Now, to be fair, the ships did indeed carry a great deal of aid. There was medicine, cement, food, etc, and reportedly no weapons to be found (other than clubs and knives, of course). Definitely no rockets, though. Judging by merely the contents of the ships, it very reasonable to call the group an “aid flotilla” or “aid convoy”.

That said, we generally name things for their intended purpose. Read any article about the events and you’ll get quotes from those involved with the aid organization that their primary mission was to break the blockade. That’s why they were not willing to drop the materials at a port and have it transferred by land to Gaza. In that case, why are we not referring to the group as “blockade runners”?

A cynical view would be to say that the hesitation with calling the group blockade runners is that it’s easier to understand a military/police takeover of blockade runners, but the same action carried out against an aid convoy? Oh my, that’s an international incident.

Let me be clear here, before some of you get really upset and head to your emails, and state that I don’t believe that Israel acted appropriately, or even intelligently here. I can understand a wide range of motivations for what they were trying to do, from ignorance (they didn’t really know what could have happened) to outrageously aggressive (they were looking to violently engage the ships to send a message), but whatever the feelings were in the government, calm decision-making does not lead you to dropping commando teams onto ships of overwhelmingly unarmed civilians.

My thought to more properly label the group of ships is not to diminish the attack by Israel, neither the poor decision to proceed with the attack or the violent outcome that resulted from it, but rather to provide a more balanced view of what actually was happening.

At the end of the day, there are two parties in the wrong here, not just one. The leadership of the blockade runners had every opportunity to direct the ships to the port to drop the aid goods. The Israeli leadership could have tried to take the ships non-violently with a prop-fouler or if they were set on using commandos, they could have done so in daylight, precipitated by a message over loudspeaker saying that they were landing, were not looking for confrontation and what the instructions the passengers should follow to avoid conflict.

Not properly labeling one of the parties to artificially engender additional sympathy is a disservice to the report of what occured.

I’ve still been reading and following, and came across this piece from Arab Insight’s Editorial Letter for their latest issue.

Although the U.S. developed an elaborate strategy to confront violent Islamists, Egyptian scholar Moataz A. Fattah notes that America has not created a cohesive strategy towards non-violent Islamists, who make up the majority of Islamists in the world. In the long term, Fattah argues, American security will benefit from identifying and engaging with nonviolent Islamist actors. Khaled Hroub, a Jordanian author, analyzes the frustration within the Muslim world regarding Obama’s presidency, particularly his treatment of Islamists and his efforts at democracy promotion.

So true. Violent Muslims only consitute 1.5-2% of all Muslims and yet I would suggest that 100% of our focus is on engaging that portion of the Muslim world population. True, there are in-direct engagements with non-violent Islamists in Afghanistan and Iraq, but that engagement is almost entirely a facet in our war on terrorism, a means to an end.

What is our policy toward these non-violent Islamists when Islamic terrorism fades from the forefront? Will it take the old Afghanistan approach and simply cease to be discussed? Will we continue to engage with communities most at-risk for lapsing into terrorism as a continued defense strategy? Or will we foster a new era of interaction with the Islamist population that seeks integration and a sense of community?

Until we can begin to engage Muslims as people and members of the same humanity that we belong to, rather than as potential (or active) enemies, we will be agents in the creation of those very enemies. A strategy fully based on national security is better than none, but we should be prepared for our overtures of peace and close association to be seen as hollow and as products of need rather than desire, which it is.

Based on this experience as a teacher, I believe that when Islamic youth believe there is hope for the future, that they have dignity and that their religion is respected, that their lives will change for the better, and that there will be justice in the Middle East, the threat of attack will lessen significantly, although it will probably never end completely. Branding these young people as terrorists will just convince them that their view of the world is accurate and that they need to be martyrs.

It’s my firm belief that the only long-term solution for the problem of terrorism is reducing the risk of radicalization of disenfranchised youth. We may never eliminate terrorism, but we can reduce the success rate of the recruiters for terrorist organization by providing these young men with other opportunities, other possibilities and by offering a view of the world that provides hope.

Long-term security requires long-term solutions for providing hope to all people.

Read his post here.

