General Discussion

QuestionAlways

(259 posts) Mon Feb 23, 2015, 06:52 AM Feb 2015

Stop the BS ... Read, Communicate, Act

Last edited Mon Feb 23, 2015, 07:21 PM - Edit history (2)

I am so sick and tired of blow-hard politicians and NEWS commentators, with no understanding of what is involved, attacking our President. They even say he has no love for America because he does not call this conflict a "War on Islamic Terrorism" and is not forceful enough in fighting this war. What they do not understand is that this conflict is not like World War 2 or Korea or even Vietnam, in that the application of force can be counterproductive.

This is what Obama meant when he said his guiding principal was not to do "stupid" things in order to defeat ISIS. George W. Bush did a stupid thing in using large-scale offensive force in Iraq to fight the War on Terror. It was only after we were in the quagmire and it was obvious we were losing this war, did Bush do something smart and ask some experts what kind of war was this war on terrorism, that we seemed to be losing.

The following report was part of the answer which I believe has been guiding President Obama, and should be read by every American, especially those blow-hard politicians and NEWS commentators, so they too can have some understanding. If you find this posting useful and interesting, please recommend it and forward it to opinion leaders, news outlets, and congresspeople.

This report was published 2005 by the RAND Corporation and was funded by the CIA's Directorate of Intelligence. This research was conducted within the Intelligence Policy Center (IPC) of the RAND National Security Research Division (NSRD). NSRD conducts research and analysis for the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the Unified Commands, the defense agencies, the Department of the Navy, the U.S. intelligence community, and allied foreign governments. The full 80 page report from which this was extracted can found at: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/conf_proceedings/2005/RAND_CF211.pdf

Source: Exploring Religious Conflict - a report by the Rand Corporation

After September 11th, it almost goes without saying that religious violence in the name of a holy cause has escalated. Killing in the name of God constitutes a major driver of violent conflicts today. No major religion has been, or is today, a stranger to violence from its
extremists, and that violence will pose challenges for U.S. foreign policy and for the analysts who seek to inform that policy. So, too, comparisons across forms of religious violence are instructive. New Religious Movements (NRMs) – which are almost always offshoots, however
bizarre, of major religious traditions – have also emerged as sources of violence. Yet Islamic extremists are now in a class by themselves as a threat to the United States, as a transnational, non-state movement with the chance to appeal to a billion and a half people. Understanding these phenomena, Islamic extremism in particular, and their implications for
policymaking and the intelligence community are major aims of this report.

Mark Juergensmeyer’s concept of “cosmic war” provides a useful conceptual framework for examining the larger-than-life confrontations that religious extremists are engaged in today. This concept refers to the metaphysical battle between the forces of Good and Evil that
enlivens the religious imagination and compels violent action. Cosmic war has roots in the theology of most religions. To be sure, the rationale for religiously motivated violence exists in Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, and elsewhere. No major religious tradition has been or is a stranger to violence from its extremists. In the three monotheistic religions, it is the Day of Judgment, the cosmic battle between Good and Evil, and the realization of God’s ultimate purpose for His creation... Cosmic war ensues when this inner conflict between Good and Evil becomes manifest - physical, not metaphysical.

Cosmic war has several defining characteristics: terrorist acts stemming from cosmic war are not strategic in the sense that they aim to accomplish concrete purposes. Rather, they are symbolic, intended to demonstrate to the terrorists’ supporters and potential supporters the reality of a war that the rest of the world neither sees nor comprehends. It is more symbolic than pragmatic in intent and is performed in remarkably dramatic ways; its displays of violence find their moral justification in a religious imperative; it operates on a divine time line with victory being imminent but not in this lifetime; and it is empowering to those who take up the cause, providing divinely justified actions to real-world problems.

Finally, acts of terror in a cosmic war are seen as evocations of a larger spiritual confrontation between Good and Evil. The power of this concept surpasses all ordinary claims of political and earthly authority. In the Middle East and other parts of the Muslim world where the battle for the soul of Islam continues, Islamists and Al-Qaeda’s networks have placed their struggle against secularism, perceived Western domination, and the United States, in a cosmic context. This context animates and elevates their struggle giving it the imprimatur of the divine; hence the outcome of their fight is preordained: Islam in
its pristine purity will prevail.

It is worth noting that the visions of cosmic war, however seemingly fantastic and farfetched, may appear to be imminent. September 11th did draw the United States into a protracted war, drive it deeper into debt, and weaken its standing among the world’s Muslims. By these measures, it was a success.

For the intelligence analyst and for policymaking, an understanding of cosmic war is particularly useful when formulating strategies aimed at its mitigation. In particular, the use of military force as a tool for combating cosmic war could be counterproductive; force could
perpetuate the perception that a religious group is under attack and must fight for the preservation of the faith and its own existence. The more the conflict is militarized, the more the warriors will be validated in the righteousness of their own cause or struggle and in the eyes of all onlookers, and the more the United States will become the evil enemy.

Indeed, as others point out, even the language of a “global war on terrorism” plays into Islamic jihadists’ hands. Religious extremists may pay careful attention to the language used by members of the U.S. Administration. They may listen not only for style and content but also for concepts that demonize them and their cause. These images play into the language and worldview of cosmic war. It validates the appeal of cosmic war.

Intelligence analysis should pay close attention to religious language, to its style and substance, its historical context and symbolic content, and its deeper meanings and cultural undertones. Religious language could provide clues to determine whether and when groups see their battles as cosmic. Intelligence analysis should also look for identifiable state actions that trigger the perception of a cosmic war is in progress.

More generally, in dealing with a perceived clash between Islam and current U.S. foreign policy, an attempt ought to be made to blur the edges of that clash, not sharpen them. Instead of emphasizing the historic sense of conflict between Islam and Christianity or the West, policy ought to emphasize possible points of convergence. Inaction or doing nothing can be difficult though, particularly because of pressures from domestic constituencies to respond forcibly.

------------------------------------------
I fear the pressures from those blow-hard politicians and NEWS commentators may be getting to President Obama, and he may adopt a more aggressive approach which would be a mistake. The only way this can be avoided is if the people understand why he has been low-key in fighting terrorism. This report, produced during the admistration of President Bush, could do just that.