![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Keep Calm and Carry On
Dec. 29th, 2009 09:21 amDay Four of the Underpants Bomber Crisis greets us. The Usual Suspects are reminding us that "we are AT WAR, DAMN IT!" and generally running around with their hair on fire. As you may have guessed, I am not quite as concerned. Don't get me wrong - letting this guy get on a plane was a mistake, and we do need to get better at identifying terrorists.
But, unlike Senator "Fighting Joe" Lieberman, I don't think we should rush to invade the place. Actually, if Lieutenant Colonel David Kilcullen is to be believed, that would be playing exactly into Al Queda's hands.
Kilcullen, who was an advisor to General Petraeus and has extensive in-country experience plus decades of counter-insurgency experience and research. He wrote a book called The Accidental Guerrilla
, which I highly recommend. In the book, Kilcullen talks about the takfiri movement, of which Al Queda is a part. This is a heresy of Islam that advocates forced conversions to Islam.
It's a minority opinion, even in conservative Islamic circles. But what Al Queda in particular has done is identify various "garden spots" in the world, places like Somalia, Yemen and Afghanistan, where the locals don't like the central government very much. They also don't like each other, and spend much of their time fighting each other. But Al Queda infiltrates and establishes itself in the area.
This creates the "our SOB" situation. The locals think Al Queda are sons of bitches, but they are "our" sons of bitches, so when the Outsiders come for Al Queda, the locals help out. Understanding this dynamic can guide our response. In places like Afghanistan, where we have no choice but to go in heavy, we do so, but focus on separating the population from the takfiri. We let the takfiri keep the hills and the back country. We hold the villages. The takfiri eventually have to come down to get food, and when they do we whack them.
In places like Yemen, which has a functioning government, we focus primarily on helping the existing government. This is aid, financial and military (Yemen doesn't have oil) and a very low-key US presence. Again, the goal here, from the US point of view, isn't to make Yemen a true garden spot, just make the takfiri folks unwelcome.
It's a more subtle approach, and doesn't reject acting in force, but recognizes that we don't have unlimited resources. Also worth noting is that this will be a long war. For example, Kilcullen talks about the village of Damadola on the Pakistan side of the Afghan border. This village was hit with drone airstrikes in 2006 and 2007.
Winston Churchill personally dynamited the houses of rebels in Damadola in 1897. He was a 20-year-old cavalry Lieutenant at the time. So we've been bombing the same folks for over a century now. This will be a long war - we need to plan accordingly.
(For those looking for a history of the post title, see here.)
But, unlike Senator "Fighting Joe" Lieberman, I don't think we should rush to invade the place. Actually, if Lieutenant Colonel David Kilcullen is to be believed, that would be playing exactly into Al Queda's hands.
Kilcullen, who was an advisor to General Petraeus and has extensive in-country experience plus decades of counter-insurgency experience and research. He wrote a book called The Accidental Guerrilla
, which I highly recommend. In the book, Kilcullen talks about the takfiri movement, of which Al Queda is a part. This is a heresy of Islam that advocates forced conversions to Islam. It's a minority opinion, even in conservative Islamic circles. But what Al Queda in particular has done is identify various "garden spots" in the world, places like Somalia, Yemen and Afghanistan, where the locals don't like the central government very much. They also don't like each other, and spend much of their time fighting each other. But Al Queda infiltrates and establishes itself in the area.
This creates the "our SOB" situation. The locals think Al Queda are sons of bitches, but they are "our" sons of bitches, so when the Outsiders come for Al Queda, the locals help out. Understanding this dynamic can guide our response. In places like Afghanistan, where we have no choice but to go in heavy, we do so, but focus on separating the population from the takfiri. We let the takfiri keep the hills and the back country. We hold the villages. The takfiri eventually have to come down to get food, and when they do we whack them.
In places like Yemen, which has a functioning government, we focus primarily on helping the existing government. This is aid, financial and military (Yemen doesn't have oil) and a very low-key US presence. Again, the goal here, from the US point of view, isn't to make Yemen a true garden spot, just make the takfiri folks unwelcome.
It's a more subtle approach, and doesn't reject acting in force, but recognizes that we don't have unlimited resources. Also worth noting is that this will be a long war. For example, Kilcullen talks about the village of Damadola on the Pakistan side of the Afghan border. This village was hit with drone airstrikes in 2006 and 2007.
Winston Churchill personally dynamited the houses of rebels in Damadola in 1897. He was a 20-year-old cavalry Lieutenant at the time. So we've been bombing the same folks for over a century now. This will be a long war - we need to plan accordingly.
(For those looking for a history of the post title, see here.)
