A Position Paper by Bill Smith - Sunday, December 23, 2007
The Pakistan Madras theory remains under study.

Background

Many terrorist warriors, today maybe a significant majority, were indoctrinated in Islamic madras’s.  The training concept was allegedly conceived and initiated under the direction of a Pakistani General intent on developing adequate forces to defeat Russia in Afghanistan; a conflict then defined as a long and grueling Jihad.  Over time the concept gained radical Islamic support broadened its definition of the enemy and was adopted internationally by numerous terrorists groups.  Unconfirmed estimates are that a peak number of more than 8,000 such institutions operated worldwide, many established in previously peaceful mosques.  Given years, even decades of operation millions of terrorists warriors were believed to be trained.

Warriors indoctrinated from a very young age in radical madras’s became young men with a radical Islamic ideology of hatred for those not embracing their ideals and deep religious intolerance.  The curriculum included particularly damaging images of Western Culture and a belief that pursuit of the ideology would bring salvation and perhaps martyrdom.  Warriors were taught to be devious and secretive about their basic beliefs.

The possibility of rehabilitating young men exposed to this training, with the goal of making them peaceful tolerant world citizens, is not clear.

Peaceful Westernized nations must address the issue of children being taught hatred and intolerance for other religions, cultures, and races of the world.  If the radical Islamic madras’s teaching children hatred and intolerance are not stopped the creation of new terrorist warriors willing to kill and maim innocents will continue and foment an enduring disruption of peace loving societies throughout the world.

Defining the War on Terrorism

Key questions fundamental to understanding the War on Terrorism are today unanswered by any credible authority in Western Civilizations leaving the political right and left deeply divided and the moderate majority inadequately informed so as to agree on any coordinated policy, plan, philosophy, or principle.

A plethora of issues provide a wide selection for experts and pundits to cite as key to understanding the War on Terrorism.  Positions often include ignoring issues which do not support a specific political agenda regardless how important those omitted issues might be.  For example the extremist experts and pundits cite what they claim to be strategies; the leftist, (immediate Iraq withdrawal, there is no credible enemy, and capture Binladin), or the right wing, (kill all Muslims, and nuke Mecca).  These are not really strategies, rather they are easily visualized tactics that support short sited incomplete political agendas and make good sound bites.

Unambiguous identification of the enemy and an unmistakable vision of victory including an exit strategy yielding acceptable results are, in my humble opinion, the key and fundamental criteria needed to define the War on Terrorism.  Properly framed, I believe these two key positions would survive vigorous and exhaustive debate of facts, principles, and philosophies to form a powerful and sustainable collation of world powers needed to execute the War on Terrorism to an acceptable conclusion.  An acceptable conclusion to the War on Terrorism includes a position somewhere between the extreme leftist and right wing strategies cited above.

I stand ready to debate the following definitions until and unless clearly better alternatives are offered.  First a definition:

Terror – A Definition;  For the purpose of this position paper terror shall be defined as acts by individuals or groups outside established law or universal moral norms executed against other law abiding individuals or enterprises to directly or indirectly achieve political, religious or personal goals.

The Enemy Includes:

those institutions, most being radical Islamic madras’s, who teach the children of the world hatred and intolerance for other cultures, religions, and races,
and
individuals or groups indoctrinated with a philosophy of hatred and intolerance for other cultures, religions, and races willing to engage in or support terrorist activities.

Victory includes:

acceptance and support by the world’s educational institutions to replace teaching hatred and religious intolerance with critical thinking skills, (i.e. our culture and religion is good because),
and,
eradicating, containing, or converting all radical groups and/or individuals willing to use or support terrorists activities.

Implementation

Adoption of the above would require reordering military objectives, international policies, and international economic aid.  Under this concept the War on Terrorism would become a complex mix of efforts including political, diplomatic, intelligence gathering, security, combat, etc., etc., etc.

It would be a long war.  If the creation of new terrorist warriors stopped tomorrow, those already indoctrinated will remain vital and active for at least another 20 and possibly as long as 40 years.