He said:

“belonging to the so-called Al-Qaeda terrorist organization” is “haram”, or prohibited in Islam.
Speaking to Okaz by telephone, Sheikh Al-Obeikan said that anyone who belonged to the organization belonged to “a group that has left the people of truth and taken up takfeeri thought” and that “affiliation to the Al-Qaeda organization is haram”.

We’ll have to wait and see how much impact this will have, but this is exactly the type of support we need from the Muslim community in our fight against “Islamic” terrorists. The US saying Al-Qaeda is bad isn’t good enough, we need this type of opposition from the leaders of the Middle East to fight against the propaganda that almost ceaselessly pours forth from AQ.

Thanks to Leah Farrell for the heads up.

The “myths” and my reactions to them after the jump.

1. Most terrorists are spoiled rich kids.

Frankly, I couldn’t be more shocked that this is considered a myth. Do people really think that spoiled rich kids are running around playing terrorists in the tens of thousands? Are the creme de la creme of countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, etc running off to fight in the jihad? Stern herself dispels the “myth” with this factoid:

Of the 25,000 insurgents and terrorism suspects detained by U.S. forces in Iraq as of 2007, nearly all were previously underemployed, according to Maj. Gen. Douglas Stone, the commander of detainee operations at the time.

2. Al-Qaeda members come from repressive countries in the Middle East.

I think most would agree this is a strong belief. Stern talks about the fact that there are al-qaeda affiliates in North Africa, Somalia, and Indonesia. While true, I think if you polled most Americans, they would believe that Morocco, Libya, and maybe even Somalia are actually in the Middle East. It doesn’t make it true, but their problem is geography rather than philosophy. Indonesia is without question a trouble spot, but Indonesians also haven’t been a part of an attack (or attempted attack) on the United States.

Stern comments:

More broadly, there is no particular political system that reliably promotes or deters terrorism. And democracy is not the cure-all it is often assumed to be. There are many more terrorist incidents in democratic India, for example, than in non-democratic China or Saudi Arabia.

Since the “myth” was about al-qaeda, I think it’s a bit unfair to go outside those bounds when responding, but I also think it’s fair that Americans are most concerned with terrorist organizations that target the United States. Terrorist incidents in Kashmir are alarming, but the greater concern for Americans is for the jihadists that are training next to those destined for Kashmir who have American interests in their sights.

3. Al-Qaeda is made up of religious zealots.

Stern comments:

To the contrary, rank-and-file terrorists who claim to be motivated by religious ideology often turn out to be ignorant about Islam. The Saudi Interior Ministry has questioned thousands of terrorists in custody about why they turned to violence, and found that the majority did not have much formal religious instruction and had only a limited understanding of Islam.

This is another troubling “myth”, and one whose pertinence I question. What Stern really means is that Al-Qaeda is made up of religious zealots that are following the true Islam. The problem with this statement is that the terrorists, whether they are right or not, believe that they are following the true form of Islam. Ignorance doesn’t make one less devout, and believing a false teaching of a religion doesn’t make one less passionate about carrying out its creeds, if you don’t know or believe that it is false.

Stern continues:

Rather than Islam leading young recruits toward al-Qaeda, it may be an ignorance of Islam that renders youths vulnerable to al-Qaeda’s violent ideology.

Again, most would agree that the Salafi-Jihadist form of Islam isn’t true to the religion, but what does it matter? Salafi-Jihadi Islam is a form of Islam, even if you believe it is a corruption of the faith. These people are carrying out actions they believe their faith demands.

I don’t understand the point of shattering this “myth”. Is it to stop focusing on the Islamic association of Al-Qaeda terrorists? Is it to simply clarify with every report and every analysis that: “Yes, we understand that these people believe that they are following Islam, but that is simply not the actual case.” Is it to promote pity that these poor souls don’t even really know why they are training themselves to a fever pitch in order to carry out suicide attacks against the United States? (OK, I can almost get to that last point, because in point of fact, I do pity these people to an extent.)

