Victor Davis Hanson: Do We Have a Strategy in the War? Yes, and a multifaceted one, at that

NRO ^ | October 12, 2006 | Victor Davis Hanson

[Tolik]

It is often said that the United States has neither a long-term strategy in this larger war against terror nor an immediate one in Iraq.

Both are unfair charges, since we seem to have both.

Against the terrorists, our strategy is a six-pronged approach:

1. Beef up security to such a degree at home that it would require far more training and expertise to penetrate our defenses than what was necessary for the September 11 attacks;

2. Arrest, imprison, and kill enough Islamic terrorists in the United States and abroad to make it nearly impossible for them to carry off another September 11-like attack;

3. Take out the worst authoritarian regimes in the Middle East that sponsored terrorism and attacked their neighbors, while pressuring others like a Saudi Arabia and Egypt to cease funding terrorists;

4. Support the creation of democracies in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Lebanon to offer Muslims choices other than autocracy or Islamic radicalism, while trying to encourage reform in the Middle East at large;

5. Wage a worldwide war of ideas that frames the struggle as the freedom of the individual, liberal values, and Western economic prosperity against the Dark-Age nihilism of the world of the caliphate and Sharia law;

6. Hope that while our enemies’ world is static, ours is not. In other words, while they endlessly redefine the 7th century, we use reason and science to wean us off dependency on their oil, seek sophisticated missile-defense systems, and hope instant global communications (which also facilitate their televised beheadings) can undermine their entire hierarchical society of imams and patriarchs.

Whatever the recent criticisms of George Bush or the difficulties in Iraq, we haven’t had another attack at home. In the last five years, we have killed and jailed tens of thousands of jihadists and replaced the Taliban and the Hussein regimes with struggling democracies — at a cost of fewer lives than were lost on the first day of this war.

But what of our enemies’ present strategy?

Since they cannot defeat Western forces directly, nor offer anyone the prosperity or freedom of the West, they have been reduced to essentially two approaches: first, on the frontlines, make life miserable for all Muslim civilians and third parties to this war, so that, in their exasperation, our newfound democratic friends in Kabul and Baghdad might ask us to give up, and leave things as they once were before the latest round of violence.

Second, recycle the arguments of global critics to demoralize the Western public into thinking that their own governments are worse than the radical Islamists, and hence they should quit the struggle.

So, on the front lines in Afghanistan and Iraq, the jihadists hope to blow up enough electrical transformers, schools, water plants, and police stations, along with killing enough school teachers, policemen, government officials, and women and children, that the population at large will blame the chaos on the war in general. By extension, they will then conclude that, if the Americans just left, calm at least would return under the Taliban or some autocratic theocrat in Iraq.

Our allies in places like Jordan, Lebanon, the Gulf, or in Iraq in theory enjoy the opportunities that globalization has brought, and the chance for Western-style health care, science, and freedom. But emotionally, they recognize that such appetites also represent a desire for something foreign, something antithetical to traditional Arab culture and conservative Islam.

So while their heads tell them to ally with the West, their hearts are not averse to seeing us take an occasional fall. Torn as they are between reason and emotion, even most “moderates” in the Middle East simply wait to see who is going to win — George Bush or his multifarious enemies.

If the jihadists prove ascendant, then the larger humiliation of the West will serve to energize millions in the Middle East to recognize the successes of Islamism, which, in turn, might in some fashion come to power in the Gulf. Such theocracies, as we see in the ambitions of present-day Iran, could then soon use the petro-wealth of the Middle East to acquire nuclear weapons, destroy Israel, and force concessions from the West.

Secondly, our enemies likewise see a war of ideas. In the infomercials of bin Laden and Zawahiri, as well as other Islamists who use the Middle East media, both the Arab and Western world are reminded of America’s sins. And our errors are not just fighting Muslims in Afghanistan or Iraq, or supporting Israel, but include, according to the al Qaeda communiqués, everything from not signing the Kyoto accords to the lack of campaign finance reform, East Timor, the Patriot Act, Halliburton, and the usual generic charges of racism and imperialism.

