Posted on 09/30/2001 9:31:07 AM PDT by annalex
Two characteristics of the militant Arab threat to our country need to be kept in mind: it is cosmopolitan inside the world of Islam, and it has deep roots everywhere in that world. In this paper we will examine those characteristic and draw conclusions that will allow us to define the proper strategic and political goals of the war. Defense of Liberty: The Contours of Victory
By Annalex
The diverse character of what is collectively known as militant Islam is remarkable. It ranges from deep religious convictions of Muslim scholars such as the late Ayatollah Khomeini, and from atavistic social practices of the Taliban, to the ragtag guerilla armies of Chechnya and the PLO, the elite Iraqi regulars, and to the respectable doctor's offices in Cairo. Its apparent leader Osama bin Laden is a Yemeni who grew up in privilege and wealth in Saudi Arabia and moved with ease from there to Sudan and then to Afghanistan. Bin Laden assumes the role of a religious leader alongside his undisputable credentials as a terrorist mastermind, and indeed seems to be a devout man leading an ascetic lifestyle. Yassir Arafat, on the other hand, apparently enjoys his secular status of a de-facto head of state, conferred onto him by the Western appeasers. Saddam Hussein, of course is a head of state -- the most secularized one in the Arab world. Osama's illiterate foot soldiers are recruited from the least accessible barren plateaus of Afghanistan, while his suicidal strike force had followed a seemingly assimilated American immigrant middle class track through engineering colleges and flight schools.
At the same time, a parallel Arab universe exists both in the Middle East and in American immigration circles. They are laborers and peasants, shopkeepers and doctors, who maintain a rational economic life, obey the law of the land, pray to Mecca as required, and have no intention of bombing anything. To borrow the American demographic term from the Clinton era, they are soccer Muslims: middle class for their locale, driven by petty economic concerns, philistine (some even Philistine), non-ideological. While the recruits of the militant factions come entirely from this benign Muslim milieu, it would be a gross mistake to identify the entire world of Islam as militant. In fact, great tension exists between the militants and the merchants in the Muslim world, as exemplified by the multiple terrorist acts against the Egyptian tourist industry.
What are the roots of the Arab militancy?
It is tempting to accuse the Muslim religion of fostering violence against the infidels. The Koran does contain examples of Prophet Mohammed condoning violence against and deceit of infidels, that don't find a direct parallel in either the Torah or the New Testament. Nevertheless, an overwhelming number of the world's Muslims has a heightened religious awareness and do not seem to be particularly violent, and moreover, militant Islam is a new phenomenon in the modern history. In any religion, the job of the clergy is to put the messages of its scripture in proper historical context; at most, with respect to Islam, we can say that the Islamic clergy contains militant elements alongside peace-loving ones. Clearly, Islam alone cannot explain Muslim, let alone Arab, militancy. Similarly, the social factors, such as the lack of indigenous technological progress, low social mobility and political repression, although all relevant, do not provide a complete explanation, since a fertile ground for terrorism exists across many social orders in the Middle East, from medieval monarchies to semi-democratic secular governments. We have to conclude that the root of the Arab militancy is to be found at the intersection of social, cultural, and religious Arab experience. The convenient operative word here is: civilization.
Let us take a short theoretical digression. Many cultures, ideologies and traditions typically coexist in a society, either as distinct cultures carried by its individual members, or as foreign cultures that are understood by the given society, sufficiently for cultural interaction. A civilization is a conglomerate of interconnected and inter-accessible cultures, ideologies and traditions. Thus we speak of the Western Civilization, as a loosely connected system of human experiences: the cultures of Europe and the Americas, religious tolerance, secular humanism, rule of law, government by consensus, individualism and materialism. A German engineer may have little in common with a Mexican farmer, yet both cultures easily mix, for example, in California. Thus a civilization gives an individual his cultural universe; outside of that universe an individual is lost: his life has no meaning. An individual facing a foreign but civilizationally compatible culture adapts, learns the ways and the language, and lives on. An individual facing a foreign civilization feels as if he were facing invaders from the outer space. While most cherish their culture, few are prepared to die for it, but many would willingly die in what they see as an eschatological struggle between good and evil.