4. Terrorists are motivated by a strong belief in their cause.

Stern comments:

Terrorist movements often arise in reaction to a perceived injustice, whether real or imagined. Yet ideology is not the only, or even the most important, factor in an individual’s decision to join. In my research and interviews with terrorists, I have found that operatives are often more interested in adopting a new identity than in supporting a terrorist group’s stated goals. Many speak, in particular, about being motivated by a feeling of humiliation. A Kashmiri militant founded his group because, he said, “Muslims have been overpowered by the West. Our ego hurts . . . we are not able to live up to our own standards for ourselves.”

This is another troubling “myth” because it would seem to suggest that the people fighting and killing themselves to attack the United States are not motivated by a strong belief. If that’s true, then they are willing to fight, kill and sacrifice their own life for something they don’t really care about. I just can’t get behind that.

If Stern is trying to suggest that terrorists aren’t necessarily motivated by the specific global (or regional) operational aims of the central commanders for the terrorist organization, I can agree with that. I have no problem believing that Abdulmutallab wasn’t really concerned with a free Palestinian state, or the supposed imperialistic ambitions of the United States. I have no problem agreeing that he was likely motivated more by loneliness, personal restlessness, lack of alternate opportunities that met his needs (whether financially, morally, in matters of fulfillment, etc), or by an emotional manipulation by his handlers. What I can’t agree with is that he would carry out the act to kill himself and nearly 300 other people on the flight for something he wasn’t actually all that jazzed about. I also find it hard to believe that he and others like him aren’t motivated by the general aims of the terrorist organization. I believe that they do care about establishing their version of Islam, attacking those that would (in their minds) seek to destroy Islam, and especially about getting revenge on who they believe is responsible for the situation their family and perhaps even their country is in.

I also have a problem with the dispelling of this myth, and this line in particular:

Many speak, in particular, about being motivated by a feeling of humiliation. A Kashmiri militant founded his group because, he said, “Muslims have been overpowered by the West. Our ego hurts . . . we are not able to live up to our own standards for ourselves.”

This doesn’t dispel the myth for me, but it might bring up a qualifier. Terrorists are often motivated by something that has been done to them and their actions seek to restore what they believe they have lost. Whether that is a voice in their country, the freedom to practice their version of their religion, the prestige that they feel their family, religion, region or country should have, etc, they are seeking restoration, at the least.

This quote also clarifies a quality of self-loathing that motivates many terrorists. They are lonely, seeking to be a part of something, and even when they find a group that they can belong to, it’s difficult to let go of that knowledge that they didn’t fit into society. There very likely lingers a questioning of what’s wrong with me that I wasn’t accepted? Or in the case of this Kashmiri militant, “Why wasn’t I able to live up to the standards I believed in?”

It’s likely that the militants or terrorists that are involved in the fighting are motivated by this need for restoration, or even simply the fact that they have found a “family” that accepts them. The fact that the “family” accepts them only insofar as they are able to aid them in their agenda to destroy doesn’t seem to factor.

I still find it hard to believe, though, that the ones that carry out the suicide bombings or other highly risky, likely lethal actions aren’t motivated by a strong belief in something. I’m not prepared to categorize terrorists as people willing to throw away their life on a whim, and I believe that this line of thinking does a disservice to the work of stopping terrorists.

5. The typical terrorist recruit is an alienated loner.
Stern comments:

According to The Washington Post, Abdulmutallab, the alleged Christmas airplane attacker, wrote in an online Islamic forum: “I have no one . . . to consult, no one to support me and I feel depressed and lonely. I do not know what to do. And then I think this loneliness leads me to other problems.”

But for most terrorist recruits, the problem isn’t so much a lack of friends as the wrong friends. This dynamic isn’t so different from the way gang recruiting works in the United States: Terrorists often join an armed struggle because they have a buddy who has done so. In a survey of 516 Guantanamo detainees, researchers at the Combating Terrorism Center found that knowing another member of al-Qaeda was a better predictor of who became a terrorist than was belief in the idea of jihad.

I believe the gang analogy stands up pretty well here, but as someone that has personally known more than a few gang members, I question the premise that the people joining up aren’t alienated loners. When I was in elementary and middle school, there was a national wave of gang recruitment and violence, and it was particularly strong in my hometown. At one point, an intersection less than 10 miles from my house was the deadliest place in the United States (based on murders per capita per day). I knew many people that got involved in the Crips, Bloods, Latin Kings and dozens of affiliate gangs (my favorite was the Tree Top Crips, who would only wear green shirts and brown pants). In my personal experience, the people who joined these gangs fell into two specific categories: 1) they were people who didn’t really get along well with others or didn’t realize that they got along with others due to lack of confidence, and 2) the people that knew they could control group #1.

