Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 26

Thread: An Asymmetric War of Ideas

  1. #1
    Council Member SteveMetz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Carlisle, PA
    Posts
    1,488

    Default 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.

  2. #2
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    West Point New York
    Posts
    267

    Default

    Dr. Metz:

    I liked the first paragraph and it seems to me to be spot-on in terms of nailing mistakes made early on in how to approach the war with al-queda.

    In the second paragraph you seem to portray the Cold War as some how a simpler or easier problem since it was symetric. I have found military officers tend to do this same thing when talking about how difficult coin is compared to what they think war with the soviet union would have been like had we fought it on the north german plains; that conventional war is somehow simpler than coin. I believe both are difficult in their own ways and conditions. So again you may want to look at the subtlety of your second paragraph and how it makes the Cold War appear to have been an easier problem for policy makers than the war on terror. If that is what you think of it then so be it, but I think it was a set of challenges that were different in degree and not quality.

  3. #3
    Council Member SteveMetz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Carlisle, PA
    Posts
    1,488

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gian P Gentile View Post
    Dr. Metz:

    I liked the first paragraph and it seems to me to be spot-on in terms of nailing mistakes made early on in how to approach the war with al-queda.

    In the second paragraph you seem to portray the Cold War as some how a simpler or easier problem since it was symetric. I have found military officers tend to do this same thing when talking about how difficult coin is compared to what they think war with the soviet union would have been like had we fought it on the north german plains; that conventional war is somehow simpler than coin. I believe both are difficult in their own ways and conditions. So again you may want to look at the subtlety of your second paragraph and how it makes the Cold War appear to have been an easier problem for policy makers than the war on terror. If that is what you think of it then so be it, but I think it was a set of challenges that were different in degree and not quality.
    What I was trying to get at is the point that strictly in terms of the "war of ideas," the Cold War was easier. It was complicated by the fact that there was an audience in the West that was at least partially receptive to the ideas of the other side (the political left). Today, there is less of that. But--and this is kind of uber theme I'm working on within the book--the Cold War was essentially a civil war within Western culture (albeit one that eventually played out in non-Western cultures). This conflict is quintessentially cross cultural. That's why drawing strategic concepts from the Cold War can be ineffective.

  4. #4
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Hi Steve,

    On the whole, I agree with Gian's comments, although I think the two are different in both "degree and quality". I think you may be falling into a linguistic trap, vis "symmetric vs, asymmetric". They are useful heuristics, especially for communicating with what I assume your audience to be, but I would suggest that you really need to flush them out in a lot greater detail and precision. I think your best bet would be to use a form of set theoretic topology and look at the differences as a "mapping" problem.

    For example, you note that

    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.
    This was certainly how it was rhetorically constructed by both sides. More importantly, however, is what was assumed in those rhetorical constructions, i.e. the assumed answers to basic questions of meaning ("Why am I here?", "What is reality?", etc.). I would suggest that what we are seeing now is that the assumptions are different and, in the case of AQ, the differences in these assumptions are what is coming out. In that sense, it is "asymmetric", but not in the more commonly understood sense of a power differential.

    Possibly more important is the lack of a clear, philosophical strategy on our part. Rhetoric of "freedom" and "democracy" just doesn't cut it against the sophistication of Islamic thought. If we look at it in this sense, ten thee is a clear asymmetry in the sense of power differential - they are more powerful than we are, especially with the target audience which, BTW, includes large segments of the American public.

    Where I disagree with Gian is that I do see this as a fundamentally different type of conflict - I believe that this is a global war of basic philosophies (not ideologies or religions) which has kinetic components, rather than a global war which has ideological components. To make it even nastier, and it is a corollary of my perception of this as a philosophical war, is that I can see elements of the philosophy that underpins AQ operating in current Coalition policies and practices (an example being the current Blackwater issue).

    Another difference that I see is that it is much harder to construct an "Us" in opposition to "Them"; something that was a crucial rhetorical strategy in the Cold War and in all previous conflicts. To my mind, this difficulty stems from a number of sources, but I would argue that the strongest two are the actualization of the 19th century Liberal ideal of "strength through diversity" and the increased (and constantly increasing) globalized density of communications networks.

