Evaluating Extremist Threats Against the Government of Myanmar: Bashir’s Recent Letter

On Friday, Abu Bakar Bashir (currently imprisoned for support of militancy in Aceh)  issued a letter to the government of Myanmar, informing them of imminent war if they did not do something about the persecution of the Rohingya in Rahkine State. Like clockwork, members of Hizb ut-Tahrir protested outside the embassy of Myanmar declaring that they were,” ready to die to help our fellow Muslims in Myanmar [Burma]. A Jihad is the only way to stop this massacre”.  I am not surprised that Bashir issued this letter threatening the government of Myanmar, as my previous posts suggested that Southeast Asian jihadists would probably provide at least rhetorical support to the Rohingya.  What surprised me was the delayed nature of this letter since the Pakistani Taliban, Hizbollah and Iran all issued statements condemning the government of Myanmar a week ago.  Though Bashir’s current imprisonment and other factors could have delayed his official response (it took several days to confirm legitimacy of the letter), I am still surprised that it took Bashir some time to issue a letter threatening the government of Myanmar.

Looking at the various declarations against the government of Myanmar, I think it is important to ask two questions:

1)      What is the significance of groups like the Pakistani Taliban and Hizb ut-Tahir taking a stance on an issue that is outside of their strategic focus?

2)      To what extent are jihadist groups using the Rohingya as a platform for jihadist rhetoric and saber rattling? (Are they 100% vested in serving the interests of the Rohingya or are there substantial political/strategic gains for them as well?

3)       Keep in mind that Bashir has often made threats of this nature to actors like the US, but these threats have never taken shape as militant action against the US.

When considering the role of groups like the Pakistani Taliban, Hizb ut-Tahir, or JAT, one must examine the geographical area of operations for these organizations. The Pakistani Taliban focuses on weakening foreign actors primarily in Pakistan but also reaches into India and Afghanistan to support their interests in neighboring countries.  While the Rohingya speak a South Asian language related to Bengali, Burma is geographically removed from their usual area of operations. Hizb ut-Tahir in Indonesia aims to create a caliphate in Southeast Asia, but usually does not include Burma on the list of potential countries to absorb (Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, Brunei, Southern Thailand and the Southern Philippines).  I believe that Hizb ut-Tahir’s support for the Rohingya will not go beyond rhetoric unless the Rohingya somehow fit into the goal of creating a Southeast Asian Caliphate.  I see these declarations of violent reprisal as directly tied to the potential for “Accidental Guerilla Syndrome” as I described in my post last week.  In this instance, external jihadists (many feeling the squeeze in their home country) seek an environment that would enable them to recruit soldiers and wage a holy war by aggravating existing frustrations within the population.

A recent report by the International Crisis Group suggested that Southeast Asian extremist groups were looking for resurgence and for revenge after raids on militant camps in Aceh (Indonesia) in 2010, which led to the arrest and trial of 200 militants. The raid crippled the regional jihadist network; leaving them bitter but wary of police infiltration and these networks are slowly being rebuilt upon the old ones, according to International Crisis Group.  One of the 20 recommendations made by ICG, was to find ways to reduce the effects of radical sermons produced by people like Bashir.  In light of Bashir’s recent letter, regional security and intelligence will need to be especially leery of early signs that militants are mobilizing to Burma. Again it is important to reiterate, Bashir’s role as a “spiritual” leader of Southeast Asian extremism and that his threats are not those of a military commander promising battle.

It will be interesting to see if the accusations and threats made by Islamists and militants in the past few weeks are in fact demands that are genuinely supporting the best interests of the Rohingya, rather than mere political pot-shots at Myanmar over sectarianism.  Many Arab regimes and Islamist groups take every opportunity that they can to rhetorically attack Israel but very few are actually willing to support the statehood and rights that the Palestinians demand and desire.  Will these groups act similarly in the case of the Rohingya? The notion of Rohingya statehood is a touchy subject as neither Bangladesh nor Myanmar is willing to carve out territory for them, so I would not be surprised if the demands for a Rohingya state are kept to a minimum.  As more accusations, threats and declarations evolve in this conflict, it is critical to evaluate the objectives and possible political undertones of each party’s message.

