My wife, who knows quite a bit about Arab culture since her dad's side of the family is from Iraq, has a post about the significance of al-Zarqawi being cast out from his tribe and family.
This. is. huge.
al-Zarqawi has been disowned by the Bani Hassan.Let me repeat: This. is. huge.
I was astounded when I read this. For one to be disowned by their own tribe means they have shamed their ancestors and have committed the gravest of unpardonable sins. For an Arab to be disowned by his own clan and tribe means that he is only worthy of taking his own life outside of tribal boundaries, left to face Allah on his own without the help of his ancestors. (I do not believe in that mysticism, just to clear up any misconceptions).
Basically, the Bani Hassan are saying that al-Zarqawi is only worthy of a shameful death, alone in the wilderness. Back in ancient times, the only way of survival was to stay within one's tribe/clan. Socio-economic and socio-political landscapes were all determined by tribal ties and ancestry. The Arab culture truly believes the saying that "there is strength in numbers." To be alone in the desert meant a lonely death; to be within a tribe meant an honorable existence. ...
What's even more shocking is that they list al-Zarqawi by his given name, thereby stripping him of his "warrior" status. That in itself is a severe insult and public humiliation. When an Arab warrior would prove himself in battle, he would frequently receive a new name to denote honor and command respect. In this case, Al-Qaeda has taken that tradition and twisted it, using names traditionally reserved for battle feats to pander to their own pride at being terrorists. The fact that the Bani Hassan listed Zarqawi by his given name is uber embarrassing and tells society that Zarqawi is worthless and not deserving of any respect. Honor and family are everything in the Arab world (the non-terrorist part) and to be stripped of both of those publicly is a sentence worse than death.
Islamofascism can't help but eventually implode as it turns on itself, and I think it goes without saying that President Bush's flypaper strategy in Iraq has helped hasten its demise.
MW said: "Islamofascism can't help but eventually implode as it turns on itself, and I think it goes without saying that President Bush's flypaper strategy in Iraq has helped hasten its demise."
Oh really? What makes you so sure?
Mark - Without Iraq, Al Zarqawi would still be a middle level guy in Al Queda waiting for his big chance to make his mark. The disruption of command lines created by the Iraqi invasion and the evisceration of Al Queda's leadership cadre in Iraq has led to this guy getting promoted way above his competence level based on his sole trait of being sufficiently paranoid enough that he hasn't been caught yet.
This sort of thing is very familiar if you've looked at the history of the mafia. Removing leadership links weaken an organization. The replacements are easier to nail. Repeated takedowns lead to the organization eventually disintegrating. The US Army does it faster than the Justice Department because a bullet is faster than a trial. What was a multi-decade process to take down the mob in the US is a multi-year process in Iraq. You can see the signs, if you look carefully.
TML: I understand that this will have an effect on terrorism.. but what's unclear to me is whether this will be as damning to terrorism as MW suggests.
And, by the way, this isn't the mafia we're dealing with here.
Mark: No, they aren't as smart as the mafia. Even the mafia realized that dead bodies in the street was bad for business.
Don't make me start disowning people!
MW: Not only are they not as smart as the madia, they're also not fazed by losses. When the mafia was losing, it wasn't just "business as usual". Terrorists, on the other hand, don't care when they get killed or when their plans get thwarted.
"Terrorists, on the other hand, don't care when they get killed or when their plans get thwarted."
Mark, I don't think that you understand the psychology of terrorists. If they don't care whether their plans are thwarted, then in what sense can they be said to have plans? A plan, by definition, involves something that you want to occur.
Al Quaeda has specific goals for accomplishments right here on Earth. Those plans rely on their victims buckling in terror rather than fighting back. Part of inspiring that terror includes giving the impression that you don't care about losses. The Imperial Japanese were the same in WWII.
It shouldn't be hard to see through this simple ploy. Al Quaeda is not the Judean People's Front suicide squad. They aren't merely looking for spectacular ways to kill themselves. They're thugs possessing finite resources with which to accomplish their goals, and they hope that we will surrender before they run out of those resources.
BB: I don't understand the psychology of terrorists? Oh? What makes you such an expert? You're not an expert? Fine.. then don't tell me what I do and do not understand.
They indeed want something to occur. The point, though, is that the things they want to occur (our surrender, converting to Islam, etc.) are not going to happen. Practically no other enemy we've faced would continue given the futility and given the losses. Terrorists, however, don't care that their goals will not be accomplished. The fight itself is enough, in their view, to get them all sorts of riches in the afterlife. Succeeding in the fight is almost ancillary; the icing on the cake, so to speak.
How are their resources finite? The madrassahs keep churning out young men whose heads are ringing with radical Islam and who are plenty willing to join terrorist organizations and the entire region has no shortage of weapons, legitimately acquired or otherwise. In other words, there's plenty of "raw material".
Mark: “I don't understand the psychology of terrorists? Oh? What makes you such an expert? You're not an expert? Fine.. then don't tell me what I do and do not understand.”
No need to get cranky, Mark. The psychology of criminals isn’t some strange and exotic subject. It has been studied extensively. Policemen and soldiers live and die on it. Lots of people have observed that terrorists are not insane in the DSM sense. They are entirely rational within their belief structure.