    One of the things that we "know" from history is that periods of rapidly shifting communications and economics create large social movements that Pete Hallowell called "Revitalization Movements" - basically attempts to reconstruct "Golden Ages" that may or may not have ever existed. Most of the key movements in this form for the past 40 or so years have been "religious" (loosely defined). While this has often been constructed as in response to the secularization of society, I would actually argue that it is the result of not having developed and deployed "non-religious" (again loosely construed) TTPs for achieving the same ends (they do exist, but not in the mainstream culture complex of the West).

    Anyway, that's my 0.1998 cents (almost par )

    Marc
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

  5. #5
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,188

    Default 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.

  6. #6
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    203

    Default

    Again, with regard to the argument in the second paragraph, I am not sure I see the difference.
    They are both ideological disagreements, I would argue the asymmetry is military. While in the Cold War the two power blocks were both comprised of Westphalian Nation States with comparable military components the fighting was principally done by ‘buying’ influence within other Nations States with economic cooperation and military support. This ideological conflict is with a confederation which largely ignores the Westphalian model opting for a pan-national coalition in opposition to the export, into traditionally Islamic areas, of a system they – like the communists – would view as decadent, and corrosive to a way of life based on Koranic values. In the longer term they may hope for a Caliphate which was Westphalian in nature but probably only because this has become the established post colonial norm for dividing up the world’s landmass not because it is inherently necessary for their world view (here I am referring to the Westphalian nature of the caliphate rather than the caliphate itself). The aim, is at heart, irredentist.

  7. #7
    Council Member SteveMetz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Carlisle, PA
    Posts
    1,488

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marct View Post
    Hi Steve,

    On the whole, I agree with Gian's comments, although I think the two are different in both "degree and quality". I think you may be falling into a linguistic trap, vis "symmetric vs, asymmetric". They are useful heuristics, especially for communicating with what I assume your audience to be, but I would suggest that you really need to flush them out in a lot greater detail and precision. I think your best bet would be to use a form of set theoretic topology and look at the differences as a "mapping" problem.

    For example, you note that



    This was certainly how it was rhetorically constructed by both sides. More importantly, however, is what was assumed in those rhetorical constructions, i.e. the assumed answers to basic questions of meaning ("Why am I here?", "What is reality?", etc.). I would suggest that what we are seeing now is that the assumptions are different and, in the case of AQ, the differences in these assumptions are what is coming out. In that sense, it is "asymmetric", but not in the more commonly understood sense of a power differential.

    Possibly more important is the lack of a clear, philosophical strategy on our part. Rhetoric of "freedom" and "democracy" just doesn't cut it against the sophistication of Islamic thought. If we look at it in this sense, ten thee is a clear asymmetry in the sense of power differential - they are more powerful than we are, especially with the target audience which, BTW, includes large segments of the American public.

    Where I disagree with Gian is that I do see this as a fundamentally different type of conflict - I believe that this is a global war of basic philosophies (not ideologies or religions) which has kinetic components, rather than a global war which has ideological components. To make it even nastier, and it is a corollary of my perception of this as a philosophical war, is that I can see elements of the philosophy that underpins AQ operating in current Coalition policies and practices (an example being the current Blackwater issue).

    Another difference that I see is that it is much harder to construct an "Us" in opposition to "Them"; something that was a crucial rhetorical strategy in the Cold War and in all previous conflicts. To my mind, this difficulty stems from a number of sources, but I would argue that the strongest two are the actualization of the 19th century Liberal ideal of "strength through diversity" and the increased (and constantly increasing) globalized density of communications networks.

    One of the things that we "know" from history is that periods of rapidly shifting communications and economics create large social movements that Pete Hallowell called "Revitalization Movements" - basically attempts to reconstruct "Golden Ages" that may or may not have ever existed. Most of the key movements in this form for the past 40 or so years have been "religious" (loosely defined). While this has often been constructed as in response to the secularization of society, I would actually argue that it is the result of not having developed and deployed "non-religious" (again loosely construed) TTPs for achieving the same ends (they do exist, but not in the mainstream culture complex of the West).

    Anyway, that's my 0.1998 cents (almost par )

    Marc
    In terms of the "us" versus "them" construct, I'm seeing the same thing that was evident early in the Cold War. There is a bed rock constituency for whom this is very clearly an epochal battle of good and evil. I hang around in a politics sub-board of a sport-focused discussion board associated with one of my alma maters (a large, Southern state school). This is really a useful window for me into "red state" mentality. (Despite the fact that I come from a very blue collar background, I'm mentally cloistered now).

