Sir John Keegan is wrong: radical Islam could win

"In this war of civilizations, the West will prevail," argues the distinguished historian Sir John Keegan, the Defense Editor of the Daily Telegraph, in a commentary on October 8. Why is he so sure? If Sir John were in command on the Western side, I would be inclined to bet on a different outcome.

Sir John references Samuel Huntington's "clash of civilizations" theory and adds:

"Westerners fight face to face, in stand-up battle, and go on until one side or the other gives in. They choose the crudest weapons available, and use them with appalling violence, but observe what, to non-Westerners may well seem curious rules of honour. Orientals, by contrast, shrink from pitched battle, which they often deride as a sort of game, preferring ambush, surprise, treachery and deceit as the best way to overcome an enemy."

Although the nomadic raid lost out to Western resistance over the centuries, Keegan writes, "On September 11, 2001 it returned in an absolutely traditional form. Arabs, appearing suddenly out of empty space like their desert raider ancestors, assaulted the heartlands of Western power, in a terrifying surprise raid and did appalling damage."

Readers who reproached me for using the word "racism" to qualify Washington's orientation toward the Islamic world should read Keegan's essay carefully. Here we have the upright Westerner against the underhanded Oriental. Kipling (who wrote vividly about the sneakiness of the British in the Great Game) would blush.

It's all completely, totally, revoltingly wrong. The West confronts not a throwback to medieval Islam, but a Westernized version of Islam transformed into a totalitarian political ideology. Although it draws upon Islamic sources and overlaps with some strains of Muslim belief, the ideology of Al-Qaeda has greater kinship with Nazism, another synthetic pagan religion, than with traditional Islam.

Like Nazism, it is a deadly threat. Remember that Hitler very nearly won. If Hitler (to cite one among many examples) had not declared war on the United States after Pearl Harbor but instead offered himself as a mediator between Washington and Tokyo, would the US have declared war on Germany? And in the absence of US involvement in Europe, would Hitler have lost? Or if Hitler had thrown the British into the sea at Dunkirk rather than holding back his tanks? Or if Hitler had enlisted the Ukrainians and Balts as allies rather than butchering them? Like the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, Al-Qaeda might win, and by the same methods.

Keegan dwells on a strained analogy of tactics and ignores a fundamental difference in objectives. No traditional society destroyed for the pleasure of destruction; at least none of which we have had reports. The Islamic conquerors of the past raided for identifiable goals. They wished to rule new territories and bring new peoples under their sway. Whether greed or missionary zeal drove them on, let historians argue. The West ultimately drove back these incursions and broke the back of Islamic power.

Al-Qaeda wants no territory, no conversions, no loot, no slaves. It wishes to destroy the West and happily will sacrifice millions of Muslim lives in order to do so. Indeed, the mass sacrifice of Muslim lives may lie at the heart of its battle plan. It has more in common with the Dostoyevsky of The Possessed or the Wagner of Die Goetterdaemmerung than with the Muslim conquerors of the Middle Ages.

Evil for its own sake becomes imaginable only when the Christian civilization of the West abandons Christianity and stares into the abyss of its own destruction. Before Dostoyevsky, Ibsen, and Wagner presented the relevant profiles, Western literature had the matter in its pure form, in the character of Mephisto in Goethe's Faust. "I am a part of that part which in the beginning was everything," he tells Faust. "A part of darkness that gave birth to light; the proud light, that now contests Mother Night's old rank and space." Al-Qaeda is the darkness that covets the position of light and wishes only to destroy. "I am the spirit that always negates," Mephisto offers, "and rightly so, because everything that comes to be is worthy of its own destruction." Unlike the Western adherents of Nietzsche, who cried, "God is dead, and everything is permitted!", the Islamist radicals have invented a God who permits everything.

Sir John should read carefully Fouad Ajami's profile "Nowhere man" of terrorist Mohammed Atta in the New York Times of October 7. "In more recent years, younger Egyptians gave up on the place, came to dream of fulfillment - economic, personal, political - in foreign lands. Mohammed Atta, who left for Germany in 1993, was part of that migration, of that rupturing of things on the banks of the Nile. Religion came to Atta unexpectedly, in Hamburg, where he had gone for a graduate degree in urban planning ... The modern world unsettled Atta. He exalted the traditional, but it could no longer give him a home. He drifted in 'infidel' lands but could never be fully at ease. He led an itinerant life. The magnetic power of the American imperium had fallen across his country. He arrived here with a presumption, and a claim. We had intruded into his world; he would shatter the peace of ours. The glamorized world couldn't be fully had; it might as well be humbled and taken down," wrote the professor of Middle Eastern Studies at the School of Advanced International Studies at the Johns Hopkins University.

