and where women are prizes for bravery. That will never ever ever change with a savvy media campaign.
“first Ghana DOES NOT HAVE SHARIAT LAW.”
You’re not reading what I’m writing are you? I didn’t say that. Go back and reread what I wrote. I said that it is the influence of Christian fundamentalists, which is why it’s all over the news. We can criticize our own, but when it comes to the everyday practices of others, we invoke relativist clap trap.
BTW, you say that there has to be 4 witnesses for adultery, can any of those witnesses be a woman? Don’t forget it’s the same rule for proving rape.
I’ve realized that what is needed is defeat. We’re never going to have to deal with the Nazis again, because we thoroughly defeated them and they capitulated. That is true of all parties at war. Until Islamists admit defeat you’re just going to give them hope. Think in your mind about any conflict in history where a conflict ended without one side being utterly defeated? Now, think about conflicts that end in stalemate, and think how long it’s taken them to start up again. WWII happened, because WWI was left unfinished. Same with Korea. Egypt and Syria don’t mess with Israel anymore, they were defeated. The longer we draw this out the more people we put as risk on both sides.
Report this comment
I also have to say that I think that Israel as a Jewish state was a huge mistake being put where it is. But it’s there, and it’s not going anywhere. If we look at the issue historically there’s plenty of blame to go around, however. The partition Israel was not the original plan, and most of what’s happened has been due to, I’ll agree with Chris here, a minority of Palestinian and other Arab leaders to not work toward peaceful inclusion, but violent reaction to Jews forming a state in the area. Kirch has put together a complete history on the subject here: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/1948–israel–and-the-palestinians-br–the-true-story-11355
It’s also a fact that the Palestinians have been used a propaganda fodder by other Arab states, who could really care less about them. This exploitation by other Arab states in the region is sadly ignored.
Other than that, there’s an issue that has been brought up that we don’t need HTS, because we already know all about the areas they operate in. On it’s face, this argument would not fly in any other situation. How many studies have been done, and are being done right now, among the Navajo? I mean don’t we already know everything there is to know about these people?
How many anthropologists have worked in Iraq since Saddam, or since the war? You think maybe things have changed? For example, Saddam paid rural farmers to not grow food in order to make them dependent on the state to ensure they would not rebel and could be leveraged as supporters. This created a welfare state in much of Iraq in which people have become used to simply taking money and supporting anyone who did. What is the effect of that?
I remember after teaching an army unit about the social networks of various terror groups, or how people become mass murderers, one high ranking sergeant just got back from Iraq pulled out his copy of “The Arab Mind,” and said he told everyone there to read it, and that we should all read it. So everyone’s right, everything can be found in the library.
As for the article on homosexual intercourse in much of the Muslim world, any average soldier can tell you about the saying that, “women are for children, and boys are for pleasure,” which is common. And, that is about the end of their knowledge, which is largely expressed in disgust. How are soldiers to be taught about the various factors of why these practices take place? When you understand why something happens it calms the mind and helps bring about acceptance.
Afghanistan is so remote that there was one village where a Soviet helicopter crashed and the people thought it was from aliens. In Iraq during the 2003 invasion many of the Iraqis thought our soldiers were either vampires or grown in government labs like the movie Universal Soldiers, because they got back up after being shot in the chest. They didn’t know about body armor, and they really only knew us from movies. That is how little we know about each other.
Report this comment
According to Rick, you can’t talk about an ideological “true” Islam because we need to pay empirical attention to Islam as it’s practiced. He then admits that while most Muslims do not subscribe to the ideology of terrorist groups, but insists it’s because they’re not really Muslims.
Really, I just saved you a lot of time if you don’t want to bother reading endless pages about the great KGB-Welfare-Muslim Conspiracy Against Decent White Folks. The above circular argument sums up what you need to know about Rick.
Report this comment
No, the above circular logic is what you need to know about religious ideology. Within Islam, as well as within Christianity and most major religions there is consistent and rather heated arguments about what the “true” whatever religion you’re talking about.
