Is There an Islamic Way of War?

I would like to support the words of MAJ Niel Smith, that the selected topics of the Islamic way of war were not successful, so I hope that these topics will be omitted and replaced with some material that support the communication with the Islamic world through knowing the real nature of the Islamic religion and the concept of Jihad which does not only mean fighting. The jihad has a broader and more comprehensive meaning than simply fighting. The jihad has been divided to thirteen types, there are arranged jihad of the soul, Satan, corruption, injustice, evil in society, the jihad against the hypocrites, jihad of the call and statement, the patience and tolerance Jihad, and the armed Jihad of enemies. The concept of jihad in terms of fighting mainly based on the theory of self-defense not to attack others. It uses the attack only when ensure that the other party intends to attack the Muslims.

A very well formulated and articulated article, which touched on all different religions. The article also exposed how a group of combatants exploited the weak and needy through the use of religion to propagandize and advance their cause(s) of waging war. It is worth noting here that, for example, when Bosnians (Muslim), Croats (Catholic), and Serbs (Orthodox) were battling each other in the Balkans, especially during the genocide of Bosnians by Serbs, there was hardly any mentioning of "Orthodox Way of War", "Catholic Way of War", or "Islamic Way of War" then. This is in addition to what MAJ Khan has mentioned in his article, which delineated the grass-rooted coin of the "Islamic Way of War". Was this because there were no Western countries involved in the battle? Or, was it because Western countries knew how to take advantage of the information operation better than their opponents?

Scott: I agree on Kennedy"s the Great Arab Conquests and here are some other usefule books and sites from my Radical Islam class

Arjomand, Said Amir.
The shadow of God and the Hidden Imam : religion, political order, and societal change in Shi'ite Iran from the beginning to 1890.

Ayoub, Mahmoud.
The Quran and its Interpreters

Coll, Steve
Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan and Bin Laden

Dabashi, Hamid
Theology of Discontent: The Ideological Foundation of the Islamic Revolution in Iran

Giustozzi, Antonio
Koran, Kalashnikov and Laptop: The Neo-Taliban Insurgency in Afghanistan

Fawaz, Gerges
The Far Enemy: Why Jihad Went Global

Huntington, Samuel P.
The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order

Khaled, M.
2005 The Great Theft: Wrestling Islam from the Extremists.

Khoury, Philips ed
Tribes and State Formation in the Middle East

Lewis, Bernard
What Went Wrong? The Clash Between Islam and Modernity in the Middle East

Lings, Martin
Muhammad: His life based on the Earliest Sources

Oliver, Anne Marie and Paul Steinberg
2005 The Road to Martyrs Square: A Journey into the World of the Suicide Bomber

Packer, George
The Assassins Gate: America in Iraq

Rashid, Ahmed
Jihad: the Rise of Militant Islam in Central Asia

Qutb, Seyyid
Milestones

Spencer, Robert
The Truth about Muhammad
Stealth Jihad

Tibi, Bassam
The Challenge of Fundamentalism: Political Islam and the New World Disorder.

Warraq, Ibn.
1995 Why I Am Not a Muslim. Prometheus Books,

Some interesting websites:

www.asharq-e.com
www.ikhwanweb.com
www.aljazeera.net
www.jihadwatch.com
www.dailystar.com
www.afghandaily.com
www.apostatesofislam.com
www.asiatimesonline.com
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/
www.dawn.com/
www.timesofindia.indiatimes.com
www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch
www.islamic-world.net
www.islamicsites.com
www.talkislam.com

Strength and Honor,

Ron

Dr Fischer,

The question that I have is, what is the goal of the block? Is it to talk about how religion affects method OR is it to take a critical look at the fighting methods of the Middle East?

If it is the first, then I would add the following to the H307 Block.

Required Readings:

The Canons of Jihad: Terrorists' Strategy for Defeating America - I would assign one part per four students. Its a Naval Institute Product with

World Religions Today - Chapter 4 by John Esposito "Islam - The Many Faces of the Muslim Experience."

Additional Readings:

Bernard Lewis, What Went Wrong

Bernard Lewis (again) Crisis of Islam: Holy War and Unholy Terror

Sagemans text that Niel Smith listed is a good one as well.

If it is to take a look at fighting methods of Arab armies (which I think is very valid considering our allies in Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Iraq, UAE, etc need to be critically examined from a cultural perspective) I would add to Niels list the following:

Required Readings:

Arabs at War by Kenneth Pollack - the Intro (called "Understanding Arab Military Effectiveness) and the Conclusion

Iraqi Perspectives Project: A View of Operation Iraqi Freedom From Saddam's Senior Leadership Its the Hitlers Generals Talk for OIF. Done by Joint Forces Command and free from the internet.

Additional Readings

The rest of Arabs at War

Pretty much anything by Hugh Kennedy, but I think that The Great Arab Conquests is one of his better ones.

Scott

I shudder at the thought of MAJ Kahn's article being included in the next iteration of the course. However slanted the previously assigned readings (to which I am not privy), surely students would not benefit from so tendentious and mendacious a set of arguments as MAJ Kahn's. I do not doubt that he penned this article with the best of intentions, but its factual inaccuracies and misrepresentations are simply appalling. Under the heading 'Who are [sic] fighting and why' Khan trots out the same old bromides with which we are now so familiar. He duly mentions the specter of 'colonial baggage' and calls the US or UK (it is not clear which) a 'former colonial power'. Actually, the United States is not a former colonial power (beyond the Western Hemisphere, that is, and even there American intentions were never 'colonial' in the original sense of the word). It is undeniable that our interests have led us to extensive involvement in the Greater Middle East and elsewhere, but it is simply wrong to (seemingly) justify resistance in Iraq by erroneously labeling the United States a former colonial power. It is also worth mentioning that - in terms often used by apologists for radical Islam (note that I do not indict Islam as a whole but rather its radical Salafist variants; note also that I do not consider Khan to be such an apologist) - MAJ Kahn attempts to relativize the issue by mentioning IRA terror and its dubious connection to Christianity. Actually, the IRA never justified its actions on religious grounds. The same cannot be said for al Qaeda and its associates. How, then, does the West's commitment to study radical Islam in the context of terrorism amount to a double standard? Islam is pertinent to today's fight because al Qaeda has made it so. They have explicitly used it to justify their actions. What choice do we have but to objectively engage Islam in an attempt to better understand our enemy? That such attempted engagements have been ham-handed and clumsy is regrettable. It is regrettable too that CGSC has, unwittingly perhaps, amplified the worst of our attempts. I do not blame you for feeling offended. But your attempt at providing a rejoinder would be better served by taking account of basic history. You would also benefit from taking al Qaeda propaganda with a grain of salt. Osama Bin Laden does not care a whit about the very real plight of the Palestinians. If he did, why hasn't he taken up arms there? The same goes for Chechnya and sundry other conflicts. The truth is that Bin Laden casts about for any grievance that he can get his hands on. He has, after all, cited global warming and greenhouse gas emissions as a grievance against the West and therefore a justification for the slaughter of innocents. Consult the literature if you don't believe me. Consult also the works of Bernard Lewis, whose appreciation of Islam is unparalleled in its subtlety and nuance. Lewis' work, by the way, sets the record straight regarding Muslim treatment of Jews in Islamic lands. Hint: in most cases it was not pretty. As for the contention that the God of Abraham 'cant say two [different] things', I would submit that He most definitely can. If he could not, why have three monotheistic religions sprung from his revelations and not one? Christologically speaking, Jesus Christ bears only a passing resemblance to Allah as he is depicted in the Qur'an, at least insofar as I understand that depiction. This is not to objectively endorse one or the other. It is to say that the two are quite obviously different. It therefore stands to reason that teachings in the Abrahamic religions differ so radically from one another.
MAJ Kahn I suppose I commend you for your passion and initiative but for little else. If anything your very caricatured response has not advanced the cause of moderate Muslims - a cause very worthy of advancing - but rather reversed it. For that I am quite sorry. I am equally sorry that SWJ, whose standards have heretofore been impeccable, deigned to post such a benighted tract.

Dr. Fischer, (Forgive my earlier misspelling)

You are creating a deliberate strawman of my argument as to why many found the H307 block poorly constructed and perhaps too slanted in its selection of materials. Yes, if it is well constructed the source should matter less, but many of these readings selectively used material to present a case of fear where a broader study may reveal some excellent counter-points, as MAJ Kahn has done. Given our general lack of understanding of Islam writ large, perhaps we should seek to help enlighten all sides of the discussion, instead of just one?

I have not, and would never, argue religion should be ignored or is an unimportant factor that should not be studied. There is a thread in the Small Wars Council (search religion, engagement, and COIN) and a large thread on the BCKS COIN forum I have been active in. What I WAS criticizing was the selection of the articles, the sum total of which paint Islam as an inherently violent and deceitful ideology. I know from field experience and from my many Muslim friends that this is not the case except for a minority of the religion. My argument is not that the works were wrong, they only depicted one general side of the thought, in a cumulative way that managed to incite the disappointment (if not anger) of a significant portion of the international student body.

The inquiry and discussion you describe did not result from the readings selected, and as with all things ILE the result depended on the instructor's ability to interpret, guide, and execute the block of instruction. Instead, it painted the religion of 1.3b people in a very broad and sometimes selective brush. I understand why MAJ Khan and many other students were angered. I also know the general reaction among my peers was a resounding - "Wow. WTF?" regarding the selection of articles. If I was at the Jordanian staff college and a similar set of writings on the US was used without counterpoint, I would be upset as well.

I can't think of any articles (besides MAJ Kahn's) that meet the bill of what you describe, but perhaps a few books would start in the right direction:

One I found extremely enlightening was: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Many-Faces-Political-Islam-Religion/dp/0472069713… Many Faces of Political Islam </a>, and
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Who-Speaks-Islam-Billion-Muslims/dp/1595620176/re… Speaks For Islam?: What a Billion Muslims Really Think </a> by John L. Esposito and Dalia Mogahed.

For more military books that actually contain, ahem, history, I suggest Ken Pollack's Arabs at War: Military Effectiveness, 1948-1991. Alternately, for focus on Islamist terror, perhaps Sageman's "Understanding Terror Networks".

However, you've got a legion of PhD's in the faculty, Human Terrain Systems, and the Foreign Military Studies Office next door. Ever thought to call across campus? The students had to pick this up?

I guess I was also confused as to the point of the bloc, as mashing in the 1973 Sinai attack was somewhat at odds with the rest of the readings.

Other than that, I think we will simply have to disagree. All I can say is that H307 crushed my Egyptian colleague, who felt we were deliberately attacking his religion in an inaccurate way. Not the lesson point I think we wanted.

It's great to study religions and discuss their impacts. I guess it would make more sense if we studied the Thirty Years War, Crusades, Sun Tzu/Dhaoism, Jewish way of war, etc. But that wasn't the point because only this one was singled out, obviously because of our involvement in conflicts. We should be careful in how we do so and what implied messages we send as a diverse institution seeking to build, rather than burn, bridges to those we will likely fight alongside in the future as allies.

Mehar Khan! Too verbose to support a thesis to be a likeminded at Fort Leavenworth. War begets war. Who all are fanatics is not hidden from the watchful eyes in the world. There are a number of non-state fanatics living amongst a lot more state-borne fanatics. Anyhow enjoy your stay at Fort Leavenworth. Have khushi time...

"Each side does a sprinkling of God for stupid men and women about to die," was how Major Khan finished his provocative essay, in essence conceding that religion does motivate at least one population in all wars. The intention of H307 was to discuss the use of religion (rather than to condemn a religion) in the insurgencies we currently face. If religion does not play a role in the recruitment, retention, and motivation of the other side in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have truly missed the mark and warrant the criticism you offer. If not, then the issue is on the plate whether we feel comfortable or not.

