StrategyUnit

Summary

Declining birthrates in places like Europe, Japan and Russia and increasing immigration in once homogenous states (like France) is becoming an issue of mainstream discussion. Just last week (January 04 & 05), the WSJ and the Economist both ran articles on the issue of demographics, commenting on the opposite ends but equally faulty premises. One seeing immigration and demographics change as signaling the decline of the West (WSJ) and the other tends to underplay the challenge of declining birthrate and changing demographics (Economist).

The impact of changing demographics are analyzed through the New Republic’s piece on the Netherlands, on the effects of Muslim immigration and the socio-political upheaval (a turn to the Right) it has caused in a state stereotyped as an uber-liberal country.

The challenge facing Netherlands (and other countries) is a major one: it is the challenge of successfully transitioning from a nation-state to a market-state. Indeed, Philip Bobbitt has already foresaw such issues in his seminal work The Shield of Achilles:

“Whereas the nation-state based its legitimacy on a promise to better the material well-being of the nation, the market-state promises to maximize the opportunity of each individual citizen…The current conflict is one of several possible wars of the market-states as they seek to open up societies to trade in commerce, ideas, and immigration which excite hostility in those groups that want to use law to enforce religious or ethnic orthodoxy.” (Emphasis mine)

(more…)

Introduction
I wrote a paper some years ago that I’d like to bring out to StrategyUnit, since I feel there is still a lot of room to discuss the (mislabeled) Global War on Terror (GWOT). Indeed, I believe that there is a supreme lacking in the mature development of a conceptual framework to understand the Global Islamist Insurgency (GII). Theoretical and conceptual frameworks are needed; it functions as a systematic “outline”, on which we can organize a strategy and devise proper policy. What follows before is shortened version of the original 20+ page paper.

The Premise
In the formulation of my own conceptual framework for understanding GWOT, I submit the following general premises:
1. The need to look beyond the traditional levels of analysis of international relations - personal, state and system level – and to take account local and transnational social cleavages.
2. Instability today is principally caused by the lack of “global connectivity” in certain counties and societies, resulting in local and regional crises and conflicts.
3. Variants of Salafi-Jihadi/Pan-Islamism have conflated these crises and conflicts as a global conflict against Islam and the Ummah by the “Other.”

Of course, there will alway be outlier cases, but the premises serves to cover the vast majority of situations relating to GWOT.

Thomas Barnett v. Samuel Huntington

There is no current theory or framework that can easily match with these premises. However, we can build this framework by synthesizing Barnett and Huntington. Below is a mini-review of their concepts and some of their shortfalls when taken alone.

Thomas Barnett declares that the amount of global “connectivity” in the world defines security issues in the international environment. It is the amount of connectivity a state possesses – in the transnational flow of trade, media, finances, information, culture et cetera – that distinguish between a peaceful, integrated “Core” state and a hostile or unstable “Gap” state. As Barnett states, the “new world must be defined by where globalization has truly taken root [the Core] and where it has not [the Gap].”(1) In short, the level of strategic regional and global security is directly linked to the level of globalization. This is no difference.

While Thomas Barnett presents a long term “big picture” framework for understanding the source of instability in the world, it cannot alone fully describe the nature of GWOT. It does not explain why certain peoples in certain regions are engaging in a confrontation against the members of the Core. In other words, if the international security environment is defined by those in the Gap and those in the Core, why were the majority of the 9/11 hijackers from Saudi Arabia, and not shamans from Indonesia or Orthodox Christians from Belarus?

The essential variables that need to be added to Barnett’s framework are those of religious and ultimately of socio-cultural factors.

While Samuel Huntington’s “Clash of Civilization” goes to the extreme in treating cultural regions as nearly monolithic political blocks (that is, civilizations), Huntington does well in thrusting cultural, religious, social, and historical as variables in the calculus that influences the foreign policy orientations of states and non-state organizations. Indeed, Huntington must be acknowledged as prescient in declaring the revival of religions, particularly non-Western religions, as remerging as an important cultural and political force in the world.(2)

Huntington-Barnett with a Social Level of Analysis: Gap Societies?
I agree with Barnett on the instability of regions lacking “global connectivity” and Huntington’s emphasis on cultural and religions as important variables in international politics and his concept of “civilization faultlines.” Barnett’s builds a framework for understanding all global and local conflicts in the long term. Huntington emphasizes culture as the central factor.

Barnett and Huntington’s frameworks are not mutually exclusive and this paper builds on their scholarship and research to explain the nature of this war. Both Huntington and Barnett rely on system – Civilization vs. Civilization, Core vs. Gap – and state level of analysis, where does one place non-state groups like Al-Qaeda, Al Takfir Wal Hijra, Hizb ut-Tahrir and including their support structures and sympathizers? Additionally, how we explain the presence of such groups in the Core states of Western Europe or within the Western Civilization?

