29
29
0
Like many of you, I read the cover story, “Why Do The Best Soldiers in the World Keep Losing?” in an issue of The Atlantic with great interest. Reading that article combined with some other discussions, research, and internal dialogue has led me to something that seems obvious in regards to our post 9/11 Middle East actions.
I came to this conclusion: for the past 14 years we have been fighting a kinetic war in the Middle East and avoiding the war we need to fight – the ideological one.
I would argue our political correctness has gotten the better of us and hampered our defense strategy and foreign policy. At the very least, it has prevented us from having the open conversation necessary to define the strategy we need in the war of ideology and how we intend to act on that strategy.
To get the discussion going, I offer up Thomas Jefferson and pirates...
Before Thomas Jefferson was the President of the United States, he was the Ambassador to France (following Benjamin Franklin). Roughly a year into his term, he faced a problem with U.S. ships being captured and their crews sold into slavery by Islamic states along the Barbary Coast.
In the spring of 1786, Thomas Jefferson asked the Ambassador of Tripoli why the Barbary Coast Islamic pirates were attacking U.S. ships when the U.S. had never warred on Tripoli. The Ambassador replied:
“It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every Mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise.”
The Ambassador went on to describe how the Barbary Coast states used terror to force the enemy to surrender quickly without much of a fight. This concept of attacking the soul of the enemy is still in use today by the terrorist organizations that threaten our national security.
My point in bringing up a 229-year-old story is to point out that 229 years ago, Americans were targets of an ideology and 229 years later, that ideological strategy has not changed.
One of the most significant ideological texts on Jihad, written in 1979 by a former Pakistani General, expands on the belief of attacking the soul of the enemy through acts of terror:
'Kill the enemy or convert them by raging an individual war of terror against non-believers, only this will bring back the greatness of the Caliphate [Empire of Islam] and the sovereignty of Allah on Earth.'
Once you connect the 229 years together and realize we are facing an ideological war where bullets alone cannot win, the sooner we can actually make progress.
I came to this conclusion: for the past 14 years we have been fighting a kinetic war in the Middle East and avoiding the war we need to fight – the ideological one.
I would argue our political correctness has gotten the better of us and hampered our defense strategy and foreign policy. At the very least, it has prevented us from having the open conversation necessary to define the strategy we need in the war of ideology and how we intend to act on that strategy.
To get the discussion going, I offer up Thomas Jefferson and pirates...
Before Thomas Jefferson was the President of the United States, he was the Ambassador to France (following Benjamin Franklin). Roughly a year into his term, he faced a problem with U.S. ships being captured and their crews sold into slavery by Islamic states along the Barbary Coast.
In the spring of 1786, Thomas Jefferson asked the Ambassador of Tripoli why the Barbary Coast Islamic pirates were attacking U.S. ships when the U.S. had never warred on Tripoli. The Ambassador replied:
“It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every Mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise.”
The Ambassador went on to describe how the Barbary Coast states used terror to force the enemy to surrender quickly without much of a fight. This concept of attacking the soul of the enemy is still in use today by the terrorist organizations that threaten our national security.
My point in bringing up a 229-year-old story is to point out that 229 years ago, Americans were targets of an ideology and 229 years later, that ideological strategy has not changed.
One of the most significant ideological texts on Jihad, written in 1979 by a former Pakistani General, expands on the belief of attacking the soul of the enemy through acts of terror:
'Kill the enemy or convert them by raging an individual war of terror against non-believers, only this will bring back the greatness of the Caliphate [Empire of Islam] and the sovereignty of Allah on Earth.'
Once you connect the 229 years together and realize we are facing an ideological war where bullets alone cannot win, the sooner we can actually make progress.
Strategy
Military History
Command Post
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 23
1
1
0
my personal opinion of fighting the "war on terror"...send our military into these countries...do a search of every soldier going in country....no cameras, no cell phones...refuse the media access....take off the gloves and hit these bastards the only way they under stand....force force force...it would be bloody...it would be ugly, hell...it might even be illegal....but I bet if we took the fight to them...things would be a little different.