Historically, religion has frequently been employed in war. Christians shot, stabbed, and hacked each other to death during the Thirty Years War over what seems now as minor but was then considered major differences in the interpretation of scriptures. "Infidel" and "apostate" are common scarlet letters in the dialogues of most world religions. Historians of the Thirty Years War, regardless of their faith, work to understand by pulling apart the events and uncovering the motivations of the actors to better understand what was. In today's world, were those who claim they act in a holy cause in Iraq or Afghanistan Christians, the question we would be asking would be exactly the same, namely how does one understand the totality of the current situation so as to deal with it better. Does NOT understanding serve you better?

Regarding the criticism of the articles, I have never allowed the source of an article to be evidence of its validity. I have read some things in Mother Jones that were spot on. To criticize the articles, criticize the quality of the argument they make. An article in a conservative journal is not wrong simply because of where it appears.

The lesson author is already working to expand the offerings to include the possibility of adding this article in the next iteration of the lesson. To be more constructive, offer the author alternatives suggestions if improving the offering is really what this is about. What articles do you suggest to better balance the debate?

COL Reese/Mr. Fisher

Yes, the H300 text had a question mark after it. I would also submit a block of writing taken from such unbiased sources as the Heritage Foundation, American Conservative Magazine, and National Review Online might lack balance, especially for a class that purports to be grounded in serious history. The fact that no counter-point was included weakens the "we had a question mark!" defense. When it comes from a government institution, and is one-sided, it represents that institution's position. It's kind of like when MG Dunlap used to fig-leaf his essays on airpower in COIN as not the Air Force's position despite absence of any balancing POV from another USAF GO. The defense doesn't pass the smell test for bias.

And come on. The Ibrahim article was over the top. Might as well have a counter class with selective quotes from Leviticus as representing Christianity.

I'm still shocked no one saw this mini-tempest in a teapot coming. Instead, the college managed to offend most of our Muslim international Muslim students for no good purpose. Yes, it sparked debate, which I agree the college needs more of, but I really question how after almost 9 years of fighting in the Middle East we make such basic failures.

CGSC Fail.

A good article and a refreshing argument that provides a strong case to counter the notion of an Islamic way of war. To me, what you call the type of warfare or how you label the battles being raged today is irrelevant, what is relevant, is the powerbase that fuels them to take on a superior forces.

You last statement in the article says that you think we should keep God out of this debate. I agree. Because if you remove religion from a group/cult/whatever you want to call AQ, than you do not have a war or the violence that we see today. I would love to keep God out of this, unfortunately, that is not my choice, the enemies/"anarchist on the fringe" have chosen to use this to motivate followers to rise against anyone and everything that stand in their way of obtaining their goals and end state. Religion has turned out to be a very powerful polarizing motivation for AQ, i agree with you...and wish they would pick another form of ways/means, that would make our jobs a lot easier. If you take religion out of the enemies powerbase, than you just have a bunch of fighters who like to pick a fight with a superior military... doesnt pass the common sense test to me.
Again, great article, thank you for sharing your point of views.

Many thanks Major Mehar, Job well done.

I commend MAJ Khan for posting his article to SMJ. The thoughtful debate which it has generated is good for all of us and good for the Command and General Staff College. His article reflects the proud tradition of Pakistani officers in the US Army school system over many years.

His full article clearly brings out the Koranic condemnation of suicide and the killing of innocents, among other things. That the perpetrators of such acts also use the Koran to justify their actions illustrates the doctrinal religious divisions which have kept scholars awake at night for centuries. This is not, however, the most important point. And this is where I believe he pushes his points about "fear mongering" anti-Islamic conspiracies too far.