An elegant solution to this problem is applying social cleavages as another level of analysis complementing the state and system level of analysis. Organizations like Al-Qaeda to Hizb ut-Tahrir are not just “terrorist groups” or “Islamist extremist,” but groups that represent a worldwide social movement that transcend nation-states, Core or Gap states or civilization blocks. Thus, there is a need to focus on different social groups inside Core and Gap states that are disconnected from the larger society and how they related to other states and societies globally.

Towards a More Total Concept of Warfare
Beyond abandoning the Western concept of state-to-state warfare, this is conflict where the enemy employs a new “combined arms” strategy beyond the traditional means of Western warfare and follows John Robb’s “Global Guerilla” on the more tactical and operational level.

In traditional military usage, the term “combined arms” is defined by the U.S. Department of Defense as “The full integration and application of two or more arms or elements of one Military Service into an operation”(3) -such as the integrated and coordinated use of infantry, tank, precision bombers, and reconnaissance under one unified command. As war on the social level against the states and other societies, we see “combined arms” taking not only a purely military dimension but the integration of a full spectrum of human concerns – political issues, social issues, cultural issues, religious issues, etc – under the banner of a unifying ideology. In this case, this ideology is religious in nature.

GWOT as a Radical, Global and Muslim Social Movement
The use of social, cultural and religious issues as important dimensions of the war has it roots in the religious nature of this war – that is, religious as defined by the enemy. Stemming from its roots from Islam, Salafi-Jihadist share the tradition of embracing religion as a totality inseparable from any social sphere. In contrasts with the Peace of Westphalia that helped brought about the separation of the Christian church away from the state in the West, Islam has kept itself as the sole truth for all totality – it applies to and encompasses all aspects of human activity. In the West, the Muslim Brotherhood was most famous in emphasizing this fact of Islam, with its statement of recognizing “Islam as a total system” and the “final arbiter of life in all of its categories.” The most famous quote by the Muslim Brotherhood was its founder’s, Hassan al-Banna, proclamation that “Islam is a faith and a ritual, a nation and a nationality, a religion and a state, spirit and deed, holy text and sword.”(4) Indeed, other Muslim scholars, such as Sayyid Qutb, have criticized the West for its corruption of Christianity with its “schizophrenic” separation between the secular and the sacred, between church and state.(5) In contrasts to Christianity today, he declares Islam as a “system [that] extend into all aspects of life; it discusses all minor and major affairs of mankind.”(6)

Indeed, by actively uniting and linking all human activities to a single religious belief, it is easy to see how local conflicts affecting Muslims can be exploited to be seen as an attack on the entire global Muslim community – the Ummah. This combined with the concept of jihad al-asghar (lesser jihad) explains the confluence of local conflicts involving Muslims – Chechnya, Palestinian Issue, Moro in the Philippines – to being seen as a global conflict against Muslims.(7) And borrowing from John Robb, we see how quickly the conflict can become a social movement and a “Global Swarm”.

The relationship between social conflict and the fanatical organizations that exploit these conflicts are not only self-reinforcing, but help export and spread instability in the region and internationally (as illustrated above). In the primary link, each local conflict begins to be linked to a cause (Islamist jihad) and is transformed to being seen as one of many conflicts (reaching towards secondary linkage). This conflation of the socio-political and socio-economic issues with the Islamist movement reaches the point that, in some cases, it is difficult to distinguish between what are social problems and what is part of the war.

Conclusion
As this war is more of cross between an insurgency and a social movement, there maybe no clean cessation of violence in the near or distant future. And in this conflict, there will be no battlefield,s, but rather our adversaries will be attached as a Global Swarm as Global Guerillas.

If the U.S. and it allies achive victory (how can we even defien this?), there will be neither a ceremony on USS Missouri nor televised collapse of an “Evil Empire”. In the words of the U.S. Army Chief of Staff, Gen. Peter Schoomaker, “Some people see war and peace as a light switch. When the lights are off, it’s peacetime. When the lights go on, it’s wartime. I see more of a dimmer switch. We’ll see the intensity wax and wane, but there will always be some level of conflict going on.” (8) Let us hope that the United States and its allies dims that switch, least it will be a long hard slog.

