Small Wars Journal

Unwarranted Attack on Petraeus Aide

Thu, 06/07/2007 - 11:24am

Diana West's holier-than-thou attack on Dr. David Kilcullen of Gen. David Petraeus' senior staff in Baghdad must be a delight to al Qaeda and Hizballah propagandists and anti-American brainwashers worldwide.

In a June 1, 2007 Washington Times essay entitled “Pay attention to jihad,” she slams the Australian-born anti-Terrorism strategist for an assertion several months ago that so-called "jihad" (holy war in the name of Allah, etc.) has assumed the stature of heroic "adventure" in the minds, hearts and souls of many young Muslims.

She distorts Kilcullen's words into the preposterous speculation that  he approves of this development and asks whether if he had grown up in Hitler's Germany he “might have become a Nazi” -- when, in fact, the man and his fellow counterinsurgency (COIN) experts are attempting to discover an effective antidote for a highly seductive “Jihadi martyrdom” factor which is providing al Qaeda-style Terrorism with an endless supply of enthusiastic young suicide mass murderers.

Recall, please, the Cold War situation in which Communism's so-called "wars of national liberation" became the heroic cause celebre of young "progressives" and "patriotic fronts" -- and how outraged their Western apologists, sympathizers and "useful idiots" became when Ronald Reagan dared to call their Soviet sponsors "The Evil Empire."

And recall, also, that during the Reagan years almost everyone was referring routinely to Soviet “adventurism” in Central America, Africa and worldwide. This was simply because we opted not to call their rampant imperialism and colonialism by those truthful words -- just as Ms.West is now mindlessly opting to call al Qaeda killers “holy” rather than satanic.

But when David Kilcullen attempts to strip the so-called "Jihadists" of their holy and godly standing in the Muslim World, she objects loudly and insists that we stick with the "holy guys" imagery which this much-debated term so falsely implies. (By this perverse standard, she may well have wasted her time insisting that we condemn the Soviets as damnable "liberationists.")

Addiction to the “Jihad” Label

This addiction to the "Jihad" label is so powerful as to exclude from her own lexicon virtually all of the Arabic and Islamic labels which would serve to draw a bright-line distinction -- a "disaggregation" Dr. Kilcullen calls it -- between these suicide mass murdering terrorists (genocidal irhabis in Arabic) and those "moderate Muslims" who most experts say constitute the great majority, albeit a frustratingly passive majority, of the Muslim World.

Perhaps she has not noticed that a very similar distinction is made by the now famous PBS-funded -- and PBS-suppressed -- film produced by former Reagan Assistant Secretary of Defense Frank Gaffney makes between quietly worshipful Muslims and the bloodthirsty "Islamists." Clearly, this film affirms that the latter, while professing to act “in the way of Allah,” are actually the deadly enemies of the "peaceful, compassionate, merciful and just" Allah who is worshiped by the moderates.

Strangely enough, Ms West strongly supports the Gaffney film and its "good guy" versus "bad guy" distinctions while at the same time lambasting Kilcullen for his efforts in this same strategic direction, though by slightly different and more specifically religious tactics -- in words which challenge Osama bin Laden's patently false claims of holiness and godliness. But all the while, Ms West is inadvertently  polishing al Qaeda's halo, instead. For example,

  • UBL calls what he and his killers are doing "Jihad." Diana West enthusiastically agrees and even seems to insist that no other word will do.
  • UBL wants his genocidal evildoers to be called "Jihadis." Again, she agrees. (She used to berate President Bush for calling them "evildoers" (mufsiduun in Arabic) rather than holy war "Jihadists.")
  • UBL calls their suicide bombing "Martyrdom Operations." And so does Diana West -- but never has she uttered the "irhabi murderdom" condemnation which reveals the true nature of such atrocities.
  • UBL promises his "young lions of Islam” a clear path to Paradise -- with 72 virgins in the receiving line. The lady has never denied or ridiculed that false postulation but, instead, ridicules Kilcullen for worrying that this vivid image of an Allah-approved sex-orgy Paradise must sound like one hell of an "adventure" to thousands of young Muslim men.
  • UBL justifies all of these holy, heroic and Paradise-bound activities as a proper reward for killing all of us "infidels." Here again, Ms. West fails to point out (as she most certainly knows) that the Quran itself quite clearly states that Christianity and Judaism are not infidel religions -- but are brotherly Abrahamic religions, instead.

