We focus on al Qaeda and violent actors, we focus at the tip of the spear to prevent terrorist attacks on the homeland. We are orienting all our resources, intelligence, homeland defense, against preventing attacks. We have very few resources, in my view, oriented on everything that leads up to the point of attack - the radicalization process. And because we don't have a model for the war on terror, we don't fully even understand what that radicalization process looks like. What is the infrastructure of it? Who's involved in it? What is the ideology undergirding that radicalization process? So we still, I would argue, seven years into the war on terror, have big gaps in our strategic thinking about the fight we're in. I think those gaps explain some of the challenges we are facing in the prosecution of this war, such as, at least from what I've read in media sources, strategic communications programs. [....]
Now, I would argue, go back to the Cold War and imagine if 90 percent of our Russian studies programs were being funded by the Soviets. I mean, there's potential implications in terms of strategic influence that I think needs better scrutiny.
Comments
After reading this post, my emotions run between incredulity, confusion, and despair. At least when there was a draft and more men served in the military, they "got" The Art of War. Now we have a Presidential hopeful who thinks sitting down with a cup of tea with Iran's President will change his mind on wiping out the Jews and Western culture. Sometimes I weep for the future of America. If Obama gets elected, I see terrorism coming at us again like a speeding train... or a diving passenger airplane. Wake up people!
Posted by: Pam Littleton | May 19, 2008 12:39 PM
"I think the significant strategic shortcoming or failing in the war on terror is that we have not gone through the strategic, doctrinal analysis of the enemy, we haven't distilled and elaborated his threat doctrine. Because we haven't done that, we do not have a fully articulated global threat model for the war on terror. We do not have a common analytic paradigm that all our government agencies can access, use and understand, to explain how potential threats, like to homeland security, will manifest themselves from that paradigm. A basic principle of intelligence is to have a model that helps explain the reality of the world or the reality of the phenomena you're trying to evaluate. We do not have a model, so we're still failing in that regard in terms of our own structural, analytic, intelligence process, that's my opinion." -- LTC Myers
Stephen Collins Coughlin tried to do that, and Hesham Islam got Gordon England to shut him down.
"Now, I would argue, go back to the Cold War and imagine if 90 percent of our Russian studies programs were being funded by the Soviets. I mean, there's potential implications in terms of strategic influence that I think needs better scrutiny."
You got that right, sir.
Posted by: Cannoneer No. 4 | May 19, 2008 01:08 PM
The "Defficiencies " article is a poorly written article. It is full of innuendo and lacking in facts and references. Please reinstated your vies and be more speacific about this very critical situation.
Do not equivocate.
Thanks
CHR
Posted by: CHReynales | May 19, 2008 01:45 PM
Great article!
One cannot understand the GWOT without first understadning its roots, the motivations of its supporters, how it intends to conduct the fight, and how victory is defined.
Posted by: austin | May 19, 2008 02:28 PM
There is a report put out by the NYPD in 2007 that discusses the radicalization process in the West.
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/Sections/NEWS/PDFs/nypd_radicalization_report.pdf
Posted by: Don | May 19, 2008 04:51 PM
Observe the fruit of political correctness. The officaldom tries to figure out terrorist mentality without touching upon terrorists' religion -- for that is off limits, of course, in our PC world.
They might as well be taking spy photoes while keeping the camera's cap on...
Posted by: Vel N | May 19, 2008 04:57 PM
Read a little of Robert Spencer, or Daniel Pipes. These men understand the Islamic mindset and their war upon the West, and against the infidel. We cannot defeat this enemy unless we understand what we are up against, and BHO, has little or no understanding. The Qur'an allows Muslims to say anything to Infidels even if they are out right lying, as long as what they are doing is for the good of Islam. BHO will sit down and break bread with the worst of our enemies and they will say whatever it takes for BHO to call off the military with absolutely no intention of fulfilling their part of whatever bargin he made.
Posted by: Goat Locker Gus | May 19, 2008 05:30 PM
My understanding of the article is the radicalization process, where it is happening, and who is funding it. The Arabs are pouring millions into our universities for middle eastern studies, etc. and have fertile young minds to sew their seeds in.
Posted by: frayed | May 20, 2008 02:23 AM
Unresolved U.S. Strategy on Jihad and the War of Ideas
http://counterterrorismblog.org/2008/05/no_strategy_on_jihad.php
"we continue to have any enemy who we won't define and whose ideology we won't understand."
Posted by: Cannoneer No. 4 | May 20, 2008 10:55 AM
To defeat an enemy, you must think like an enemy. Alot of sources and info availiable, just have to use it correctly. BTW, GWOT is all inclusive to groups to include the FARC, HAMAS, etc. not limited to AQ. Remember to use all the tools in the box to defeat the opponents ideology and effort.
Ignorant politicians and MSM members are assisting the media campaign of our opponents. These efforts are getting alot of good people killed due to their arrorgance and blindness!
Posted by: S-TOO-X | May 20, 2008 11:19 AM