—–
Sources
1. Barnett, Thomas P.M. “The Pentagon’s New Map.” Esquire. March 2003. (17 November 2003).
2. Samuel Huntington, Clash of Civilizations, (New York: Touchstone, 1997), 95-101.
3. United States of America. Defense Department. DOD Dictionary of Military and 3. Associated Terms, 30 November 2004, (04 September 2004).
4. Daniel Pipes, “Fundamentalist Muslims Between America and Russia”, Foreign Affairs, Summer 1986, Accessed Online: http://www.danielpipes.org/article/279 (04 February 2004).
5. Berman, Paul. Terror and Liberalism, (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2004), 89.
6. Sayyid Qutb, Social Justice in Islam, (New Jersey: Islamic Publications International, 2000), 32.
7. For a comparative to the Islamic concept of jihad al-asghar within the Abrahamic religions, see the Judaic concept of milchemet mitzvah (obligatory war) and the Christian concept of Just War as described in Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologica.
8. No Author. “Changing and Fighting, Simultaneously”, 30 October, 2004, National Journal, Available at (03 January 2005).

This week begins the first East Asia Summit (EAS) with over 16 countries invited, representing “3 billion people and one-fifth of global trade“. As the Washington Post writes:

As proposed by Malaysia and championed by China, the summit was conceived as a way for the 10 countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations to cooperate with China, Japan and South Korea — but not the United States — on security, social and economic problems. Many officials viewed it as a vehicle for Chinese leadership, making China the motor of an Asian bloc with a voice distinct from that of other Asia-Pacific groupings that include the United States.

Australia, New Zealand, Japan and South Korea were some of the major nations invited to EAS. Russia was invited as well as an observer, making it all the more striking that the US wasnt.

Despite the growth in China’s clout in its region, the U.S. is still the de facto security guarantor of the region. While East Asia Summit, like ASEAN, will probably be mired by discord and inability to create concrete action, the fact that the U.S. is not part of the discussion in Kuala Lumpur is the ill-gotten fruit of our publicly voiced insecurity regarding China.

All this talk of China as the threat is driving China to play the game in Asia as zero-sum: its either the U.S. (pun intended) or China.

Given geography and culture, the East and South-East Asia is not the “natural” sphere of influence for the U.S. and we need to be reminded this. World War II gave our position in Asia, we should be careful not to squander it by driving China to carve its sphere and fight for influence at our expense.

Instead of containment in China, we should encourage tying China in to a mesh of pan-Asian institutions that will help China gain confidence in the region despite U.S. presence, while also constrain its range of maneuver.

The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) in Central Asia is a demonstration of China ability to create its own regional institutions as a tool to challenge the U.S. We need to build our own tool by putting China and the U.S. together in it.

Additionally, India is also looking to assert itself globally, we encourage and guide them on this process as partenrs, least they form their partnership with states that hold interests contrary to ours.

Former Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong of Singapore was quoted as saying : “We have little choice but to construct a new architecture for East Asia…If East Asia does not coalesce, it will lose out to the Americas and Europe…The key question is not whether East Asia will integrate. It is how quickly and the form East Asian regionalism will assume.”

Indeed, Gok Chok Tong is correct and it is even more the reason the U.S. needs to be able to partipate in these dicussion (EAS specifically and the future of Asia in general). We cannot ignore a region as sizeable and vibrant as Asia.

Someone needs to ask why what’s going on in the State Department and why isnt President Bush at the EAS?

Sorry for the very late posting, work has been extra busy with the coming holidays. I am working on 2-3 articles, but for now here is an interesting development via AsiaTimes’s “The foundations for an Asian oil and gas grid“:

Stung by the rising international price of oil and domestic shortages coupled with high requirements of a growing economy, India has revived a plan for an oil and gas grid for the Asian continent.

The grid is part of a two-fold strategy by the two top Asian oil guzzlers, China and India, to ensure reliable delivery networks and energy security. The other element involves acquiring stakes in production and exploration projects for which New Delhi and Beijing continue to cooperate as well as compete.

The emphasis on the grid comes in wake of reports that India and China, the most aggressive shoppers for oil and gas assets in the world, are coming together to put in a joint bid. The China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) and the Oil & Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC), two of the most high-profile emerging global oil companies in the past year, could jointly bid for Petro-Canada’s $1-billion oil and gas fields in Syria. Both India and China feel the strategic need to diversify their energy sources from the current dependence on West Asia.

It will take years before this project turns into fruition if it ever gets there, but such a bold statement alone is a testament of new realities that the Bush Administration nor any political leader in the U.S. have began to address.

More on this later…

While abating (only 400+ cars burning a night), the Paris Riots continue passing a two-week milestone.

As I have mentioned, the rioters use of blogs and sms-texting for coordination and planning have been a demonstration of “netwar” on a small scale. Many have taken the next logical step and declare the Paris Riots as another example of the “decline of the state”. Indeed, pundits have long been proclaiming that Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) as an excellent example of this, and only made possible by globalization (specifically the proliferation of low-cost technology).

