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.
A foreign government that is told that it will physically survive only upon certain conditions imposed from abroad is, by definition, a puppet government.
Strictly? You do realize that the attack on us had nothing to do with us assisting Mujahedin. Unless you want to be one of the dopes criticizing the gov. for not being psychic in knowing that the Mujahedin would have eventually done this. Many, however in the Mujahedin during that time are quite opposed to the Taliban and those that have attacked us. I don't really see the point in addressing that.
You do realize that we were in a cold war with the Soviets, don't you?
Show me a 'japan' in the fundamentalist muslim world. -- The closest are probably Pakistan & Indonesia and they are far to capitalist/'westernized' to ever allow a serious terrorist moverment to use them, or for fundmentalsts to gain control.
Thus, they would be the only candidates that we could use your WWII methods on, AFTER we bombed them into 'unconditional surrender'. You do realize you are talking of the methods of a 'total' WWII type war, don't you?
That is not possible to ascertain unless you have a crystal ball. What might have happened without our intervention there is a matter of speculation. One consequence of that meddling was that the situation was created which fostered a regime that embraced terrorists in that place.
Now lets see if we can't steer your little self back on topic for yet another try. You advocated the invasion and occupation of a foreign country and the establishment of a puppet regime. You have avoided discussing that concept even though you introduced it. Do you embrace that idea or abandon it?
I embrace occupying the nation as we should have after the battle with the Soviets was won. They are obviously incapable, in the state they are in, of forming a legitimate government. We have seen what happens when we allow anarchy to decide. It is just like in prison. Might makes right, and all must conform to what the mighty say.
I do not wish to impose our own form of government upon them, but merely a democratic one, where the government TRULY reflects the wishes of ALL Afghan people.
They need help. And the International community can provide it. For their benefit as well as our own, so that we do not have to face a similar regime in the future.
"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.
---------------------------------
We have, as you noted, a clash of fundamental values.
Individual fanatics are leading this movement, in and outside of governments and/or religious groups. 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-
At last a statement I can agree with.
IMHO the correct course is:
-Rebuild our intelligence infrastructure;
-Work with Mossad to seek out and terminate the leadership of these organizations;
-Locate training facilities, germ and chem war plants--and destroy them utterly. Whatever it takes. Sometimes it will take a lot--see Libya's hardened and subterranean poison-gas plant.
We also need to take immediate and agressive action to purge our country of enemy aliens.
--Boris
At least you are clear about your desire to have the US rule the world. You think that after an invasion of one country by another failed and the people in the country being invaded fought long enough to make the invaders withdraw, we should then have invaded that country and taken over ourselves? Amazing.
They are obviously incapable, in the state they are in, of forming a legitimate government.
This is the height of liberal/elitist rhetoric. The dumb people of the world cannot decide on their own what a legitimate government is so we will do it for them by force?
Might makes right, and all must conform to what the mighty say.
That describes precisely what you advocate for the US to do.
I do not wish to impose our own form of government upon them, but merely a democratic one,
Duh....that is how our form of government is decribed. You don't want to impose ours, merely ours.
TRULY reflects the wishes of ALL Afghan people.
Most of the world lives under governments that don't allow the wishes of ALL their people or even many of their people. I assume that you advocate attacking them and imposing a "democratic" form of government on them?
They need help. And the International community can provide it.
Hmmm,, kind of a one world government this "international community"?
Son, you have delusions of world domination. We have spent several wars killing people who thought exactly like you.
Incidentally, the decapitation strategy doesn't seem to work for Israel, and for the same reasons: when you have a hostile culture, there is no substitute for control of territory.
--Boris
Really? When did they get serious about this strategy? How many opportunities have they had to rid the world of Arafat--the arch terrorist--who some will recall carried a handgun into the U.N.?
Do you suppose they'd let me, a mild and harmless fellow, carry a loaded weapon into the U.N. building?
--Boris
I don't know about missed assassination opportunities for Israel, but the strategy of surgical "decapitations", in place for at least a year now, didn't slow down the suicide bombers. I have a distinct impression that it is time for Israel to annex the PA territories and do some conventional policing there for a while. The last window of opportunity to do so closed on 9/11, but they shouldn't miss the next one.
This is not the time to spew you rhetoric. You simply want to sit back and watch millions of Afghans die in the name of noninterference. Then you want your grand children to face another Taliban.
I don't think that follows. Neither boris nor I are intimating that we shouldn't have intelligence capability on the ground in Afganistan (something we have lacked for some time). Nor do I think that such intelligence should necessarily be passive. It serves multiple purposes. Intelligence would allow us to support (and protect) leaders helping the Afganis develop a nascent government as well as identify enemies before they start blowing up buildings.
A puppet government isn't necessary. IMHO the liabilities exceed the benefits.
Exactly the opposite.
It is increasingly difficult to keep you on topic. You always spew your hatred of liberty as a way to escape the posts that you make.
You advocate a one world government, a policy of world domination thorough the use of force and the invasion and occupation of countries who do not embrace your ideal form of government. A government that you define as democracy but which is really fascism.
You are a disgrace to this country and you reflect a troubling image on your polictical party.
I repeat that this country has fought major wars to defeat people exactly like you.
My grandchildren will have their hands full as they will have to do the same thing I have done and my parents have done. Fight against foes of liberty in all it's forms. Whether it's the Taliban or you. You are more dangerous than them. They are a bunch of goat herders in a far away country and we know who they are. You are a domestic thug with dreams of an authoritarian world who poses as a Republican and a conservative. It's a disguise that some don't see through. Most do but I will continue to expose you and others who pose a threat to our way of life just in case.
Do you know how to read? I have never even come close to sayin that.
Go sing kumbaya and perhaps it will all go away.
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.