Sherifa Zuhur's article, Precision in the War of Ideas becomes coherent in the Conclusions and Recommendations section beginning on page 115.
Maybe but I'm unsure why it would...
Just finished it -- and thanks for linking -- and while I see some minor and totally understandable slanting, on balance it seems pretty sensible and reasonable to me. I can see some objecting to it on iideological grounds but am not sure why it would make anyone uncomfortable...Originally Posted by SteveMetz
Hello Rebecca. Can you do us a little favor and introduce your here?
Sam Liles
Selil Blog
Don't forget to duck Secret Squirrel
The scholarship of teaching and learning results in equal hatred from latte leftists and cappuccino conservatives.
All opinions are mine and may or may not reflect those of my employer depending on the chance it might affect funding, politics, or the setting of the sun. As such these are my opinions you can get your own.
I'm always thrilled when someone who knows what they're talking about agrees with me, and that's what I - as an ad guy - have been suggesting for several years.Fully agree with both of these statements. Deny them legitimacy, but, how to wean them completely out of their Islamic support base, as their piety has many admirers? Well, over here in the Gulf states I am running a little experiment ... when speaking professionally I refer to AQ as "common criminals", not even terrorists. I clearly state that they are not Moslems but "apostates" and insist they not be considered Jihadis but bandits who use Islam and jihad as a mask to allow them to kill other Moslems outside of Allah's justice. When you show a chart of only 100-200 US soldiers and +20,000 Iraqi Moslems killed by AQ SVBIEDs (just car bombs, not IEDs), then one can almost state the effects of AQ's war is really weighted towards killing Moslems ... right after I apologize for the invasion of Iraq I usually say- "But tell me, what Moslem loves to kill Moslems? An Apostate." My audience (75% local Arabs, 25% other Arabs) usually start to brighten up about that point. Because they see a way out in the argument of AQ vs USA.
This description of AQ absolves the Moslem audience of the unfortunate associations our politicians have been making with Islam. Once AQ are removed as legitimate co-religionists this framing gives them a purely Islamic way of rejecting them as criminals and non-believers. A light always goes on when I propose these frames. When I don't, I am deluged with arguments as to why they have legitimacy, right or wrong, as Mujahideen.
But, if you ran for president, Karl Rove would convince over half the voter's that you're the world's biggest pussy. (Sorry if that offends anyones political sensibilities, but it's true.) Though, on a personal level, it is comforting to know that if you're a good spin doctor, you don't need to know what you're talking about. Makes my life easier.
Perhaps, perhaps not.
Not sure that's correct. Framing the argument in 2008 is different than it would've been even in 2004 for most all of us. Hindsight is helpful. What A.B. suggests was realized by very few in this country in 2001-02, only a few more in 2003-4 and a fair number today. We've all gotten smarter. Thus, while I agree what you suggest would've happened a few years ago, I'm unsure anyone taking the approach A.B. recommends would be so branded today.
As an aside, my political sensitivities aren't bruised but I would suggest 'wimp' would've worked as well on a professional forum as the other noun; all of us know it, use it but time and place and all that.
Steve, my compliments to SSI on this one!
Scan reading. Good read and basic common sense. The scarcity of the latter in DC makes it an important read if those who actually need to read it do so. This has to be on AEI's list of banned books.
The conclusions are indeed the core of the book.
Andy Terrill is a good friend. Good to see he served as a reviewer.
Tom
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks