Obama the Counter-Insurgent Posted by Michael Cohen

I've been thinking quite a bit about President Obama's speech in Cairo speech andI keep coming back to the notion that Obama's words were perhaps the most effective actions taken by a US President against the global Al Qaeda movement since the Fall of 2001.  If you subscribe to the notion that the war with Al Qaeda is a global counter-insurgency then Obama dealt his enemy a difficult blow.

This may seem like an odd sentiment coming from someone who spends a lot time critiquing the efficacy of utilizing counter-insurgency tactics. But from the US perspective there should be a clear distinction between "local" insurgencies -- where outside of Pakistan US interests are fairly limited -- and the global insurgency that is represented by Al Qaeda. Indeed, the greatest threat to the US has always been Al Qaeda and not the insurgent conflicts that we have found ourselves engaged in over the past few years.

This is not to suggest that there is no military solution to the problem of Al Qaeda. Far from it: the leaders of AQ and the architects of mass terror attacks must be eliminated or at least placed on the run so they cannot launch 9/11-style attacks against US civilian and military targets and Al Qaeda safe havens must be destroyed. The Bush Administration deserves some limited praise for doing much of that work in 2001 and 2002 (and I say limited because they didn't quite finish the job).  But as counter-insurgent advocates like to tell us, a good counter-insurgency is 80% political and 20% military. And while I would argue that not every counter-insurgency is the same, that ratio probably applies here.

Indeed the political means of combat ting Al Qaeda is the most challenging part - drying up the swamp and reducing the number of adherents to Al Qaeda's toxic ideology. It was a tactic that the Bush Administration not only didn't master, but actually made worse and primarily by viewing the military and armed force as the most effective tool in the US arsenal against Al Qaeda.

But as Obama showed on thursday in Cairo you can kill a lot more flies with honey rather than vinegar. There were three key elements to his speech that probably did more to weaken Al Qaeda than anything done by the Bush Administration since the fall of Kabul.

First, Obama spoke to the Muslim as equals and as partners. He didn't lecture or talk down or even ignore unpleasant truth. Instead he mixed empathy with realpolitik and highlighted not only shared values but shared interests:

I've come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles — principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

 . . . Of course, recognizing our common humanity is only the beginning of our task. Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people. These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead; and if we understand that the challenges we face are shared, and our failure to meet them will hurt us.

To be fair, this was a rhetorical approach often utilized by George W. Bush, but let's face it, Barack Obama is not George Bush. The first part of the battle for any American leader after the wreckage of the Bush years was to change the discussion between the United States and the Arab world. Obama's speech restored US credibility in the Muslim world and more important ensured that those prepared to believe the worst of the United States will hear the other side. Al Qaeda and others will continue to portray the US in an unfavorable light, but Obama's Cairo speech will no doubt serve as an important counterweight to this message.

But beyond the fancy rhetoric, Obama delivered two other very important messages. For more than a generation, US support for Israel has been obviously a key rallying point for anti-American voices in the region. Obama's words raised the profile of US concern for Palestinian suffering and articulated America's key policy differences with Israel's leaders over settlement policies while also reaffirming the US commitment to Israel's security.

The result is that Obama made clear that the United States is going to be an even-handed negotiating partner:

But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth: The only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security.

That is in Israel's interest, Palestine's interest, America's interest, and the world's interest. And that is why I intend to personally pursue this outcome with all the patience and dedication that the task requires. The obligations — the obligations that the parties have agreed to under the road map are clear. For peace to come, it is time for them — and all of us — to live up to our responsibilities.

Of course these are just words and they must be followed with actions, but what's striking from Obama's speech was the balance he sought to strike between the two sides. There are those who will certainly argue that Obama did not go far enough in criticizing Israel's settlement policies - and there will be pro-Israel voices who will argue that Obama threw the Jewish State under the bus. My response: good. Let the extremists push their self-interested arguments. I would imagine that for most individuals who listened to the President the takeaway is that the US is serious about pushing a political resolution that recognizes the interests and concerns of both sides.

I think Ami Ayalon makes the point quite well:

We are witnessing the beginning of new American diplomacy in the Middle East whereby it will no longer appear to be very, very pro-Israel, but, as was obvious in the speech, it will be more balanced. Israel has to now understand that this president really believes that there is a common denominator of moderate Arabs, Americans and Israelis. It is a new phenomenon in Middle East diplomacy because we have long believed that the US and Israel represented one side of the conflict and the Arab world and Muslims the other side. But unlike previous administrations where the world was divided by an axis of evil, particularly that of President Bush, Mr. Obama divides the world by an axis of pragmatic forces.

An "axis of pragmatic forces!" I love it.

Next, the President made clear that there must be a political space for Islamist movements in the Arab world.

America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments – provided they govern with respect for all their people.This last point is important because there are some who advocate for democracy only when they are out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others. No matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who hold power: you must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.