Joe Fischer was exactly right when he notes that the title of the class included a question mark at the end. This grammatical point is important because for me it clearly indicates the purpose of the class. That is to consider the role of religion, not as a theological exercise, but as discussion of the possible effects of religious culture on military operations. Perhaps these next three examples illustrate my point:

1) Is it important to understand the impact of Shintoism and the role of the Emperor in Japanese culture on the nature of Japanese military operations in WWII?

2) How did the atheism of classical Marxism affect Soviet military operations in Christian, Muslim and Buddhist societies during various revolutionary conflicts after WWII?

2) How does the Christian just war tradition affect US military operations in the war on terror, if at all?

These three examples are focused at the strategic level and I believe most readers would answer them in the affirmative. It becomes more challenging when attempting to decide how, if at all, religion and religious culture affects the operational and tactical levels of war. And it is perhaps most challenging to then decide how it ought to affect one's own operations against such an enemy.

One of the many questions flowing from the class and from MAJ Khan's article is "how can the existence of religious doctrinal debate within Islam help us understand our enemies, in the war on terror and what ought we to do about it?" Equally, if not more importantly, "how does this debate help us understand and work more effectively with our allies?" I would submit that religion "matters" a great deal, that terrorists are vulnerable on religious grounds, and that this vulnerability has not been well exploited in our current conflicts around the globe. It is utterly naïve not to consider and act upon the role of religion and religious culture on warfare -as an aspect of ones enemies, ones allies, and oneself.

Sun Tzu's dictum about knowing ones enemy and oneself has never been more relevant.

Personally I never thought of Islamic Way of War until recent article written by Mehar Omar Khan. Unfortunately, putting labels on something we don't understand has become the norm in American politics and policy. How do you sell something to the American public or its allies? You use labels whether they are justified or not. This does not make it right but it sells a thought process through fear and marketing.

Would we be having this debate or support for a War in Afghanistan or Iraq if we had not labeled it Islamic way of War probably not. This may be selfish of me to think this way but as the War on Terrorism continues I know this trend of labeling something not quite understood will never end.

Controversy sells.

I am more than willing to consider questions such as whether there is an Israeli way of war or Christian way of war. The question at the heart of this discussion is whether a particular religion helps inform the way a group wages war. To ask the question does not automatically indict the religion in question. The question of right or wrong interpretation of a religion is not the question. I will leave that to theologians. The connection between religion and war is something that concerns the soldier as well as the statesman.

I dont want to take too much away from Major Khans interesting article. I think that there are some good points in the analysis of the "self-proclaimed terror experts" as well as the analysis of terror tactics and a tie to Islam and to the Quran. The questions at the top of page three are enough for most to step back and do some thinking. Facts ignored and twisted are also good - there are surely a lot of non-Arab Muslims in the world.

While there may not be an "Islamic Way of War" there are certainly characteristics of armies/nations with strong ties to Islam (either in government or within their armed force). The best under ten page reference to problems within armies in the Middle East is an article from the December 1999 Middle East Quarterly called Why Arabs Lose Wars by Norvell B. De Atkine. (http://www.meforum.org/441/why-arabs-lose-wars) In it De Atkine (whos online bio says "Norvell De Atkine is a retired U.S. army colonel. He currently instructs U.S. army personnel assigned to Middle Eastern areas." But I am sure that there are many on this site that know him from Bragg and other places and can quote it better than I can.) outlines why, tactically and operationally, Arab armies lose fights. His data comes from "personal experience with Arab military establishments in the capacity of U.S. military attaché and security assistance officer, observer officer with the British-officer Trucial Oman Scouts (the security force in the emirates prior to the establishment of the United Arab Emirates), as well as some thirty years study of the Middle East."

He highlights information as power, the education system, the contrast in officers vs soldiers, the level of decision making and responsibility, lack of ability to sync combined arms operations, security and paranoia (AKA secrecy within the ranks), and indifference to safety as reasons for why Arab armies perform poorly. When I first read this piece, it really fired me up. I had fought in Baghdad with the fledgling Iraqi National Guard/Iraqi Army and was about to go again to serve as a battalion advisor. Having completed that assignment, studied Arabs for a year at Leavenworth, and gone back to Iraq again, I found that many of his characteristics were correct. They are things to think about - not a universal standard for Arab armies or even Iraqis - just some things to consider when dealing with an Arab army.