The diversity of cultures that produce Arab militancy, its complete intellectual impenetrability (imagine trying to reason with Osama bin Laden), its lack of concrete policy goals, the extreme, self-denying devotion of its followers all point to a hostile civilization alien to the West. Historically, we could trace the Arab militancy to the warrior culture of the Arab Caliphate. The conjecture, although not provable or falsifiable directly, can explain the militancy's virulence: we are dealing with an ancient, once great civilization in its death spasms, not almost completely supplanted by secularized and benign forms of Islam.
The worst enemy of an Islamic militant is then not the Western man, a Jew or an American; not his corrupt and dictatorial national ruler, -- it is his neighbor running a coffee shop, a car dealer, a tourist guide: a modest economic man, nominally his fellow Muslim, crossing over to the global economic network and ultimately -- to the ascending Western Civilization.
It is true that Arab militants and soccer Muslims share their local national cultures and concrete policy goals such as territorial disputes with Israel or overthrow of national government. To the extent that those goals do not take on the cosmic overtones of a civilizational struggle, -- for example, do not call for destruction of Israel or The Great Satan, -- those goals, whether we sympathize with them or not, should not be confused with the enemy as it presented itself to us on September 11. Without a doubt, Israel will be a natural benefactor of the defeat of Arab terrorism; however, the nature of the emerging war is different from any territorial dispute.
The emerging war has many historical predecessors. In its youth, the West battled the Arab Caliphate in its civilizational prime. Not that long ago a low-level ongoing conflict with an alien civilization (or civilizations) was known as colonialism. Recently, the West emerged bruised but victorious from two global battles, the World War II and the Cold War. The battle with Communism is particularly instructive in the present context, because Communism was another international in character civilization, based on a coherent and hostile to the West ethos and permeating diverse cultures. It is notable that it took a combination of military strength and efforts of our ideological allies inside the Iron Curtain to defeat world Communism. Both colonialist and the Cold War experiences will have to be revisited today in our search for the proper strategy.
Several conclusions follow from this. The enemy needs to be understood in civilizational, not merely cultural terms. Every Muslim nation has our friends and our enemies; our potentially solid allies are westernized Muslim immigrants, who are refugees from the same militant environment we are combating, as well as Muslim clerics who honestly denounce violence. That does not preclude converting the war on terrorism into a war on nations harboring terrorists, but it precludes a total war against any civilian population.
It is not possible to localize the war to any particular country or set of countries, since any Muslim country contains indigenous militant elements, and the enemy can move from country to country with ease. President Bush's formula: any nation that abets terrorism is our enemy as a nation, -- is the only logical one. Particular care needs to be taken therefore to prevent unnecessary mission creep and limit the goals of this war to elimination of terrorism across rogue nations, as opposed to merely a war on nations with which we (or Israel) may have had frictions in the past. Nor is it possible to conduct this war as a law enforcement operation aimed at the current perpetrators of violence, since new terrorists, even new terrorist networks, can emerge as soon as the old ones are apprehended. It is not possible to retaliate against a martyr, but it is possible to reduce the scope of operation of aspiring martyrs.
For the same reasons it will not be possible to limit our engagement to military means: "strike hard and get out". Any military campaign needs to be followed up by either an occupation regime, or establishment of a friendly government committed to a meaningful, from terrorism-fighting standpoint system of law enforcement. It is in our vital interest to leave the area not sooner than when a Muslim culture rooted in property rights and genuine political pluralism has a chance to withstand future recurrence of Arab militancy.
The policy advocated here has a discredited name: imperialism. At its best, imperialism means a careful management of foreign relations with multiple weaker countries, based on unabashed projection of military strength combined with its minimalist application, and on asymmetrical parent-child diplomacy. The Twentieth Century saw a hasty dismantlement of the old imperialist system and its replacement with an illusion of a one-nation-one-vote world parliament and a cabal of international corporate management organically incapable of cultural or historical insights. Now it is time for the West, in particular, for the United States, to assume leadership once more.