You mentioned Tripoli...Lt Percy O'Bannon and his merry Jarheads marched into the desert and kicked their asses...nary a word was heard from muslims for 200+ years...proof...as they say...is in the puding
You mentioned Tripoli...Lt Percy O'Bannon and his merry Jarheads marched into the desert and kicked their asses...nary a word was heard from muslims for 200+ years...proof...as they say...is in the puding
(1)
(0)
CW3 Kevin Storm
Not quite true, shortly after this colonization by European Powers started taking place in North Africa. Recall that Napoleon's troops once used the sphinx as a shooting target, and that a small Squadron led by a relatively unknown guy at the time by the name of Nelson would destroy a French squadron at anchor in Egypt. Two world wars, League of Nations Mandates, Sikes-Picot, later and a Nation called Israel , Interventions by two World Powers, which IMHO is the primary cause for much of the unrest today. How many times have the Israeli's found huge weapons caches across their borders? Hard to think your a badass if all you got is a single shot rifle.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Capt. Reynolds
I agree with you on most of your points. We are fighting a war of Ideology. But my true belief is that to win against Ideology you have to use education vs physical Altercation. Problem is you can not make people learn unless they want to. The Muslim world has had such a poor record for education since the 10th century that it has failed to improve itself. What you have is generations of people living under dictators and such that did not improve things at all.
When the Ottoman empire started its decline in the 1700's, you also see an influx of European Imperialistic influence. While this doesn't have an immediate effect on Islam, it does allow the rise of "religious"leaders who claim it is Allah's will to govern themselves.
They use this Ideology over and over again because it works. From 1918 through 1979 you see a domino effect of Middle eastern countries having European and even American puppet governments come and go. And when they go, the ousting dictator, or general touts how it was "Allah's Will" this gives rise to the next dictator a country over, using that rally cry Ideology to get the citizens to rise up so he can come to power, or cause enough stress to the occupying government to Hopefully get them some land.
That same ideology is now being enacted againin the present to try and get people to rally to their flag to "over throw" the invaders or occupiers. Even though we are not occupying anything they use it to rally to our allies in the middle east claiming they are tainted, by us. Its a political night mare soup that seems to have a revolving cycle since 2001. While I believe that we need to fight against this ideology it is not Islam, as Islam is just being used as an excuse. I believe its against these dictators and generals who use religion as a tool against others. And that is where I believe education could come into play.
If the people are educated they can make their own choices. No longer does an Imam (Islamic religious leader) hold sway, the people can now decide what is right or wrong. Education, while not a fast technique, does work. Its why we built schools in Iraq and Afghanistan. It just takes time unfortunatly.
I agree with you on most of your points. We are fighting a war of Ideology. But my true belief is that to win against Ideology you have to use education vs physical Altercation. Problem is you can not make people learn unless they want to. The Muslim world has had such a poor record for education since the 10th century that it has failed to improve itself. What you have is generations of people living under dictators and such that did not improve things at all.
When the Ottoman empire started its decline in the 1700's, you also see an influx of European Imperialistic influence. While this doesn't have an immediate effect on Islam, it does allow the rise of "religious"leaders who claim it is Allah's will to govern themselves.
They use this Ideology over and over again because it works. From 1918 through 1979 you see a domino effect of Middle eastern countries having European and even American puppet governments come and go. And when they go, the ousting dictator, or general touts how it was "Allah's Will" this gives rise to the next dictator a country over, using that rally cry Ideology to get the citizens to rise up so he can come to power, or cause enough stress to the occupying government to Hopefully get them some land.
That same ideology is now being enacted againin the present to try and get people to rally to their flag to "over throw" the invaders or occupiers. Even though we are not occupying anything they use it to rally to our allies in the middle east claiming they are tainted, by us. Its a political night mare soup that seems to have a revolving cycle since 2001. While I believe that we need to fight against this ideology it is not Islam, as Islam is just being used as an excuse. I believe its against these dictators and generals who use religion as a tool against others. And that is where I believe education could come into play.