"It must have been easy work for the recruiters who gave Atta a sense of mission, a way of doing penance for the liberties he had taken in the West, and the material means to live the plotter's life. A hybrid kind has been forged across that seam between the civilization of Islam and the more emancipated culture of the West. Behold the children, the issue, of this encounter as they flail about and rail against the world in no-man's-land," concludes Ajami.

Mohammed Atta, to Ajami's expert eye, is the direct descendant of Dostoyevsky's Raskolnikov, the impoverished student from an Old Believer family adrift in St Petersburg, who kills for the sake of doing evil.

The grand vulnerability of the Western mind is horror. The Nazis understood this and pursued a policy "des Schreckens" (to cause horror) and "Entsetzens" (terror, literally: dislodgement). Horror was not merely an instrument of war in the traditional sense, but a form of Wagnerian theater, or psychological warfare on the grand scale. Hitler's tactical advantage lay in his capacity to be more horrible than his opponents could imagine. The most horrible thing of all is that he well might have succeeded if not for his own megalomaniac propensity to overreach.

America, as Osama bin Laden taunted this week, lost in Vietnam. But it was not military setbacks, but the horrific images of Vietnamese civilians burned by napalm, that lost the war. America's experience in the war is enshrined in popular culture in the film Apocalypse Now, modeled after Joseph Conrad's story, The Heart of Darkness. The Belgian trading company official, Paul Kurtz, sinks into bestiality and dies with these words: "The horror! The horror!" It was a dreadful film, but a clever reference. At the close of World War I, T S Eliot subtitled his epitaph for Western civilization, The Wasteland, with a quote from the Conrad story: "Mr Kurtz, he dead."

From America's moral collapse in the face of the horror of Vietnam, there arose a repudiation of classical Western culture unlike anything seen previously in the English-speaking world. The West nearly threw up its hands in the face of the challenge from the Soviet Union in the late 1970s.

Getting down to tactics, how can Al-Qaeda overcome the West with horror? Let us suppose that some state or state agency over which Al-Qaeda wields influence possesses a weapon of mass destruction, with sufficient potency to cause a very large number of deaths in a Western country. If it deploys that weapon and causes a very large number of casualties, the West may have no choice but to bombard the offending country with nuclear weapons and destroy its capacity to make war. Given that Al-Qaeda has tendrils deep in numerous governments, even a nuclear bombardment of one rogue state might not diminish its capacities. The West would be left with the horrific fact of mass destruction of civilians combined with continued insecurity.

Time is on the side of Al-Qaeda. Sir John's strategic advice is dangerously wrong. He wrote on October 8 that "President Bush in his speech to his nation and to the Western world yesterday, promised a traditional Western response. He warned that there would be 'a relentless accumulation of success'. Relentlessness, as opposed to surprise and sensation, is the Western way of warfare. It is deeply injurious to the Oriental style and rhetoric of war-making."

On the contrary, the West should think of itself as the underdog, fighting against the clock, and seize the tactical initiative. It should act unpredictably, with the objective of confusing and disrupting an enemy who until now has chosen his targets at leisure. Rather than batter Afghanistan, whence any terrorist worth his Cemtex departed long ago, the West should act unexpectedly and without mercy against states which allow Al-Qaeda. There is no need to go into details here. Doing so now offers at least the chance of gaining the respect of the Islamic world. Failing to do so makes probable a gradual accumulation of failures. It means that the war will be Al-Qaeda's to lose.

The US did not bug out of Vietnam because of the horror. We left, because there was no plan for victory, just endless war. The attack on the WTC hasn't sent people into episodes of the vapors, even the people in the building at the time of the attack. Many remarked about the calmness, the steady response of people without panic without pushing and shoving of the 25,000 people from 80 countries, who climb down those dozens of storeys. And the US and Britain produced more horror than Hitler ever dreamt about. Ever hear about Dresden or Hamburg? This author is a complete doofus.

Right. It was the purposelessnes of the killing in Vietnam, not the fact of the killing, that was most repugnant.

Many remarked about the calmness, the steady response of people without panic without pushing and shoving of the 25,000 people from 80 countries, who climb down those dozens of storeys.

