There seems to be a link that nobody is making - well, at least not until a lecturer of International Politics at Aberystwyth University, mentioned it in one of my recent lectures after I had already started this blog.
The idea, at least to me, seems very obvious indeed. Since the end of the Cold War, interstate relationships have improved markedly. Since 1990 we have moved from an era of duopolistic military power to having a hegomonic international system with one state, the United States of America having more control over the Westphalian state-system than any other, and trying to shape the world in its image of free-market liberal capitalism. It has become the status-quo, at least for the time being and the immediate future. No other state in the system can yet question America's military pre-dominance.
However, in much the same way as there were military rules of the game during the Cold War era, so there are a new - or a reinstatement of the old, depending on how you see it -set of rules under the new circumstances. States and non-governmental actors have realised that they cannot realistically compete with the United States through military means: in a conventional war, any ideological terrorist group, like Al Qaeda, that formed an army or state would be - metaphorically - flattened.
Hence, terrorist groups like Al Qaeda have adopted a new method - guerrilla warfare. It is the only way that any NGO terrorist organisations can take on the United States's "force de frappe". Al Qaeda are using the same techniques against the United States in Afghanistan and Iraq as Mao Zedong used against the Japanese and nationalist government after the Second World War. What is even more embarrasing is that
we were the ones who inadvertantly enlightened them as to how to fight this kind of war. During the Soviet Union's occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980's, Western powers spearheaded by the United States aided the Muhajadeen in agitating for a Soviet withdrawal. They achieved their aim but at a price for the West. Osama Bin Laden, the leader of Al Qaeda at the time of the attacks on the World Trade Centres of the Twin Towers in September 2001, must have been overjoyed when then President George W. Bush steped into the trap of declaring a War on Terror'. Declaring war on an a concept rather than a physical object, a nation state or even a single enemy.
Mao-Zedong commented that his political goal was 'the complete emancipation of the Chinese people'. The concept of emancipation strikes an accord with the expressed aims of Bin Laden's organisation: they wish to remove Westerners, who they accuse of cooperating with 'zionist forces', from lands in the Middle and near East. They wish to create a Islamic calaphite under sharia law in the region. The organisation has become a franchise, a bit like a terrorist Macdonalds, or split into 'units' as Mao termed them, of guerrilla fighters.
Al Qaeda in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and Mao in 1930s China are both in countries which are , in the words of Mao, 'politically, militarily and economically [deficient] ' They are both following the principle of 'dispersion, concentration, constant change of position' in order to outwit their foreign adversary - the United States and NATO or the Japanese.
The way to combat this kind of guerrilla warfare (or terrorism, if you prefer) will require an embellishment of current military tactics, a revolution in military affairs, which is woefully lacking at present. Mikhail Gorbachev, the former leader of the Soviet Union, has been fantastically enlightening in pointing out that America is experiencing a déjà vu of their adventure in Vietnam and the Soviet misadventure into Afghanistan in the 1980s. By killing one terrorist you create a thousand new recruits. Osama Bin Laden used textbook Mao, of dispersing 'in order to promote mass movements over a wide area' and using the principle of 'the people are the water, our armies are the fish'. The west has not and obviously ugently needs to find a cure for this type of warfare.
 |
| Osama Bin Laden, former head of terrorist network Al Qaeda |
The idea, at least to me, seems very obvious indeed. Since the end of the Cold War, interstate relationships have improved markedly. Since 1990 we have moved from an era of duopolistic military power to having a hegomonic international system with one state, the United States of America having more control over the Westphalian state-system than any other, and trying to shape the world in its image of free-market liberal capitalism. It has become the status-quo, at least for the time being and the immediate future. No other state in the system can yet question America's military pre-dominance.
