Quote:
Originally Posted by Shek
The reality is that at the cost of a few hours on just around a dozen terms and the concepts surrounding those terms, we can start to drive the wedge between AQ and Islam and call into question the very heart of their rallying cry. I call it a bargain.
|
Shek,
Here is where I disagree: No Iraqi, Afghan, Paks or other Muslim is going to be taking Islamic theological and ideological lessons from a random American soldier, if anything your display of "their knowledge" will only reinforce the already-preached lessons of how insidious and cunning Americans are. Cultures long accustomed to betrayal, treachery and sabotage - as often though ideological sedition as through physical violence - cannot drop centuries of legacy thinking in matter of days, months or even years; it takes two or three generations of trust-building to begin accepting your new-found vocabulary of "a few hours" at its face value. The US military/policy term for it, I believe, is the
Long War.
The campaign however does have its value to countries with significant Muslim populations, mind you. The US just isn't one of those countries; its Muslim sub-populations still depend on the narratives emnating from the countries of their origin for inspiration - so until a real US tradition comes forth, this campaign is unnecessary. As for supporting US allies' efforts in such a campaign? Such support must come from the most subtle and discreet sources - definitely not "a few hours" effort.
Apart from the problem of trust and respect, you also have the problem of non-theological forces sustaining and perpetuating Islamic terrorists: from geo-politics and nationalism to ethnicism and plain old criminality. What ideological warfare do you intend to wage against these Machevellian partners in terror? Their cynical vocabulary is older than Islam or even Arabic (the language you intend to fight in)! No trust can exist wthm
them, only respect you can draw from
them will make you lose ours! Choose again what you value more?
=====
A matter of some possible historical interest to Shek, good armies involved in COIN warfare - unless specifically targeting a whole soceital group - have always opted for the generic terms. Ex. "bandits", "marauders", "cattle-thieves", "plunderers" etc. But do put some research into that matter: Soviets called Afghan insurgents "dushman" thinking it meant "bandit", it simply meant "enemy".