The recent Amman Bombings in Jordan, a state which possesses a strong security apparatus, fell victim to another non-state actor, Al-Zarqawi.

And so, many procliam that very definition of a state (Max Weber’s notion of the legitimate monopoly of force over a given territory) maybe losing some sway and with it withers the nation-state…

But while the monopoly of violence and information seemingly grows less, in the other direction we have been seeing an increasing in regionalization – that is, countries forming in to blocs. These blocs are typically economic (NAFTA) but can take security-related or political dimesions (EU and SCO).

Just yesterday, Prime Minister Dr. Singh of India called for the creation of the South Asian Free Trade Association (SAFTA), which would include India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan, Afghanistan, Maldives. The Prime Minister declared:

Regional economic integration is more about finding an engine of growth rather than just promoting trade. Countries — developed as well as developing — have looked to regional economic integration as a means of strengthening their economic competitiveness and as an engine of economic growth in the recent years. (source, hat tip to Publius Pundit.)

(more…)

Introduction
While I still have the fear that we are seeing the raise of the Muslim Street in Europe, it is still far from the “Jihad in Europe” and “French Intifada” that we often see it described in the blogosphere. As of now, it still seems like male juvenile violence at a massive scale, only possible in the age of globalization (which provides for cheap and high-tech communication).

Christopher Dickey at Newsweek correctly describes the rioting as “incendiary flash-mobs”:

But by using cell-phone text messages to coordinate their incendiary flash-mobs, rioters in the city’s suburbs managed to burn thousands of cars, as well as buses, warehouses and stores

Back in 2001, John Arquilla and David Ronfeldt at RAND, published “Networks and Netwars: The Future of Terror, Crime, and Militancy”, which described the phenomena of Netwar in the context of transnational gangs to flash mobs and the Seattle Riots to Zapatistas. On Hooliganism in England, Netwar states:

Firms of opposing hooligans now use wireless technology and the Internet (email, etc.) for both marshalling their own combatants and challenging their opponents. For example, Milwall’s Bushwackers are believed to have used Internet tools (an interactive web site and real-time messaging) to organize and coordinate the violent activities of hooligans traveling to a match in Cardiff, where 14 people were hurt and 6 arrested.

Sounds familiar to anyone?

Welcome to Netwar.

Arquilla and Ronfeldt define Netwar as:

[The term] netwar refers to an emerging mode of conflict (and crime) at societal levels, short of traditional military warfare, in which the protagonists use network forms of organization and related doctrines, strategies, and technologies attuned to the information age.

These protagonists are likely to consist of dispersed organizations, small groups, and individuals who communicate, coordinate, and conduct their campaigns in an internetted manner, often without a precise central command.
…
This includes familiar adversaries who are modifying their structures and strategies to take advantage of networked designs—e.g., transnational terrorist groups, black-market proliferators of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), drug and other crime syndicates, fundamentalist and ethnonationalist movements, intellectual-property pirates, and immigration and refugee smugglers. Some urban gangs, back-country militias, and militant single-issue groups in the United States have also been developing netwar-like attributes.

Like the rivaling English hooligans the Paris Rioters are doing battle – but unfortunately, its on the scale of bragging who burned the most cars, the most:

On Internet websites, young arsonists brag about their successes. Rioting, it seems, has become a trend sport, as youths in immigrant areas of provincial cities begin to rally to the call from Paris (source)

John Robb at Global Guerilla suspects that the riots are not solely motivated by the mindset of simple juvenile violence. What he sees is that in response to French Interior Minister Sarkozy campaign to crackdown on violence, the criminal elements took advantage of the death of the teenagers to help launch a loosely coordinate rioting to force Sarkozy to back down.

John Robb’s unique analysis on the Paris Riots is a breath of fresh air compared to the “Jihad in Europe” meme we are continually seeing or the social/cultural explanations. Robb’s view is very probably on the mark, but its impossible to tell (thus far), how involved the criminal elements are. Indeed, it would be naive to think there is no amount of criminal gangs supporting the rioters.

From: Netwar, p. 103

To return to Networks and Netwar and assuming that criminal gangs leveraging street mobs, we are seeing a combination of First Generation Gangs and most likely nascent Thirst Generation gangs – Hooligans and Drug Lords.

The difference between Second and Third Generation gangs is operations at a global level and political goals. In most cases, the political goals were focused on helping attain market protection for these organizations. As expounded in more depth by Manwaring’s “Street Gangs: The New Urban Insurgency”:

This political action is intended to provide security and freedom of movement for gang activities. As a consequence, the third generation gang and its leadership challenge the legitimate state monopoly on the exercise of control and use of violence within a given political territory.

