Counterterrorism and Grievance-resolution

In the spirit of the post below, but closer to my own foreign policy bailiwick, it's nice to read this rather than liberal hawkery from the DLC:

A third principle of counterinsurgency theory is to rigorously support political and economic reforms that undermine insurgencies. In the short term, we should begin a diplomatic campaign aimed at defusing the various Muslim insurgencies that al-Qaeda has successfully co-opted. Working toward political solutions to conflicts in Indonesia, Thailand, Pakistan, the Caucasus, and the Philippines would help divide the global jihadist movement that Osama bin Laden has unified.

Let me note by way of criticism that a conflict involving a certain country on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea seems to have gone missing from this list. Nevertheless, the principle is sound and this is therefore progress. Indeed, it seems to me that one thing crippling post-9/11 center-left national security has been an unwillingness to articulate this principle precisely out of fear of drawing the obvious conclusions for America's Israel policy.

I recall that as of the panel discussion on "The Grievance Challenge" at the America's Purpose conference in September 2005 merely raising the grievance issue was a bold and radical move even in circles self-consciously opposed to the "liberal hawk" line of thought. And, indeed, at the New American Strategies for Peace and Security conference organized by many of the same people two years before that this stuff wasn't on the table at all. So to have the DLC moving in this direction is definitely a sign of progress, that the devastation in Iraq is leading people to develop some sounder views.

The alternative to confronting grievances is, of course, the underlying strategic error that brought us Iraq. Not operational military failures in that country, or even a mistake about Iraq as such. Rather, the fundamental error was simply to believe that attempting the wholesale externally-coerced transformation of Arab politics and society was the best way to combat the rise of al-Qaeda.

Comments

Let me note by way of criticism that a conflict involving a certain country on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea seems to have gone missing from this list.

Since those of us in the reality-based community have been arguing that the problems of Israel and of al-Qaeda are not just a big undifferentiated mass, though, I'd probably qualify that criticism. The Salafist terror organizations in the locations she lists can, to a significant extent, be seen as part of the Qaedariffic movement; Hamas and Islamic Jihad (Palestine) are not really under the same ideological umbrella.

Posted by dj moonbat | December 4, 2006 5:15 PM

Isn't Grievance Confrontation exactly what we did when we moved all of our troops out of Saudi Arabia? Bush is afraid to admit it publically for fear of appearing "weak" and blew the whole gesture by actually invading an Arab country but there you have it.

Posted by Scot in Birmingham | December 4, 2006 5:30 PM

Indeed, it seems to me that one thing crippling post-9/11 center-left national security has been an unwillingness to articulate this principle precisely out of fear of drawing the obvious conclusions for America's Israel policy.

No shit.

And if the obvious conclusions for America's Israel policy are publicly drawn, a whole bucket of undiluted manure is poured on top of you. Just see what's happening to Jimmy Carter now when he's talking about addressing grievances in Palestine.

cf. Marty P. "He will go down in history as a Jew hater".
http://www.tnr.com/blog/spine?pid=60511

And this is a former President of the United States, the nearest thing to royalty this country has. Do you think a think-tank twenty-something is going to risk making the same argument in public?

Posted by otto | December 4, 2006 5:39 PM

Since I have no idea what "begin a diplomatic campaign aimed at defusing the various Muslim insurgencies that al-Qaeda has successfully co-opted" and "Working toward political solutions to conflicts in Indonesia, Thailand, Pakistan, the Caucasus, and the Philippines" means - to the extent it means something other than what we are doing now - let me just say that I think the correct phrase is "Let me criticize by way of noting that...", rather than the way Matthew wrote it.

Posted by Al | December 4, 2006 5:40 PM

I said above to the extent it means something other than what we are doing now

Whoops, I meant to write "to the extent it means something other than what either we are doing now or Screwing Israel(TM)"

Sorry. Is it intended to mean something other than Screwing Israel(TM)?

Posted by Al | December 4, 2006 5:43 PM

Hamas has openly said they will prevent al-Qaeda from operating in the Territories, and in fact al-Qaeda has been strikingly unable to co-opt any of the Palestinian groups, at least as far as we know.

It's also interesting that when the U.S. does make a special push to resolve a conflict, as with Western Sahara, the idea is that the nation-states we bring together will then work together against the non-state actors linked to terrorism in the region.

Finally, I'm not convinced all the grievances are really negotiable, particularly the ones between Salafi types and Arab governments. Pakistan is also a tough case, and that's one of the cores of the problem.

Posted by Brian Ulrich | December 4, 2006 5:48 PM

i for one welcome the day when our zionist overlords will remove the anti-semite accusation exemption from the half-blood m. yglesias.

Posted by chet snicker | December 4, 2006 8:05 PM

Hamas has openly said they will prevent al-Qaeda from operating in the Territories, and in fact al-Qaeda has been strikingly unable to co-opt any of the Palestinian groups, at least as far as we know.

They can't work with anyone. That's the entire history of the movement. Back to Afghanistan in the 80's ,they treated the Afghani's like filth and wouldn't pray with them because they were so self-righteous.

Last I heard from any reputable source about Al-Queda in the Levant, apparently they sent a pack of beards to a Palestinian refugee camp in Lebanon They immediately started telling everyone they were stuck in the camp because they weren't real muslims and they better get in line and follow them. Then Lebanese Fatah shot them. They are just not likable people, they are never taking over anything, because everyone hates them and they hate everybody else. The only thing likeable about them to the Muslim world is that they take revenge and no one else does.

Posted by Ed Marshall | December 4, 2006 10:08 PM

Al, how many lines does your script have? Between 3 and 5 or 6 and 9?

Posted by Reality Man | December 5, 2006 3:32 AM

In 1998, Bin Laden gave interviews to several US TV Networks and cited 3 clear reasons why the Islamic World should declare war on the USA.

The most effective way to combat Al Qaeda was to have isolated it from the Islamic world by addressing the real and legitimate grievances that Arab countries have with the US government. But that would have exposed the selfish agendas of US special interests -- and their guilt for 911.

What is really chilling about 911 is that the entire Mainstream News Media blacked out discussion of what motivated the 911 attack and helped George Bush lie to the country --i.e.,pushed the image that we were attacked because they "hate our freedom".

It really showed how we are no longer a republic of free men engaged in open discourse. Rather, we are a herd of sheep manipulated by the shadows in Plato's Cave -- by misleading and false images put out by a deceitful mass media.

Posted by Don Williams | December 5, 2006 9:16 AM

Political and economic reforms?? How can that be radical - isn't that what Bush has been (theoretically) pushing all along?? He was gonna bring democracy to Iraq (purple fingers), and supposedly our occupation was going to revitalize their economy, too. The idea was that Iraq would become a capitalist Heaven on Earth, the envy of the Middle East. Every Arab Muslim would look at Iraq and say, "I'd like to have what they're having."

So one would think the message that political and economic reforms would co-opt the jihadists would have easy acceptance amongst DLC types, and that the main caveat amongst more liberal groups would be, "well, sure - but not through invasion and occupation."

But I don't know the internal politics of either the DLC or the more lefty groups that Matt cites in his post. So I might have that all wrong.

Posted by RT | December 5, 2006 11:48 AM