Dr. Ajai Sahni in OutlookIndia (thanks to Fanabba) takes aim at the dhimmi analysts and academics who refuse to acknowledge the Pakistani jihad that is in front of their faces:
A "failure of imagination", the Panel investigating the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the US stated, was what kept US officials from understanding the Al Qaeda threat before the catastrophic events in New York and Washington.There is, however, a manifest and abiding danger today, that a future investigation into terrorist plots that are yet to be accomplished would find another, even greater, 'failure of imagination', culminating in horrors that may easily dwarf the events of 9/11.
The 9/11 Panel has been sagacious in noting that the critical element that must be understood if an adequate response to global terrorism is to be crafted, is that "we are in the midst of an ideological conflict". The contemporary assessment of where precisely inimical ideologies are located will be crucial to the outcome of this conflict - and here, again, there is an evident error in the dominant American evaluation. It is, of course, the case that Osama bin Laden has been one of the most articulate representatives of this ideology, and his Al Qaeda one of its most effective manifestations. But there are many 'future bin Ladens' waiting in the wings, largely unnoticed, or systematically and intentionally ignored, by the American establishment, as well as by much of the world.
Among the most dangerous instances of this neglect occur in Pakistan....
There follow a series of lengthy and revealing statements about jihad from radical Muslim leaders in Pakistan and Kashmir.
Worse still, as has been repeatedly noted in the past, the extremist Islamist discourse on jehad, and shahadat (martyrdom) and the 'global conspiracy' against and threat to Islam is not the province of mullahs and militants alone, and has penetrated every aspect of the Pakistani educational system - and not, as is widely believed, just the extremist madrassahs.It is useful to note that the examples drawn up in this assessment are a small selection of statements and writings in the past less than three months. A comprehensive archive of extremist discourse in this vein for the entire period since 9/11 would fill volumes, and would include innumerable statements by elements proximate to, or directly connected with, the Musharraf regime.
Some of these dangers have been acknowledged, for the pre-9/11 period under its review, by the 9/11 Panel. One writer notes that a cursory key word search of the Panel's report recovers "more than 200 references to Pakistan, many of them damning. There are less than 100 references to Iran and Iraq combined."
Nevertheless, ignorance persists at unacceptable levels. The international press and diplomatic community, largely located in protected and affluent enclaves, with their attention fixed firmly on the relatively moderate and westernized English language media, remain substantially uncomprehending of these dangerous undercurrents. Worse, denial remains integral to the mindset of many Western - and particularly US - observers. A mention of the 'dominant ideology of Pakistan' to a senior US diplomat posted in that country, for instance, drew a sharp response rejecting the idea that any such 'dominant ideology' could actually be identified.Such denial also characterizes the mainstream political discourse on the issue in India today, and constitutes a danger even greater than the direct threat of contemporary terrorism, creating vast spaces for the continuous consolidation of ideas that will breed much worse in the years to come.
Denial, maybe? Knowledge of human nature and understanding the characteristics of many in academicia from whence many of these people are pulled, shows that they are also self-absorbed and mainly interested in defending and proving their theories, as well as protecting reputations and turf, as they have been trained to do. Even in a full-scale attack, they might fight it difficult to cooperate. Our enemies have studies this phenomena and are using it against us.
I'm not surprised at this, either. The notion that there are people who are non-Western, non-Christian, non-caucasian, who're ready to murder, maim and conquer the world in the name of their ideology doesn't fit in with their carefully crafted socialist, humanist worldview. I remember that in one of my international relations classes that radical Islam was never mentioned once, and this was shortly after the Soviet Union had fallen. The idea of an aggressive, pan-national jihadist movement was unthinkable to academics then, as the model of foreign activity and relations was built squarely around a political heirarchy that a budding globalization movement could relate to and use as a stepping stone to world governance through the EU, UN, etc. There was simply no room in their thinking or analysis for a mass movement like this, for all aggressive international activity would naturally occur as a result of political leadership within a single nation or an alliance of nations, not an gathering of people who essentially disregard borders in favor of ideology. The closest thing the modern world had seen to this prior was the Comintern and it was largely Russian in origin, not spontaneous and decentralized, even if membership was across the Western world.
William S. Lind, whom some may be familiar with, writes of "Fourth Generation Warfare," which is essentially warfare practiced by non-state actors and in a myriad of ways. That war now is not necessarily initiated through the state is one key point, and really needs no explanation now, the other is the assymetry of the forces involved. Traditional warfare generally involves forces that're roughly similar in composition using similar tactics. I think a good case could also be made for "Fourth Generation Analysis," where the presence and actions of states are not the only determining factor, or may not matter at all, in looking at the larger picture of international relations. For example, the saw that a terrorist army must necessarily have a nation state backing it in order to be successful. I do not see this as necessarily being true now -- did the 9/11 attacks really require a national level of involvement? Or would a reasonable person conclude that anyone who could find 20 volunteers and had enough money could launch such an attack? The implication really becomes obvious if one considers for a moment that if the western nations keep looking for an international, diplomatic solution to terrorism, instead of understanding that the enemy is the very ideology used, then the possibility of victory is probably very remote until a majority of people around the non-Islamic world understand this.
Worried About Islam? Get Involved Now:
http://forums.delphiforums.com/western1
Put not your trust in Analysts,Academics ...or
Saudi Princes.