Sectarian Insurgency in Rakhine State of Burma? The Potential for “Accidental Guerilla Syndrome” among the Rohinyga

Complications of the Pakistani Taliban’s Threats to Attack Pakistani Buddhists

Since I first posted an introductory post on the Rohingya last Saturday, there have been several developments in terms of the international response to the human rights/refugee crisis in Burma. I see this response as three fold.

1. Secular governments and international bodies have begun to call for change and attention be brought to the Rohingya issue.
2. Islamist governments like Iran have staged demonstrations, calling on Muslims to stand in solidarity with their co-religionists. Militant Islamist groups like Pakistani Taliban have threatened reprisals against Buddhists in Pakistan and against the government of Myanmar for mistreatment of the Rohingya.
3. Aung San Suu Kyyi, finds herself in hot water as she has spoken multiple time this week about minority rights but has not spoken once about the Rohingya issue and appears to be ignoring the situation for what I would assume are political reasons.

I expected the first two issues to come to prominence as this week unfolded, but I did not however expect the silence of Aung San Suu Kyyi. Based on her notoriety as a human rights activist and history of pushing for reform and democracy, I thought that the Rohingya issue would be something she would at least take a stance on. The fact that she has sidestepped mention of the crisis on several occasions, the Rohingya issue is clearly one that is very politically charged in Burma and Bangladesh as well.

A few days ago the Pakistani Taliban announced that it would begin violent reprisals against Pakistani Buddhists unless some action was taken to prevent the repression of Rohingyas in Burma. The Pakistani Taliban also called for the Pakistani Government to come to the aid of their coreligionists and sever ties with the Government of Myanmar. This is interesting because the Pakistani Taliban tends to focus on three “enemies” : the governments of Afghanistan/Pakistan, the United States involvement in South Asia and India. By threatening the Buddhist minority in Pakistan, the Pakistani Taliban is asserting a sectarian divide in the conflict and making it a religious matter. This removes the issue from the geopolitical and ethnic tensions surrounding the Rohingyas’ current situation and magnifies it from a Bangladesh-Burma issue to one inciting sectarian tension throughout South-Southeast Asia between Buddhists and Muslims. Though I do not think this will spark an all out regional conflict between Muslims and Buddhists, I do think that the Pakistani Taliban’s attempt at sectarianism has the potential to incite regional jihadists to take action in the region.  Threatening Buddhists in Pakistan is problematic because they have no political or ethnic ties to the Burmese or government of Myanmar, thus turning an ethno-religious conflict into a primarily sectarian one.

From an insurgent/realist standpoint, this sectarianism would probably be the quickest way to ensure “military support”. However the implications of these actions would have profoundly negative effects for the ethnic group. By making their plight a religious cause, the Rohingya could quite easily open the flood gates to regional jihadists who are feeling the squeeze of COIN operations in Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India. Northern Burma’s insurgencies and volatility makes the region ripe for sowing of jihadist insurgency as David Killcullen describes in The Accidental Guerilla. The law/military have minimal control in the remote region, an environment similar to Afghanistan following the Soviet exit in 1989. Foreign militants move into these remote environments and assimilate themselves into the indigenous society and begin to exploit their frustrations against the local government, until the local government or international community takes notice and starts an intervention. The goal of this intervention is to root out those causing instability but it turns into a struggle between those intervening and the local populace and this is where we see the accidental guerillas as Killcullen describes. The foreign jihadists would move in, incite an intervention which would target the foreigners but would appear to be another anti-Rohingya action. In this instance, it would not matter whether or not the Rohingya agreed with the religious doctrine of the jihadists because they are simply fighting because they feel threatened by the government’s intervention. Arakan state provides the remote environment inhabited by a disenfranchised population, ripe for the four step insurgent cycle of infection, contagion, and intervention that Killcullen describes in The Accidental Guerilla.