All rights reserved. Reproduction in full is authorized with attribution to the Free Republic and Annalex.
You advocate the invasion and occupation of countries and the setting up of puppet governments wherever they have a government that you don't approve of.
I have never said a puppet government or one run by the U.S.. Never have I advocated us controlling their government. We simply must go in and form alliances with all tribes and sects of Afghanistan, in order to insure that a truly democratic government comes into power.
As long as they pose no threat to us or other nations, and they do not ignore human rights, I see no need for further interference. However I do believe that they will plead for assistance and advice.
Tony Snow hit the nail right on the head today. If these people knew prosperity and true Liberty, they would not be so desperate for extremism, and so willing to give their life for an extreme cause. History has shown this to be true.
But since you are so adamant in my misrepresentation of your position, I would be nice if you would present it and not simply criticize all others.
So, let's take away all other situations, so you cannot pose blame elsewhere. Let's deal with the current situation and the current situation only.
You have said that you support eliminating those whom have attacked us and those who support them. Therefore you must support the U.S. assisting in bringing about the fall of the Taliban. Now once it has been eliminated there will still be a nation in Chaos.
What we have is history that PROVES that by allowing that Chaos to exist, you allow the extreme and most mighty of the society to take over and rule in tyranny.
Now what is your solution. From what I have read in your posts, it appears that you wish to wipe our hands once again and leave the Afghans to fend for themselves.
Really sir, what I suggest is quite clear. You just don't think that it is "enough;" i.e., it doesn't satisfy your premise, or should I say, your ambitions. My strategy is in fact MORE substantive than what you suggest, simply because it is ACHIEVABLE (unlike your proposition of dumping the welfare state and builiding a functional military on a crash basis so that we can construct an empire in the Middle East (an oxymoron if I have ever heard of one) as if it was either politically possible in Congress or wouldn't induce a symmentrical response in the rest of the world). My proposal won't immerse us in a world war followed by global tyranny (which is what I think would be the result of what you advocate) because we would be hard at work at home building both an economic and military fortress America with power concentrated upon the strength, creativity, and liberty of its citizens instead of a standing army roving the planet enriching its corporate aristocracy. It is thus a proposition CAPABLE of selectively protecting itself from its enemies on a preemptive baisis as we are now conducting in Afganistan and I hope elsewhere. That selective projection of power, however, does NOT mean that we should run those countries (as you desire). We quite simply lack the wherewithal to do it without destroying ourselves and opening ourselves up to successful attack.
Further, imperial power has the awful propensity for the politically domanant to turn it to corrupted purposes on a grand scale, especially as in Africa but as is now happening across the AMERICAN West (talk about blowback!). I take it you didn't READ #34 (and its sources) or do you simply discount it? Our racist inattention to what has been done (largely by liberills and Europeans) reflects upon us by virtue of the protection our "empire" afforded (especially in Africa). As the West burns and is over-run by weeds it will likely suffer a similar fate at the hands of imperial bureaucratic socialism (what I call feudal fascism). Such ecological destruction has brought the world a series of tragedies of monstrous proportion as the people of Siberia will surely attest. Similar actions as the banning of DDT or the foot dragging over AIDS may have made the Club of Rome happy, but I am certain that God will hold us accountable for the misery produced in the pursuit of mammon by those currently in charge of that imperial culture with which you are so apparently enamoured. If nothing else, there are those in the West who will surely do so by force themselves.
Read the book. There is a better way.
As a nation we indeed have the options of strengthening our defenses domestically, as well as taking the war to the enemy's territory, and we can be sure that both will be explored in some proportion. As a libertarian I see a greater peril to our freedoms in the defensive approach, and as a student of history, I know that a purely defensive military posture leads to defeat. Hence, in order to protect our freedom I suggest projection of force in the Middle East that would include a direct military action, a proxy military action, and various degrees of submission of local governments to our imperial wishes. I am concerned by the squeamishness of so many about calling things what they are: imperialism. I am concerned even more by the fact that America, as you point out, has a middling record of building and maintaining an empire. However, I believe that the imperial needs will come into focus soon, and become a national consensus. In this effort we must not fail, because bunkering down and retaliatory strikes alone will not prevent future attacks even if the present Al Qaeda network is demolished. The resources for the effort can come from no other place but domestic programs.