I did a lot of research and wrote a thesis at Leavenworth to understand the reasons - at the time what I thought could be tied to religion, culture, or others (or all) - behind why Arab armies continually failed in modern history against specifically the Israelis, but also against the United States, the UK, and each other. What is it in the history of the region that leads to the paranoia/secrecy within the planning of an operation? What keeps a coalition of Middle Eastern armies from a win against Israel?

What I found was several things. 1. The education level of armies of the Middle East are low because they dont want an educated soldier. Educated soldiers realize what they are missing and then see what the elite have. This makes them want it and then a coup happens. From history look at the Abbasids and Ummayids, the Mamluks, and the Janissaries of the Ottomans.

2. In most of the Middle Eastern armies, there has always been a core of well-trained soldiers with a large contingent of auxiliaries. Those well-trained soldiers take the preponderance of resources (From history, again the Mamluks and the Janissaries, but from the Parthian and Sassanid Persians, the catapharact ranks and the super-heavy catapharact cavalry. From modern history, Saddams Republican Guard) while the preponderance of soldiers get the scraps. Its the controversy of would you rather have one unit thats awesome or a bunch that are good?

3. Arab armies dont shy away from technology - they arent dumb. Look at the air defense network of the Egyptians and their reduction of the canal in the Yom Kippur War as well as their use of ATGMs. How about the modern tanks used by Arab armies including the Kuwaitis and Saudis? Its not about vehicles (to a point), its about crews. See "The Heights of Courage" by Avigdor Kahalani. Better Syrian tanks with IR capability massed for a deliberate attack piled up in tank ditches while fighting against a tank battalion that was organized on the fly from the holiday leave.

Most of these I can see causes rooted in the culture - which is influenced by the religion. So is there an "Islamic Way of War?" I dont think so, but I will say that the manner in which Arab armies fight must be influenced somewhat by the religion.

These are some points that I am still researching/thinking through after living with Iraqis for a year as an advisor and then writing a thesis too. My thoughts are not nearly complete, but instead just a stab at trying to explain to myself and others the problems within an Arab army.

Scott

Well done Major Khan.

I initially wrote the following comment on Schmedlap's blog for a discussion we're having on culture, and I think it flows nicely with Major Khan's thoughts. It is time for us to refresh and renew our mindset on how we perceive this conflict. Fareed Zakaria cautioned us that we're stuck "wrestling a pig in the mud." I'll take it a step further.

Let's look at this from the perspective of high school. The US is the top of the class, straight A student. We're also the QB of the football team and the captain of the basketball team. Most likely to succeed type of guy. On the other hand, al Qaeda is at the bottom of the class headed no where fast. Out of envy or jealousy, he wants to start a fight with us and bring us down to his level. He spreads rumors throughout school, gains crowds, and attempts to provoke us into a fight on school grounds by hitting us in the cafeteria.

How should we react? If we fight him in school, then he wins regardless of the outcome of the fight. We both get suspended, and our reputation is tarnished. In public, the best course of action is to turn the other cheek and walk away. To end this problem, we can confront him in private- outside of school with no crowds. We can beat him to a pulp, and he'll go away. Settling this manner in private, we maintain our reputation and drive on being successful with college scholarships, internships, and future prospects. Al Qaeda will probably drop out of school and die of a drug overdose one day or just be a welfare recipient. Regardless, he's not our problem. We don't need to try and fix him.

JMI - I think sometimes the idea of a sort of cultural disparity or sense of "otherness" can be overplayed when it comes to explanations of why one war or another is more brutal.

The KLA perhaps lacked a cultural justification for suicide bombing that was readily available, but perhaps they also simply lacked a recruit base or a sufficiently bloodyminded commander, or sufficient capability with explosives to rig a proper suicide vest.