Though this process appears to be the quickest way for the Rohingya to rally support for their plight, I do not think that it would serve the best interests of the Rohingya “cause”. Most Rohingya activist groups and websites advocate equal rights and citizenship for the Rohingya as citizens of Burma. An ethnic issue transformed into a sectarian insurgency would only promote widespread volatility and in no way lead to inclusion in the Burmese state. One must remember that the Rohingya are similar to the Roma in Europe in that they do not have a state to be a part of; as both Bangladesh and Burma do not claim them as citizens. A sectarian insurgency would only further isolate the group since a bloody insurgency against Buddhists would make true incorporation in the Burmese state next to impossible and an attempt to join Bangladesh would only result in stiffer action by Burma to prevent a loss of territory. In an extreme case, the Rohingya could attempt to create their own “state” which would be increasingly complicated given the strategic location of Arakan and Burma itself as a crossroads between South and South East Asia. Though sectarian insurgency seems like an easy way for the Rohingya to accomplish their goals and “protect” them against the Burmese state, such a war could only hope to succeed in accomplishing military goals as it would make the Rohingya’s political goals next to impossible. Though some of the oppression of the Rohingya is rooted in the government of Myanmar’s policy that citizenship is based on Buddhist identity, sectarianism will do no favors for the Rohingya.

What do the IRA and Kleenex have in Common?

The Irish Republican movement has manifested itself in many forms stretching back to the mid 1700’s. These various groups and movements have evolved and fissured over time but more recently, but public knowledge of the movement is more focused on paramilitary/political activity since the 1960’s. Since then there have been multiple incarnations of the group which often are just lumped together and branded as “IRA (Irish Republican Army)”. To truly understand these groups and their aims, one must at least examine Ireland’s military history beginning with its War of Independence 1916-1921. The following explanations are short and simplistic as a way of conveying the basics of each group and how they came to be.

Irish Republican Army- From 1916-1921 the Irish kicked off their War of Independence from Britain with Michael Collins at the helm of the IRA. Collins studied Boer insurgency in South Africa and applied it to Ireland in an effort to allow a peasant country to “defeat” the mighty British Empire and expel them from Irish soil. Collins indentified the pitfalls of conventional conflict in Ireland by looking at failed attempts at independence which failed due to the emphasis on conventional warfare. Collins employed “flying columns”, small guerilla units which operated with great autonomy to wage insurgency against the British.

Irish Republican Army Part II- Collins’ strategy was successful and the British were forced to the bargaining table. A treaty was signed leaving Ireland as a commonwealth nation and but keeping the six northern counties with Protestant majorities in the United Kingdom. DeValera (first president of Ireland) among others, was not satisfied and the IRA began a war against the Irish Free State Army (comprised of previous IRA vets). This was the Irish Civil War, in which Collins was assassinated by the IRA and families were literally torn apart by the conflict. Wind that Shakes the Barley is a great film to watch if you want to understand these first two parts of IRA history and tactics. It also demonstrates the split between people who wanted the Free State and those who wanted to continue to fight for a 32 county Ireland.

Provisional IRA- The above form of the IRA existed in the same form for about forty years with some changes in doctrine, tactics and motives until they officially declared a ceasefire in 1969. Again, some factions were not interested in a ceasefire and chose to split once again to pursue military struggle, creating the PIRA or “Provos”. Technically, the IRA has been at ceasefire since 1969, and has since then pursued the political process.

Irish National Liberation Army (INLA)- Split from the PIRA in the 1980’s in favor of pursuing a more Marxist ideology and to establish a socialist United Ireland.

Continuity IRA (CIRA)- Split with PIRA in the 1980’s over the jurisdiction of the Army Council in relation to military and political activities. Wanted military activities to be run separately through “military” chiefs/council members while the PIRA wanted the Army Council to be involved in both political/military activity. Split did not officially happen until the 1990’s when the council jurisdiction changed. CIRA considers themselves the continuous military progression of the IRA dating back to the War of Independence.