So, while Dr. Kilcullen is searching prudently for labels in both English and Arabic which will not inadvertently enhance al Qaeda's legitimacy but will make it an apostate enemy of Quranic Islam, Diana West strenuously objects. Remarkably, she insists that bin Laden's carefully concocted lexicon of self-justification and self-canonization is fine and dandy -- and that those who refuse to parrot these pro-UBL labels are somehow "indifferent" toward the terrorists.

Believes That Islam Is The Enemy

The problem here is that Ms. West has apparently decided that Islam itself is the enemy and that the "Irhabi Murderdom" terrorists are, in fact, a true and faithful embodiment of that religion. She seems to believe that to call these ruthless killers munafiquun (hypocrites) mufsiduun (evildoers) and murtaduun (apostates) and khawarij (outside the religion deviants) and to condemn them for waging Hirabah (Unholy War) is to draw an improper distinction between them and Quranic Islam.

This is, of course, exactly the picture which the Irhabi masterminds (bin Laden, al Zawahiri, al Sadr, Ahmadinejad, Nasrallah, Mullah Omar and their satanic ilk) want her to paint -- namely, a persecuted but unified Islam representing an all-approving Allah, which is under ruthless attack by an "occupying" and "humiliating" and “arrogant” America representing an all-evil "Great Satan."

While General Petraeus, Dr. Kilcullen and their COIN colleagues are prudently attempting to convey the message that it is the AQ-style, hyena-like Terrorists who are the real enemies of "moderate" Islam, both Generals Nancy Pelosi and Diana West are busy chopping these good men to bits -- one from the "Progressive" (i.e., communoid) Left and the other from the Well-Intended but Thoroughly Confused (WITC) Right.

As for David Kilcullen, he should simply continue his search for the truthful words and frames of reference which will finally begin to demonize the Terrorists in their language, their culture and their religion – hopefully, in ways which are as least as effective as the deceitful ways in which they have long been demonizing us.

In due course, it will become quite obvious that it is not Dr. Kilcullen but Diana West herself whose remarks convey a deep “non-comprehension” and an “indifference” to the satanic nature of so-called “jihad” – and to the bloody consequences of calling it “holy” and its ungodly perpetrators “martyrs.”

Jim Guirard – TrueSpeak Institute  703-768-0957  Justcauses@aol.com   (and TrueSpeak.org).  A Washington DC-area attorney, writer, lecturer and anti-Terrorism strategist, Jim Guirard was longtime Chief of Staff to former US Senators Allen Ellender and Russell Long. His TrueSpeak Institute is devoted to truth-in-language and truth-in-history in public discourse.

Comments

Very interesting article. I will probably be characterized as a "Lets kill all the Muslims" by some of you. That is not what I believe but it seems that both sides in this argument work better from generalizations. Perhaps that is simply the way the human mind works.

I believe that we are at war with Islam, we are fighting against a way of life that demands submission.

The writings of Islam and the example of its founder Mohammad give its followers the right to attack us to expand the religion. For over 1300 years that is exactly what the fighters inside of Islam have tried to do. For very long periods they were immensely successful.

It is true that the fighters are just a small minority of the population. That is also true of our nation. Does that mean that our soldiers are any less Americans than those they fight for because there is such a small minority of people willing to fight? Are those who stay at home any less Americans than those who fight? No both are equally Americans.

So why is it that we try to separate the fighters of Islam from the rest? Would that work in our country?

And lets remember that in polls around the world we have seen a great deal of admiration for Bin Laden. Indeed in 2003 in Indonesia over 58% of the people polled had a good deal of admiration for Bin Laden. That is remarkable considering that he had just murdered 3,000 innocents. Sure we can point to the 2005 poll where that ardor had cooled to a mere 36% but considering that Indonesia is supposed to be a moderate Islamic state it should be a bit more worrisome than it seems to be.

Which leads me to wonder if Lt Col Kilcullen is correct in believing that we can "de-aggregate" those inside of Islam. Certainly by and large you cannot "de-aggregate" those inside of America.

