War: Terrorism: WASM presents a vitally interesting analysis of fiting terrorism's "Centres of Gravity, Soft Underbellies"

Rookmaker Club geostrategic analysis

I find WASM's blog, Tuesday, July 12, unusually interesting in the geostrategic sense that the Rookmaker Club concerns itself with. Never mind that he clings to his political enemies remarks - filtered by WASM they are "lefty Liberals want to surrender to terrorism" - to open up his own real concerns, because he knows of no more interesting way to do so than to milk Ezra Levants's far more vivid prose to its hilt, ironize, and then pass on to his own, WASM's own preferred obsequies.

The point, WASM leaves almost unsaid is that Levant's kind want to fite 'em dead, while WASM's kind was to understand them. However, there's a whole range of possiblities that, were Levant really so unnuanced, still does not rule out the possiblity that all sorts of people to the Center, the Center-Right, and Right of WASM do indeed want to understand the terrorist enemies, fite them, and defeat them. Is Ezra's conception really so well represented? - or does he use some bombastic rhetoric at moments that serve as a foil for WASM to misrepresent him?

The intellectuals of the left tell us that we need to understand Muslim terrorists if we are going to stop them. That's true. But the left's idea of understanding is an exercise in hiding from the truth, not seeking it.

While finding WASM's article interesting, even vital at points, I do not find it overwhelming in making many of its other points, including those of Levant, whose piece was not even courteously linked, as it is below. Read it for yourself; then go back and compare it with your analysis of WASM. The very name sounds like an -ism frown old.

I have a further caveat, this time even more major, that hopefully I will be able to develop here later this evening. But I will give you a WASM passage to chew in the interim, and mark in boldface the sentence that is key to the essential misunderstanding of WASM's wannabe understanding.

This is al Qaeda’s soft underbelly. It’s ability to attract recruits. Its ability to make convincing arguments its cause is righteous. What we have to do is fight smart. Fight in such a way we don’t give it more rhetorical fodder which it can use against us. That means the Bush Administration should unequivocally announce it does not seek permanent military bases in Iraq. Prove they truly are a liberator and not an occupier as al Qaeda propaganda asserts. They should focus on making work and finding jobs for Iraq’s unemployed. They should tighten up their own rules of engagement. It would be better for the US if not so many Iraqis wind up shot dead at checkpoints and during house-to-house searches. They should push Israel to follow the road map. And they should work harder and a bit more seriously toward making Iraq the shining democracy they promised it would be before the invaded it. That’s a lot of shoulds, but it’s worth it.

Really? This is the vaunted "understanding" and this is the "cure" for misunderstanding? Or is this misunderstanding compouned? Until we meet again - Owlb






Ezra Levent, The Calgary Sun, column for July 11: "Terrifyingly Simple - West did nothing to deserve this attack" [on London]