Stardate 20040401.1241

(Captain's log): Violent war is not senseless slaughter and destruction, at least not when it is used competently. Violent war is slaughter and destruction carefully tailored to advance a political goal.

Terrorism is one form of violent war. It emerged as a way to wage war on the cheap; it was a way that very small groups could contend militarily with opponents who were vastly more powerful.

"Terrorism" in a broad generic sense is as old as humanity. But in the 20th century, a coherent doctrine for terrorist war emerged, which I described here. The key point to remember is this: the strategic goal of terrorism is to provoke reprisals.

Most of the activity by insurgents in Iraq during the last year was technically guerrilla warfare. Like terrorism, guerrilla warfare developed as a way for weak forces to fight against strong ones. But guerilla war aims to harm the enemy by direct action; that's the main distinction between the two.

In all warfare, at all times, you have to keep your eyes firmly on the ultimate objectives of those involved in the war. Each side uses violence to advance its own goals and to try to prevent the other side from achieving its goals. (If, of course, the leaders are competent, which historically speaking has often not been the case.)

During the last year, Baathists were responsible for the majority of insurgent action in Iraq. They mostly stayed in the background and used huge piles of cash looted at the last moment during the invasion to pay others to carry out various attacks. Their primary target was American soldiers, because they hoped that an ongoing trickle of casualties would cause us to lose heart and leave, after which they felt they had a reasonable chance to move into the resulting power vacuum. It didn't turn out that way, though; American resolve never wavered. And as time went on our intelligence people began to learn more and more about their organization and how it operated. Eventually that reached a tipping point, leading to the capture of Saddam in December, and the priceless contents of his briefcase. The next few weeks saw a huge number of raids and arrests all over Iraq, and there's every reason to believe that the Baathist insurgency has now been shattered.

The primary source of violent resistance in Iraq now is foreigners, mainly al Qaeda and sympathetic radicals from the region. And for the first time we have begun to see attacks in Iraq which are consistent with classic terrorist doctrine: to provoke reprisals so as create conditions which prevent us from achieving our goals.

A couple of days ago, Wei sent me a link to a translation of a couple of articles originally published in Arabic in London, which commented on a book written in Arabic in Egypt by leaders of Al-Jama'ah al-Islamiyah, which in turn analyzed and deeply criticized the strategy and tactics being used by al Qaeda. (Pause for a moment to inhale...)

It's surprisingly level headed and accurate. Taking into account the partisanship of the authors, it actually gets it mostly right. It summarizes the American strategy in the war thusly:

The features of the strategy of "liberating the Muslim world" to which Rice referred can be seen in the following points:

1. The crushing of the Taliban movement and depriving Al-Qa'ida of a safe haven.

2. The globalization of the persecution of Al-Qa'ida elements and any other Islamic organization that the United States considers as posing a threat to it, its interests, and its allies.

3. Pushing the countries of the Muslim world to propagate US and western values by liberating themselves from the values and traditions of the Muslim culture which, in their opinion, generate violence. This point requires a change on the current textbooks that encourage the culture of extremism. This point also reflects Fukuyama's theory in his article to which we referred above.

4. The Turkization, in the words of a senior member of the US Administration, of the Muslim world. In other words, the application of the Turkish model that allows the existence of an Islamic current in a political arena that is closer to secularism than to Islam. This approach provides a solution by giving the Turkish Islamists room to let off steam while pulling the rug from under the feet of the Islamic radicals.

5. Pressure on the governments in Muslim countries to adopt policies that allow the persecution of terrorism on one hand and that give a chance to Islamists to participate in political life on the other hand.

6. US contribution in solving some of the political problems in the Muslim world in a way that polishes the US image before Muslim public opinion but without jeopardizing US interests.

Thus, the final stage of this US strategy aims at making drastic changes on the Islamic currents or in the Muslim identity and values. This strategy demonstrates how the United States is poking its nose in the affairs of the Muslim world under the pretext of defending democracy and the human rights of men, women, and children, and combating terrorism. All this is part of the strategy to impose US hegemony on the whole world.

The key to achievi