Linking between Third Generation Gang, Rioters and Islamofacist Organizations
There has always been a fear of a linkup between gangs and terrorist organizations and indeed in South American, there are often one and the same. “Street Gangs: The New Urban Insurgency” goes into great length describing case studies in Central and South Americas.

The pervasiveness of the gangs and the narco-corruption influence it carries are some of the factors that lead to the empowerment of the third generation gangs in the Americas. Fortunately, the same cannot be said of France. These gangs have limited territory and the government is not so much paralyzed by narco-corruption but a lack of political will.

Besides the unknown factor of the criminal gangs in influencing the rioters, there is still the question of the potential role of Islamists. There are methods by which we can possiblely see a link up:

1. Outright collusion of the criminal element (and its rioters) with the Islamofacist.
2. Islamic Fundamentalism could be promoted to various ghettos as a method to “clean” the streets of gang and mob violence – a method of social reform. Indeed, this is an often heard argument of Islamic Fundamentalist – that they are simply trying to reform society and cleanse it of corruption (be it a woman’s ankle seen naked in public to narco trafficking). While reforming the ghettos - such reformist organizations could still keep the connections of the criminal elements to attain weapons and other materials for carrying acts of terrorism.

Amir Taheri takes a possible third route (Hat Tip to Belmont Club):

Some are even calling for the areas where Muslims form a majority of the population to be reorganized on the basis of the “millet” system of the Ottoman Empire: Each religious community (millet) would enjoy the right to organize its social, cultural and educational life in accordance with its religious beliefs.
…
“All we demand is to be left alone,” said Mouloud Dahmani, one of the local “emirs” engaged in negotiations to persuade the French to withdraw the police and allow a committee of sheiks, mostly from the Muslim Brotherhood, to negotiate an end to the hostilities.

In essence, the Islamofacist and the French Government could settle on a political agreement: the Islamofacist will “keep the peace” in the neighborhoods to quell the rioting. The French will get back their facade of domestic harmony. The Criminal Gangs secure their turf and have Sarkozy stopped (for now). The Islamofacist attain the position of power as the mediator between the ghettos and the French Government.

So what exactly will happen? Things are still too early and information is far too little. But in the end, I am optimistic that the French will pull through and find a proper strategy.
——–
Update:

Today’s Wall Steet Journal (Nov. 07) echoes similar remarks. Here’s an excerpt from “Muslim Groups May Gain Strength from French Riots“:

…
As France enters its 12th night of rioting, Islamic organizations like the Tabligh, which originated in the 1920s in India, stand to benefit from the unrest and emerge strengthened from it. The Tabligh advocates a strict adherence to Islam but also a disengagement from society.

While gangs of disaffected youths, mostly from Muslim families, continue to rampage, burning thousands of cars and ransacking entire neighborhoods, some of these organizations are positioning themselves as mediators who can bring back the order the government has been unable to restore.

These groups don’t preach violence, but they do advocate something that is troubling Europe’s secular democracies: that Muslims should identify themselves with their religion rather than as citizens. Effectively, they are promoting a separate society within society and that brand of Islamist philosophy is seeping into many parts of Western Europe. Countries from France and Germany to the United Kingdom and the Netherlands haven’t succeeded in integrating their Muslim minorities — and Islamic organizations have carefully positioned themselves to fill the breach.

The riots “are a blessing for them because it gives them the role of intermediary,” says Gilles Kepel, a scholar who has studied and written extensively about the rise of Islam in France. That, in turn, puts them in a stronger position “to force concessions from the state,” such as demanding a repeal of the law France passed last year banning headscarves from public schools, he says.
…
There isn’t anything inherently Muslim about the violence: Islamic groups appear to have played no part in stirring up the trouble, and few rioters seem to be using Islam to justify their attacks. On the contrary, many Islamic groups say they are trying to calm things down. But the bleak projects that ring Paris and France’s other big cities have long been fertile recruiting grounds for Islamic groups that preach a fundamentalist form of the religion that is often hard to square with Europe’s pluralistic societies.

While their mediation seems helpful in the short-term, these Islamic organizations end up further alienating Muslim youths from mainstream society because they teach an ideology that is in conflict with France’s secular ideals, says Malek Boutih, a former head of human-rights group SOS Racism. “They recruit, they teach the Quran and they try to orient everything around the mosque,” says Mr. Boutih. “That’s it.”