If the people are educated they can make their own choices. No longer does an Imam (Islamic religious leader) hold sway, the people can now decide what is right or wrong. Education, while not a fast technique, does work. Its why we built schools in Iraq and Afghanistan. It just takes time unfortunatly.
(1)
(0)
MAJ Matthew Arnold
Education is one of the tools in the toolbox, but it has very limited practical application. Boko Haram means western learning is sin. They spray acid in the face of girls going to school. They teach that the only authorized acceptable learning is the Koran, and that is must be properly interpreted and explained by the Imam. In the face of such ideology and oppression education can be used very little. I am convinced that total war is the only answer.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
The issue of the barbery pirates had nothing to do with religion. It was about money. The barbery pirates had existed for a very long time before Jefferson. They terrorized the British and many other nations and it was over money. Jefferson did not want to pay them a ransom, he didn't have much money in the treasury to begin with. In the end we had a bit of a truce with them, they'd leave american ships alone, but if i recall we actually did pay them a small sum of money just not what they were looking for.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
This was our nations first foray to fight outside of our borders. The Napoleonic wars were occupying much of Europe. The pirates of the Barbary Coast were threatening some of our shipping - export and import.
This was well before the Monroe doctrine which "established: our self-imposed right to act out our interests throughout south and central America. That helped us get into the Spanish American War.
This was well before the Monroe doctrine which "established: our self-imposed right to act out our interests throughout south and central America. That helped us get into the Spanish American War.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
We have tried the hearts and minds thing before, and in my opinion this country is and should remain above the "raging an individual war of terror against non-believers." Again my opinion is that to stoop to their level in this war would make us no better than they are.
Or did I miss something Maj Jeremy R.?
Or did I miss something Maj Jeremy R.?
(1)
(0)
Maj Jeremy R.
The connection I did not make in this piece was our experience during the Cold War with Russia. We indirectly fought in kinetic conflicts with the USSR, but directly fought them in an ideological one (blue jeans and rock 'n roll and thinking for yourself).
In this case, my argument is the ideology has not change in a few hundred years, but we have not really moved into the non-kinetic ideology on a grand scheme. How many pundits in Washington do you see still call ISIS a terrorist organization.
"Hearts and minds" - I am not speaking about any local interactions with the population by ground troops in an effort to build local support. A) That is a micro level and my post is about the macro B) I am an USAF member and not well versed in this aspect to connect it to my post.
In this case, my argument is the ideology has not change in a few hundred years, but we have not really moved into the non-kinetic ideology on a grand scheme. How many pundits in Washington do you see still call ISIS a terrorist organization.
"Hearts and minds" - I am not speaking about any local interactions with the population by ground troops in an effort to build local support. A) That is a micro level and my post is about the macro B) I am an USAF member and not well versed in this aspect to connect it to my post.
(2)
(0)
0
0
0
I have something to add. Adams wanted to pay tribute. We have just won a revolution and he did not want to go to a war that had no end. They folded like a cheap suit. Our Marines captured Egypt. They don't surrender or run.
(0)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
Adams wanted to pay tribute only until a navy could be built. in 1786 when he negotiated with the Musselmen, the Articles of Confederation were still in effect. It wasn't until 1794 that the Navy Act was passed.
It was Adams who actually wrote the regulations of the Continental Navy in 1775.
Walt
It was Adams who actually wrote the regulations of the Continental Navy in 1775.
Walt
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
We can only win the wars the politicians want to win. Soliders, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines win battles, politians decide if we win the war.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Maj Jeremy R. Great post. It isn't about body count. If a million people truly believe that they will be in paradise for dying for their cause, either the nation has to get ready for a HUGE body count or politicians need to better understand the enemy's beliefs and thinking BEFORE they wage war. It is never a one size fits all approach to fighting battles.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google