I'll note that some of the most vicious insurgencies in the past decades have involved quite similar ethno/cultural groups --- for instance the 1990s Algerian insurgency, the Sunni-Shia civil war in Iraq, the civil war in Mozambique, and many of the insurgencies in Central and South America. The criminal cartels of northern Mexico have adopted some of the most utterly brutal tactics (beheadings, use of videotaped torture, dissolving bodies in barrels of acid) on each other with no etho/cultural distinctions at all.

I am grateful for the article for it brings up the conversation that so much of the civilian population in the West shys away from. I am, however, in need of enlightenment in applying the main point made in the article.
How does this explain Irans actions towards Israel and the Western Civilizations?
Why is religious indoctrination and propaganda the method of requirement for these "gangs"?
We cannot discuss motivations without mentioning religion because it's referenced so often by the worlds enemies. I agree that religion is not the only reason for our disagreements and bloodshed but religion is still a reason.

The Sky Never Falls

Hi Meher; i agree with what you contributed through these pages; and it has attracted some very thought provoking comments. Following points need some considerations too:-
1. The period from WW-I to the demise of USSR in the early 90s, was a period where many a things, policies of the Americans and the West didn't stand as fairer and humane as of this day, and the press, intelligencia, and common people, in the west, feel and condone that too.
2. Today's third world is being subjected to same volatile period (i did not write going through); where their very existence is endangered. to walk out and say this is the making of any specific country, is not fair. we all know how this region was made the boxing ring by the superpowers. we all know how final blow was given to the USSR. all the weaponry, and specifically the mind set was left to take its own contractions - which it did.
3. There is no escape for the regional leadership - they are the ones who were to manage and demand a cleanup. but they all used it to profit from what was left at the scene. then came the 11/9; and the expediency replaced the norm - again winning a war made the Americans look the other way, press and media stand witness to it all - this time media made some divergences.
4. what we needed today; was - going beyond the blame game; and dong what was required - it seems very doubtful; as the disengagement DESIRE is likely to once again take preference. a hotch-potch with same locals, some evil spells to buy friendship, and some granting of look-aways await in the coming months. so to be fair; its not all optimistic picture we are going to go through, again.
5. so what best we can do, lets confess its a resort to "straighten the chairs on the sinking Titanic" - or like RED CROSS; lets save the injured - and forget the making and dissolving the war at large. We all are made helpless, so to be fair, Major Meher is both practical and futuristic; at least to me.

Major Mehar:
I think your analysis is an essential perspective in producing an effective Counter Narrative Strategy that is timely in dismantling AQ and accurate in defining our shared cultural values and traditions.

Nance argues that AQ should be understood as a cult in order to defeat them in 24 months. Roberts argues that AQ should be considered an "outsurgency," but can be combated mainly by Muslims with the assistance of US agencies/organizations.

I think an effective Counter Narrative that promises timely ideological advances on AQ grounds itself in the truth of shared values and traditions. Is it true when you say, "I profess and practice the same great faith as Osama bin Laden..."? To use somewhat poor examples, I am a Christian but do not profess the same articles of faith as Jim Jones (Methodist). More specifically, I am Catholic, but do practice the same faith as Adolf Hitler.

Roberts is right to remind us that religion is apocalyptically driven, but we must deal with religious violence in our time now to safeguard people and nations. I denounce Jones and Hitler as people not only as not of my faith, but more importantly, people of no faith.

To use an Islamic term as a metaphor, they are takfiris to me - having defined me outside of their ideological boundaries - and it is true that I use takfir to define them. I think takfir accurately defines AQ's ideological ambitions; it highlights who they are and who we are. William James, the founder of American psychology (mainly pragmatism), is useful here with AQ: "You are either with us or against us."

Cults define themselves in this light, and Nance is correct is reminding us that narrow-minded groups like these are often dangerous and armed. Sovereign nations are armed but in protection of the expansion of AQ's operational environments and (therefore) their institution of values and traditions which are not ours.