Real IRA (RIRA)- Split with the PIRA in 1997 when PIRA members began to take part in the peace process and disarm. Responsible for the 1998 Omagh Bombing which killed 29 people. Recently announced union with RAAD (Republicans Action Against Drugs), styling themselves, “IRA”. This is significant for the reason that the RIRA-RAAD union has gone full cirlce and returned to “IRA”.  In some Republican circles, this title is somewhat sacrosanct as it reminisces of “the good ol’ days” when it was a black and white ”struggle” for freedom against the British and things were alot simpler (also back when they didn’t ever run out of letters to put in front of -IRA. )

This is simply a brief primer to try to untangle the web of abbreviations and titles that the various groups apply to themselves. For the most part, each split has been a result of political accommodation to the British or lack of military action as a continuance of the movement.

Wild Geese/War Hawk: Insurgency in the Irish American Conciousness

In a previous post @hammerandfly questioned how Americans as a society view insurgency, whether they condemn it or celebrate it.  Thinking back to the notions of “freedom fighting” and “struggle” made me think of my own upbringing as an Irish American, particularly as an Irish, Catholic American.  My parents made a great effort to ensure that I was both aware of the hardships that had befallen those before me but also kept the seeds of bitterness in check by reminding me that (1) it was not my “fight” and (2) anyone who chose to make it their fight was downright wrong.  For those of you who are wondering if my parents used the suffering of my forbearers under a colonial yoke to make me feel fortunate for my current situation and guilty for not working harder, then you would be completely correct. Yes, my parent’s guilt tripped me, a trait completely atypical of the Irish.

The Irish consciousness in regards to insurgency and rebellion is no doubt a complex one and would require its own post (or two), but the Irish-American consciousness as it relates to insurgency is worth exploring as well.  Irish Americans and America itself occupy an interesting place in regards to Irish rebellion.  America was frequently used as a haven for Irish Revolutionaries in the 18^th and 19^th Centuries.  Raids by the Fenians against British installations in Canada following the American Civil War were carried out in an effort to bring pressure on the British to leave Ireland.  Though the United States intervened and arrested some of the Fenians, stripping them of their arms, it is suggested that the US had adopted a “hands off” approach to the Fenians as a way of punishing the British for supporting the Confederacy during the previous five years.

Clan na Gael was an Irish-American arm of the Irish Republican Brotherhood (Fenians), who after the failed Fenian insurrection of the 1860’s, decided that the IRB was going to slow by adopting parliamentary practices and that a dynamite campaign was the path to freedom.  Basically, “you guys in the old country are too soft, we’re gonna show you the way…even though we don’t live there anymore..you’re welcome”.  To complicate things even further between the splintering groups, Clan na Gael was fissured based on how members felt in regards to agrarian reform (socialist leaning), sectarianism (anti-Protestant leaning), and ethnic nationalism.  Clan na Gael provided the bulk of the funding for Irish revolutionary activities leading up to the 1916 Easter Rising, Eammon DeValera (first President of Ireland, born in Brooklyn), ventured to America several times to rally support and funds for the Irish Cause.

It is important to note that the outbreak of World War I pushed many Irish in both America and in Ireland to rally to the side of the British against Germany.  In Ireland it was widely viewed that The Great War was an inappropriate and dishonorable time for the Irish to attempt an insurrection.  The number of Irish on either side of the pond that supported armed rebellion were few and far between, many hoping (as many British Indians did) that loyal service in World War I would lead to independence following the war.  Eventually, the war of independence took hold after tactics employed by units like the Black and Tans pushed more of the civilian population to the revolutionary cause.

As the IRA, and eventually the Provisional IRA (if you don’t know what this is, just go with it..the versions of the IRA splinter more than spin-offs of 90’s sitcoms) began to escalate militant activities through the 1960’s and into the 1990’s, the various militant and political factions continued to receive funding and even arms that had their roots in the United States. NORAID (Irish Northern Aid Committee) was designed support the foundation of a 32 county Ireland but was widely accused of being a front for the Provisional IRA to purchase arms. The US Department of Justice finally forced the group to list the Provisional IRA as its “foreign principal” but NORAID compromised with a clause acknowledging that the agreement was “forced” and that the PIRA was not its foreign principal, although the group was still listed as such. (Confusing, I know..basically a legal version of the way that Col. Hogan would always tell Klink that he would do something but to remember that it was “under protest”..definitely a dated metaphor.)