That these ostensibly leftist critiques are mouthed by Middle East fascists, and are made from the shamelessly recycled material of a Michael Moore or a Noam Chomsky, matters little, since the aim is not really conversion of Westerners to Islam, but an insidious weakening of the Western spirit of resistance.

We already see this desperation in Europe, where novelists, cartoonists, opera producers, and film makers censor themselves or go into hiding, either in fear of real harm or, equally likely, in worry that they might appear apostates from the religion of multiculturalism. Ask the overseers of St. Andrews University in Scotland or the Council on Foreign Relations why they welcomed a former high official from the Iranian theocracy that kills and brutalizes its opponents, and which is seeking nuclear weapons in part to fulfill past promises to wipe out Israel.

As the United States and the Islamic fascists each respectively pursue their own strategies, the constituencies that matter — the Western and Middle Eastern publics — watch the battlefield, adjusting their outlooks to the perceived victory or defeat of either side. When we are doing well, a Bob Woodward writes Bush at War rather than State of Denial, a Chris Matthews sputters that “We are all neoconservatives now,” and enemies in Syria and Iran show real apprehension. But when we seem stalled, suddenly Democratic senators compare our soldiers to Nazis and worse, Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan start appearing with mainstream Democrats, and Hezbollah’s Nasrallah comes out of hiding to brag of his hatred of the U.S.

So the uncertainty is not whether the United States has a sound strategy in this long struggle against savage enemies of the Dark Ages — we have many wise ones — but rather whether we still have the will or the desire to see the war through to the bitter end.

Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. He is the author, most recently, of A War Like No Other. How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War.

[Pirate21]

... [The left] believe lying is not a "sin" in the fight against evil America.

Of course they don't believe lying is a sin; they believe it is a First Amendment right.... to be defended by the very country they are trying to destroy.

[Earthdweller]

BTTT

[Tolik]

I don't get it neither.

Just an example that is as clear cut as I possibly can come up with: One would think that feminists would adapt Afghanistan as their cause and cover it with their support, money, energy, trumpet it in their publications, etc... Some do, but I'd expect 2 magnitudes more...

[Tolik]

5. Wage a worldwide war of ideas that frames the struggle as the freedom of the individual, liberal values, and Western economic prosperity against the Dark-Age nihilism of the world of the caliphate and Sharia law;

THIS is where we are falling down on the job. This is where we need to put more emphasis, or maybe I should say any emphasis. Because if we are doing this I don't really see it.

Amen, brother!

5. Wage a worldwide war of ideas that frames the struggle as the freedom of the individual, liberal values, and Western economic prosperity against the Dark-Age nihilism of the world of the caliphate and Sharia law;

THIS is where we are falling down on the job. This is where we need to put more emphasis, or maybe I should say any emphasis. Because if we are doing this I don't really see it.

[bordergal]

1. Beef up security to such a degree at home that it would require far more training and expertise to penetrate our defenses than what was necessary for the September 11 attacks;

(OR, ignore the border to the point where three elephants and a mariachi band can walk across the US/Mexico border unimpeded in BROAD DAYLIGHT...this is an actual news article).

2. Arrest, imprison, and kill enough Islamic terrorists in the United States and abroad to make it nearly impossible for them to carry off another September 11-like attack;

(Let in 15,000 more Saudi students to the US, and have the highest rate EVER of muslim immigrants to the US in 2005).

Yep, our "policy" is working just fine.

[bayouranger]

2. Arrest, imprison, and kill enough Islamic terrorists in the United States and....

that says it all, folks!

VDH has my support, and I am profoundly happy about his numerical order in terms of things to do. Now DOJ..get to work!

[mbraynard]

In a response piece, Hanson Davis Victor disagrees completely though concedes that Victor Davis Hanson does bring much clearity to the issue to which Davis Hanson Victor is in complete agreement.

