An Asymmetric War of Ideas
This is a passage that just spewed forth from my fingers as I sit here working on my Iraq and the Evolution of American Strategy book. I'm not sure where I'm going with this, but I thought it was sort of an interesting brain fart and would welcome comments.
As what was to become known as the "global war on terror" took shape in the late summer and early autumn, President Bush adopted a decidedly ideological perspective. As small number of analysts such as Michael Scheuer, who had been an Osama bin Laden analyst at the Central Intelligence Agency, advocated a policy perspective. But given President Bush's person inclinations and the angry and impassioned mood of the country after September 11, the ideological approach was almost inevitable. The explanation for the conflict was remarkably similar to those developed in the early years of the Cold War. Al Qaeda did not attack the United States because of anything it did, according the President Bush, but because of what it is. "They hate...democratically elected government. Their leaders are self appointed. They hate our freedoms—our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other."
While casting the conflict with Islamic militants as a reprise of the Cold War helped Americans, most of whom had never heard of al Qaeda before September 11, understand what was taking place, it also gave hint of a major problem which later emerged. While the Cold War was, to a large extent, an ideological "war of ideas," it was a symmetric one. Both sides offered different methods of political and economic organization, but they were, at least, talking about the same thing—day to day, physical life. The question for the peoples of the world was whether they wanted to live their daily lives in a political/economic system structured by free enterprise democracy or by communism. The ideological conflict with Islamic militants, though, was asymmetric. The United States was talking about the structures of political and economic daily life; al Qaeda was talking about spiritualism and fealty to God. While not yet evident as American strategy for the global war on terror took shape in 2001, countering spiritual and religious arguments with political and economic systems was difficult, perhaps in even fatally flawed. Americans knew how to conduct a symmetric war of ideas but they were novices at asymmetric ideological warfare, particularly one involving spirituality and religious belief.
Totem, Totem On The Wall, Who's The Most Powerful Deity of Them All?
" While not yet evident as American strategy for the global war on terror took shape in 2001, countering spiritual and religious arguments with political and economic systems was difficult, perhaps in even fatally flawed. Americans knew how to conduct a symmetric war of ideas but they were novices at asymmetric ideological warfare, particularly one involving spirituality and religious belief." (S.Metz)
Very, very well said and the dynamic of suicide bombers has made it all that much more thorny and complicated in coming to grips with said dilemma, IMO. There is at some very fundamental, archtype sort-of-levels (genetic?) issues of deity potency and efficacy in the ranks of the belivers, on both sides for that matter, when it comes to the willingness of believers to repeatedly blow themselves up in order to get at the enemy. Below the surface of generalizations and assertions of the other side having but a false God, lies some unanswered, even disturbing questions. The fear and terror of suicide bombing resonates at the subliminal level more than we may be willing to concede. In some ways we are more sophisticated than the WW2 generation that could simply chalk off kamikazes as mere "crazy Japs" out to kill our troops, but then too some Chaplains in those days were praying for death of the enemy. We don't bring the God of our understanding to the fight, nor does said God call for the death of sworn enemies - the Constitution essentially won't allow it, nor will the swollen ranks of agnostics and atheists. The tactical edge in all this goes to Allah.
On The Jagged Fringes of The Ummah
There can be nothing but chaos, violence, disruption and 0 stability as the precepts of Shariah spread and manifest. The expansion is predicated on instability. Our own extreme Right wing says kill them all and let God sort them out - Pax Americana, baby. The inequity of wealth distribution Western technocracy yields is every bit as upsetting to the fundamentalist jihadist as is the Libertarian life-style and freedoms it affords, i.e. moral corruption. Tending to beached whales while children close by go neglected infuriates them every bit as much as does gay rights parades and women in short skirts with uncovered heads. They do address the material as well as the spiritual and we are being fully symetrical with emphasis weighted on the spiritual. Some of the COIN 'heavy hitters' are saying this is a 100 yr. effort. With superior technology, proven political systems and economic applications , many should be wondering why it is going to take so long. Our symetrical analysis clearly shows their system can't provide competetive and stable states as the author well points out, but they measure time in generations, not linear years and the spread of Shariah is based on the death of the vanguard and those they are able to take down with them. It cannot spread otherwise - Divine Obedience will enable stability and an equal share of the wealth for all.
An Asymmetric War of Ideas - a reply/some thoughts
Dr. Metz et al--I would like to add some comments and, ideally, grist for the collective mill with the below.
With regard to the "policy perspective vs ideological approach," both seemed in 2001 (and before) and now to miss the complex cultural and intercultural issues that are playing themselves out in the dynamic of al-Qa'ida (and similar Islamic extremist movements--there is a debate (some have characterized it as a civil war) in Islam and the Islamic world over the fundamental questions of "what is Islam?" What is "modernity" and the "modern world?" What is the proper role of a Muslim in a/the modern world? How will the "Islamic world" interact with and/or be influenced by the western and/or modern world?
This conflict (I would maintain) is symmetric in the sense that both sides can only resolve it by figuring out how to deal constructively with the other.
The asymmetric element is that al-Qa'ida's struggle is, at its root, one of political and economic issues (especially political disenfranchisement and economic powerlessness for the mass of the population) cloaked in Qur'anic language and images and in a religious dimension. If we look at it only (or largely) as a war of religions (or even as a "war of ideas") without addressing the underlying issues that helped to create the bin Ladins and Attas, we waste our energy--and in so doing help to MAKE this conflict asymmetrical.
I look forward to your comments and to reading your book.