The difference is the historical, economic, political, material and social realities that people find themselves in with particular ideologies. People will shape their beliefs in order to maximize whatever is important to them, especially the biological and human universals. Therefore, it is this underlying infrastructural reality that must be changed if we are to hope to achieve a change in the super-structural nature of religious belief. The Jewish people were decimated by the Romans, and where forced to change their religion from one of high priests and temples to one of Rabbis and synagogues.
It is a combination of a material driver, and a new ideological option that has to be used in combination. This is how the process of cultural change happens.
If you want to argue that such a thing can be done using ideological methods only, then it is your case to prove that such a thing can be done, or has every been done in history.
Islam has always had an ideology of jihad. There has never been a time in Islamic history when Muslims had sufficient military power that they weren’t in conflict with their neighbors. That was just as true during the lifetime, and just after the death, of Mohammad, as it is true today. This is historical and current empirical reality. As they say in New York, “who do I believe, you or my own friggin eyes?”
It is the only major religion that has a codified mandate to conquer land and subjugate people to a totalitarian law in which all facets of life (political, personal, economic, social) are dictated. In fact it is the only major religion that dictates not only every aspect of it’s followers lives, but dictates how non-believers are to behave. Again, this is a fact.
While most Americans will say they are Christians, most are non-practicing and not really that religious. Muslims that are moderate, according to their own tenets are the same, not very religious. Nowhere in the Christian bible does it say “this book was written by God,” or, “this book is to be understood literally, word for word, and it is an exact copy of the book in heaven.” The Koran says that. The idea of fundamentalist Christians are historically new. The idea of fundamentalist Muslims is a contradiction, because one cannot ever say that the Koran is not the literal word of God. It says so.
The only thing that exists right now, like what Chris is talking about is found in Saudi Arabia, where they are rehabilitating former terrorists before being released. The state religion of the Saudis is Wahhabi, and therefore Salafist. They are not teaching these guys that jihad is not the duty of every Muslim, they are simply teaching them that what they are practicing with the use of terrorism is not traditionally what has ever been thought of as jihad, which is a much more direct military conflict, or by funding military conflict. In essence it is doing whatever you can, because Allah understands if there is something you can’t do.
What is ludicrous is to say that the majority of Muslims are both moderate and religious (being born Muslim is like an ethnicity, like calling yourself a Jew even if you don’t practice it), and yet 10% to 15% of militant Muslims can be a threat to us, since there would be such a majority to fight them over what is to be called a true Islam. Just like all religious groups, the majority of followers only ever play lip service to their religion.
There is not a single sect of Christian that says one shouldn’t take communion, or not pray, or not believe that Jesus is the savior, etc… not one. You will never see a Buddhist sect that doesn’t have some form of meditation. No one would argue with this. Like so, there is no Muslim sect that doesn’t demand jihad if they are able.
There might be minor cults that pop up here and there historically, but they are never anything more that minor cults.
Report this comment
Only here because given the response and the level of equivocating someone should say something
meforum.org/90/undeserving-of-a-reply Benny Morris on another essay
“Efraim Karsh’s article on the new Israeli historiography is a mélange of distortions, half-truths, and plain lies that vividly demonstrates his profound ignorance of both the source material (his piece contains more than fifty footnotes but is based almost entirely on references to and quotations from secondary works, many of them of dubious value) and the history of the Zionist-Arab conflict. It does not deserve serious attention or reply.”
And another “But this is Karsh’s way, to belabor minor points while completely ignoring, and hiding from his readers, the main pieces of evidence. It is a measure of Karsh’s ignorance of what actually went on in the Middle East in 1948 that he writes (p. 97) of “the Arab attack on the newly-established State of Israel, in which Transjordan’s Arab Legion participated.” Quite simply, it did not. Karsh employs his usual method of focusing on the one document that seems to uphold his argument-often while twisting its real purport-while simply ignoring the mass of documents that undercut it.”
The second linked on Karsh’s wikidepia page
At least Benny Morris is an honest asshole
Zionism is racism
Report this comment
Rick, regarding Jihad, there are a TON of different spins on Jihad. Absolutely it is a central tenant of Islam, but there are 1. Different types of Jihad and 2. a huge amount of rules on the permissibility of Jihad that vary between different schools of Islamic thought and different Islamic sects.