Jumping forward two generations, I had the opportunity to observe the Irish-American “rebel consciousness” while attending a Jesuit school dominated by the Irish.  I saw this in a smattering of “Tiochfaidh are La” (Our day will come…Irish for “watch out ya f#$%^#) paraphernalia, Irish tricolor flags on dorm room walls, and various other manifestations of Irish nationalism. Though the blood for the old country still ran strong, it was a more sanitized version of rebel culture that was straight out of The Quiet Man. I overhead the occasional suggestion that the Irish deserved freedom whether it came from the barrel of a gun or from a ballot box; but I easily dismissed these as they generally spouted from the lips of a conservative, overzealous eighteen year old who probably had no idea that most Irish militant groups had socialist tendencies.  In short, I saw insurgency in the Irish-American consciousness manifested mostly in remembrance and memorial; whether in song (Dropkick Murphy’s have a few), or simply by recognizing the history and literature of Irish revolutionary movements.

It is interesting to note that the Irish insurgency was almost always dependent on either Irish-American aid or in some cases, waging insurgency on American soil as the Fenians did following the American Civil War.  America often served Britain in the same way that Pakistan has served America in the past decade. By turning a blind eye to Irish revolutionary movements, the Americans enabled Irish insurgencies and uprisings in the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries against an allied nation.  As noted earlier, the Fenian raids into Canada were considered “payback” for the British favoring of the Confederacy in the American Civil War. The history is no doubt too complex to summarize in a short post and there are many debates to be had in regards to tactics used by various groups and the definitions that govern our thoughts about insurgency.  It is however, important to understand that our experience with insurgency stretches deep into our history and in the case of Irish-Americans, we sometimes let it go.

-C.T.

Who are the Rohingya?

Last month the UN declared that the Rohingya of Burma were the one of the world’s “most persecuted people”.  Violence and riots between Muslim Rohingya and Buddhist Rakhine, have taken on religious overtones and many in the policy community have begun to hint at genocide.  The Jakarta Times reported last Saturday that militant Indonesian groups were urging Indonesians to take up arms and wage jihad in defense of their brothers in Burma.  But who are the Rohyinga and where does their story lie in both the history and geopolitics of Burma?

The Rohingya are minority group in the Arakan state of Burma which runs down almost the entire North Western coastline of the country. They are predominately Sunni Muslim and speak an Indo-European language similar to Bengali.  The Rohingya are native to the state of Arakan but are culturally and ethnically distinct from the other Burmese ethnic groups.  The Rohingya adopted Islam through the influence of Arab and Persian traders; according to some accounts as early as the 9^th Century from shipwrecked Arab sailors who were taken to the court of the Arakan kings.  A website advocating for Rohingya rights also claims ancestry from “Arabs, Moors, Pathans, Moghuls, Bengalis and some Indo-Mongoloid”.  Whatever the exact origins of the Rohingya are, it is safe to say that they have cultivated a cultural identity in which Islam and the Rohingya language play a significant part.  However, Rohingya is not a synonym for Burmese Muslim as there are several different Muslim ethnic groups in the country.

Due to the military junta’s emphasis on Theravada Buddhism as an integral part of “being Burmese”, the Rohingya have been marginalized under the government’s policies.   As a result of this Buddhist-centered notion of citizenship, the Rohingya have essentially been denied many of the basic rights enjoyed by their Buddhist Rahkine neighbors.  According to Amnesty International they have been subjected to “arbitrary taxation, forced eviction and house destruction, and financial restrictions on marriage.”  One could draw a parallel between this situation and that of the Irish Catholics under the British or the Palestinians under the Israelis in which religion plays a significant role in citizenship and rights.

Aside from human rights violations committed against the Rohyinga, refugee crises have been a primary concern of international bodies in regards to the ethnic group.  The Rohyinga are considered “stateless” since they do not enjoy full rights in either Burma nearby Bangladesh.  Bangladesh insists that the Rohyinga are “Burmese” and therefore belong in Burma.  Conversely, the government under Thein Sein insists that the Rohyinga are Bangladeshis who are illegally in Burma and slipped into the country when it was still appended to British India (Bangladesh).  As a result, Rohyinga nationalist movements stress the indigenous roots of their people to the Arakan region. Though they claim ancestry from other cultures and ethnic groups, they consider Arakan to have been their home since ancient times; emphasizing thier presence in the area before the arrival of Islam.  Advocacy groups like Arakan Royingha National Organization (ARNO), simply ask for cultural autonomy, citizenship and human rights to escape the “stateless” limbo.