Google search on “psychology terrorism.” Pages chosen out of the first ten hits:
http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/frd.html
“There is considerable evidence, on the contrary, that international terrorists are generally quite sane. Crenshaw (1981) has concluded from her studies that "the outstanding common characteristic of terrorists is their normality." This view is shared by a number of psychologists.”
http://www.blue-oceans.com/psychology/terror_psych.html
“Terror groups usually dislike or distrust those who wish to join them, who appear to be unstable. Silke (1998) goes so far as to say:
"It is very rare to find a terrorist who suffers from a clinically defined 'personality disrder' or who could in any other way be regarded as mentally ill or psychologically deviant."
http://whyfiles.org/140terror_psych/
“"They are rational, they are not insane," says Richard Pearlstein, associate professor of political science at Southeastern Oklahoma State University. "They have goals and they are moving towards those goals."”
If you think that terrorists don’t care whether they die or accomplish their goals, then you’re wrong. And instead of lashing out at me, maybe you could read up on the topic.
Mark: "...the things they want to occur (our surrender, converting to Islam, etc.) are not going to happen."
Are you sure? Many of the things that they want to occur have already happened:
They took over Afghanistan and ruled it before we drove them out.
They destroyed the twin towers, blew a hole in the USS Cole, and bombed some of our embassies.
Spain has submitted.
France is learning that it can't control its Muslim minority, and it has yet to realize some harsh demographic realities about ages and birth rates.
Britain is so frightened of them that one city council has banned Piglet from employee desks. And like France, they also have a serious demographic and assimilation problem.
Given all this, I would expect Al Quaeda to be a optimistic about the spread of Islam. It’s true that most of those rioting French Muslim youths weren't religiously motivated. But they also aren't armed with the ideas necessary to resist the radical form of the religion they already claim to believe.
And don't forget that in America we have a powerful minority of our own: not Muslims, but leftists in positions of power who are eager to see us defeated. A substantial number of US congressmen clamor for us to flee Iraq, effectively turning it back over to the thugs. I don't see how Al Qaeda could fail to draw encouragement from that fact.
You say that their struggle is futile, and you imply that they perceive their struggle as futile. I think you're wrong on both counts.
They can still win to some extent, if they can hold out long enough for the tide of American politics to turn. It worked for the North Vietnamese. There is no objective reason to believe that Americans will never absorb enough self-hatred to go the way of Spain, France, and Britain. We have already gone a long ways down that path in the past few decades.
I think that the terrorists are optimistic, and become more so every time they turn on CNN or the BBC. In the propaganda war, they and their allies have a decisive upper hand. It's only on the ground, with the bullets and missiles, that they are at a disadvantage.
BB: Oh how many times have I heard conservatives downplay the issue of being "rational within their belief structure". It's funny to see you prop it up.
Their belief system isn't very rational, so being rational within it means nothing.
BB said: "If you think that terrorists don’t care whether they die or accomplish their goals, then you’re wrong. And instead of lashing out at me, maybe you could read up on the topic."
For all the Googling you've done, nothing in there suggests that they're fazed by death, the threat of death, or when their plans are thwarted.. so your matter-of-fact statement, that I'm wrong on that point, is unsupported.
BB said: "Are you sure? Many of the things that they want to occur have already happened:"
Your laundry list is full of individual trees, but a few trees does not a forest make.
The destruction of the WTC, bombing of the USS Cole, and the bombing of our embassies are all very horrible things committed by terrorists. They weren't tied into their goals, though. They don't care specifically about the twin towers, the USS Cole, or the embassies. All they're interested in is what happens as a result of those attacks. What were the results? They got nothing that brings them closer to their goal of converting America to Islam or of getting us out of the Middle East. What did they get? A lot of death, with the promise of more to come. It's important to note that all of America was behind President Bush on that; Blue states as well as Red. In spite of the death and threat of more death, they still persist in pursuit of their overall goals. In one of the articles you listed it says that terrorists "enjoy risk". What a surprise.
BB said: ".. leftists in positions of power who are eager to see us defeated."
You're employing the hyperbole horse again, I see.
BB said: "A substantial number of US congressmen clamor for us to flee Iraq, effectively turning it back over to the thugs. I don't see how Al Qaeda could fail to draw encouragement from that fact."
You said this in an attempt to justify the sentence before it. It just doesn't work, though.. and here's why:
- Pulling our troops out of Iraq is something that will happen gradually.. and even at the end of that gradual process America will still be engaged in Iraq. I think we need to give the Iraqi security forces a kick in the ass.. by making them take more and more responsibility for their own security. Our withdrawl of troops should be ever-so-slightly faster than their preparedness so it's them filling the void and not us or the insurgents.
- Leftists supported the invasion of Afghanistan and the hunt for Osama. They don't support the invasion of Iraq because it's not central to the fight against terrorism. This "flypaper" strategy is proving to be rather counterproductive to our effort to make Iraq free and democratic. We have to decide what we want to do - make Iraq free and democratic, or attract and kill terrorists. They both can't take place.. and both succeed.. in one country.
- Everyone supports attacking terrorists and terrorist organizations. It's quite despicable to see conservatives paint liberals who don't support the invasion of Iraq.. or who now want us to gradually get out of Iraq.. as "eager to see us defeated" or otherwise supportive of the terrorists.
BB said: "I think that the terrorists are optimistic"
I think it doesn't matter whether they're optimistic or not. Even if everything was heading south for them, more than it is already, I doubt we'd see less terrorists or terrorism in the world.