DDilegge

Fri, 06/08/2007 - 4:39pm

Diana Wests recent <i>Washington Times</i> hit-piece "Pay Attention to Jihad" (1 June 2007) is unfortunate in many respects, not the least of which is a complete misrepresentation of a respected, studied and experienced counterinsurgency expert - General David Petraeus senior COIN adviser Dr. David Kilcullen. Following closely is the disservice this op-ed does to members of Multi-National Force - Iraq who are slogging it out - righting our previous (and grievous) mistakes under intense political and media scrutiny while conducting a counterinsurgency campaign in harms way - and given precious little time to deliver the goods.

<b>Context is everything</b>

Ms. West goes for the jugular right off the bat - opening with a quote of Dr. Kilcullen that appeared in a George Packer <i>New Yorker</i> article last December:

<i>"If I were a Muslim, I'd probably be a jihadist. The thing that drives these guys -- a sense of adventure, wanting to be part of the moment, wanting to be in the big movement of history that's happening now -- that's the same thing that drives me, you know?"</i>

Wests take on this is quite simplistic and naïve - "identifying with jihadists". To those that know Dr, Kilcullen, have studied his previous works on COIN, or are otherwise serious students / practitioners of counterinsurgency the take was somewhat different - in his down-to-earth Australian way he was simply quoting Sun Tzu:

<i>"If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle."</i>

One need not be a student of Kilcullen or Sun Tzu to have gathered that - a glance at the title of the <b>15 page</b> Packer article - <b>"Knowing the Enemy"</b> - would have conveyed the same. Yea, thats right folks - 15 pages - selective quotation can be a real bummer, especially when taken completely out of context...

Dr. Kilcullen elaborates in a recent e-mail:

<i>"I am just extremely aware, having lived it, of the difference between the average, normal Muslim person and the mental and cultural state of the typical takfiri terrorist. And I believe we must see that mental state for what it is -- driven by fundamentally non-religious motivational factors such as a sense of adventure or boredom, frustration and anomie, a desire to be part of a great narrative of national redemption, peer pressure from a "bunch of guys" whom the individual identifies with, resistance to occupation (real or perceived), and a desire to take part in the great events of history -- many of the same motivational factors that affect any of us (hence my comment to George Packer, which I think George reflected accurately in the body of his long article in the New Yorker)."</i>

West took the easy - as well as intellectually lazy - road launching a personal attack on someone whose views she disagreed with, reaching into the bag o tricks of the far left and pulling out the Nazi Card.

West:

<i>"With this bizarro depiction of jihadists-as-swashbucklers, Lt. Col. David Kilcullen, an Australian Army officer 'on loan to the U.S. government, should probably have been sent back with: "And I suppose if you had been a German during a certain world war, you would have been a Nazi, eh? Who more than those Third Reich 'guys' wanted to be in 'the big movement of history'? Grr. Thanks, mate, but no thanks. Go play Abu Robin al-Hood down under.""</i>

West ignored Kilcullens professional and academic background in such matters with a flippant analogy that I can only imagine was intended to appease the "all Muslims are terrorists" / "kill them all and let God sort them out" crowd. Hmm...

Moreover, reading between the lines West implied (and if I am wrong I apologize) that an Australian Army officer might be out of his element in dealing with an insurgent threat. Having worked with numerous Aussies over the last five years on Small Wars and COIN issues all I can say is that I would follow them anywhere and heed every piece of advice they might throw my way. More on that another time...

Back to the issue at hand - from Kilcullens e-mail:

<i>"I feel that my personal record demonstrates that I am in no way 'soft on or 'a sympathizer with jihadists. I have a fairly significant personal body count of terrorists and insurgents killed and captured over an eight-year period, and a long history of both scholarly writing and professional field work (civil and military) in this area, over 14 years. I have lost friends and co-workers to terrorists, have been bombed, mortared, rocketed and shot at by insurgents and terrorists, and have seen the enemy up close and personal. I'm pretty sure I have some idea of what I'm talking about, and I do 'get it in terms of the seriousness of jihad as a threat."</i>

There are thinkers and there are doers - and then there are thinkers - doers. Kilcullen leads the pack in the later category. Paraphrasing a passage from Tom Ricks book Fiasco in reference to counterinsurgency - one third 'get it, one third is trying to 'get it and one third doesnt 'get it. The first group has read Kilcullen, the second group is reading Kilcullen and the later is reaching for their hammers because all they see are nails.