How many would have been this calm had they thought the towers were about to fall? Not too many, I think. I seriously doubt I could have remained calm, and I think I'm a pretty steady guy.

Keep in mind that these people have not been able to destroy Israel, as state infinitely smaller than the United States.

They pose a threat certainly, but I see no reason to panic. They have no way to attack us other than sneaking across our borders. Tightening up our border controls would remove most of their threat.

Americans do not succumb to horror. We only pay lip service to doing so. No extremist minority has ever held a majority in subjugation here, as is the case in Afghanistan, because of our own will to revolt. That is our genetic legacy: this country has selected for a population that would not put up with the status quo in it's native lands. We will do what is necessary to survive, though we may couch it in pretty sentiments, just as our food droppings to Afghanistan were more for public consumption than for human consumption. Pure evil is its own undoing because, at its core, lies insanity. Thus Hitler's megalomania, and Bin Laden's miscalculation of his enemy. Saddam Hussein is far more threaghtening because he is not insane. He administers his ruthlessness with great calculation, and he is the cornerstone that must be crushed.

give me a hard headed, self-effacing, practical analyst, a minimalist who knows the uses of Occam's razor.

I give you John Keegan, sir. This particular essay, on the other hand, I found unpersuasive and muddled (if somewhat useful as the current discussion demonstrates,) but I couldn't quite pinpoint its flaws as well as you did. Oh, the horror, the horror of bad writing and on the day of Nobel Prize in Literature!

Islam is increasing in population. The pro-abortion West is decreasing in population. To win, we have to change.

Not so. If it's merely a question of population projections, we can very quickly reduce the foreign Muslim population and any future potential it might have.

If the Muslim terrorist scum ever succeed in taking out an entire American city, I believe the quick and final solution will be the only one left. It will be kill or be killed. Instant nuclear annihilation of the entire foreign Muslim population - all breeding grounds for current & future terrorists - will ensure eventual victory.

As time goes on I become more and more convinced that Islam really IS the enemy. If America begins to take HUGE losses in terms of cities and/or states, then this point of view will become extremely strong and widespread. The public cries to end this war quickly through nuclear means will be deafening.

Although we are told by our own leaders that Islamic nations & leaders worldwide "condemn" the huge militant wing of their religion, why is it that we almost never hear it from the horse's mouth? Why is it that extremist Islam is so incredibly widespread and dominant within their own cultures?

The few times I have seen a "sympathetic" Islamic cleric speak on the issue, the supposed condemnation is obviously half-hearted and insincere. I get the definite impression that mainstream "non-militant" Muslims show one face in public, but privately wink at and cheer on their Islamic terrorist army because it is spreading their religion by the sword, in true historical fashion.

...even a nuclear bombardment of one rogue state might not diminish its capacities. The West would be left with the horrific fact of mass destruction of civilians combined with continued insecurity.

This article is nonsense. If the West is ever truly pushed to the brink of potentially being destroyed, then it WILL resort to nukes. In this unlikely eventuality, it will NOT be stupid enough to limit the response to one rogue state. If pushed to the point of survival, the will to survive will prevail and the only means for quick & certain victory WILL be utilized.

If this point is ever reached, it will be extremely evident who the real enemy is. ALL foreign Islamic states will be nuked out of existence, thus ensuring victory. If there ARE no Afghans, Pakistanis, Saudis, Egyptians, Iraqis, Iranians, Algerians, Palestinians, Indonesians, etc. to join the extremist Islamic ranks, they cannot continue. From what I've heard, there aren't too many North & South Americans, Brits, Germans, Aussies, Russians, Japanese, etc. training in Al-Quada camps. If these are among the only countries left on earth, where will the enemy come from?

Point, set, match. Stupid article. We can only pray that the West is never faced with "staring into the abyss", such that the final solution becomes the only one.

the chief beneficiaries of the 'Taliban' style of Islam... the total empowerment of the 'Male' in Society, at the exclusion of Women,

I think you are getting close, but I don't think it's that simple. I see a fear of women in a lot of their behavior. I also suspect that there is a heavy component of 'stooping to conquer' going on, in a dimension that is not obvious to Westerners. The places where these people live are a lot tougher to survive in than our air-conditioned offices with indoor plumbing would lead us to expect. There is a whole bunch of back-breaking work going on every day, just to keep food on the table. The women are 'forced' to stay in their homes while this work goes on? Are you sure you know who is 'empowered' in this scheme?

re:
"..Or is it the commanders who tell them to die for allah. I say it is the
commanders. When the commanders are dead, who is to tell them? you?....."

