RSS

March 6, 2010

Member deleted

Highly insightful, however, most of the sources you used during the course of your elaboration require reform. Take this and stick with a specialist for the region and it could become one of the leading outreaches on Al-Q.

Nevertheless it should be clear to everybody what pressure lines Al-Q witnesses, what direction it has and for whom it is suitable and for whom they are a problem against the background of a world map.

Finally a logical and self-critical elaboration...

March 6, 2010

Antonio Buttitta, -, Bronze Contributor (22)

Thank You, Mr. Awwad.

As for the sources, well, I have stated clearly that I had what I had....
But I think that they are sufficient to draw a picture of my personal interpretation.

As for specialists, well, I hope somebody will read it and appreciate the effort.

In the very end, good ideas are worth even when means do not support.

Please, Read my Master Research on the Islamic Republic of Iran and negotiation with western countries. Same site...

Best Regards

AB

March 9, 2010

Marinko Raos

It was interesting to read an article looking at Al-Qaida from a classical geopolitical point of view. Despite the globalization of security threats in today's world, of which international terrorism is the best example, I agree that geography/geopolitics (still) matter. I especially liked Mr. Buttitta's insights on mountains and deserts.

However, I find several aspects where there is a lot of space for improvement:
1) While islamist/fundamentalist terrorism is not a new phenomenon, Al-Qaida is relatively new. So, if you collect and compare data on its terrorist attacks, it should include period from 9/11 to now, not before it. Also, despite your geopolitical angle, the whole world should be the geographical area covered, not just the Middle East.
2) Geopolitics is fine, but religious/ideological element should not be disregarded, otherwise an analysis is not valid. Look only at the Shia (predominant in Iran) : Sunni (predominant in Afghanistan and Pakistan) difference.
3) As alluded to in the article itself - and it is by now common knoledge - classical military approach to solving Al-Qaida problem has its serious limitations. So talk about, for example, on U.S. Navy taking over Karachi can't be serious. What military approach can reasonably achieve (and efforts are already taken in that direction) is sealing at least the most problematic section of Afghanistan-Pakistan border.
4) English language of the article could and should be better. I'm stating that also as a non-native speaker.

March 9, 2010

Member deleted

Dear Marinko,

in short:

1) Al-Qaida is Bin Laden, who has frequently tried to bring down the twin towers. The evolution of Al-Qs strategic aims and political positioning before is to be challenged.

The word "Al-Qaida" used to describe a sheet of paper with names of foreign fighters predominantly from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf in order to perform Jiihad in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation. Bin Laden elaborated the list because worried families from the Arabian Peninsula visited him in Afghanistan in order to ask for the whereabouts of missing sons. The 9/11 attacks, however, were perpetrated by Palestinians and Africans also. ... Do you see the evolution on concentration areas and personnel after Bin-Ladins 10 years of traveling the Middle East?

To understand Al-Q we need to understand 1991 to 2001 for the first and foremost.

Al-Q aims is regional in the end of the day, so a regional map is sufficient in order to understand possible global ties. See fatwa "Agianst the Jews and Crusader" and the respective alliance that developed until 1998.

2) Antonio included the possible Shiite/Sunnite rift by mapping SA and Iran

3) Strategy after Analysis, not before ;-)

4) ... ?


kind regards


Samir

March 10, 2010

Antonio Buttitta, -, Bronze Contributor (22)

I feel I have to tackle some unconfortable interpretations of my interpretation.

But not before having clearly stated that, in my opinion, the message released "English language of the article could and should be better." is absolutely out of order.

I thank one more time Mr. Awwad for his constructive comment, showing a preparation I had only guessed, and of whom I am now sure.

Extension to this : "the whole world should be the geographical area covered, not just the Middle East." - is far beyond any logical and possible scheme.

We start from the core, then extend. Up to where fluxes can be followed. Turkey was a limit, that I did not want to include in my analysis. Over the ME trapezium I could not see further.

Any new interpretation is welcomed, but I believe that, in a globalized world, stepping out of the area I have chosen is pointless.

Let's stick to the story.

Why Baghdad ?
Why Israel ?
How from Af-Pak to there ?
How to use Iran efficiently ?
How to gather forces in Syria ?
How to strike unseen ?
Seaways are so illogic ?

If Mr. Raos got from my interpretation some new idea, some new method, and thinks that it's a good path, I got my result.

Best Regards

Antonio Buttitta
European.

March 11, 2010

Patrick Edwin Moran, Wake Forest University, Platinum Contributor (201)

"Suddenly in 2001 Western countries have fallen in a state of blindness, being involved on a conflict against an invisible enemy, Al Qaeda. The confusion created by it might hide a careful, albeit subtle logic."