    Anyhow, I've been struck by the extent to which the evangelical community in general is convinced that we are now in the end-of-the-world conflict described in Revelations. (Of course, I point out to them that this same claim has been made dozens of times throughout the history of Christianity, but they can't quite grapple with the implications of that).

    Anyhow, this group is political influential. And it worries me that their thinking influences U.S. strategy.

    By the way, I just finished what I think is the single best book explaining the jihadist ideology: Mary Habeck's Knowing the Enemy. My only critique is that I don't think her policy prescriptions follow from her analysis. They were pretty much the existing strategy--this whole idea that we'll somehow "empower" Muslim "moderates" who will "delegtimize" the jihadist ideology. The reason I don't buy that is that I think the absolute root of the problem is that Islam as a political-cultural system cannot create stable and competitive states in the modern world. But yet the very elements which make it unstable and uncompetitive are central to the religious part of it and thus are non-negotiable.

  8. #8
    Council Member SteveMetz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Carlisle, PA
    Posts
    1,488

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JJackson View Post
    Again, with regard to the argument in the second paragraph, I am not sure I see the difference.
    They are both ideological disagreements, I would argue the asymmetry is military. While in the Cold War the two power blocks were both comprised of Westphalian Nation States with comparable military components the fighting was principally done by ‘buying’ influence within other Nations States with economic cooperation and military support. This ideological conflict is with a confederation which largely ignores the Westphalian model opting for a pan-national coalition in opposition to the export, into traditionally Islamic areas, of a system they – like the communists – would view as decadent, and corrosive to a way of life based on Koranic values. In the longer term they may hope for a Caliphate which was Westphalian in nature but probably only because this has become the established post colonial norm for dividing up the world’s landmass not because it is inherently necessary for their world view (here I am referring to the Westphalian nature of the caliphate rather than the caliphate itself). The aim, is at heart, irredentist.
    The point I was trying to make is that communism promised a better life in the here and now. When the West could show that it didn't provide that, it's validity crumbled. Islamic militancy is promising reward in the afterlife. There's no way we can disprove that. We cannot demonstrate that AQ is wrong. We're promising people a more comfortable life; AQ is promising them eternal bliss. That's the asymmetry.

  9. #9
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Hi Steve,

    Quote Originally Posted by SteveMetz View Post
    Anyhow, I've been struck by the extent to which the evangelical community in general is convinced that we are now in the end-of-the-world conflict described in Revelations. (Of course, I point out to them that this same claim has been made dozens of times throughout the history of Christianity, but they can't quite grapple with the implications of that).
    That's because most of them probably know diddly-squat about Christianity (BTW, one dead give-away is if someone who calls themselves an evangelical or fundamentalist uses the term "Revelations", then they are ignorant of their own supposed tradition: it is "Revelation" (singular)). This has certainly been a view pushed in some of the evangelical world and popularized by the Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins Left Behind novels.

    Quote Originally Posted by SteveMetz View Post
    Anyhow, this group is political influential. And it worries me that their thinking influences U.S. strategy.
    Me too. For me, the most disturbing examples are he evangelical crowd that "support" the state of Israel because they believe that the Battle of Armageddon must take place before the Messiah can return. And, so goes their logic, sice this is the case and all Christians want the Messiah to return, it is their duty to make sure that that battle takes place.

    Quote Originally Posted by SteveMetz View Post
    By the way, I just finished what I think is the single best book explaining the jihadist ideology: Mary Habeck's Knowing the Enemy. My only critique is that I don't think her policy prescriptions follow from her analysis. They were pretty much the existing strategy--this whole idea that we'll somehow "empower" Muslim "moderates" who will "delegtimize" the jihadist ideology. The reason I don't buy that is that I think the absolute root of the problem is that Islam as a political-cultural system cannot create stable and competitive states in the modern world. But yet the very elements which make it unstable and uncompetitive are central to the religious part of it and thus are non-negotiable.
    You know, I would probably agree with you if I didn't know how mutable religious interpretation is . While I would question the probability of such a thing happening, I certainly do not question the possibility of it happening.

    Quote Originally Posted by SteveMetz View Post
    The point I was trying to make is that communism promised a better life in the here and now. When the West could show that it didn't provide that, it's validity crumbled. Islamic militancy is promising reward in the afterlife. There's no way we can disprove that. We cannot demonstrate that AQ is wrong. We're promising people a more comfortable life; AQ is promising them eternal bliss. That's the asymmetry.
    Actually, I think you are wrong, here, and I'll point to the Anbar Awakening as an example. I believe that we can, and have, demonstrated that AQ is wrong in terms of their vision for this life, and this very point has been picked up by some Salafi imams. Where I think we have had problems is in showing that "our" vision is what "they" should buy. This strikes me as a totally artificial either-or dichotomy.