A Counter Narrative needs to recognize that cultural values and traditions are just as much the target as our economic and legal systems.

To all---
An interesting comment taken from a recently released research article in Nature magazine "Ecology of Human Warfare" which looked at over 11 different global insurgencies.

So maybe there is no such animal as an "Islamic Way of War" when one discusses insurgencies and regardless of politics, religion locations, and/or ideological differences they share the same ecological characteristics.

"Our research shows that multiple different types of wars share the same set of underlying mathematical signatures. These signatures are independent of political, religious, geographic or ideological differences. We see the same patterns emerge whether we are studying the cocaine-driven conflict in Colombia or the multi-billion dollar war in Iraq. The statistical signatures of both the timing and the sizes of attacks are a result of the underlying forces that drive the insurgent ecosystem."

Just a thought.

Major Mehar Omar Khan's article appears to be a response to some of the readings at CGSC in a lesson entitled "An Islamic Way of War?" I will note that the lesson name ends with a question mark. Is it appropriate to ask whether the nature of the insurgencies in various parts of the world to include but not limited to Afghanistan and Iraq are informed by religion? The correct or incorrect interpretation of Islam is not the issue. US Army doctrine in FM 3-0 Operations, chapter 6, page 8, paragraph 36 puts forth the possibility that "religious tradition" may well provide an enemy's center of gravity. FM 3-24.2 Tactics in Counterinsurgency, chapter 1,lists religion as the fifth component in issues that define the operational environment. In other words, US Army doctrine implies by its inclusion that religion in a given area may not necessarily be neutral.

During Operation Uphold Democracy (Haiti), a very experienced Special Forces major informed me that he made a point of having one of his soldiers attend mass in the local Catholic church. When I asked him why he did this, he told me that if a priest was preaching liberation theology and the mass was well attended, it told him much about how well his soldiers were going to be accepted. In other words, understanding the take the local priest took on the Bible helped him understand the level of threat his men faced. The preaching of liberation theology was once common in many places in Latin America despite the Roman Catholic church's opposition to the concept. It was not church doctrine and yet informed the actions of many who called themselves Christians.

To understand an insurgency, one must understand its nature. To understand its nature, one must understand its characteristics. If a particular take on a religion forms either one of or the sole basis of the insurgency's institutional cohesion then it is part of the operational environment. Asking the degree to which the religion shapes military events is relevant.

My second problem with the article is that although there are three footnotes in the article referencing the articles the author finds offensive, there are no footnotes providing any link between the author's main points and any other source. In the introductory paragraph, the author takes issue with "dishonest historians." To suggest dishonesty carries with it the obligation to prove two things. First, that what is presented as fact is not fact, and second, that the misrepresentation was deliberate rather than simply sloppy history. The first requires some ability to judge whether the arguments under attack are in fact wrong, something that is not possible without documentation. Evidence that the historians in questions acted so as to deliberately misrepresent is equally absent therefore neither academic standard has been met

This discussion is a blessing only so long as it is our heads that guide the discussion rather than our hearts. Too often, discussions over religion deteriorate into contests of emotion rather than reason.

I propose that we are currently engaged in an extremist way of war, versus an Islamic way of war. The contemporary environment, both for the US and the world, is clearly mixed accross the full spectrum of operations. Small, isolated incidents of major combat operations occur at intervals between waring factions, as does the more common insurgency/revolution/civil war. The use of terrorist tactics by a host of individuals and organizations throughtout the world goes hand in hand with most of the more traditional forms of conflict. If we are going to arbitrarily award Islam the title of a "way of war" as a simple result of a limited number of extremists who engage in terrorism, then what should we call the Israeli way of war during the 1920-1930s when a number of Jewish movements conducted a number of operations in the Middle East using the same tactics. Extremists are extremists. Muslims are Muslims. There are certainly Muslims who are extremists, just as there are Muslims who conduct more conventional ways of war like the Pakistan military during its operations in the Tribal regions.