The logic behind suddenness of attack, the invisibility of the enemy, attack at unexpected places and times, etc. is well known. But that logic also involves an overall goal into which these individual attack fit -- if only as randomized lances from picadores.

The author argues that the frequency and characteristics of attacks vary depending on the kind of cover available to insurgent elements. The Afghanistan-Pakistan frontier area makes sneak attacks against minor targets easy. There are not many major targets, however. Large urban centers remote from this redoubt offer higher value targets, but attackers must penetrate them, secure local cover, make attacks, and possibly attempt to exfiltrate. The targets will often be major buildings, industrial complexes, etc., so powerful weapons are necessary to produce a maximum effect.

Mountains offer strategic advantages for those desiring to remain protected and relatively immobile. Deserts offer advantages for those in need of traveling long distances without being discovered. These factors dictate two arcs along which attacks have been made in random order.

Mackinder's analysis is similar to that of Master Sun's Art of War, chapter 11. Both point to strategic advantages provided by military control of territories having certain geopolitical characteristics. The journal of the armed forces of Singapore (http://www.mindef.gov.sg/safti/pointer/back/journals/1998/Vol24_3/8...) has pointed to the entire Middle East as "heartland" with respect to the rest of Eurasia.

Control of heartland or pivotal or 衢 (concourse) areas being important, what should be done to disrupt the plans of al-Qaida? Since, in the current case, the fighting is transnational, it is not surprising that the author calls for U.S. troop movements into Pakistan for the purpose of controlling the part of the "heartland" that happens to be on Pakistani territory. It is surprising, however, that the author has considered neither the reaction of Pakistan to this intrusion nor the world-wide reaction of Muslims to an invasion on a Muslim non-belligerent nation by the U.S.

Central to the question of how to make heartland areas (or any other areas, for that matter) function for the benefit of mankind is the larger question of who has the motivation and power to secure this desirable result. Assuming that Pakistan would not be on the side of right in this case belittles Pakistan. Assuming Pakistan (or any other nation) will automatically make choices that are in its own enlightened self interest is entirely wishful thinking. The fact is that the whole area is beset with old grudges, past grievances due to colonial impositions of national boundaries on lands that might better have evolved their own national identities, and so it is difficult for the involved parties to see objectively and decide rationally.

March 11, 2010

Antonio Buttitta, -, Bronze Contributor (22)

Personally I am against invasions in general. But western countries are fighting a war in Afghanistan. Therefore at the moment it does not seem there is any choice.

I imagine here a sort of containment (gradual containment) starting from strategic spots close to the core (Af-Pak) and spreading step by step by involving the whole Middle East. (Coherently with the lines I draw by land and by sea) .

I think that If western troops have to...
... this is a possible way.

The following comment from Professor Moran, Who I thank for its clarity, is absolutely right: "the author has considered neither the reaction of Pakistan to this intrusion nor the world-wide reaction of Muslims to an invasion on a Muslim non-belligerent nation by the U.S"
- But I believe that this issue is not coherent with the geopolitical analysis I developed.
It is indeed extremely important, but I stopped one step before the issue introduced by Profesor Moran.

An answers to Professor Moran's question requires a different approach, more political, that I had no intention to develop.

Antonio Buttitta

March 13, 2010

Patrick Edwin Moran, Wake Forest University, Platinum Contributor (201)

Two important changes since Mackinder's analysis:

(1) Struggle has gone from continent-sized arenas to encompass the world, so it becomes more difficult to intend any given area as peripheral. When China was the "Central Kingdom," Japan, Korea, Manchuria, Mongolia, etc. were all peripheral to it There were powerful geographical factors influencing how these "Peripheral Kingdoms" would interact with China. But Inner Asia eventually developed its own identity as being not only peripheral to two major power areas, but also a heartland nation itself. Surely the Arctic Circle long counted as a peripheral area, yet as soon as intercontinental weapons delivery systems came into existence, the eyes of the United States and the Soviet Union, just to mention two, were constantly on that barren land. Recently it has become a new frontier for resource development, and it lies between Russia and Canada. Is it impossible for that region to become a heartland? Centrality has become fluid.

(2) Weapons systems have gone from essentially two-dimensional sources of fire power deployed along narrow conflict belts, to weapons systems that could be projected deep into enemy territory in blitzkrieg attacks, and then to ways of delivering firepower anywhere in the world. Parallel to that development, the power of even luggage-sized weapons make it possible to deliver mass destruction into the center of any nation without the need for massive ICBMs.

There is no scale of conflict on which those who desire peace for the world can be complacent. We do indeed need to understand the geopolitical power configurations at play in the Middle East. Ethical treatment on the level of individual interactions is also important. Moreover, it is imperative that progressive parties maintain an effective global strategy that takes accurate account of the canopy issues of global warming, population growth, and environmental degradation.