Were people recruited into (or attracted to) the gangs because they knew someone in a gang? Absolutely. I was recruited into two different gangs by people I knew, even though I was a skinny white boy (or maybe because I was a skinny white boy…). The reasons for the attraction to the gang was a place to belong, even when someone already had friends. Wearing a certain color, sharing a group name, and knowing where to focus your negative feelings were all powerful attractants.

It’s the same for terrorists. Does having a friend in a gang/terrorist organization increase the likelihood that you will be recruited to join? Absolutely. Will being an alienated loner make this recruitment more appealing? Absolutely. Let’s not confuse correlation with causation here. Another aspect to consider is that more extreme forms of all religions generally drive people to seclusion, away from the world. The people who become involved in these types of religion willingly (at first) exclude themselves from society in order to maintain the tenets of their faith. This self-imposed alienation helps to drive them into the arms of like-minded people.

Knowing someone in a terrorist organization opens the door for recruitment, but the crushing feeling of being alone in the world (even in the midst of friends) can drive people to do things they otherwise wouldn’t do, just as when Abdulmutallab says, “And then I think this loneliness leads me to other problems.”

Stern’s original point for the article was stated as:

The bottom line is that we can no longer assume that terrorists will come from any particular country or fit any particular profile. The more we learn about what makes people vulnerable to recruitment by terrorist organizations, the less any of the old generalizations hold up.

Perhaps I’m just a little late to the game, so I’m not familiar with what “old generalizations” Stern is talking about, but from everything I’ve read, we’re still pretty much focusing on the right people, if we’re talking about AQ and those that are seeking to strike the “far enemy” of the West. This person is usually:

• very poor
• a follower of an extreme, corrupted form of Islam of which they generally know little about
• they are motivated by real or perceived wrongs to themselves, their family, their religion or their country or by a feeling of inadequacy in the pursuit of their faith
• and they are generally able to be recruited by their feeling of alienation from the world at large

True, we can’t count on every single terrorist coming from Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Jordan, Iran, or Iraq. Fair enough (although I think we can agree that a large percentage do in fact come from those states). I truly don’t want to put words in Sterns mouth, but I feel like this article was a response piece to the new TSA rules, and that maybe the other four “myths” were filler thrown in to make a nice Top Five list, which generally proves more consumable, and in this day and age, re-tweetable. If so, I’d suggest that now is not the time to be muddying the waters in our national dialogue on the response to terrorism. If not, then I’m even more concerned.

It is true that since the anarchists fell in love with dynamite, most terrorist operations have been conducted with guns or bombs. It may even be true that terrorists are “operationally conservative.” However, it seems to me flabby thinking to jump from the first point to the second.

So true.

I’d be more receptive if the argument was that terrorists have been “operationally conservative” for strategic reasons, i.e. the acquisition of more complex/rare weapons would tend to attract more attention, and risks disrupting operation security. If the terrorists are saying, “Well, we could go grab this nuke, but where do we store it and how do we deliver it without everyone immediately knowing what we’re trying to do?”

To suggest that it’s a mindset just makes me scratch my head. Terrorists are using boats packed with explosive, commercial jetliners and IEDs because that’s what they can get their hands on and that’s what they can successfully carry out attacks with. To think that it’s because they aren’t interested in a weapon that could annihilate New York City or Washington, DC in a second seems foolhardy.

Stout follows up with:

Consider this: for more than 100 years armies have inflicted the vast majority of their battlefield casualties with artillery and small arms. Most soldiers who personally engage in killing the enemy are infantrymen who kill with small arms.

Does the fact that armies are so fixated on small arms and artillery make them “operationally conservative”? Hardly.

The fact that armies (even transnational terrorist organizations) are utilizing one level of technology doesn’t mean that they aren’t interested in escalating, it means that they are using what’s available (and usually what’s cheap, widely available, easily trained on, and for terrorists relatively easy to disguise).

