I am currently in the “reading and research” phase of my dissertation, but I feel like I need to start writing, and I have read enough now that I think I should be really going with the writing phase.  I have two concrete ideas right now.

Here is the text of an email I have sent off to my thesis advisor, and other smart people I know:

The first question: Does AQ have a global strategy, and if so, how well do its surrogates/franchises adhere to such a strategy, and what are their reasons to detract from this strategy?   This could also be framed as: Do the actions of AQ’s surrogates coincide with the strategic visions laid out by either AQ Central (bin Laden/Zawahiri) or by the community of global jihadi strategic thinkers?

This is the question I had started with, I have done most of my reading for, and have begun to write on.  I have found two different strands of global jihadist/militant-Salafist thought, one focusing on territory and working to build locale emirates (Naji, some Zawahiri, and a few others) and another strand which emphasizes further decentralization, autonomous cells, and adhering to a more “terrorist” mindset instead of an “insurgent” mindset (Largely al-Suri).  The goal would be to lay out what these two strands say AQ’s strategy should be, and then test how well local groups adhered to these visions.  I see AQI/Islamic State of Iraq as part of the territory/Naji vision, while AQ in Saudi Arabia as more aligned with al-Suri’s decentralization/terrorist(ic) thesis.  From then I can draw conclusions on how well theses visions worked, why they were or were not adhered to by local commanders/surrogates/individuals, etc.  The problem I see here is how do I analyze the AQI and AQ in Saudi Arabia chapters, in a structured fashion.  I know we discussed doing this chronologically, based on release of statements before, but that was in regard to individual releases of statements/strategy.  However, now I am looking not at adherence to particular statements or guidance, but more following effectiveness/level of adherence to one strand of thought versus another.

1. Intro
2. AQ and Global Jihadist Global Strategy
A.History of AQ-From an idea to a movement
B. Goals of Global Jihad (Restore Caliphate, Expel “crusaders” etc. etc.)
C. Global Jihad Strategy
a. Territory/Naji strand
b. Decentralization/al-Suri strand
3. Global Jihad in Practice in Iraq
4. Global Jihad in Practice in Saudi Arabia
5. Conclusion

The second topic, which I am becoming increasingly drawn to, is looking at the concept of Takfir and its relation to the global jihad, and AQ/global jihadist strategy and practice.  So in question form: What is the history of and/or the relationship between the concept of Takfir, and the global jihadist movement in theory and practice?

Here the layout would be:

1.  Introduction
2. What is Takfir?
- This would be a survey of the different interpretations of what Takfir means by numerous clerics/scholars etc. The goal would be to place their beliefs on a scale, ranging from most strict/fundamentalist (GIA in Algeria-like) to the more open-ended interpretations (Hizb-ut-Tahir-like).  It appears to me that an individual’s interpretation of Takfir depends entirely on how it affects their personal situation/goals (i.e. Azzam took a strict approach as he was trying to distinguish himself/his own thought, while Zawahiri took a more lenient approach because he knew a strict adherence would hurt the global movement)
3. Takfir and Global Jihad/AQ
A. Interpretations by AQ Central – Zawahiri and bin Laden, Azzam (Was there a shift in their thinking toward Takfir?)
B. Takfir and AQ Global Strategy
a. Territory/Naji strategy and Takfir
b. Decentralization/al-Suri strategy and Takfir
- This section would first examine how AQ central’s views of Takfir moved/did not move over time.  Then would look at how the two strands of AQ global strategy interpret Takfir, and how they explicitly say that adhering to a strict interpretation of the concept will hurt the movement.
4. Takfir in Practice and the Downfall of AQ-Franchises
A. AQI, Zarqawi, and the downfall of AQI
B. AQ in Saudi Arabia, the “Takfir Troika” and the downfall of AQ in Saudi Arabia
- This section would examine why these groups adhered to a strict interpretation of Takfir, while AQ’s stated strategy was to not do so.
5. Conclusion

I am leaning toward moving to the second option, and I want to know your thoughts on this.  All my work would still be relevant to the second option, but I would just be answering a different question, and I think in a more unique way.

Well… I decided to change my thesis idea at the last minute.  I canned the Iran idea after doing some preliminary research of the archived documents we had here at St Andrews.  While the topic I had was very interesting, the documents we had here were not very useful.  For my new topic I am still not sure what I am going to focus on, but I needed to decide on a general topic area, so that the advisor that is assigned to me will be appropriate to my proposal. What I have so far is…

During the 1950’s and 1960’s—the heyday of revolutionary warfare—numerous experts began to analyze and write on the principles of counterinsurgency.  The theories of these practitioners have been described by modern COIN experts David Kilcullen and Frank Hoffman as “classical counterinsurgency theory.” The question I intend to ask in my dissertation is:  Do the fundamentals of “classical” (1960s) counterinsurgency theory still adequately cover the reality of the insurgency in Iraq from 2003-2008?

