Iraq: Out of the desert into Mosul (closed)

[AmericanPride]

And where might this Grand Mosque be located? Could it be in a city that I was attacked by the moderator Gang for mentioning as a target, because I found out it had already been done and was used as part of a winning Strategy by our present opponents? Could it be if we professionally study and discuss how our enemy uses religion to control and defeat a population, instead of reacting emotionally, we (USA) might find a way to win or at least solve a dangerous situation?

The destruction of a holy city in one of the world's most prominent faiths is not a serious proposition.

[slapout9]

The destruction of a holy city in one of the world's most prominent faiths is not a serious proposition.

Why did they do it then?

[AmericanPride]

Why did they do it then?

Inside the Kingdom by Robert Lacey provides good context and consequences for the incident on Saudi Arabia. In it, he describes how the material prosperity of KSA in the 1970s triggered a religious reaction (not unlike other societies that experience similar changes). The surprise and audacity of the event shocked the Saudi leadership, and in the hopes of repairing their religious legitimacy as they built their material wealth, the Saudi state made a deliberate decision to move closer to its own religious right to appease the anxiety about modernization and Western influences. For al-Otaybi and his men in particular who seized the mosque - they thought they were ushering in the arrival of the Mahdi and the overthrow of the House of Saud. They were all killed or executed.

Now your 'strategy' of annihilating a religious city - well, that's a guaranteed method to create more al-Otaybis, bin Ladens, and al-Bahgdadis.

4. What possibly could be the West's "long-term plan" for countering these narratives since it no longer has the military might nor the legitimacy to enforce its will on people in the developing World - nor a narrative that gels with the World's poor?

There is no long term plan. The U.S. does not do long-term strategy and what strategy it does do, it does not do very well.

[JMA]

Now your 'strategy' of annihilating a religious city - well, that's a guaranteed method to create more al-Otaybis, bin Ladens, and al-Bahgdadis.

And what will be created by the destruction of Christian sites by radical Muslems?

[KingJaja]

The destruction of a holy city in one of the world's most prominent faiths is not a serious proposition.

I'm going to deviate a bit here - I don't agree with your thesis on religion, i.e. that is is a "mere organizing principle". The Muslim Brotherhood was formed as long ago as the 1920s.

Okay, if we assume that politics is major factor driving religious movements in the Middle-east; what politiks is responsible for the rise of Evangelical Christianity in the Developing World - from the slums of Lagos to the favelas of Brazil?

I'm from an interesting nation; Nigeria - you can see a rise in religious fundamentalism in both major religions - Islam & Christianity.

I'm not sure this has to much to do with Middle-east politics.

[KingJaja]

This may be unrelated, but I must say it because I live in Lagos, Nigeria - not New York or London.

1. Religious narratives are gaining traction in the developing World. The attraction is not primarily political, it is spiritual.

2. These narratives are "accessible" to the poor in the way no Western narrative is likely to ever be.

3. What is is the "Western narrative"? Is it capitalism - that doesn't work for the poor? Or "freedom" - that the West often abandons for expediency (whether it is Paul Kagame in Rwanda or Al Sisi in Egypt)? How is the West going to fight this "battle of ideas"?

4. What possibly could be the West's "long-term plan" for countering these narratives since it no longer has the military might nor the legitimacy to enforce its will on people in the developing World - nor a narrative that gels with the World's poor?

[ganulv]

This may be unrelated, but I must say it because I live in Lagos, Nigeria - not New York or London.

1. Religious narratives are gaining traction in the developing World. The attraction is not primarily political, it is spiritual.

2. These narratives are "accessible" to the poor in the way no Western narrative is likely to ever be.

They’re not always so primarily spiritual as you let on. In the 1980s the Guatemalan dictatorship was actively supportive of Pentecostalism, and association with evangelical communities provided a measure of safety at a time when Catholicism = Liberation Theology = Communism in the eyes of the generals. Hezbollah is avowedly Islamist, and they don’t separate that fact from their development and political activities.

I don’t think there is a blanket response to your questions/comments. It just depends on the locale.

[KingJaja]

They’re not always so primarily spiritual as you let on. In the 1980s the Guatemalan dictatorship was actively supportive of Pentecostalism, and association with evangelical communities provided a measure of safety at a time when Catholicism = Liberation Theology = Communism in the eyes of the generals. Hezbollah is avowedly Islamist, and they don’t separate that fact from their development and political activities.

I don’t think there is a blanket response to your questions/comments. It just depends on the locale.

Politics doesn't explain the growth of Evangelical Christianity in China - and it has experienced quite significant growth there.

This is primarily spiritual. Western analysts (with their love for neat categories) find it hard to put their fingers around this, but it is true.

[ganulv]

This is primarily spiritual. Western analysts (with their love for neat categories) find it hard to put their fingers around this, but it is true.

With due respect, you are the one delineating a neat category. I am the one saying that religion is one part of life tied into many others.

[Bill Moore]

This may be unrelated, but I must say it because I live in Lagos, Nigeria - not New York or London.

1. Religious narratives are gaining traction in the developing World. The attraction is not primarily political, it is spiritual.

2. These narratives are "accessible" to the poor in the way no Western narrative is likely to ever be.

3. What is is the "Western narrative"? Is it capitalism - that doesn't work for the poor? Or "freedom" - that the West often abandons for expediency (whether it is Paul Kagame in Rwanda or Al Sisi in Egypt)? How is the West going to fight this "battle of ideas"?

4. What possibly could be the West's "long-term plan" for countering these narratives since it no longer has the military might nor the legitimacy to enforce its will on people in the developing World - nor a narrative that gels with the World's poor?

1. Spiritual fills a void (most humans are spiritual, intellectual, and physical), and also provides a narrative that explains what is happening in the world. I think AQ and Islamist narrative resonates because so far it does explain what is happening in the world to many poor and not so poor people. Early 2000s, there was an article in the San Antonio Times that expressed surprise in how many Mexican Catholics were converting to Islam, the reporter interviewed a few converts, and they said Islam explains what is happening in the world and fills a void that Christianity didn't. It would be interesting to explore that further and identify what that void is, and if it is the same void that leads some Muslims to take an extremist path.

2. Agree very strongly, but our Department of State doesn't seem to recognize this. This may be an unfair comment, but we tend to keep pushing the same narrative even though it fails to resonate with only a few educated people at tea parties and who have some degree of wealth. We're not so good at sensing ground truth in the masses who are living off a dollar or so per day.

3. I think the Western narrative is freedom, democracy, and capitalism (free markets). Freedom means different things to different people, an Islamist may desire to be free of Western forms of government so he can impose his views and laws on others. Democracy is a messy form of government, and young democracies are highly unstable and the majority fail. I tend to agree with Churchhill that it is the least bad form of governance, but you can't transition to a democracy overnight. Certain conditions must be created over decades related to education, economics, social norms, etc. before it has a chance to develop. Capitalism and free markets mean competition, when there is competition there are losers and winners, and those living off a dollar a day are going to compete effectively against those that have means (money, education, networks, etc.). Capitalism will likely be losing proposition for the economically oppressed, and simply expose them to more exploitation. Again we need to identify transitional/condition setting objectives to enable that transition if we insist on keeping this as a goal.

4. In my opinion we need to slow our roll and deeply self-reflect about what we want to accomplish in the world, what can be accomplished, and what is moral. I'm just one voter among millions, and I'm not aware of any politicians in our country running on that platform, so it is just another worthless set of ideas from one concerned American.