This type of underestimation of the forces that oppose us is disturbing.

1. Pro-West bloc retains control in Lebanon

What a huge event here. We were on the brink of some very difficult times with Lebanon if Hezbollah had managed to take control of the Parliament. The Obama Administration would have had a very difficult task working with a government run by an organization that has been labelled (correctly) a terrorist organization.

Now the waiting game begins to see how Hezbollah reacts to the defeat at the polls. There has not yet been an official statement made by Hezbollah in reaction to the elections, though one is expected today.

The difficulty isn’t over for the victors, though, due to Lebanon’s power structure. This structure requires that a Shia Muslim lead the Parliament, which strengthens the hand of Hezbollah, despite its deficit of seats, due to the fact that Hezbollah is a Shia-dominated organization.

2. Villagers Fighting Against the Taliban

Can’t wait to see how bin Laden or Zawahiri respond to this. The people of Pakistan are fighting back against the Taliban, the Political Islam government that oppressed the people of Afghanistan for more than twenty years and recently moved into Northwestern Pakistan. Championing Sharia law, very conservative religious regulations that touch on almost every facet of life, the Taliban is aggressive and merciless in spreading its influence.

The defense by the people of Pakistan is clear evidence that even Muslims resist the political Islam that has raged in Afghanistan for so many years, and desire freedom from oppression, in all forms.

3. Iranian Election

The story with the greatest potential for impacting the United States is building as we approach the June 12th Presidential election for Iran. Polls are showing that Iranians want improved relations with the United States and greater democratic freedom. To quote from the CNN story on the survey,

“Regardless of whom they may vote for, the No. 1 priority Iranians have for their government is improving the Iranian economy, very closely followed by ensuring free elections, a free press and better trade and relations with the West.”

More than 70% of Iranians favor agreeing not to pursue nuclear weapons and providing full inspections in return for outside aid and investment. This is a belief I’ve personally held for some time, that most Iranians, despite their cartoonish description as the US hate-mongers, truly want to interact with the wider world, and are willing to sacrifice a military asset like nuclear weapons to get it. 54% of Iranians still want to pursue a nuclear weapon, though less than half believe it should be a priority. Nuclear energy is something favored by 94% of Iranians.

And while 60% support Iranians assisting Iraqi Shiite militias, 54% would agree to end that support as part of a deal with the United States.

The full survey is here.

What the survey shows is that average Iranian is not your crazed, brainwashed, suicide bomber in waiting. They want greater freedom, better elections, more interaction with the world, and specifically the United States, and while they retain the Arab-culture mistrust of Israel and support of Hezbollah and Shiite Iraqi militias, they are willing to sacrifice that support in return for better relations with the US and aid and investment.

There is an opportunity to greatly improve relations with Iran, the gorilla in the Middle East and a longtime vocal enemy of the US, and inspiration for many political Islam movements.

“Most troubling is the existence of police death squads operating on the orders of senior police officials and charged with eliminating suspected leaders and members of criminal organizations.”

Yeah, I’d say that’s pretty troubling. According to this CNN article, the UN completed its investigation into security forces of Kenya. The investigator:

accused government security forces of torturing and killing hundreds of men in a March 2008 crackdown on a militia.

Easy Kenya! Kenyan President Mwai Kibaki of course denied it and questioned the validity of the report and the methods of its investigations. Frankly, I’m shocked that a UN investigator actually found anything. I also question their methods, but usually its because they never find anything.

I do agree with the President on one thing (and after this I’ll need to take a shower): the suggestion by the investigator that the police chief and attorney general should be replaced. I’m all for saying that things need to change, but I don’t think that it’s the place of the UN to determine who should be appointed to (or removed from) specific offices. I agree that it’s an encroachment on the sovereignty of Kenya.

To be fair, it’s the investigator’s suggestion, not the suggestion of the UN, so we can wait to see how the governing body reacts to the report. I predict a strongly (eh) worded statement condemning the killings and a subtle suggestions that if a few hundred more people are killed in this manner, then they will convene a special investigatory COMMISSION(!) to look into it further. And they won’t be kidding around, either. They’ll form that committee. Unless some of the members are also serving on the committees for Darfur. Oh, yeah, unless that happens.