Thanks for the ping, and your thoughtful essay. I would have to say, that the problem with equating the fall of the USSR, while important and probably decisive for European communism, wasn't in any way the death knell for communism. We tend to forget China and for now I would have to say they are probably quite content to let us bleed slowly over this other "ism."
So it would probably be useful to at least see the current struggle against Islamofascism as a piece of a global instablility that stems from cultures and ideas(some of which are Islamic) that seek to dominate others, ensure their own survival by repression and/or the perversion of religious fervour. I think it would be useful to define the specific enemy in this case as Islamic fundamentalism, and if it be binladenism, that's ok. It focuses attention on a man. Easier to disavow.
But the larger point I think is that as things stand now, the usefulness of Islamofacism to nation states cannot be underestimated. It serves various nation states as a plausibly deniable, cheap and effective weapon against an exogenous enemy, focusing anger and unrest outward.(that would be against us) Of course, like all good revolutions, it can devour its own, just ask the Saudis. So I think the trick is to develope a strategy that understands that nation states seek their own survival. And that it would be in their interest to restrain the elements that would seek to threaten us, and help us.
Lets face it Gorbachev didn't embrace detente because he decided to be a good guy, but to save the USSR and communism. It took someone like Reagan to perceive the underlying weakness and sieze the moment. The unrest and failure of the system were bringing it down, not any external threat. It was a mistake to think then that they wished to approach us in the spirit of an equal, when it was in fact an approach from weakness. It seems that fact must always be examined. But those who feared keeping up the pressure were ignorant, fearful and wrong. They wanted to negotiate from the old perceptions that the communists were going to be in power for a long time and were in fact equal to us in every way. Of course, you don't negotiate an enemy back to a position of power when he is on his last legs, you dictate terms.
I remember the good general Musharraf's address to Pakistan on the eve of cooperating with the US to topple the Taliban in Afghanistan. He had a number of pious and spurious reasons, but the one thing that mattered was the survival of the state(himself of course,as a champion for Islam) It was the move of a taliban supporting dictator, complete with his nuclear tips.(and didn't that scare the hell out of everyone at the time?) How did we accomplish this turn? Perhaps this is a much more effective strategy than can be imagined.
But the problem with Islamofascism, isn't so much with it as an idea, but as a direct form of action incited by certain religious teachings that cannot be divorced from Islam. And you don't need to raise a massive army, just a relatively small number of true believers, with a modern weapon of mass destruction. And every failed system has its supply of true believers. AFter all the apologists for communism seem to still think it viable but simply not practiced effectively where it failed. They don't see it as a failure of the idea, just its practice.
So Islamofascism exploits some of the more brutal teachings. Because it sees any failure perhaps as a failure of practice, not of understanding. And it does so at the expense of its "peaceful" passages. As it stands now, the "Religion of Peace" trope is threatening to become meaningless, but it doesn't have to be. I would hope that the voices of reason begin to sound or I will be afraid they don't exist. I think that is the point to which we are coming when there is no strong steady outcry against brutality. I need to hear it, I think most reasonable people expect the same. It isn't unreasonable to confront that. Or racist or bigoted either.
Anyway, I just have to offer, for hope, the idea of the Arab street. Our actions were going to provoke a huge uprising and swelling of protest, unrest, terrorism and violence. Massive demonstrations and death and destruction. What is remarkable to me is the silence for the most part. Now why is that? Well perhaps most of the Muslim world wants what we want, to just raise a family, worship and make a living,or perhaps the leaders of other Muslim countries are afraid of stirring that beast because it can quickly turn on the guy with the stick. They are a little reluctant to unleash that particular force. Believe me, if their interest is served in not going there, there will be passages found which support them. Wouldn't it be nice to encourage that? You can only do that from a position of strength tho. I don't want to be in the position of accepting terms. It is unrealistic for Islamofascists to expect a return to the glory of the Caliphat, but true believers have a hard time accepting that. That should be their hard luck, not ours.
And its beyond sad to me, that the situation in Iran is so completely ignored. There you have Muslims demonstrating for freedom, the street rising on its own, not at the instigation of a coercive government. Its important and I only hope that they recieve help. Meanwhile I keep them in my thoughts. Perhaps the future for Islam will begin with them.
So yeah, its about a religion, but also realpolitic, and we are so loathe to say its a religious war. Its a number of things, but it motivates from its religion. That makes it difficult to confront, which means you have to approach the flanks. And that is states that use and promote it, for their own power. And its a religious war that's been delcared against us by Islamofascists, not the other way round, and used cynically for politcal power. The axis of evil after all consisted of one secular Muslim state, one fundamentalist one, and one kleptocratic, non Muslim cult of personality. It's about more and less than just religion. And of course without the immense wealth from oil, most of this would be just a regional thing as it has been for hundreds of years. But its power comes in large part from that vital fact. But the soft underbelly of Islamofacists is in fact the states that harbour and use them. And their interests are going to ulitmately be their own survival. Get it on that basis I think. We live in interesting times.
sorry for the length.
"Not bad, not bad at all.
R. Reagan
I believe I'm going to save this.
The American politicians have very limited grasp of the Islamic culture and Islamc fanatic movement in the past 25 years. There are many US think tanks with dozens of experts who really know the problem, but their recommendations keep getting filtered out! Stupid politicians on the take from the Saudis keep the US action or reaction to practically NOTHING.
By labeling what we are fighting as bin Ladenism, rather than Islamofascism, those Muslims who wish to disavow the terror tactics can feel more confident in doing so. In effect, it would provide Muslims a rhetorical smoke screen of their own so they can in practice divorce themselves from "certain religious teachings that cannot be divorced from Islam." And the rest of the "axis of evil" can be so labeled as well, Islamic or not (i.e. North Korea). Motive is irrelevant.