emjayinc

Fri, 06/08/2007 - 1:09pm

A review of West's columns at Wash Times on topic of Islam, in general, jihad, Iraq, and on and on, shows this piece is only one sortie in her campaign. As above, "who benefits?" is a very important question, and I think Metz and Guirard have both got it about right. In her way, she's as slickly venemous a propagandist for extremist thinking as OBL or Noam Chomsky - or is she just a right wing Maureen Dowd? Her solutions, insofar as she seems to have any, portend endless warfare against all Muslims who refuse to be like her - who does that sound like? I'll put my money on Gen. Petraeus and Kilcullen, 2 of her recent favorite targets, for being part of the solution, rather than part of the problem.

West was born in Hollywood and pretty much has been a Washingtonian ever since, and it shows. In reviewing the comments section of her article, I see the all-so-familiar plethora of contentment, as I call it, emanating from the myriad respondents who are truly living the good life of plenty and privlige that has lulled them into believing they have Military and Intelligence insight. These John Q'ers couldn't distinguish a radical islamic militant from an Islamic reformer if their narcissistic lives depended on it. West is fatly arrogant and it is reflected in her readership.

Tom Odom

Fri, 06/08/2007 - 11:22am

The truly bizarre point about West's attack is that she makes a point but misses it herself altogther. In bring up Nazi Germany she suggests that a person raised in Germany at that time might in fact become a Nazi. Hold the press, please, we need to get that jewel out for general discussion.

Let me echo her antagonistic rhetorical question and Dave Kilcullen's entirely appropriate comment on young men with a reality check from Rwanda's genocide. In the culture of 1960-1994 Rwanda, young Hutu men (and women and children) by the thousands were drawn into the hate mechanisms of Hutu Power. They were not a monolithic group but once inside the movemenr in the 100 days of genocide they certainly acted as a monolith.

Keep thinking, Dave!

No worries

ssif21 (not verified)

Fri, 06/08/2007 - 7:53am

I blogged my comments to this under the title "Is Diana West Really an Idiot or Does She Just Play One on the Internet?"

But, seriously, this sort of thinking illustrates why the United States is, quite frankly, failing at the war of ideas. The right wing punditocracy (whose influence over the public I've become starkly aware of in the past few years), has elected to egg on their uninformed listeners and readers with an ignorant cariacture of the enemy rather than attempting to understand it for what it really is. This does not bode well for the future of the United States or the West.

Unfortunately, people like Dave Kilcullen who seriously attempt to understand the enemy are drowed out by the wail of the morons.

And, I have a response to the comment above "The obvious question to ask is who would benefit from the West and Islam being totally polarised and at war with each other?" The answer: the polticized evangelical community. I spend a bit of time in a politics discussion board heavy with them and, quite frankly, they push this line because it validates their belief that the Biblical "end of days" is near. What is frightening is that they are listened to by some people who actually shape strategy.

Metz

I applaud Dr. Kilcullens work because I agree with his analysis of the situation, if only from my comfy armchair. I also agree with Mr. Guirard.

All my experience of Islam in Indonesia, Pakistan and Malaysia has shown it to be a religion that is far from monolithic, and has the same differences in degrees of observance as Christianity does.

There is also much to like about Islam. During WWII my Father was sheltered from the Japanese for months in the Phillipines by poor muslims who took their religious duty to a stranger arriving at their door very seriously, to the point of risking their own lives. I speculate that a true muslim in Iraq would do the same for a lost American soldier- if he was a true muslim.

As for the appeal of "Jihad" to young males, I personally know of one Australian who fitted this bill. I've also seen similar "warrior/poets" as recruits in the army. It takes about two to three weeks for these romantic notions to wash off, we had to coax one stark raving naked one off the barracks roof one night.

One has to ask the question, given the frequency and virulence of these attempts to portray Islam as a monolithic force bent on our demise, in whose interests such a portrayal might be?

The obvious question to ask is who would benefit from the West and Islam being totally polarised and at war with each other?

Steve Blair

Thu, 06/07/2007 - 4:46pm

Once again we see more foolishness from elements of the MSM that just can't seem to be bothered to understand even part of a concept before they attack it. And we even have the ever-popular "anyone who disagrees with me must be a Nazi" accusation tossed in for good measure. Kudos to Mr. Guirard for this interesting piece.