I don't want to have this discussion of our strategic response to Arab militancy sidetracked into world ecology, Irish worker movement, or anything else.
You will note the following:
1. Bombardment from the air will be ineffective.
2. Massive Gulf War-style assault will be impossible
3. Helicopter brigades can be effective within the limits of their tactical objective.
4. The country of Afghanistan really isn't; it is a cartographical artifact that can be partitioned between its heighbors.
It appears that a coalition of Arab or Farsi forces that would partition Afghanistan between themselves with our tactical assistance is the most appealing course of the war. Our assistance will be given in return for cooperation in the areas of our security concerns. Our continuing military presence in the occupying countries for years after the military phase is over is a virtual certainty.
That is why I mentioned it. Yours is IMO, a distorted perception of risk. I note that since your reading of that cited article you have tempered your over-ambitious reading of our military capability.
Aside from that, you mistake my posture of defense of homeland alone by purely defensive tactical means. I refer to defensive PURPOSE in my reference to "fortress America"; i.e., that which the Constitution allows and to which our government is morally mandated. It certainly doesn't list "provide for the common conquest" in the Preamble now matter how happy that would make Israel. The offensive tactical capability in service to that purpose starts with excellent intelligence and covert operations capabilities backed up by rapid projection of tactical military assets. It is backed up by civil defense, which has more than merely obvious constituents.
The historic problem has been that they covert actions have been covertly or even illegally funded. To allow that funding to be covert has induced many of the problems to which we now respond. An example is using the drug trade to finance such policy and the criminal industry that has grown up around it.
Both of these concepts point to a common enemy, one that USES international terrorism as a proxy for the projection of its interests and the means to weaken the rule of law under a republican government and justify extension of the infrastructure of tyranny. It is that to which I speak, as so many of its treasonous lieutenants operate within our midst. Hence my reference to its broader scope. That is not off the subject at all.
I never stated that the military operations in Afghanistan would be easy; for my purposes on this thread it was sufficient to note that they are inevitable. The difficulty of the terrain is another argument to do the military part once, and not do repeated retaliatory strikes after each attack.
The article you cited did NOTHING to support global imperialism. It merely articulated the implaccable nature of a religious war with which I have no argument. That does not mean that the strategy you propose is either within our capability or that it would work. I prefer to nudge Islam into the inevitable managed implosion.
My main thesis is that what we have is a civilizational struggle. The necessity of imperialism is a corollary, which, indeed, Louis Rene Beres does not make.
It is true that the warrior Arab civilization is primarily imploding, and the explosions we see are a secondary effect. That is why the victory will be ours even if we do very little; but it is the duty of our government to limit the damage to its geographical origins and accelerate the demolition.
The worst enemy of an Islamic militant is then not the Western man, a Jew or an American; not his corrupt and dictatorial national ruler, -- it is his neighbor running a coffee shop, a car dealer, a tourist guide: a modest economic man, nominally his fellow Muslim, crossing over to the global economic network and ultimately -- to the ascending Western Civilization.In other words, the Islamic militant is hostile first of all to the First Amendment--to the idea of live-and-let-live tolerance and aggressive "We must all hang together or surely we will all hang seperately" cooperation which formed this nation and has gradually coopted more diversity within it.
The fact is that our civilization produces all kinds. But the mullahs in their caves may not know that, and beside they don't want any other kind. They only want monks and soldiers.
"It is my hypothesis that the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will dominate world politics. The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future."
My reading list is getting longer. Can't wait till someone here tells me to post less and read more.
LOL, Great call. I was going to make that same point but after repeated attempts to wade through the mire, I thought, I must be crazy as he is to even try again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.