That is especially true of the Tabligh group here in Clichy. Founded in India in 1927, the Tabligh sends its missionaries to Islam’s troubled frontiers: Central Asia, Africa and Europe. Although it preaches a peaceful brand of Islam, some of its former members have founded terrorist groups and been expelled from countries like Kazakhstan for engaging in radicalism. French intelligence officials say up to 80% of Islamic extremists in France were once Tabligh members and have dubbed the organization the “antechamber of fundamentalism.”
[Fury in the Suburbs]

The group’s influence has grown even as France has tried to integrate Islam by giving Muslims a political voice. In 2003, the government set up a body meant to represent the Muslim community to the state, called the French Council of the Muslim Faith, and held elections to it. The government hoped the council would be a moderating influence. Instead, it has been riven by divisions and has given official representation to some of the most radical Islamic groups in the country.

The following is more of a commentary/opinion rather than StrategyUnit usual goal of analyses on issues and policies related to security issues.
————————————————————–
Update 10.03.05 - A Retraction and Correction:
1) After reading, researching and looking into the issue, I would like to retract my position of countering The Wretched at the Belmont Club
2) After reviewing the comment by Carsten Agger below, I have to put in question the reports of the riot in Denmark. Carsten has mentioned that this could really be a simple situation of alienated and jobless youth. Until, I can verify from additional sources - I’ll hold on the Denmark Riot issue. Thanks Carsten for your input.
3) Check out the follow-up posting “Paris Riots - Raise of the Europe’s Muslim Street, not Middle East’s Arab Street”
————————————————————–

A Restive Population in Europe
It is now day five of the riots in Clichy-sous-Bois, a suburb outside of Paris, which has now spread to other suburbs, Sevran, Neuilly-sur-Marne and Bondy [1]. The riots was sparked when allegedly two immigrant youths were electrocuted after coming into contact with a transformer while under fleeing from the police. During the riot on Sunday, a tear-gas that launched at a mosque serving only to exacerbate the riots.

At the same time, sectarian riots have sparked in Denmark:

“Rosenhøj Mall has several nights in a row been the scene of the worst riots in Århus for years. “This area belongs to us”, the youths proclaim. Sunday evening saw a new arson attack.
…
We are tired of what we see happening with our prophet. We are tired of Jyllands-Posten. I know it isnt you, but we wont accept what Jyllands-Posten has done to the prophet”, he says aggressively, and the others nod approvingly. [2]”

The last bit is a reference to the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, which recently has been sent death threats over a drawing of the Prophet Muhammad by a cartoonist.

While those that support Huntington’s “Clash of Civilization” would not be surprised, those on the other wide would disagree. They would point to social issues being the root cause: from the plight of the immigrant community in the slum housing in French suburbs to the general alienation and seemingly self-segregation of Muslim immigrant community throughout Europe. What I’ve learned from my own study of this- both views cannot be discounted nor are they mutually exclusive.

From Discontent to Jihad
Taking from the “Other Side” Robert Leiken (Foreign Affairs Aug 05) recently wrote: As the French academic Gilles Kepel acknowledges, “neither the blood spilled by Muslims from North Africa fighting in French uniforms during both world wars nor the sweat of migrant laborers, living under deplorable living conditions, who rebuilt France (and Europe) for a pittance after 1945, has made their children … full fellow citizens.” [3]

With no support network and a sense of alienation among the youth, radical Islamic foundations would only welcome them with open arms. It is no surprise that France has been repeatedly targeted for bombings, including more recently a plot to shoot down aircrafts in France.

Alienation of Muslim immigrants goes on to link up with the Global Islamofacist Movement and Insurgency, a self reinforcing network linking all oppression of Muslims (real and imagined) as part of a global struggle:

(More on the explanation behind this graph in part 2)

Robert Leiken goes on to divide the jihadist into two types of immigrant: outsiders and insiders. Outsiders were the newly arrived immigrants who served as the grunts and cannon-fodder (sometimes literally) of the jihadist organization; some of them may be radical imams seeking asylum but with funding from Saudi Arabia and seeking to start a jihadist network. The insiders are second generation immigrants, who are westernized in education yet anti-western and generally the leaders (think Zacarias Moussaoui).

Yet unfortunately the story doesn’t stop there…
(more…)

Back at San Francisco State University, I wrote and published a paper titled “In the Midst of the Swarm: Reconceptualizing the (Mislabeled) Global War on Terrorism” (April 2005), where I stated:

“For all of Moore’s cheering of a grand social movement of social justice from those from the liberal end of the spectrum, it is the Islamist global guerillas that have gained the spotlight in the creation of a global social movement.”

Moore is the guy who wrote “The Second Superpower Rears its Beautiful Head”, championing anti-globalization crowd as being the Second Superpower.