I really don't know if you can downplay the importance of these words in the context of the global fight against Al Qaeda. The implication of the President's words is clear: we have no war with Islamist movements that reject violence and pledge to abide by democratic practices. If that is not a shot across the bow not only to Al Qaeda, but also to ossified Arab regimes that reject any role for Islam I don't know what is.

But the combination of pledging even-handedness on Israel/Palestine and a recognition that America will accept partnerships with Islamic political movements that reject violence is perhaps two of the most effective weapons in the counter-insurgency toolbox for the United States (and of course let's not forget the fact that he reiterated his intention to have US troops out of Iraq by 2012). Where one can quibble is in Obama' failure to reach out to the Arab world - beyond the governing cliques - to the people themselves. Here I think Obama missed an opportunity to hit the anti-AQ trifecta by pledging greater US support for civil society and political activists across the Arab world. Hopefully that rhetorical and substantive outreach will come in time.

But Obama has shifted the terms of the debate - and placed Al Qaeda and its jihadist allies on the defensive. And above all he has made clear to the Arab world that our interaction with the region will be based not on the force of our arms, but by the power of our diplomacy. Now of course, if there is no follow-though on the part of Obama and if deeds do not match words than the speech will be for naught.

But he has done a nice job of laying the groundwork for the diplomatic and political counter-insurgency against Al Qaeda that is, hopefully, on its way.

Comments

[Don Bacon]

A recent RAND research effort investigates how terrorist groups have ended in the past. By analyzing a comprehensive roster of terrorist groups that existed worldwide between 1968 and 2006, the authors found that most groups ended because of operations carried out by local police or intelligence agencies or because they negotiated a settlement with their governments. Military force was rarely the primary reason a terrorist group ended, and few groups within this time frame achieved victory. These findings suggest that the U.S. approach to countering al Qa'ida has focused far too much on the use of military force. Instead, policing and intelligence should be the backbone of U.S. efforts. . . .Key to this strategy is replacing the war-on-terrorism orientation with the kind of counterterrorism approach that is employed by most governments facing significant terrorist threats today. Calling the efforts a war on terrorism raises public expectations — both in the United States and elsewhere — that there is a battlefield solution. It also tends to legitimize the terrorists' view that they are conducting a jihad (holy war) against the United States and elevates them to the status of holy warriors. Terrorists should be perceived as criminals, not holy warriors.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9351/index1.html

David Miliband, the UK Foreign Minister, said in January 2009 that the 'War on terror' was wrong -- the phrase gives a false idea of a unified global enemy, and encourages a primarily military reply. "The call for a 'war on terror' was a call to arms, an attempt to build solidarity for a fight against a single shared enemy. But the foundation for solidarity between peoples and nations should be based not on who we are against, but on the idea of who we are and the values we share."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/15/david-miliband-war-terror

General Peter Pace, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that fighting terrorism is a police problem. "People talk about, 'Are you winning?' First, you have to define: What is winning? And I don't mean to be glib about that. Winning in this war on terrorism is having security in the countries we're trying to help that allows for those governments to function and for their people to function. "Example. Washington, D.C., has crime, but it has a police force that is able to keep that crime below a level at which the normal citizens can go about their daily jobs and the government can function. That's what you're looking for on the war on terrorism, whether it be Iraq, Afghanistan, or anyplace else."
http://www.defenselink.mil/Transcripts/Transcript.aspx?TranscriptID=3765

Colin Powell--What is the greatest threat facing us now? People will say it’s terrorism. But are there any terrorists in the world who can change the American way of life or our political system? No. Can they knock down a building? Yes. Can they kill somebody? Yes. But can they change us? No. Only we can change ourselves. So what is the great threat we are facing? I would approach this differently, in almost Marshall-like terms. What are the great opportunities out there—ones that we can take advantage of? It should not be just about creating alliances to deal with a guy in a cave in Pakistan. It should be about how do we create institutions that keep the world moving down a path of wealth creation, of increasing respect for human rights, creating democratic institutions, and increasing the efficiency and power of market economies? This is perhaps the most effective way to go after terrorists.
http://men.style.com/gq/features/full?id=content_5900&pageNum=3

[spockamok]

"Next, the President made clear that there must be a political space for Islamist movements in the Arab world."

&

"The implication of the President's words is clear: we have no war with Islamist movements that reject violence and pledge to abide by democratic practices.

&

"America will accept partnerships with Islamic political movements that reject violence is perhaps two of the most effective weapons in the counter-insurgency toolbox for the United States (and of course let's not forget the fact that he reiterated his intention to have US troops out of Iraq by 2012)."

The three quotes above assume that a U.S. unwillingness to accept Islamist politics is a source of the conflict between the U.S. and Islamist factions like Al-Qaeda.