Using the three classical COIN experts Galula, Thompson, and Kitson I intend to outline their theories on counterinsurgency, and then apply them to the changing nature of the 4GW insurgency as seen in Iraq. Characteristics of the Iraqi insurgency in which I intend to focus on include: increase in the number of transnational actors, the urbanization of insurgency, religious motivations, information/communication aspects, and the lack of a long-term strategy for many insurgents (i.e. revolutionary warfare of the 1960’s sought to overthrow the state, while many of today’s insurgent’s seek to preserve the status quo of ungoverned spaces, or to repel an occupier).  I will end by attempting to merge the theories of the classical theorists with today’s realities into a set of 4GW counterinsurgency principles.

Since reading T.X. Hammes’ The Sling and the Stone last year, I have been interested in counterinsurgency and fourth-generation warfare.  I am a frequent reader of Small Wars Journal, but beyond that my experience is limited.  I wasn’t even thinking about focusing on this for my thesis at first, because my actual classes have not talked about these issues at all.  However, after hearing my buddy Mike talk about his thesis ideas (analyzing British COIN in Northern Ireland and Yemen) it made me want to just give it a try.  While I know Mike’s thesis will OWN mine (dude is smart) I still think this is a topic worth looking in to.  I mean, a thesis is a chance to look into an issue which you find very interesting, and while I had some other ideas, I wasn’t as excited about reading about them as I am about this.  My topic may change, but the general area will not, and I am looking forward to reading more on the subject.  I have just ordered The Accidental Guerrilla by David Kilcullen.

The problem with my topic is that at the end I am going to try and lay out some principles for counterinsurgency in a 4GW era, but there are problems with this.  First, this is exactly what Petraeus’ FM 3-24 did.  Next, all insurgencies are different, and trying to make generalizations from Iraq is potentially a useless endeavor.

Any thoughts?

Go here to see almost 200 of my pictures from my trip…

Below I have posted some of my favorite pics:

Well first term is officially over and my degree is about a third done!  I did much better on my exams than I anticipated, and if I keep going on the current track, I am looking at graduating with distinction (something I still doubt will happen).

For a quick review of my first term… I have enjoyed this experience very much so far.  I do see a difference between the education system here and back home.  I do see a benefit in the US system, where you are able to take more classes and you space your degree over two years.  The program here feels a bit rushed, and while my course on Middle East International Relations was quite comprehensive, I believe that my International Security module was somewhat underwhelming.  While I believe my professor was quite good, I think there was so much we skipped over.   My Farsi language course has been going quite well.  This second term is much more intense, and I am a bit worried about all the work I have ahead of me.  I am glad I chose the language track here, but part of me wishes I could take more classes in Strategic Studies.  If I could choose my degree over again, I would have chosen the International Security course, due to the ability to focus in on topics such as the changing nature of warfare, and counter-insurgency (COIN) theory/doctrine.

I had thought about centering my master’s thesis on a COIN related topic, but I could not come up with a good enough strategic question.  Any suggestions would be appreciated.

I am working a research proposal that is more historically-focused than much of the work I had done in the past.  I plan on examining US and British cooperation in Iran from 1941 to 1960, picking on key events during that time frame.  This idea stems from a conversation I had with Dr. Ali Ansari here at St Andrews, and I think it could be interesting.  As a read some histories of this time frame, historians seem to be torn between claiming that the US and GB worked almost seamlessly together during this period, and others which hint at some attempts by the US the undermine GB for its own political gain.  I am going to try and use declassified documents and political diaries we have here at St Andrews, as well as do some research in the US, hopefully at the National Security Archives.

I am still undecided, because I would love to do something COIN-related, but my “idea farm” is fresh out of produce.

I was able to visit Turkey for two weeks with two friends.  We had a great time, backpacking from Antalya, up the Western coast of Turkey, and ultimately reaching Istanbul.  Turkey is a beautiful country.  After traveling there you truly see both the reasons why it should be in the EU, and reasons why it shouldn’t.  I initially planned on adapting my war paper to show foreign policy changes in Turkey since the rise of the AKP in 2002.  But, I felt like treading new ground… Why I do this to myself I do not know.

I do know if I ever decide to do a PhD, I want to focus on the changing nature of warfare, and maybe implications for defense policy… But this definitely won’t be happening next year.  I am not sure yet if I am committed enough to do a PhD or JD.  The thought of five more years of school for a PhD does not appeal to me right now.  I also am afraid of being “that civilian guy” who writes about war and insurgencies up in his ivory tower, who has never experienced what it is like on the ground.  Yet, I still think I would be a good teacher, and unlike many people I know who are doing PhDs in the social sciences… I would love to be a university professor.  I would so be the un-academic’s academic.  Three out of every four academics I meet or hear speak, believes they just know it all.  Where has their humility gone?  While I have many strong beliefs, I could be wrong about 100% of them.  I wish more PhDs had that outlook.

In regard to law school; I think I would enjoy the school part of it, but being a lawyer does not really appeal to me.  Sixteen hour a day pouring over depositions just isn’t my cup of tea.  Law itself interests me, so maybe teaching law? I don’t know if I want to add to our already overly litigious society.

Thoughts of going active-duty military also have crossed my mind.  I think I always turn down this option because I don’t really want to be jumping around every 2-4 years, but more importantly I think I have more flexibility as a civilian to move jobs, and situate myself working on issues that I find intriguing.  I think the Marine Corps is the service I may respect the most, and I would love to be a Marine.  However, I also admire the professionalism of the numerous Air Force officers I have worked with and known.  I think the Air Force has some serious soul-searching to do, and I hope they are reading monographs like this one here from RAND.    Even going active-duty in the Coast Guard intrigues me, due to the great strides they are making with their intelligence program.  I know all my friends would probably make fun of me for being a Coastie, but I can deal with their jabber.

As far as next year goes, I think my two degrees are sufficient to begin in work in the defense/intelligence/national security field as a government employee or a consultant.  I think this is the field I am best suited for, and the one which I find most rewarding.

I have posted some pictures of Istanbul, and I will try to upload more to a site like Flickr, everyone can see all 600+ photos I took.

I will try to keep posting on the blog, but no promises.  I tend to get busy and forget to touch it.  I haven’t made a post on my other blog since I left for Scotland!

Until next time… Go STARS!

Hey all! I know it has been a long time, and I have been so busy with my courses that the blog has suffered.  I do apologize to all my avid readers (yeah right).  Over the past three weeks I have gone to both Edinburgh and the Highlands.  Below are some great pictures, so please check them out.  I have disabled comments because I was getting a lot of SPAM, so please email me if you want to chat.  I hope all is well back home!

 

This was amazing!

Well it has been a few days since my last post, and I have decided to make another post.   Things have been going well, and Ben, Mike, and I have all added some members to our little group.  We met a bunch of people at the Postgraduate Society welcome meeting who were in the same boat as us (not knowing anyone) so we have all started to hang out.  It has been fun exploring the pub scene here, as well as a riveting game of Monopoly on Saturday night (we were tired).  I do have some bad news to report: I can not take Persian.  I had been planning on taking a Farsi language course and then trying to get in to Dr. Ansari’s Iran module, but I had to choose language or Ansari’s course.  I also could not choose Persian because of a number of issues, and I have decided to take Arabic.  I think taking a language is vital, and though I have more knowledge of Persian I will give Arabic a try.  So that changes some things, but it should be alright.  Since I am lucky enough to have the Rosetta Stone for Farsi I may just drop the language idea and do the Farsi on my own.  That is an option I guess.  But will I be disciplined enough to do it everyday? I am not sure.  I have also joined the inline hockey club, and have thought about joining a numerous amount of other clubs.  I don’t know if I will have time for all of them, so I really need to make up my mind.  I also need to make up my mind about Arabic… grrrrrr.

I haven’t had a chance to play golf yet, and I am going to try and get a tee time for next week.  I think I am going to play one of the smaller courses just to see how they play.  I can’t wait to get out there and hit the sticks.  Other than that, not much is going on.  Here is a picture of my lunch today.  A real dose of fish and chips, it was great.  Irn Bru however was not so good.  It was like bubble-gum soda mixed with acid.  Just gross.

Yesterday I slept in again, still a little jet-lagged.  I went to Woolworth’s, a store here, and I bought a duvet cover for my duvet.  I picked the manliest one I could find… and three girls in line in front of me had the same one. Terrible.  I I came back and put it on, and it isn’t that comfortable.  Maybe if I wash it it will get better.  I then grabbed some lunch and went up to the registrar to drop off some forms.  I ate at a place called Greggs.  I bought a pre-made chicken sandwich for 1.75 pounds, a steal, but it had mayo on it. Yuck.  I wipped it off and it wasn’t so bad.  I then went back and met up with Ben, we had some tea and went to the poster sale.  I didn’t buy anything, Ben bought a world map and I almost did the same. We met up with Michael later, and we walked down to the sports centre.  It seems very nice, but we couldn’t walk around because we didn’t have our IDs yet.  I think we are going to join the postgraduate intramural sports team, and Ben has even talked about starting a flag-football league.  I think it’s a great idea, and I know I have to be better than most of the Brits who are curious about the game.  Tonight we are planning to go “out on the town” and have one night where we actually go out past 11.  I like to be home around that time because it is a convenient time to talk to everyone back home.  One night though can’t hurt.  Another great day in St Andrews.

OK, so I wrote the above before we went out last night, and it was a blast.  We went to the Victoria but it was just ridiculously hard to get a drink there so we went down to the Raisin.  That was a good time and then we headed to the Student Union but they wouldn’t let us in without our stupid ID cards.  So we decided to go back to Aikman’s which is open until 1am.  We had a good time, Ben and I gave Michael a new nickname, Big Papi.  There is no reason or logic behind it, but Michael is now Big Papi.  Fun night out on the town though! But nothing beats a beer at the Stone or Wild West right?!?!?