Stopping by VodkaPundit today, I came across this mention of Mark Steyn’s article at the Telegraph:

Indeed, when you look at it that way, the biggest globalisation success story of recent years is not McDonald’s or Disney, but Islamism: the Saudis took what was 80 years ago a severe but obscure and unimportant strain of Islam practised by Bedouins in the middle of a desert miles from anywhere and successfully exported it to the heart of Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Leeds, Buffalo. It was a strictly local virus, but the bird flew the coop. And now, instead of the quaintly parochial terrorist movements of yore, we have the first globalised insurgency.

What’s the bigger threat? A globalisation that exports cheeseburgers and pop songs or a globalisation that exports the fiercest and unhealthiest aspects of its culture? Far too many American conservatives still think the dragons are at the far fringes of the map - that, in the 21st century, America can be a 19th-century republic untroubled by the world’s pathogens because of its sheer distance from them.

Good to see this idea picking up more speed.

Thomas Barnett, noted writer and blogger who served in various areas in the DoD, shot off a rebuttle against John Robb’s Open Source Warfare article I mentioned last weekend in “Open Source War, Global Guerillas in Iraq“.

For those unfamilar with Barnett, he is famous for his article, now book , entitled “Pentagon’s New Map”, which interprets the world as caught between the Core and the Gap, with each at the opposite end of the pole of global connectivity; he uses a state’s level of connectivity as a measurement of how stable states and regions are with the evidence that the these “Gap” (low connectivity states) are those that are often in trouble.

Here’s Barnett’s response to John Robb:

Creating better rules is how we win. By doing so we attract good citizens and good states, slowly but surely. Killing symmetrically is gratifying, but ultimately pointless. Reformatting their world so that their cause dies is the real victory. Not a matter of making it like our own, but simply making it connective in a deep sense with the outside world, so that individuals can choose their level of connectivity no matter what the authorities say or do.

So I say, bet on numbers. Bet on bigger networks. Bet on growing the Core and, by doing so, restricting the enemy’s operating domain.

Information technology analogies are great, but they do not constitute tactics, much less strategy. The winning remains the same: kill their bad guys and replace bad governments with good. Don’t confuse the friction with the formatting. Don’t confuse skirmishes with campaigns. Don’t confuse their asymmetry with our disadvantage.

In the end, we win as we always do: with stuff. Capitalism bribes off its enemies with wealth. Worked in 1848 in Europe and it’s worked ever since.

(more…)

One of my first few postings (here and here)were about a recent spat between the US control over ICANN and pressure from the EU and UN (most vocally Brazil, Iran, China and Saudi Arabia) to bring control of ICANN, with a further rounds of meetings planned for November at Tunis.

Here are three updates - including our first correction!

EU’s New Friends on the Internet - Iran, China and Saudi Arabia

While taking lead charge against the US, EU has continously stated they wanted to take a middle ground calling for multi-latera approach, but not meddling with the Internet’s free access (which many folks worry that Iran, Saudi Arabia etc want):

But EU negotiators are adamant that they reject calls for state control of internet content. “None of this is about content and that is a big difference between the EU position and the position of China and Brazil,” one negotiator said. (Link)

While the stated intentions of the EU maybe true, what would the EU really do if the say China (a major economic power) and Iran demanded some greater control and access over the Internet through the proposed UN body? Could the U.S., EU and the Anglosphere stand behind adamently against a country that proposes possible restrictions of the Internet? Or would they be deterred by charges of “Western Neo-Imperialism”?

And is it strange that the biggest proponent of the UN control are the less then free countries? The former Swedish prime minister Carl Bildt recognizes, such a problem as mentioned in his blog: “It seems as if the European position has been hijacked by officials that have been driven by interests that should not be ours. We really can’t have a Europe that is applauded by China and Iran and Saudi Arabia on the future governance of the internet. Even those critical of the United States must see where such a position risks taking us.”

According to the WSJ, some European telecom companies are also a little worried about EU’s position:

However, some telecom companies have objected to the European Commission’s latest move. “I’ve been getting urgent calls from our members, and they are upset,” says Michael Bartholomew, director of the European Telecommunications Network Operators Association, which represents 42 major companies in 35 countries. (”Europe Telecoms Object to EU Plan for Policing Web“)

EU Warns, “The Internet will break apart by November!” Not really
(more…)

Back in 2001, John Arquilla and David Ronfeldt at RAND wrote a monograph entitled “Networks and Netwars: The Future of Terror, Crime, and Militancy” wrote on the future wave of conflict and organization around the concept of “Netwar”:

What distinguishes netwar as a form of conflict is the networked organizational structure of its practitioners—with many groups actually being leaderless— and the suppleness in their ability to come together quickly in swarming attacks. The concepts of cyberwar and netwar encompass a new spectrum of conflict that is emerging in the wake of the information revolution.