Throughout history, there has always been a "commander" to tell them
who to attack. Not much has changed, except they have moved their
quest from their Middle East soil, to ours. Rid Usama and there is
Hezbolah, Hamas, and whatever follows. I seriously doubt we'll see
an end to the problem that quickly.

This isn't a simple matter of bombing the daylights out of another nation,
our enemy is among us. They lived among us for five years or more,
planning; getting ready; knowing that their ultimate end was death
for them, for their cause.

There is nothing more powerful than an army with a religious conviction
that demands they die for their cause. Killing them, serves their purpose;
they answer not to a single "commander", but to their religion.

re:
".....Those believers are not afraid of death. We are...."

"....Dont include me in that "we". Im a believer too......"

We are all "believers" of one sort or another, but are we truly
willing to die for our belief?

Would you be willing to strap a bomb to your body and kill
innocent bystanders, along with yourself, in the name of your belief?

Would you choose to hijack an aircraft full of innocent victims
and take them to their death along with yourself, with the
assumption that it's exactly what your belief dictates?

Would you walk in front of enemy fire, for no other reason than
to prove that your own life means nothing to you; that your
religious belief dictates your action? That your death is the honor.

We value life; our own life; life of those around us and we attribute
our life to our beliefs; we give our life for our beliefs.

They value death.

re:
"...Point, set, match....."

Rather odd game. You left out an important part of the game,
however: There is no rule book.

The rules? Where are the rules to this game?

Unlike checkers, chess, tennis, etc., our opponent's play among us,
not on the other side of the net, or on different colored squares.

They are playing on our board with our game pieces, and it
will be near impossible to tell who is on what side. Do we
move a piece, jump over, or remove a piece to win?

They took flight lessons. They looked like us, acted like us and
lived like us; among us. They were us.

They were here for over five years, planning for the day they will die.

Rather odd game.

re:
"...If the West is ever truly pushed to the brink of potentially being
destroyed, then it WILL resort to nukes....."

Against whom? Idaho?

"The women are 'forced' to stay in their homes while this work goes on? Are you sure you know who is 'empowered' in this scheme? "

Good observation. Whenever we see an "on the scene" report from Afghanistan, there's this perpetual backdrop of Afghani men carrying stuff. Often it's a bundle of kindling that probably took a half a day or more to gather, given that the press reports that Afghanistan has been about 70% deforested for firewood in the last 25 years. These guys look none to healthy either. The young ones are likely off exercising their "privilege" of dying for the cause of their Taliban oppressors.

When pushed far enough, Americans can kill into the 5 or 6-figures in a single day.

I stand by my statement ... and look at the article. Vietnam. Everything else you mentioned was pre-television era.

Pearl Harbor was also pre-television.

However, on 11 September, 2001 most of America and I were able to watch, as a result of television, almost 6,000 other Americans die on live TV. One moment we were speculating on what caused that little puff of smoke that blew out of the building and the next moment were are watching the WTC Towers collapse on live TV. Three thousand dead Americans, just like that, in seconds. Fifteen minutes later, another 3,000 dead Americans, just like that, in seconds.

If the forces behind these attacks are not totally destroyed, the future dead will not be "the South Vietnamese", "the Cambodians", "the Koreans", "the European Jews", "the French" or "the British" as they were in Vietnam, Korea and the European Theatre of WW II. The future dead, in the minds of most Americans, will be "maybe my wife or my son or my daughter or my parents or my aunts and uncles or my cousins or my friends or my neighbors."

I stand by my statement. Pushed far enough, America will kill as many as need to be killed to stop the attacks on America and the American viewing public will be watching the details on TV and giving each other "high fives".

I hope that "our" government has the will and the resolve to do it, should it come to that. And it may.

I don't believe that Islam, etc., can "defeat" us, in the traditional sense. I do, however, belive that they could disrupt us to the point where the distinctions between defeat and chaos become very blurred. *IF* it comes to that, it may be that only a nuclear option on a large scale will be able to stop it. At that point, it truly DOES become a matter of their survival or our survival, and I hope that our "leadership" has the balls to make the decision that America as a country needs to survive.

I hope it never comes to that.

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.