    Marc
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

  10. #10
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marct View Post
    This strikes me as a totally artificial either-or dichotomy.
    Marc
    It's amazing how much the implied "either-or" shows up in many discussions, be it this or the issue of Small Wars and larger conflict.
    "On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
    T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War

  11. #11
    Council Member tequila's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    1,665

    Default

    Actually the genuinely barren, hazy nature of most radical irhabi literature makes clear that few of them have any real idea of what a true Islamic state would actually look like. Even comparatively sophisticated Muslim Brotherhood ideologues tend to get very unspecific when they have to detail exactly what they are fighting for as to opposed to what they are against, which they are very good at. Radical irhabism/jihadism is a bit different from Soviet or Chinese Communism in that it is principally a revolutionary doctrine, proclaiming that so-and-so is against Islam, against Muslims, out to destroy Islam, steal oil, oppress, etc. but getting quite sketchy even when dreaming their ideal state, much less the nuts-and-bolts details. Even the Maoists had land reform. A better analogue for irhabism/jihadism is radical anarchism, IMO.

  12. #12
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,188

    Default 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.

  13. #13
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Hi Tequila,

    Quote Originally Posted by tequila View Post
    A better analogue for irhabism/jihadism is radical anarchism, IMO.
    In the modern or 1930's variant from, say the Spanish Civil War?

    Anyway, I do agree with your general point about them being fuzzy on what they are fighting for. When I pointed to the Anbar Awakening as an example, I think the crucial point I was trying to make was that the irhabi rhetoric was being converted into a lived reality that the inhabitants could see and experience (often with fatal results). That "lived reality" contextualized the rhetoric in a day to day setting and, IMO, served as a counter to the rhetoric itself.
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

  14. #14
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by goesh View Post
    It cannot spread otherwise - Divine Obedience will enable stability and an equal share of the wealth for all.
    I'm reminded of a 1930's folk ballad

    Long haired preachers come out every night
    Try to tell you what's wrong and what's right
    But when asked about something to eat,
    They will answer in voices so sweet.

    You will eat, bye and bye,
    In that glorious land above the sky
    Work and pray
    Live on hay
    You'll get pie in the sky when you die!
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

  15. #15
    Council Member SteveMetz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Carlisle, PA
    Posts
    1,488

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tequila View Post
    Actually the genuinely barren, hazy nature of most radical irhabi literature makes clear that few of them have any real idea of what a true Islamic state would actually look like. Even comparatively sophisticated Muslim Brotherhood ideologues tend to get very unspecific when they have to detail exactly what they are fighting for as to opposed to what they are against, which they are very good at. Radical irhabism/jihadism is a bit different from Soviet or Chinese Communism in that it is principally a revolutionary doctrine, proclaiming that so-and-so is against Islam, against Muslims, out to destroy Islam, steal oil, oppress, etc. but getting quite sketchy even when dreaming their ideal state, much less the nuts-and-bolts details. Even the Maoists had land reform. A better analogue for irhabism/jihadism is radical anarchism, IMO.
    I'd again commend Habeck's Knowing the Enemy. It is true that the jihadists are not Leninists in terms of having a concrete alternative blueprint. But that's because they believe that the alternative has already been spelled out. For them to offer a blueprint for a better society would be arrogance since, from their perspective, God has already provided such a blueprint.

    In a way, that makes them a more difficult opponent in the war of ideas. With communists, we could eventually say, "See what life under communism is like. Is that what you want?" But since the jihadists say that their model was the first few decades after Mohammed and to deprecate that era is to "insult" Islam, we are not able to legitimize it.

    Ironically, I think in the long term it would have served our cause better if we had landed in Afghanistan and crushed the existing AQ infrastructure, but left the Taliban in control. Then we would have actually had an instance of an "Islamic" state to show to any Muslims attracted by the idea.

    (And, by the way, I'm using the word "jihadist" despite have had looong conservations with Jim Guirard about it. I personally think that most Muslims understand the difference between "jihadi"--which most of them consider themselves--and "jihadist" which is the militant mutation of the concept).