Indeed, Bill Clinton spoke in 1998 warning of “reckless acts of outlaw nations and an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals.” (Empahsis Mine, link here). Back then, Bill Clinton was speaking of Iraq as part of an “unholy axis” network.

But the network is everywhere, not just in Clinton’s Unholy Axis of Iraq, network-based warefare, the Seattle Protest, or in modern logistical chains (think Amazon.com, Dell or FedEx). It is in flash mobbing, online collobration software (writely), social networking web sites like del.icio.us, LinkedIn to more obsecure ones like Coastr (Beer Social Networking).

Today, the CounterTerror blog has two back-to-back articles relating the “network” to security issues:

1) North Korean Counterfeit Ring:

The leader of the gang, Sean Garland [is the leader of “the old style IRA”]. Allegedly, the profits from the illegal enterprise went back into the Official IRA. The indictment is the result of a long investigation through the Russian Mafia - one of the defendants is Russian, and Garland allegedly traveled to Russia, Belarus, and Poland often - and found the gang using false identities, dummy couriers, codewords, money laundering techniques, and secure communication methods. No North Koreans were named, but the indictment states that “North Korean nationals acting as ostensible government officials engaged in the worldwide transportation, delivery, and sale of quantities” of the $100 bills. Last month, the Washington Times reported on the arrest of a Taiwanese national who was involved in the counterfeiting scheme. (Emphasis Mine)

Official IRA, Russian Mafia, and Taiwanese National all invovled in a sophisticated international mony laundering/counterfeiting scheme with North Korea. Andd this links back to what is North Korea and the IRA doing with the money? What are they buying and where from?

2) Iraq: Insurgest, Terrorist and Organized Crime:

Hezbollah-style explosives are being used in Iraq by Zarqawi’s group, bringing new sophistication and lethality to many of the operations; cars stolen in the United States are turning up as vehicles used in suicide attacks in Iraq, shipped from the West Coast to Syria, then driven into Iraq; possible ties, now the subject of several investigations in Europe, of important leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood, through leading European banks, to laundering large sums of drug money for radical Islamic groups. Much of this appears to be coordinated through activities in the tri-border area of Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay, as well as Panama and Isla Margarita off the Venezuelan coast. (Empahsis Mine)

In Iraq, we are not only fighting insurgest and terrorist from former Baathist or neighbouring Arab fundamentalist, but also a stolen car/smuggling network in the West Coast of the USA, drug money from Islamist group with European Banks as conduits, and a network spaning five countries in Latin America.

The Network is Everywhere.

I strongly suggest reading John Robb’s “THE BAZAAR OF VIOLENCE IN IRAQ” and “THE BAZAAR’S OPEN SOURCE PLATFORM“. It is required reading in my book.

Interestingly enough, around the same time I posted my concerns on the ICANN issue, WSJ posts an excellent opinion piece by the co-writters of “Who Rules the Net?” - follow the link here. Here’s what Thiere and Crew sums up nicely:

The Internet helps overcome artificial restrictions on trade and communications formerly imposed by oppressive or meddlesome governments. Allowing these governments to reassert control through a U.N. backdoor would be a disaster.

Indeed.

The Guardian has released a similar article “Breaking America’s grip on the net”, but showing a greater sense of urgency on the matter.

“Information wants to be free” was the mantra of the dot-com days, the days when Wired Magazine saw the Internet as the gateway to transcendence.

But now, the currently unfettered nature of the Internet is at stake. Through the creation of the Arpanet (precursor to the Internet) by the DoD, the U.S. has retained control of the Internet; today, its run by the Department of Commerce via ICAAN. This is now being challenged with the U.S. standing alone with no allies:

The European Union has backed an aggressive push by the United Nations to end US control of the internet and bring it under international law following concerns by countries like Iran that the Americans could pull the plug on them at any moment.
link

What is at stake are some of the key parts of globalization: the freedom of information and the blurring of borders. The Kantian Peace was never really about a Family of Democracies but unfettered trade links and now information is part of that link. The hope of globalization would be to increase these links, enhancing security and building a path to the fabled to the Kantian Peace.

Acquiescing control of the Internet to an international consortium would open the way for censorship by a U.N.-led consortium, which includes countries like China, Iran and Libya – hardly the light of liberty and freedom. Even member countries of the E.U. have their limitations on the freedom of speech.

Also at issue are types of business and applications that undermine the state monopoly on information – think the banning of VoIP and Skype to protect a government telco company.

If the U.S., E.U. and the U.N. fail to reach an agreement, we can see the beginning of the end of the Internet. The U.N. and go ahead and make its own ICANN giving way to an Internet that is fractured, no longer free and no longer global. Has the tower of Babel has befallen us again?