I personally agree more with Hanson Hanson Victor who echoes an alternative approach similar to the thesis formulated at the Hungarian War College by esteemed professor Davis Victor Hanson.

[Maneesh]

Good attempt but any Muslim who follows the teachings of Muhammad literally is a huge threat. The Wahabbi / Salafistr are the most literal followers and most of the mosques in the West are funded directly by them. However the Shia Muslims in Iran and Lebanon are no peace lover either. ISLAM clearly promotes lying, cheating, inhumane treatment of women, mass murder and no tolerance of other religions. You are still caught up in political correctness and want to believe that this is an isolated problem with a few muslims. You are wrong, the vast majority of Muslims in America have no allegiance to the USA and are silent enablers or the enemy within. Eventually you will see this truth just as clearly as I do.

[Harrius Magnus]

You noticed that too? It made reading his work much harder.

[bitt]

don't miss

[Captain Kirk]

With the exception of that suprisingly down-beat article, once you've read one VDH article, you've them all. Just think of Eric Idle's rendition of "Always look at the bright side of life" and you get the basic idea.

[ntnychik]

Thanks for the ping.

[randog]

1. Beef up security to such a degree at home that it would require far more training and expertise to penetrate our defenses than what was necessary for the September 11 attacks;

Yeah? Then how did an amateur pilot with no apparent evil motives easily crash his plane into a New York highrise yesterday?

[notdownwidems]

It's gotten to the point that when I click on these threads, I'm half-hoping that someone's laying out a long-term strategy for the defeat of the left, rather than the WoT.

I've said many times that we will NOT win the war against the Islamofascists until we first deal with the traitors who hamper the WOT.

[CarryaBigStick]

Victor cuts through the crap as usual - BTTT!

[Valin]

You are still caught up in political correctness

Me! Not hardly. I just look at the world as it really is. And here in the real world the vast majority of Muslims don't want to enslave or kill us.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Chuck Dent]

I've said many times that we will NOT win the war against the Islamofascists until we first deal with the traitors who hamper the WOT.

We should have treated 9/11 like Pearl by declaring war not only the perpetrator(s), but their allies as well. And, just as the majority of our resources (65%+) were first devoted to defeating the Nazis before we focused back on the original instigators, we should have dealt with the left first before turning our attention to the muzzies.

[Smartass]

Source

There is no such thing as a moderate Muslim.  Like it or not, all Muslims are tethered to the Qur'anic verses and hadiths provides to jihad, the war against non-Muslims, a theological base.

Dhimmitude: History: Jihad

History of Jihad

The relations of Muslims and non-Muslims were set in a context of a war: jihad. Its justification by Qur'anic verses and hadiths provides to jihad, the war against non-Muslims, a theological base. Jihad establishes a single pattern for relations between Muslims and non-Muslims and is central to their relationship. Jihad can be examined at three levels: its doctrine, its institutions, and its historical manifestations.

The ideology of jihad was conceived after Muhammad death. It encompasses a doctrine aiming at the Islamization of the world, supported by military institutions and tactics of war, all being considered as binding the Islamic community (umma). Jihad represents the Islamic worldview of war and peace, it constitutes a specialized domain of Islamic theology and law.

Jihad doctrine divides the peoples of the world into two irreconcilable groups: the dar al-Islam (the land of Islam) and the dar al-harb, (land of war) the non-Muslim world, destined to come under Islamic jurisdiction either by the peaceful conversion of its inhabitants, or by armed conflict. Jihad is the permanent state of war of the dar al-Islam against infidels until they submit to Islamic domination. Peace is accepted only temporarily according to circumstances. The institution of jihad regulates the conduct of war according to religious rules.

---

 

 

 

[notdownwidems]

Agree completely. We must not allow them to hide their treacherous intentions behind the facade of free speech, equal rights, 'multiculturalism', etc.