Here is an example of one Sufi version for example-
http://www.adishakti.org/pdf_files/eternal_jihad_(peopleofallah.org).pdf
Which “spin” I put on it largely depends on who I’m talking to and whether they are Shi’a or Sunni as well as what madhaab they belong to. Generally these are extremely long arguments. If you really want to read though all of it, I can compile some of my better arguments, but I’d have to do a lot of editing to fill in the background information for some of the topics I’m talking about. Some of it I can pull from my thesis but I really need to update that section as I have a hell of a lot better theological material now. It’s just a matter of integrating all the different interpretations that counter what I refer to as the Salafist interpretation of Jihad which is one of constant Jihad (first peaceful and then violent if they refuse to submit to Islam) against every non-Muslim nation in the world until the Day of Judgment or until world domination.
As far as women’s rights, actually most Muslims seem very pleasantly surprised when I speak to them about Islamic theology, even extremists, because they don’t expect many kafr to bother learning about their religion. It’s all in how you come across to them. You don’t just start telling them about their own religion or blasting right into issues of human rights. That indeed would be foolish. That sort of thing is only done after weeks of knowing these individuals at the very least and only after listening to them teach you about Islam, their history, and their families. As for marrying off their 10 yr old daughters, I’ve only heard the occasional stories of that but have not heard of that being a common practice. From my understanding, generally most marriages in the Pashtun tribal areas do not occur until between 14-17 yrs of age. Also female education level has to be taken into the context of what is normal for boys and within the context of what the family can afford in terms of sending their children to be educated. If they have a choice between sending a son or a daughter off to a high school or some type of technical school or university (if they’re really lucky) then yes generally it will be the son who goes and the daughter will have no more then a basic education as you say. But that is more of a practical issue more heavily influenced by economics. They only have a lot to gain otherwise. So it is not at all impossible to convince them of this…but again only after developing a good relationship and building trust.
As far as Ghana goes, I did go back and read what you wrote. You didn’t mention anything about Christian missionaries. I know very little about Ghana so forgive me for my ignorance of that area of Africa. I could only go by what you typed and that was rather ambiguous and odd in that particular paragraph.
As for the witness issue regarding how women are counted, you already know the answer. It’s one of the issues that I don’t agree with regarding Islamic law. However, it doesn’t take away from the fact that adultery is next to impossible to prove. Rape is *sometimes* different depending on which madhhab you look at as some scholars do not place it within the same category as adultery. This was something compiled together by Muslim jurists long after the death of Mohammed. In the ahadith it is clear that a rapist can be executed.
“Narrated Wa’il ibn Hujr: When a woman went out in the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him) for prayer, a man attacked her and overpowered (raped) her. …he said: Stone him to death”.- Abu Dawood Book 38, Hadis# Number 4366
The problem is that there are no details regarding how guilt was proven and therefore no legal guidelines in the ahadith or Qur’an. So later jurists simply lumped it in with other sex-related crimes. The goods news however is that most Muslim nations do not use strict shariat based laws. Most either have secular legal systems or a hybrid of secular and Islamic laws. Part of the reasons are due to such ambiguities and issues within the shariat. Why do you think millions of Muslims did not flock to the Islamic paradise of Afghanistan back when the Taliban ruled?
Finally, you say that we need to defeat the Islamists. Ok, but what exactly defines “defeating them” when according to you they are everywhere in the Western world? Should we change the U.S. Constitution that protects American citizens who are conservative and devout Muslims so that we can deport them or imprison them because of their religious and political beliefs? If they keep fighting, how many countries do we need to invade? How many do we need to kill before you think that collectively, around the world, they will put their hands up and say, “I surrender”? Who in fact speaks for all of them? Do you see the problem with your rationale? It’s almost like putting out a forest fire using a garden hose. We can bomb here and attack there over and over until they literally bleed us dry financially as we wage war in the region for another decade. There is no “quick finish” as you imagine it short of dropping a hell of a lot of nukes and committing the genocide of millions of people.