However, in much the same way as there were military rules of the game during the Cold War era, so there are a new - or a reinstatement of the old, depending on how you see it -set of rules under the new circumstances. States and non-governmental actors have realised that they cannot realistically compete with the United States through military means: in a conventional war, any ideological terrorist group, like Al Qaeda, that formed an army or state would be - metaphorically - flattened.
 |
| Mao Zedong, leader of the Communist Revolutionaries against Japan and the nationalist government |
we were the ones who inadvertantly enlightened them as to how to fight this kind of war. During the Soviet Union's occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980's, Western powers spearheaded by the United States aided the Muhajadeen in agitating for a Soviet withdrawal. They achieved their aim but at a price for the West. Osama Bin Laden, the leader of Al Qaeda at the time of the attacks on the World Trade Centres of the Twin Towers in September 2001, must have been overjoyed when then President George W. Bush steped into the trap of declaring a War on Terror'. Declaring war on an a concept rather than a physical object, a nation state or even a single enemy.
Mao-Zedong commented that his political goal was 'the complete emancipation of the Chinese people'. The concept of emancipation strikes an accord with the expressed aims of Bin Laden's organisation: they wish to remove Westerners, who they accuse of cooperating with 'zionist forces', from lands in the Middle and near East. They wish to create a Islamic calaphite under sharia law in the region. The organisation has become a franchise, a bit like a terrorist Macdonalds, or split into 'units' as Mao termed them, of guerrilla fighters.
 |
| An example of an Al Qaeda training camp in the lawless tribal border lands of Afghanistan Pakistan |
The way to combat this kind of guerrilla warfare (or terrorism, if you prefer) will require an embellishment of current military tactics, a revolution in military affairs, which is woefully lacking at present. Mikhail Gorbachev, the former leader of the Soviet Union, has been fantastically enlightening in pointing out that America is experiencing a déjà vu of their adventure in Vietnam and the Soviet misadventure into Afghanistan in the 1980s. By killing one terrorist you create a thousand new recruits. Osama Bin Laden used textbook Mao, of dispersing 'in order to promote mass movements over a wide area' and using the principle of 'the people are the water, our armies are the fish'. The west has not and obviously ugently needs to find a cure for this type of warfare.
Great blogging Sam! Never knew a judo player could survive the knocks on the head! Just wanted to question you on a few things. Firstly, would you not agree that the political and military tactics which are currently being used, i.e. Positive ID, training the national guard and the operation to win hearts and minds in Afghanistan, is working or at least working to increase security and undo some of the damage done?
RépondreSupprimerSecondly, outside of Afghanistan would you not consider it urgent to dramatically improve the situation in places such as Somalia which are terribly stricken by war and have been pulled apart in the efforts to refuse terrorism a base from which to attack the west? That is what "The Muslim Brotherhood", I believe I have the correct organisation, claim they are fighting to gain.
And finally, Sir Mike Jackson states that he believes the cause of the disruption in Afghanistan was the American lead strategy which was essentially blow them up then lets get out. However, if British military doctrine was followed looking at examples such as Kosovo, it would have been a better idea to fight the war and then rebuild within a 100 day period to show the people the improvements in the quality of life since the invading forces took over. Then they would be more likely to see them as friendly than aggressive as drastic improvements in the quality of life would have been made immediately post war. Could this not be used as an effective guerilla warfare or anti-insurgency deterrent?
James
Thank you. I hope all is well with yourself. In response to your questions: 1>Yes, I agree that the training that is taking place is beneficial. It is not going to be a fast process though. The International forces have to be careful to portray themselves as helpers and not invaders (Mao's interpretation of the Japanese). Success is certainly not assured with this new approach, but it is at least a start with something more constructive. The truth as to whether it has been sucessful will only become known 10 years from now.
RépondreSupprimer2> I think Somalia urgently needs development, yes. The difficult is helping the country without being seen as cultural and economic imperialists. America should not go around trying to impose normative Western values or countries: that would only fuel support for 'The Muslim Brotherhood'.
3> Britain is by no means has the perfect, as Mike Jackson seems to be imploying. Blowing people up is not a solution, agreed. A terrorist organisation, as the name suggests, has the main aim of terrorising people. So, the way to defeat it is to not to rise to the bait - by showing indifference and fortitude. When they can't terrorise their reason d'être is defeated. I'm not sure that '100 days' is a realistic time frame after a war: 10 years at a minimum. Economic growth and prosperity as you suggest are good methods, agreed.
Hope this helps, Sam