Originally Posted by
Rob Thornton
My wife and I were having a discussion on what makes this war different. She asked “Since we are at war, how should people act different?” The thought had never really occurred to me, other then the criticism me as a serving soldier had considered when dealing with the idea of “America goes shopping”. Even though she has a husband who just got back, she really did not understand the threat. She asked, “what would happen if we just pulled out of Iraq?” For her, like many Americans I suspect, the war is confined to the geography of the Middle East. She does understand that terrorism is a threat, but even that is somewhat remote – it primarily affects icon like super cities, capitols, and mass transit systems such as air-planes & cruise ships.
This idea of communicating the threat present in the war bothers me to no end. It is the key to engaging the public and allowing the politicians to take the political risk that accounts for political leadership. I know that sounds cynical, but as was pointed out, “all politics truly are local”.
You often hear that this threat is most dire for free and open societies, but how do we account for that. I think we tend to consider in light of our borders and immigration process. We naturally link it to something physical. We sort of understand the connection between the information age and violent extremism – lets call that the physical act of coercing others to abandon their beliefs in favor of yours through terror and intimidation. We also wrestle with the idea of ideology by trying to link political and religious philosophies together such as “Islamo-fascism”. I’m not sure the term does a good job at describing the threat, and probably does a poorer job at communicating the threat because for most of today’s Americans, the terror and threat of Hitler is too far removed.
So what would be a good description? What is a good way to communicate the threat? I’m not sure about the description, but I am willing to take a look at the threat. The danger of the threat is that it does not need to penetrate a border, or immigrate. In fact, the best way for it to achieve its purpose is to attack us from the inside out. Because we are a free and open society that recognizes, encourages and draws strength from pluralism we are susceptible to organisms that masquerade as just another pluralistic component seeking to provide diversity and fit in. It attempts to show us one face when we see it on the street, but in private attacks those freedoms which allow it to prosper. It is viral in nature in that it hunts similar types of healthy cells (those people who are moderate and tolerant in their religious views and seek to prosper in the pluralistic corporate whole.) It infects those cells gradually, by identifying ways to encourage divisiveness and incite passions such as racism, prejudices, and feelings of community isolationism). It knows where to look – passion and energy are most readily found in a population’s youth, which as luck would have it is also where the least amount of balancing responsibilities is found.
This is they type of judo that I think others have applied to economics, etc, but in this case its applied toward our national philosophy. The enemy seeks to use the weight of our most defining convictions against us. The part of the equation that seems to be missing most from our strategy of homeland defense is not the wall at the border or the comprehensive immigration reform, but the strengthening of our social institutions that bind us together and give us strength. I’m not talking about the ones a government might create as they are artificial. I’m talking about the ones we engage in willingly to build and sustain communities. You might be talking churches/mosques/synagogues, social clubs, CoPs such as SWJ/SWC, scouting, VFW, rotary clubs, civic groups or the multitude of community building/strengthening organizations.
The next step would be to link those communities together. There has to be a catalyst that brings new people into existing organizations and convinces existing organizations to link with others. This means a sober communication of the threat that does not breed exclusion, but focuses on inclusion. The goal is to make the links to our society stronger and less easy for extremists to slice away members who they can then exploit to conduct acts of terrorism. This means American leaders regardless of faith or philosophy must first believe and acknowledge the threat to their American way of life.
By doing this we’ll find the unity to accomplish our goals where we truly need it. We’ll have more informed and better decisions about how we move forward in the world. When Americans understand that this is a threat that seeks to destroy us from the inside, they may understand how to deal with its external manifestations as well.
Maybe the word we need is something more akin to “Viral Extremism” since a virus is insidious, spreads, corrupts, mutates, infects, masquerades, deceives, exploits, grows, and destroys.
Viral Extremism?
Irony
came with "Spiritual Insurgency" Which I think is pretty descriptive of what we dealing with.
Bookmarks