Strategy, Values and Ideas
At the start of this year, the UK Prime Minister opened a speech with the following:
"Our response to the September 11 attacks has proved even more momentous than it seemed at the time. That is because we could have chosen security as the battleground. But we did not. We chose values. We said that we did not want another Taliban or a different Saddam Hussein. We knew that you cannot defeat a fanatical ideology just by imprisoning or killing its leaders; you have to defeat its ideas". http://www.foreignaffairs.org/200701...al-values.html
My question is this: Is it possible to fight ideas with ideas in the current environment and has it been done successfully before, not just in the recent past, but back to even biblical times. Blair goes on in his speech to suggest the spread of the Moslem Empire was itself a triumph of ideas rather than military might. The same could be said of the Roman and Macedonian Empires. Has the study of history concentrated too much on the military maneuvers rather than the moral and intellectual issues underpinning them?
JD
A War of Ideas Requires Some Ammunition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
walrus
Yes, it is possible, in fact essential, to fight any war at all with ideas. They are an essential part of the armoury.
. . .
Which begs the question - where is the similar and complementary effort to demonise Al Qaeeda in muslim eyes and win over the muslim world to our way of thinking??? It appears that only Dr. Kilcullen is trying to do this, and I suspect most of his efforts may simply be undoing some of the harm earlier "policy" decisions has done.
In order for the ideas to war one with another, the users of them must first know what they are. The Cold War was largely a Western event with a long history of similarities between the intellectual mindsets of the opposing sides. In other words, each side already had a pretty good idea what ideas were operative on the other side.
I submit that the current conflict does not have the same easy understanding of the opponent's ideas. Once that understanding grows beyond its current pre-adolescent state (which is a good reason for getting some socio-psycho-anthropological efforts moving towards verstehen), things may change rather radically. In the mean time, calls for IO strategies, strategic communications plans, and other such tools will simply be attempting to engage in a battle of wits as an unarmed combatant.
A War of Ideas Requires Some Ammunition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
walrus
Yes, it is possible, in fact essential, to fight any war at all with ideas. They are an essential part of the armoury.
. . .
Which begs the question - where is the similar and complementary effort to demonise Al Qaeeda in muslim eyes and win over the muslim world to our way of thinking??? It appears that only Dr. Kilcullen is trying to do this, and I suspect most of his efforts may simply be undoing some of the harm earlier "policy" decisions has done.
In order for the ideas to war one with another, the users of them must first know what they are. The Cold War was largely a Western event with a long history of similarities between the intellectual mindsets of the opposing sides. In other words, each side already had a pretty good idea what ideas were operative on the other side.
I submit that the current conflict does not have the same easy understanding of the opponent's ideas. Once that understanding grows beyond its current pre-adolescent state (which is a good reason for getting some socio-psycho-anthropological efforts moving towards verstehen), things may change rather radically. In the mean time, calls for IO strategies, strategic communications plans, and other such tools will simply be attempting to engage in a battle of wits as an unarmed combatant.:wry:
Moderate Islamic Scholars
Hi Davidbfpo,
Good news. . .yes! Muslim scholars like Shaykh Salman al Qadah have criticized the 9/11 attacks for their blatant killing of noncombatants (Rosenau, 1142). In fact, Qadah is in favor of open dialogue with the West, and he is not the only Muslim scholar who thinks this way. Many moderate Muslim scholars already have an online presence (Resaba et al, 133). At www.free-minds.org, Saudi Islamic scholars advocate peaceful variants of dawa as a counter to the violent salafist ideology. The United States should support these types of scholars as an alternative to the violent preaching of Islamic insurgents, but support for these types should be covert because the Muslim world would see their message as tainted if openly backed by the United States.
Hard Power vs. Soft Power
Hi Walrus,
Thanks for the reply. You are right to suggest that we are relying too much on "hard power" (bullets). The funny thing is that hard power is a COA that could work. Unfortunately, it would take a merciless application of "hard power" in order to achieve success. For example, we could completely destroy a village from which a bomb maker is from. If we razed three or four Iraqi villages, I submit that this would have an affect on the number of people volunteering to make bombs. We could say, "Bomb makers! If we catch you making bombs, we are not only going to kill you but we are going to kill your family, your friends, and your dog!" This is the tactic that Alexander and the Roman Legions used to pacify conquered populations, and it is effective to a degree.
The problem with this approach is that the American public, rightfully so, would not tolerate these tactics thereby dismissing them as legitimate COA. Public support for military action is a form of "soft power"; and in the 21st Century, "soft power" has become a much more critical component of military operations. A state can have the most advanced weaponry, the best trained military, and the most vibrant economy, all forms of "hard power", but still be rendered ineffective without the "soft power" of public support. Once policymakers grasp, which I believe they are, the reality of the importance of "soft power", we will be better able to develop and implement defense policies.