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.
If you look at our foreign policy since the end of WWII, we have tried to install friendly governments in many countries in Africa, the Middle East, and the Far East. In nearly every instance it has failed.
Saddam Hussein and ben Laden are just the latest in a long line of US installed or backed leaders who have come back to bite us. If I remember correctly, the US even backed Pol Pot at one time. The government's record in that regard is enough to steer us away from that course of action.
We do need to rip out terrorism root and branch where ever it may rear its ugly head, but we do need to let sovereign countries run their own affairs. Only when those govenments attack the US are we allowed, or even obligated to intervene. Otherwise, we need to focus on the problem, terrorism and all who harbor terrorists.
Currently, the Taliban is so hated and despised that even their own members are deserting it and heading for high ground. This will not be as difficult a task as the Russians or the British took on. We have millions of Afgan allies that will do the battle for us. Ridding the Taliban is not even in question, we ARE taking them out period. The only thing we must decide is weather we destroy them and leave Afghanistan with another anarchy to deal with, or we assist them in building a democratic government. Bring men and women from Afghanistan over here to go to college and learn how to successfully run a country.
I don't care what your religious beliefs are, nobody wants their fingers cut off if they put fingernail polish on them. No one wants to be tortured and beat to death if they watch television.
The taliban will fall.
As for the other muslim extremists, hopefully they will come to Afghanistan to fight and die with the Taliban. If not they can fight and die with Saddam.
There will most likely be many confrontations over there, but one thing we cannot do is to close our eyes to that area and ignore it. We would be signing our own death warrant. These extremists don't teach to kill only the Jews, Christians, or any other religion that meddles in their affairs, they teach to kill ALL of them.
Why don't you try defending 'imperialism', with more of your hollywood version of reason, instead of empty rhetoric? We need a few laughs around here.
We cannot decare war on the muslim world, or even on selected political parts of it, imo, without bringing on another global war. - WWIII.
Therefore, we should decare war on the fanatics, the individuals responsible. -- We should identify these individuals as it becomes possible, make our case, and announce to the world that no quarter will be given in their personal elimination , collateral death & destructon be damned.
After several such successful actions, killing thousands of these fanatics, the rest will learn our way. -- To live & let live. -- Or learn to die opposing it.
Imperialism, as you have defined it, will never work again unless the enemy is totally defeated, as per WWII.
We cannot fight the whole islamic world for its unconditional surrender. - #15 -
---------------------------------------
You are unbelieveable. -- Obviously, in your first post to me here, you didn't even read ALL of #15, you just made up some pat answer to my last sentence, just to be, --- what? -- Seen as clever?
How weird, to ask me for my solution, when it's outlined above, in my first post .
Therefore, we should decare war on the fanatics, the individuals responsible.
That would be the Taliban.
We should identify these individuals as it becomes possible, make our case, and announce to the world that no quarter will be given in their personal elimination , collateral death & destructon be damned.
Exactly what we are doing to the Taliban.
After several such successful actions, killing thousands of these fanatics, the rest will learn our way. -- To live & let live. -- Or learn to die opposing it.
So you think after we rid the world of the Taliban, we should just leave and allow another just like it to rise?
This stratagy is much like that used to pacify the 'indian terrorists' on the frontier. --- ANYone living as, or with, an outlaw [terrorist], was considered fair game. It worked then in the US.
-- It will now, in the world. ---- IF we make it clear there is no where to run, & no escape.
Pure hubris.
Are you going to declare war on anyone that doesn't meet your moral standards? How about the Chinese? We don't have that kind of power, nor should we exercise it if we did, not because of what it would do to others, but because of what it does to us.
Do you want an example? In this case, in Afganistan, we assumed our right to manipulate regimes toward our preference. That means whoever wishes to corruptly buy influence within our own government gains material advantage as enforced by military proxy. In the case cited, it was Unocal. What did it do? It gave the Taliban the tacit concession of the US government necessary to establish their permanence. How did that result?
It wasn't merely the kind of corruption in the Clinton administration that would sell out our security for a mere $300,000 campaign donation that precipitated these events. The assumption that we have such a right allowed the entire infrastructure of such influence buying to develop. We have seen its fruits all over the world.
How then should we have proceeded? Why was it that Bush lost to Bubba? Iran/Contra? Was that a failure of policy or leadership? In my view the latter. Lacking the ability to communicate why it was necessary to support the Contras such that the Congress would provide the funds, PoppaBush chose to use dealing drugs to our children to illegally finance a legitimate war effort against communism in this hemisphere. When it came to the election and exposing Bubba's corruption, I have a hunch that blackmail was and may still perhaps be involved. Thus the ability to sell influence became the determinant in electability instead of leadership qualities.
