Replies

Beyond military action, nearly all wars have some economic impetus as well as some political and/or ideological components. Consequently, successful prosecution of any war should address not just military action but all of the components and sources of the conflict. Therefore, in the case of the War on Terrorism, or as it now more correctly labeled, the Long War, the world in general, and the US, in particular, must strategically address all of the components of war.

The ideological component of the current struggle is the so-called clash of civilizations. However, this should more correctly be called the clash of radical Islamism with modernity. The most successful, ideological approach to negating this component is probably a marginalization of its underlying religious tenets. This marginalization could be accomplished though internal religious reformation movement(s); a successful psychological war campaign convincing current and/or potential adherents of the intellectual and religious bankruptcy of the radical Islam position; continual, rapid decapitation of the ideological movement leadership; or a combination of these approaches. However, it is important to remember that marginalization of radical Islam can only be accomplished if it is ideologically and politically separated from mainstream Islam which claims over 2 billion adherents world-wide. Consequently, any successful strategy in this component of war must continually create an ideological perception (real or not) of separate identities in mainstream Islam and radical Islam and continually stress these separate, perceived identities.

The military component of the current struggle dissolves into traditional military warfare and something called asymmetric warfare. The traditional warfare side of the equation is, ironically, limited by the overwhelming success of the western world’s (US) superiority in war machinery, training, logistics and military leadership. Few states in Islamic world dare to directly face the US militarily, especially since Afghanistan and Iraq. However, there is more than willingness among radical Islamists and those states sponsoring them to engage the western world in asymmetric warfare as have been demonstrated on numerous occasions in the past.

The models for military success against asymmetric warfare enemies are limited. The most successful model comes from ancient times (e.g., Romans) although still successful in the 19th century (e.g., American Indian wars). This method consists of complete and overwhelming military domination of enemy population and physical occupation, in mass, of enemy territory. Unfortunately, this model is very expensive in many ways and requires hugely more of the long term, economic and political/ideological impetus than the traditional military warfare method for success. The next most successful military model against asymmetric warfare is two pronged. These two prongs are rapid response, military engagement of enemy elements wherever and whenever possible to attrite their personnel and resources while simultaneously fostering foment/creation/support of internal conflict among the supporters/prosecutors of asymmetric warfare. Long term success in terms of removal of the asymmetric threat involves substitution through military/economic/political support of competing leadership elements internal to the opposition that is, if not friendly, at least, not antagonistic.

The economic component of warfare is frequently understated and even overlooked by some historians. However, as an example of its successful application, one need look no further than Reagan’s successful strategy in the Cold War against the Soviet Union. Additionally, in terms of the current conflict, few could argue that the Islamic radicals could not be fairly easily dealt with militarily and/or politically, were it not for the fact that the Islamic world controls a significant portion of the planet’s petroleum resources (a huge economic lever).

Consequently, the obvious economic warfare approach is to remove their “lever.” This could be potentially accomplished through outright military conquest. However, this approach would be politically untenable internationally as well as potentially destructive of the very resource over which control was sought. Another, potentially more successful approach would be to remove the economic dependence of the western world on Islamic controlled petroleum, i.e., alternative energy supplies, either in terms of alternative petroleum sources or alternatives such as hydrogen, coal, or nuclear sources. This approach has double benefits in that it removes the enemy’s economic lever and simultaneously reduces military complications to an open military conflict if necessary.

If one looks carefully and dispassionately at the public statements, actions and published intentions of the current administration, the above strategies can be easily seen. However, their strategic success is going depend primarily upon steady, long term application. Given the current opposition party’s publicly announced positions and internal coalition composition, if they come to power electorally, there is some serious doubt about whether or not the steady application of this strategy would continue.

Agree we have to use a multifaceted approach, and have pointed out many of the fault lines and divisions withing the ummah in the past. Understanding the enemy and exploiting these advantages are in our interest of course.

I don't agree with some of your terminology, for eg "radical islam." Islam IS a radical ideology and the self declared "true believers," salafis, followers of Ibn Taymiyya, Sayyid Qutb, and many others are those who want discard later "innovations" bidah, and "shirk" to return to pure islam as preached and practiced by mohammed himself and recorded in the koran, hadeeth and noted by islamic scholars themselves. You'll be hard pressed to get muslim scholars to define "mainstream islam" as it would depend on which of the sects they follow and which school of thought they come from. The claims of over 2 billion adherents world-wide is also excessive. Even islamic sites that tend to overemphasize islams importance tend to quote figures between 1.2 to 1.5 million.

However, getting beyond that, in order to delegitimize the message of those who are behind the major push of dawah on a global scale today, one must acknowledge all roads lead to mecca, as center of two of the 5 pillars of faith, and the custodians of the holy sites have their message legitimized and enforced in the eyes of the ummah.

My long term thinking has often revolved around exploiting the ummahs divisions and delegitimizing their role and the possible return of the hijaz to Hashemite control.

However dawah, the ideological war, does not only occur in the islamic world, and we face many dangers at home, and this especially, is were I think we need to be honest about islam and warn others about the ideology and its objectives.

I've lived in islamic countries for years as a dhimmi expat, and seen first hand what islam does to muslims and non-muslims alike. Its an experience I dont want to repeat.