The issue of statelessness persists as Rohingya continue to flee to Bangladesh, including a group that was turned away by Bangladeshi authorities in mid-June.   Bangladesh continues to ignore calls from the UN to admit refugees due to their already strained infrastructure to support the refugees (one tenth of the 300,000 Rohingya in Bangladesh live in two refugee camps on the Arakan border).  After the military takeover in the 1960’s, the junta insisted that the Rohingya were illegal immigrants, using it as justification to both expel them and deny the rights of citizenship. In 1978, Operation ‘Nagamin’ (devised to determine who could be called a citizen of Burma) forced over 200,000 Rohingya over the border into Bangladesh through an aggressive military campaign targeting the civilian population.  Persecution through violence or land confiscation has forced more Rohyinga abroad to places like Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia.

The recent ethno-religious violence in Burma has pointed to two significant causes: ethnic extremism based on a Buddhist-Burmese identity and government sponsored violence against the Muslim population.  This includes allegations that Buddhist monks have been infiltrated by the Burmese intelligence service and have been acting as instigators of further religious violence.  While this is widely being portrayed as the plight of the Rohyinga it is important to note that the violence has gone both ways. Buddhist communities have also been the subject of riots and attacks.  A flurry of “mislabeled” pictures and sensationalized social media has been floating around the internet in an attempt to call attention to the Rohyinga’s suffering (photos of Buddhist monks inspecting bodies killed in an earthquake was re-labeled to say bodies were victims of ethnic cleansing).  Though the Rohyinga have lashed out at their Buddhist neighbors in retribution, most news agencies and NGO’s have reported that most of the attacks have been focused on the Rohyinga by other groups.

Whatever the cause or culprit of the violence in Arakan is, these events will no doubt have wide reaching implications for South East Asian geopolitics as well as insurgency in the area.  Muslim countries are beginning to draw more attention to the situation and are calling on other nations for help.  In regards to insurgency, I believe it is important to pay attention to a few things:

1.How will the government respond? Will it be a political or military solution? Will it deploy the myraid of ethnic insurgencies still active in the area to control the situation or will they pursue a more conventional engagement?

2.How will other SE Asian Islamist extremist groups react? Will the Rohyinga reach out for military assitance? How will the proliferation of refugee populations to Malaysia, Thailand and Bangladesh affect this?

Huma Abedin and the Parable of Othello

The recent accusations brought against a Kalamazoo native, remind me of the paranoia that has often ravaged the minds of populations (their leaders especially) when facing imminent threats from abroad. It is interesting that when facing these external threats, countries and nations often respond by first being suspect of those within their borders who may have loyalties to “the enemy” (Japanese, Italian and Germans during WWII).

The suggestions made by several legislators in Salem..excuse me, Washington, D.C., especially remind me of Shakespeare’s Othello. In saying this I am not implying that Huma Abedin is on the verge of flying into a rage and strangling her husband, as Othello did to Desdemona (though in light of the congressman’s actions, I can’t say I would blame her if she did). What I am speaking to is the political context from which the play itself arose; both in the fictional Venetian setting and the Elizabethan reality.

When Othello premiered in the early 1600′s, the Ottoman Empire was expanding rapidly and pushing into Eastern Europe. The Balkans fell under the Sultan’s sway and Ottoman armies were knocking on the gates of Vienna. At the same time, Italian and Turkish navies duked it out for control of the Mediterranean. The play is a reflection of how terrified Western Europeans were of the creeping Ottoman prominence. This is the political context of the play itself: Othello, “a Moor” is brought in as an advisor to the Venetians to enable them to defeat the Turks. Othello is put in the precarious place of being both the Venetians “secret weapon” but also their greatest security threat. The play’s villain, Iago manipulates the paranoia of his superiors for his own political gain by bringing Othello’s allegiance and character into question. Many of Shakespeare’s plays that were set in foreign countries and different eras often represented domestic issues that were too taboo to be set in Elizabethan England. Though this could be the case with Othello, I do believe that the play represents a general European fear of the Turkish “other”.