It is always harder to see why a system prevents problems than to see how its lack precipitated such. The difficulty is in identifying those principles of governance that would have prevented the incidence of these particular events. In our case the number and scope of elements in which Constitutional principles have been violated are so many that one could spend all day pointing and arguing. This is why so many of the remedial suggestions I have offered are preventative in nature.
It is never too late to start, and the situation is never so urgent as to justify ignoring them. See above.
What are the roots of the Arab militancy?
Whatever the merits of your very practical approach, I still have to say that Mohammed is the root of Islamic militancy. He turned seventh century Arabian culture into a religion.
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.
Mohammed did not merely condone violence and murder, he commanded it. The number of Muslims in the world who do not seem particularly violent may indicate the normal bell curve tendencies of groups more than it does anything about the Koran itself. Militant Islam may be a new phenomenon in 'modern history' but it is not a new phenomenon in history.
Cordially,
MORAL STANDARDS!!! WTF?! They slit throats of men who commit adultery. And not just a quick slit, they insert the blade behind the esophagus and saw out through it. It is so common that it has a name: "Qasas". Watch one for yourself here. And if that does not do it for you, FRmail me and I will send you a link to a Qasas closeup where you can watch the blade itself as it inserts into the throat.
You mentioned the Chinese. 2 things. We can eliminate the Taliban quite effectively without going into all out war. Second, the Chinese don't see the best way to go the heaven is to kill Americans.
What do you think of the morality of a nation that foists a global ban on a pesticide on false premises with the published goal of population reduction and watching 3 million people die annually for thirty years? What do you think of the morality of a nation that KNOWINGLY and with FORETHOUGHT routinely conducts "habitat restoration" projects that cause death by starvation and pest borne diseases, in one case 22 million people in Central Africa (it was predicted in the EIS and they went forward with the project)? What do you think of a the morality of a nation that abetted the spread of AIDS by preventing every known and proven public health measure from functioning?
These people don't have AZT and AIDS cocktails. Adultery to them is a society-threatening problem (as if it wasn't to ours). The Islamic world has a lower incidence of AIDS than any other undeveloped area in the planet BY FAR. You judge them because their remedial prevention mechanics are horrible and bloody.
I see. I say that it doesn't trouble you because there is no temperence or consciousness of such realities in your replies. These people fear our loose morality and open sexuality for more direct reasons than you apparently suspect or understand. They hate the progenitors of our popular culture because they see it as a threat to their very existence and have no wish to repeat the experience of southern Africa. They see the promulgation of that culture, the emphasis of "tolerance" sold to them by the UN and they see US.
I am not justifying the Taleban, nor am I suggesting that they not be taken out. I am saying that your bellicose attitude is the very one that has induced much of this stupidity through its LACK of emphasis on these issues that so apparently matter to the people of Afganistan. If we are to successfully assist them in installing a government that respects the rule of law and is friendly to our nation, best that we learn to respect their laws and institutions such that we gain the benefit of the popular will. Without it we might as well kill them all. Is that what you want?
This stratagy is much like that used to pacify the 'indian terrorists' on the frontier. --- ANYone living as, or with, an outlaw [terrorist], was considered fair game. It worked then in the US.
-- It will now, in the world. ---- IF we make it clear there is no where to run, & no escape. - 29 -
-----------------------------------
Do you not understand that the Taliban is no better than the Nazis and we must end it at all costs. Period. The more we allow it to flurish, the more we shall suffer in the future.
=================================
Tex. - Why do you think your nazi/taliban gibberish has anyhing to do with what we are supposedly discussing?
Sorry, but your replies are beyond my ablity, and my patience, to comprehend. I'm outa here.
What is it you think I want? To just recreate our culture in Afghanistan? To copy our government exactly?
If the government that comes into power is TRULY democratic, it will reflect the will of the Afghan people.
However, human rights are inalienable. And when possible, we must defend them. If the Taliban were doing the same things the Chinese government has been doing, I would just as adamantly promote it's demise by military force.
I agree that the imperialist course is replete with perils that you outline. The right imperialist course is one among many wrong imperialist courses. The right course means establishing either an occupation regime or a puppet government that sees as its central function enforcement of basic rights: right to life and property, -- the same rights that the terrorists violate. It should be supportive of indigenous culture and religion, or religion-blind. I believe that we have resources to accomplish that, provided that the silly government programs that waste our money today domestically, are deep-sixed.
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.