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.
Probably a lot like trying to reason with the Militant Religious Right on the drug war right here at home....
Good read. Only problem is "The United States Territory of Afghanistan" would be a bigger drain on us than Porto Rico!
I would say that they are inconsistent Moslems, which is a better thing to have than more militant Islam. But even then but I'm not sure I want more lapsed Moslems, because even lapsed Moslems can use democratic means to advance Islam, and I can't seem to get over my loathing of the notion of submitting to religious and dietary laws of seventh century Arabia, or paying extra tax for refusing to be so subjected. As a thought experiment, though, what do you think would happen if Moslems gained a majority power in the United States?
Christ obviously can use means He sees fit to accomplish His purposes, and I would hope that more Moslems will turn to Him. In some Islamic countries they face a death penalty for converting, and in other places moderate Moslems will still reject and ostracize members of their own families who do reject Islam.
You are right that in some ways the values of two different civilizations are in fundamental conflict. I think we as Christians need to remember that on a higher level, it's not just about military, cultural or ideological battles; we need to be aware that our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.
Again, I appreciate your very fine and thoughtful article.
Cordially,
Yes, and our mistake was becoming involved in the first place. We should learn from that mistake and not make it again by trying to invade and conquer a country and install a puppet government of our choosing. That is what the USSR tried to do and is precisely what you now advocate for this country.
That would be my preference under most circumstances, but not under these concrete ones. I don't see what "decapitation" alone would do to gain support of moderate Muslims, and to prevent future networks developing. Nor would it be immoral to pick one side in the existing tension between moderate Islam and militant Islam: picking sides is the essense of foreign policy.
I am all for waiting till the Afghani pick a leader that would be compatible with our interests; while we wait, we have to mantain an occupational force there.
In your posts you offer the choice between the Diem model and Allende model, and, naturally, prefer (as I do) the Allende model, -- that is, stage a coup d'etat, eliminate the hostile leadership, and let the local populace work out a transition to a free market democracy. However, there is nothing to say that in Chile we didn't plain get lucky with Pinochet. The "Allende model" may not be available in the case of the Arab militants, if only because they can move from country to country: they are small and mobile, and don't have to feed the population like communist central planners do. Can we get an Arab Pinochet in every potentially hostile Arab country in a synchronized fashion?
Our model should be General MacArthur model: an occupational force that stays away from cultural issues but sets up civil courts and a police force, ready to turn the leadership over to an indigenous leader as soon as he becomes available.
The present leaders are either incapable to root out the terrorists or are sympathetic to them. In either case, we need to be present there to replace those leaders who are unreliable, or to assist those who merely need the means to govern. That means the same thing I have proposed: occupational force and a puppet government.
My only comment is that what the British have with the IRA is, indeed, terrorism that should not be dignified with the term "war". The militant Arabs are not common criminals: they represent a consistent worldview with its own notion of right and wrong, and they view us as evil. If the British had a system of justice that put the IRA thugs behind bars for life and didn't negotiate with them, their problem would be soon over. Not so in our case. Ours is war, not a police action.
There is no alternative to learning now.
We don't have to make it a drain, if we make it a minimalist government, that only does basic law enforcement. Come to think of it, it is a good thing that we can't afford to make it big for them.
If that were only true.
As a matter of fact, the Ottoman Empire had a pretty good, by contemporary standards, record of religious tolerance. All the Istambul wanted was taxes and civil order. The minorities had to demonstrate that they have an ability to maintain order and they were allowed worship in the manner they chose. Greater intolerance was at times exhibited by the local Christians. When Bulgarians wanted a national Orthodox church, the Pasha asked them to settle their dispute with the Greeks, who were an established Christian church, -- he was amused by such Christian disunity and alarmed that the existing order be disrupted by ethnic tension. "Why can't you pray in Greek if you pray to the same God?"
With what? Iraq? That's a good one. We need not care about a vicious dictator with weapons of mass destruction. I forgot we live in Libertopia were no one messes with you unprovoked. YEAH RIGHT?
Or do you mean Israel. That is less of an issue to Bin Laden than the Iraq one. But still Israel is the lone democracy over there, and we cannot sit by and allow it to fall. And if we were not supporting Israel Saddam, and other Muslim countries would go and take Jerusalem.
When it comes to governments which support terrorism, "decapitate and wait."
For countries which harbor terrorists, but we cannot be sure they do so knowingly, demand cooperative investigations. If the cooperation we insist upon is refused, we decapitate and wait. If the cooperation is offered, the investigations will, in time, provide the answers, and also in time, take a major step toward corraling the terrorists operating there.
The subject is Afghanistan, I know it's tough to keep up while you are in an anti-libertarian frenzy but none the less you must try son.
You were advocating the invasion and takeover of a foreign country and installing a puppet regime there, ala the USSR. Why not advocate a world takeover?
Don't change the topic please.
The present leaders are either incapable to root out the terrorists or are sympathetic to them.
-- Exactly my point. - They either abdicate, become 'capable', or we kill them. No more tolerence of terrorism.
In either case, we need to be present there to replace those leaders who are unreliable, or to assist those who merely need the means to govern. That means the same thing I have proposed: occupational force and a puppet government.
-- Only works with a completly beaten, capitalistic type enemy, as per WWII. You are ignoring the lessons of history, and your own observations on the enemy in your article above.
Also, we shouldn't CARE who the leaders are, as long as they control terrorism & warfare. - If they can't, kill them.
-- The wannabe strongmen/dictator/warmonger types would soon scuttle for cover if such a policy was adopted by us, and/or 'western civilisation'.
The government collects 50% of our money and has the best and biggest military in the world. If we don't have the resource to have an MP presence in every town, we better find one. I suggest, our government stops wasting its resources on (a) countries that don't attack us, such as Haiti or the Balkans (b) projects that are not its core function, such as education, medical care and business regulation, and concentrates of that which is a matter of national defense.
intended trap
That would be carpet-bombing from Algiers to Karachi and getting out as rapidly as possible, waiting for the level of sympathy for the friendly Yanks to rise. Getting our hands dirty on the ground was not expected by bin Laden after his dust-up with the glorious Clinton Administration, and that is precisely what needs to be done.
We had better constrain it to a police action
I agree, but what is your definition of a police action? Mine is a cop on the beat in the neighborhood, and that is what I am proposing here.
I think that those who disagree with the necessity of American imperialism do so because they are rightly appalled by the prospect, and because everyone has been conditioned to think that imperialism is wrong, unworkable, etc. The fact is that imperialism has worked every time it was properly tried; every time an imperial nation retreated from its obligations overseas it did so because it wanted to, not because it had to, in a bout of imperial laziness, and every time it retreated, it bought itself more trouble and closer to home.
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.