  16. #16
    Council Member tequila's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    1,665

    Default

    I'd again commend Habeck's Knowing the Enemy. It is true that the jihadists are not Leninists in terms of having a concrete alternative blueprint. But that's because they believe that the alternative has already been spelled out. For them to offer a blueprint for a better society would be arrogance since, from their perspective, God has already provided such a blueprint.

    In a way, that makes them a more difficult opponent in the war of ideas. With communists, we could eventually say, "See what life under communism is like. Is that what you want?" But since the jihadists say that their model was the first few decades after Mohammed and to deprecate that era is to "insult" Islam, we are not able to legitimize it.
    Note that this is pure jihadi ideology. To my mind one should not confuse jihadi political "theory" (al-Qaeda & associated radical revolutionaries), such as it is, with the more politically based model propounded by, say, the Egyptian or Jordanian Ikhwan (Muslim Brotherhood). Ikhwan writers speak of the pure days of Muhammad and his companions as example but focus on real-world provision of services, cleaning up corruption, and social conservatism when making the case on the stump.

    This is the real battle of ideas - not Western democracy vs. the apocalyptic Caliphate. No Muslim nation is going to ever vote for or accept al-Qaeda as its leadership. Pure jihadi ideology is more in the nature of a recruiting pitch, aimed specifically at pulling in martyrs to wage jihad against foreign domination or oppressive rulers. It is not really aimed at transforming societies.

    A real danger is missing the forest for the trees in the differentiation between radical jihadism and mere political Islamism.

  17. #17
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,188

    Default

    Amen, Brother Marct! The quill fits your hand well

  18. #18
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Washington, DC area
    Posts
    6

    Default 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.

  19. #19
    Council Member J Wolfsberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    806

    Default

    Steve,

    Quote Originally Posted by SteveMetz View Post
    I'd again commend Habeck's Knowing the Enemy. It is true that the jihadists are not Leninists in terms of having a concrete alternative blueprint. But that's because they believe that the alternative has already been spelled out. For them to offer a blueprint for a better society would be arrogance since, from their perspective, God has already provided such a blueprint.
    This gets close to something I've been thinking about: That what we are really dealing with under the term "Global War On Terror" is actually a schismatic war within Islam.

    As with in other religion, it is neither inherently benign or malevolent. It becomes what its practitioners interpret it to be. In the situation we face today, a group of practitioners have decided Islam is a bizarre implementation of a medieval tribal culture that I'm not certain ever existed. To obtain attention/dominance they drew the US into a war. An analogy would be for the Swedes and North German nobility attacking the Ottoman Empire in 1618 to entice them to attack the Catholic countries in southern Europe.

    I'd go a bit further and add that it has become conflated with two different, simultaneous wars: The Democrat's War on Bush (in fact, a war on any Republican who had won the 2000 election); and the Leftist War on Western Civilization.

    I'd add more, but out of time.
    John Wolfsberger, Jr.

    An unruffled person with some useful skills.

  20. #20
    Council Member SteveMetz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Carlisle, PA
    Posts
    1,488

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by J Wolfsberger View Post
    Steve,



    This gets close to something I've been thinking about: That what we are really dealing with under the term "Global War On Terror" is actually a schismatic war within Islam.

    As with in other religion, it is neither inherently benign or malevolent. It becomes what its practitioners interpret it to be. In the situation we face today, a group of practitioners have decided Islam is a bizarre implementation of a medieval tribal culture that I'm not certain ever existed. To obtain attention/dominance they drew the US into a war. An analogy would be for the Swedes and North German nobility attacking the Ottoman Empire in 1618 to entice them to attack the Catholic countries in southern Europe.

    I'd go a bit further and add that it has become conflated with two different, simultaneous wars: The Democrat's War on Bush (in fact, a war on any Republican who had won the 2000 election); and the Leftist War on Western Civilization.

    I'd add more, but out of time.
    Well, I think the bit at the end is best left for a different type of discussion board. I personally am a card-carrying, contributing member of the RNC who is also listed in the Heritage Foundation's database of conservative public policy experts and I think the Bush strategy has been a failure of tragic, historic proportion.

    But your analogy of the European religious wars is interesting. I looked at it from a different perspective, though. I kept thinking of the Bush strategy which says there is a "civil war" within Islam and we are going to shape this by "empowering the moderates." That would have been like the Turkish caliph lending his support to the Protestants in Europe. How much would that have helped them?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •