We should have some pronouncible abreviations for discussions of security oriented foreign policy.
IG (Islamic group) VIG (violent Islamic group) SAIG (sayg or sa-ig, state affiliated Islamic group, usually a political party) SAVIG (sah-vig: state-affiliated violent Islamic group. This would include semi-official paramilitary groups or Pakistan sponsored Kashmiri separatists. It would also include groups seeking to overthrow a state government, like Algeria's Armed Islamic Group, a group like Hezbolla trying to force invaders to leave the territory of a state, and possibly a group like Hamas fighting a war of national liberation.) non-SAIG (non-state affiliated Islamic group. eg. Tablighi missionaries.) non-SAVIG (non-state affiliated violent Islamic group. eg Al-Qada) Example: Benjamin and Simon are critcal of the international security and international relations community of not taking macro-terrorism threats from non-SAVIGs more seriously. They are highly critical of the W. Bush administration for not listening to their peers in the Clinton administration durring the transition when the Clintonistas warned about how they had come to fear operations by non-SAVIGs. Since 9/11 not only the transparently carreerist Benjamin and Simon criticized the Bush administration for trying to turn the threat from Al-Qaeda and other non-SAVIGs into an old-fashioned state-to-state conflict, but pundits like Joyce M. Davis and Thomas Friedman have done the same. All insist that even if Iraq had WMD, the Baathist regime was inherently derterable and essentially irrelevant to the non-SAVIG security threat behind the 9/11 attack. They all point out that non-state actors, including non-SAVIGs are inherently NOT deterable. (Indeed, prior to the invasion of Iraq Friedman called war with Iraq a desirable elective war.) In short, this host of moderately liberal analysts and commentators believe that the W. Bush administration has failed to come to terms with the fact that the fundamental security threat to the USA is from non-state actors--more specifically non-SAVIGs. It is not clear whether this is an inadvertant failure on the part of the W Bush administration or an intentional policy tack indicative of the W Bush foreign affairs and international security wonks discounting non-SAVIGs as a bigger strategic security concern than traditional states. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