Let us hope that Pakistan will make common cause with other interested nations to deal with al-Qaida.

March 19, 2010

Member deleted

Dear Professor Moran,

I think you have the last word, however, "Let us hope" is way too less. One hoped for a leader to do it alone for the world, now many are disappointed that they have to contribute, another hopes for the arrival of the Messiah and another for a piece of bread. But the "Western Civilization" has more to offer than hope as it is what many people hope for itself.

But respectfully, as "There is no scale of conflict on which those who desire peace for the world can be complacent", I interfere and say our worldorder is based on egoism and compromises. Evolution will show that not those who are egoistic will be sorted out but those who are unable to make compromises.

However I do not understand how to challenge Al-Q by cutting emissions, birth management and green solutions?

March 21, 2010

Patrick Edwin Moran, Wake Forest University, Platinum Contributor (201)

Dear Samir Awwad,

I think it is impossible to challenge Al-Qaida with reason. It may not be possible to eradicate it with acts of violence. They have invented a way for gaining secular power similar to earlier movements like communism in being transnational and in having a compelling ideology. Communism is atheistic and Al-Qaida, in addition to other differences in ideology, is theistic. This new schema for putting the energies of subjects at the disposal of a head, once demonstrated to be effective, will not simply disappear from the world even if all of the leadership somehow gets imprisoned or destroyed. Communism persists, but it has been exposed as a bankrupt and ultimately hurtful way of organizing a society.

If Al-Qaida is analogous to a fire, then instead of hoping to put out every spark, it would be better to remove the fuel on which it feeds. That is easier said than done because the fuel is constituted by long-standing injustices, inequities, and conditions both objective and matters of feud. At least until the whole world system crashes, environmental degradation only increases the fueling factors.

We need a non-egocentric, objective, compassionate, and just administration of the world. Your generation is the first to actually have to deal with the world as a whole. In places like Singapore half a century ago people already realized that they could not sever the connection between their conditions and conditions in the rest of the world. Now even major nations should be realizing the same dynamic. A world order that evades egocentric blindness makes arrangements that are just, or, in your words, solutions that "make compromises."

It will take an extraordinary group of leaders, leaders who have conquered ego, to do the job. Rather than going on, let me quote Longfellow's description of an American Indian leader who was aided by such excellent men. He said that they kept things together:

"For they kept each other's counsel,
Spake with naked hearts together,
Pondering much and much contriving
How the tribes of men might prosper."

(http://www.classicreader.com/book/147/7/)

Can your generation make such accomplishments?

April 1, 2010

Somdeep Sen, Middle East Technical University/Humboldt University Berlin, Bronze Contributor (20)

Antonio, this is a great piece. I especially appreciate your attempt to critically with 'how' we deal with this phenomenon we call 'Terrorism'. I would claim that trying to follow strategies and trends of 'terrorist acts' it is almost impossible to conjure a truly comprehensive counter-terrorism strategy. This is especially due to the fact that the 'brand of warfare' engaged in by 'the terrorists' remains unconventional, while armies and national security limited by structure, organization and legal obligations. This of course shouldn't be seen as an outright weakness. Instead, what this encourages to us to do, is explore the socio-economic conditions and state structures that provide for the ideal environment for the ideological breeding of radicalism and subsequently terrorism. This approach in turn would allow us to understand and combat terrorism at the very core, instead of just following individual incidences.

April 2, 2010

Antonio Buttitta, -, Bronze Contributor (22)

I have been following the debate on my paper so far.

I wish to thank everybody for reading and commenting. Personally, I did not expect such a participation in a non-academic study. Many experts have added deep insights and many times they have made the point.

I know this paper is going to slide to page 2, leaving the site's homepage.

Hopefully, it will become a benchmark for further geopolitical analysis.

Best Regards.

Antonio Buttitta

April 3, 2010

Patrick Edwin Moran, Wake Forest University, Platinum Contributor (201)

Dear Somdeep Sen,

It is indeed difficult to work against those who seize upon the vengeful feelings, the feelings that demand us to support our own groups, and the imaginations and empathy of people who feel for the oppressed. And indeed, one should not fail to support those who are oppressed. One must stand on the side of the oppressed while at the same time not playing the game of those who would take advantage of their oppression to seek their own ends.

The strength of those who seek to produce a nurturing world, not a world in which the rule is to "take from those who do not have enough to give to those who already have too much," can lie only in their compassionate objectivity and dedication to real change. The core of problems, once found, enables us to make efforts that will truly be beneficial.

Beyond that, we must keep clearly in mind that the gradual destruction of the global environment can easily put all humans at each others throats.

It is a rare blessing that there are forums like this one where benevolent people can seek to pool their efforts.