But the U.S. has always been accepting of Islamist politics, violent and non-violent alike, as long as they do not initiate attacks (or verbally discuss attacks) on the U.S. or its allies. The Gulf and Morrocan monarchies are Islamist. The central government of Bosnia was governed by a party with an Islamist agenda. During the Cold War the U.S. preferred Islamists to radical secularists and nationalists, and the Mujhadeen of Afghanistan is by no means the only example.

The U.S. made space for Islamist politicians on its own territory, by granting political asylum to the Blind Sheikh, despite the fact he was a vituperative critic of a U.S. ally.

What is Saudi Arabia if not Islamic fundamentalist? Yet the U.S. has been allied to Saudi Arabia because of common economic and geopolitical interests. Saudi Arabia even vocally criticizes U.S. policy at times and provides aid to anti-Israeli groups. But, in the end official Riyadh and Washington could get along because they compartmentalize the areas in which they agree, and in which they disagree, from each other. Saudi never got on the same s*it list in America as Libya, Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan because their chief executive never ordered terrorist attacks on Americans, never tried to conquer a neighbor and never made a rhetorical habit of claiming how he was going to kick America's ass in the region.

So, I have just illustrated that America has picked its enemies in the Muslim world based on their policies, not disapproval of their religion. This is not to say America has picked its enemies wisely or been in the right, it is just to say that it is unsupportable to claim that chauvinism against Islamic religion or law drives U.S. policy.

Nope, the proximate origin of the U.S.'s recent conflict with Sunni Islamists, in its violent and non-violent forms, is that since 1990 or so Sunni Islamists have increasingly insisted that there is a conflict. They have willfully decided to "keep score" in such a manner that says that any exercise of American power in earshot of a Muslim is a mark of disrespect for Muslim authority. The Islamists that the U.S. considers "radical" are the ones who have abandoned old style Saudi compartmentalization, and who insist that any fight that any Muslim happens to be in anywhere in the world for any reason is a fight where they have to take sides.

"If that is not a shot across the bow not only to Al Qaeda, but also to ossified Arab regimes that reject any role for Islam I don't know what is."

Name an Arab regime that rejects any role for Islam.

You can't find one.

Every Arab government has some degree of sensitivity to Islamic religious and cultural attitudes. What the Arab regimes object to is challenges to their own political power and patronage networks. Besides just wanting to maintain their power, surely most Arab leaders are believing Muslims who just tend not to see why would be politicians who are part of parties that formally call themselves Islamist would be better rulers than they. Ossified they are, but rabidly secularist they are not.

"No matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who hold power: you must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party."

You know, I did love this speech, and I think pretty much everything the Prez said was true, even if he was interpreted as changing a U.S. attitude toward political Islam that he was not. I think he offered a great challenge to governments with the quote above, and he would not have wanted to load it with more words...but his statement would have encompassed more of the real problems if he had rendered it thus:

"No matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who hold power (and for all who want to hold power): you must maintain your power through consent (you must seek power through consent), not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party."

In other parts of the speech he did challenge seekers of power as well as wielders of power, both need to be more responsible in that region.

[spockamok]

Shorter spockamok:

There's a perceived clash of civilizations primarly because alot of political entrepreneuers and their constituents in the Muslim communities made a choice to interpret the world in civlizational terms, and view every geopolitical happening through a prism that colors everything as a humiliation for either "Islam" or the "other".

They didn't have to boil religion and politics down to that simple formula, but they did. And it causes problems for all of us, but most of all for them.

Some U.S. policies have fed the perception but it was already well-entrenched before Bush was President, indeed, before he even sobered up.

Therefore, while assertions by our current Prez that there's no fundamental conflict and certainly don't hurt, and might help a little, the "civilizational clash" problem won't occur until Islamists get a more sophisticated way of thinking about the world than their current zero sum paradigm and lose their obsession with keeping scores and settling scores.

[ghghg]

CHEAP rs gold
MY lotro gold
CHEAPEST aion gold

[seslichat seslisohbet]

Thank you very much..

[cheap coach handbags]

Thank you for your sharing! I like i very much!

[cheap coach bags]

Great comments! You are so nice, man! You never know how much i like'em!

[cheap coach purses]

Yes, that's cool. The device is amazing! Waiting for your next one!

[Good]

Worklight (as I understand it, and I Sesli sohbet am not any form of Forum
Sesli sohbet
Sesli chat
Sesli sohbet expert here), is Sesli sohbet posited on Secure Widgets. As security 'though the layers" is going to be an issue with widgets, you know, I think they may be on to something. Seslinefes The next thing that people don't often realise, bykarizma is that while consumer widgets are "cool", enterprise widgets actually save money (you know, in a way that can be measured).
.

[acekard 2i]

if Obama's presiding over an economic disaster in 2012, then a third-party run premised on the idea that the Democrats have failed and the Republicans can't be trusted might do rather well indeed.

[some watches]

Good recommended website.