Report this comment
I mean no disrespect to anyone’s knowledge of or personal dedication to the issues being discussed here, but I find it incredibly frustrating that just about any recent discussion of anthropology and the military on SM seems to become poisoned by a sort of macho ping-pong of ad hominems, condescension and crypto-realist talking points. Surely the ambit of “culture” in the context of US military institutions and adventures extends far beyond the finer points of Islamic theology and reactionary paranoia about the allegedly existential threat posed by Muslim extremists. It extends into political economy, for one thing, and into humanistically-minded empathy, for another: no one likes to be occupied by a foreign army, and no amount of “cultural sensitivity” or “local knowledge” will change that.
As I understand it, the appeal being made in my friend and colleague’s original post is that in the larger discussion of the relationship between social science and the military apparatus, spades ought to be called spades, but there is a vast and ambiguous arena in which the purely military and the purely political overlap with and inform one another. It’s no more my business than anyone else’s to say what’s appropriate for this venue, but surely no light is cast on the important questions that Zoe raises and that many other fine and thoughtful folks have discussed on SM once the conversation becomes dominated by paranoid Orientalism and juvenile one-upmanship.
Report this comment
Chris, I agree that there are various interpretations of jihad, but regardless of the interpretation there is always a form of jihad which is militant. The inner struggle takes place only for Muslims once a place in under Shariat, or they are a minority and cannot do jihad. Also, Muslims that are about reforming Islam are a very small minority that live in the west and are under constant fear of death. Don’t tell me you don’t feel fear that you’d be killed if your name got out there? I know my head is worth over 50,000 dollars in some countries. Go to reformIslam.org and notice there is not an address or phone number for contact info. for the org. No joke, they have two emails. One for regular contacts, and one for death threats!!!!
It is my contention that the places and nations that have adopted lesser forms of violence or subjugation of kafirs have economic, political or ecological reasons which can be understood anthropologically. The President of Indonesia condemned Islamists in his country in May for the first time. It’s officially been a secular country since I think 1947, or so something like that, but no one that senior had ever really condemned the vandalism of non-Muslim clubs or random acts of violence, etc… until now. It was only after an attempt was made on his life that he did it. He said that violence has been increasing steadily so he was going to condemn it anyway. Indonesia has very different material realities than the desert nations of Islams birth.
Then you have the Saudis who don’t take part in jihad directly, except for the few in Al Qaeda, rather they fund it. Islamists have very deep pockets and student groups at US universities raise money for them. If you look at a lot of the fliers they say some bull in English, but then say exactly what they are doing in Arabic.
But remember, I’ve done the kind of work your talking about. I’ve done it among people that want to kill me, and I’ve done it in trying to create community outreach programs in low-income inner city communities. So, it isn’t an academic exercise when I think about it. Think about the kind of scale that would be required to attempt an information only type of program. We’ve been conducting psychological operations against the North Koreans for 50 years now. We have radio stations pumped in there and sneak in radios. We constantly have balloons that float in the country and drop off newspapers and fliers. It isn’t going to change things without some kind of pressure on the ruling elites.
Also, you cannot deny that militant Islamist groups don’t use the line about Islam being a peaceful religion to suppress any criticism of them. So, to follow that line of strategy you are hurting your cause as much as you are helping. You have to say one thing in private and another thing in public, and that isn’t going to work. Bullsh!t sounds like bullsh!t, and the truth sounds like the truth. The truth is always a messy mix of reality, while the rosy picture you’re presenting doesn’t match up with what we are seeing.
I’ll make it really simple to understand what I’m saying on one level:
Do you think there is any amount of propaganda that would convince anyone that Buddhism is a violent religion with militant followers? Has a Buddhist ever committed an act of terror in the name of Buddhism? It sounds ridiculous right?
Ok, what you are talking about is doing exactly that. You are trying to invent a discourse of peace and moderation around a philosophy, political system, body of law, and religion (Islam is all of these things, and the religion is only part of it), that contradicts its total history and structured beliefs.
We might next say that Capitalism is a system of benevolent welfare for the working class. The KKK don’t hate blacks and Jews, they just really like white people.
Report this comment
“It sounds ridiculous right?”
Possibly never heard of Sri Lanka. Or Aum Shinrikyo. But yes all forms of religious terrorism sound ridiculous – well, until someone gets blown up that is.
p.s. i wonder if anyone will get out of this comment thread with dignity intact? Chris G. isn’t doing too bad, obviously having had some experience debating with loons. Also, nice try K MacLeish.
Report this comment
By “MIA” I assume you’re reffing Bronfman’s Tamil hip hop chicka, defender of the world leader in suicide bombings?
“Chris G. isn’t doing too bad,”
Rii…ight.
“actually most Muslims seem very pleasantly surprised when I speak to them about Islamic theology,”
Actually when I say “Eid Mubarak” they smile and say thank you. But you should see the reaction when I tell Christians that the Last Supper was Jewish holiday.
A friend of mine used to bitch about Ramadan because it meant he had to drop off and pick up his kids at their friends’ houses after dinner for a month. Now they’re old enough to go on their own. He’s been to a few meals himself. “It’s like a Seder. Cab drivers and shop keepers and there’s always one college professor who talks too much.”
It’s sad that I’m the only one to show impatience with this shit on an anthro blog.
Report this comment
K MacLeish, I actually did talk about issues such as humanistic empathy and if political economy interests you, please feel free to talk about or if you wish I could talk a bit about that as it is important. I glanced upon related issues but did not focus specifically on political economy. Also I did talk about some of the issues Zoe brought up. I know you probably don’t want to go reading through all that but of it is in my response to Zoe. As far as talking about culture, is not religion a major part of culture? The reason why this topic always gets heated is simply because it is inherently political and HTS is an issue that has divided the Anthropology community. Also myself and Rick actively do research concerning counter-terrorism, hence why we tend have quite a bit to say on the topic. There is definitely room in here however for a deeper academic critique and discussion as Zoe has done. I appreciate very much her input and would welcome yours as well.
Anyways…just be glad that we’re not talking about what the best type of personal body armor is for field work in conflict zones or the finer points of extracting one’s self from an ambush under a cross-fire with attackers holding defilade positions. Then we’d really get into testosterone driven, chest pounding stuff. lol
Report this comment
Seth, you’re not the only one to lack patience for that sort of thing, but your “AmeriKKKa!!1111!!!!one!!” routine isn’t really adding anything.
Frankly, I wish I had more of substance to contribute but it’s not my field and I’m underread. I could watch Zoe and Chris talk about this all day, though.
Report this comment
Datapoint: Marine General James Mattis, newly appointed CENTCOM commander, in charge of U.S. forces in the Middle East,
“I believe the single primary deficiency among senior U.S. officers today is the lack of opportunity for reflective thought….We need disciplined and unregimented thinking officers who think critically when the chips are down and the veneer of civilization is rubbed off — seeing the world for what it is, comfortable with uncertainty and life’s inherent contradictions and able to reconcile war’s grim realities with human aspirations.”
The same might be said of those who engage in scholarly debate.
Read More http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/07/tech-skeptic-is-petraeus-new-boss/#ixzz0tO2X0eOu
Report this comment
Andrew it would help if you or someone would respond to facts or arguments based on them,
Zoe disparages “glorious freedom fighters”, you to “AmeriKKKa!!1111!!!!one!!” and Chris and Rick to -I don’t even remember- but all I’ve done is linked to experts on the ground: journalists, political scientists, and to Andrew Exum[!] as someone who argues the American line and debates within in it, with sources and data. I don’t agree with him but since -as I wrote above- he’s in discussion with the authors I’ve linked to I guess that says something about them too. But maybe Andrew you’re accusing Andrew Becevich or Stephen Walt of being anti-american.
That I refuse to refer to the US in the first person plural is my own choice and I’m happy to defend it, but that’s not the issue
And Chris whoever he is, talks, generalizes and regurgitates, and sources nothing.
Data Point:
wired.com/dangerroom/2010/07/in-afghanistans-east-taliban-seen-as-morally-superior-to-karzai/#ixzz0tONLomc4
foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/07/06/the_sheikh_who_got_away
“killing 80 people and wounding approximately 200 more”
guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/09/frances-guy-foreign-office-blog-post-fadlallah
Report this comment