The tragedy of Othello lies in the fact that he was suspected of disloyalty by people he considered friends and brothers-in-arms. His death both politically and literally is brought about by the manipulation of his comrade’s anxiety in regards to his origins, a fact having nothing to do with his loyalty or prowess as a military commander. Huma Abedin finds herself in a similar situation in which she finds herself at the edge of a sword sharpened by fear and paranoia. As many prominent leaders both Democrat and Republican have rightfully noted, Abedin’s value and service to our nation should not be brought into question as a result of her heritage. It is ridiculous to cultivate a McCarthyite culture of suspicion in which even loyal Americans are suspected of disloyalty based on political reasons, upbringing or heritage. This is especially the case if those fanning the flames of suspicion are doing so for political gain as Iago does in Othello.

REDCOATS TO RED DAWN: INSURGENCY AND THE AMERICAN CONCIOUSNESS

When thinking about how we as a society view insurgency, I think it is helpful to take a step back and examine how we view this form of warfare as Americans. Granted, the tactics of insurgency vary greatly when you try to compare the tactics of Francis Marion to those of Al-Qaeda but I believe that there is a underlying theme of resistance and rebellion that underwrites insurgency.

I have to admit that my consciousness as an American has a tendency to root for the underdog. The “Cool Hand Luke’s” of past and present, the encircled 101st Airbone at Bastonge, or the gusto of Dan Daly at the Belleau Wood are all examples of how Americans and perhaps all cultures glorify the underdog who accepts certain death rather than defeat.

It was with this mentality that I felt a tingle of pride creep up my vertebrae as I sat on the floor of my preschool classroom and heard about how the colonists fought the British using “Indian tactics” and knowledge of the terrain to overcome a superior, well organized force. Even at a young age, it was apparent to me that the following had occurred:

1. Though the Americans did engage the British by conventional means, they also employed small raiding tactics coupled with better knowledge of the terrain. In a bad sports metaphor, the British showed up to play rugby. America threw out a few rugby sides to take on the redcoats and play by the rules. However, the Americans also harassed the British ruggers by using impromptu lacrosse matches to catch them off guard when the British expected to still play rugby. (NOTE: The form of lacrosse that I am referring to is that used by the Iroquois to train for war, not the devolution of the sport that is dominated by pastel colored polo shirts and swillers of Twisted Tea). Silly metaphor but it points out the fact that American forces changed the rules/game, using different equipment, indigenous tactics and terrain to hinder the British ability to “play their game”.

2. The Americans had a will to resist. Yes, we can get into revisionist debates about the Founding Father’s intentions, economic goals ect., but I believe the mindset of the common foot soldier was one of resistance to the British Crown and occupation of a place that they called home. In short, they wanted it more.

Simplistic view? Absolutely. But resistance to oppression and the ability to wage guerilla war is an element of the American consciousness. If this is not the case, it would be hard to explain the cult following that movies like Red Dawn still have today, especially in light of the fact that the film is due for a remake in 2012.  Remember, the original Red Dawn was released shortly after the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan and the film is littered with references to the Afghan Mujihadeen.  In the 1980′s, the cobbled alliance of Pashtun, Tajik, Hazara and Uzbek warlords was America’s ally against the Soviet-communist menace and it was the struggle of Afghan “freedom fighters” that Red Dawn was meant to both glorify and justify.  When America’s advesary was the mechanized Soviet military, its greatest ally lay in the insurgent landscape that the Soviets yearned to control.  Now that terrorism and proxy wars waged by insurgents threaten both national as well as international security, I believe that many Americans have changed their way of “imagining” insurgency as a righteous struggle of freedom vs. totalitarianism.  We may still cheer on the Wolverines, but only so long as they fight to defend American ideals from oppression.