A 'Chinese approach' to the War on Terror: a historical analysis

[orange dave]

This is a line of thought I've been tinkering with a little bit. China shares quite a bit of history with the Muslim world. First of all, both of these are ancient civilizations, with quite a lot of cultural coherence. In recent history, since WWII, they have followed similar paths. Both civilizations see themselves as having lost out as a result of that war. China, after having being ravaged by Japan, watched as the US built Japan into a first-world country. Muslims, on the other hand, were not happy that problems originating from Europe resulted in the creation of Israel. So in both cases it was external influences that disrupted the balance of power, reigniting rifts between closely related cultures - the most dangerous kinds of rifts.

Both Chinese and Muslim culture are very different from the West - more different even than Russian culture. During the Cold War, they therefore lacked the background necessary to take Communism to its logical conclusion. So the US played them both off the Soviet Union, never committing itself to a head-on battle with either ideology. As a result, today both civilizations are too strong to fight on an ideological level, and they have to be negotiated with more on an item-by-item basis. It is unrealistic to expect the Chinese Communist government to fall, or suddenly change to a Western democracy. Likewise with the Muslim world, we will have to put up with political Islam, and maybe even tolerate some radical versions to a certain extent. The radicals seem to be the only people capable of exerting any leadership in the Muslim world, and changes can't be forced externally. At least according to this logic.

An example. In 2006 political Islam (the Islamic Courts Union) swept into Somalia. The US suspected al-Qaeda ties, and deposed of them, via Somalia. Now, the situation looks even more chaotic, making al-Qaeda incursions even more difficult to control. (The piracy problem might not be so serious now, but it could be a sign of things to come.) The thing is, the Islamists actually did manage to clean the place up, and bring the only peace in almost 2 decades to what the UN now calls the worst humanitarian emergency in the world. (More info here and here.) One wonders if it would have been possible to keep the ICU and work on moderating them, rather than eliminating the Muslim influence without any idea who else could keep order there.

There might be present applications for this line of thinking in places like Afghanistan and Pakistan. Also, it could be an effective communication strategy for decisions that have already been made in these areas. Of course, this is a very general way of thinking about things, and any conclusions should be taken with a heavy dose of common sense. How would anyone else apply this logic?

[William F. Owen]

First of all, both of these are ancient civilizations, with quite a lot of cultural coherence. In recent history, since WWII, they have followed similar paths. Both civilizations see themselves as having lost out as a result of that war. China, after having being ravaged by Japan, watched as the US built Japan into a first-world country. Muslims, on the other hand, were not happy that problems originating from Europe resulted in the creation of Israel. So in both cases it was external influences that disrupted the balance of power, reigniting rifts between closely related cultures - the most dangerous kinds of rifts.

In 1945 Chinese Communists embarked on a War of Liberation, and create the worlds most populace Communist state. A "World Victory" according to modern Chinese historians, and the end of their "enslavement" so I can't see how they feel they lost out in WW2 - and if you read the Chinese history of the War against the Japanese, you'll see it in a very different context to the 1941-45 War that the US fought.

The idea that the creation of Israel is the primary source of Pan-Muslim discontent is utter rubbish. Partition of India/Pakistan? Colonial Occupation? Legitimacy of various Arab Regimes? Plus the roots of post-1945 Arab Nationalism were firmly rooted in National Socialism, back in 1930s.

[AmericanPride]

Plus the roots of post-1945 Arab Nationalism were firmly rooted in National Socialism, back in 1930s.

In what sense? I'd imagine that 'post-1945' Arab Nationalism was 'firmly rooted' in pre-1945 Arab Nationalism, which had been developing since the start of the century. On the one hand, you say that the "creation of Israel [as] the primary source of Pan-Muslim discontent is utter rubbish", but then on the other, you claim that Arab Nationalism is founded in National Socialism, which specifically targeted Jews as a part of its program. I don't imagine the creation of a Jewish homeland in the midst of an awakening 'nationalsocialist' community would be anything but at least a source of discontent.

[George L. Singleton]

In what sense? I'd imagine that 'post-1945' Arab Nationalism was 'firmly rooted' in pre-1945 Arab Nationalism, which had been developing since the start of the century. On the one hand, you say that the "creation of Israel [as] the primary source of Pan-Muslim discontent is utter rubbish", but then on the other, you claim that Arab Nationalism is founded in National Socialism, which specifically targeted Jews as a part of its program. I don't imagine the creation of a Jewish homeland in the midst of an awakening 'nationalsocialist' community would be anything but at least a source of discontent.

I am starting to get out in the open on KhyberWatch.com, subsite Global Hujara Online, questions from non-Arab Muslims, Pakhtuns, about what some over in Europe (latest comment to me came from an overseas Pakhtun living and working in London) that anti-Jewish sentiments may be "on the rise in the West."

I think he is confusing reactions, negative, to Israeli attacks into Lebanon with whole broad topic of anti-semitism.

In any event, remember to factor in the history of the Balfour Declaration, the time back to the Roman Empre when Israel fought and lost a series of wars, to the point of nation extenction and widespread dyspora.

What comes next in the Middle East will be in the context of UN Resolution creating both Israel and the free state of Palestine. Attempts to make Palestine a theocracy are up against some younger Palestinians wanting a totally open and free society, which is a topic worthy of discussion in and of itself, at least in my opinion.

[goesh]

"One wonders if it would have been possible to keep the ICU and work on moderating them, rather than eliminating the Muslim influence without any idea who else could keep order there." (OD)

Sharia is not subject to modification and moderation in the political sense.

An-Nisaa

[105] We have sent down to thee the Book in truth, that thou mightest judge between men as guided by Allah: so be not (used) as an advocate by those who betray their trust

75] And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)? Men, women, and children, whose cry is: "Our Lord! rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will protect; and raise for us from thee one who will help!

The word "judge" can easily be interchanged witht the word "help" at the end of the 2cd cited Ayat.

[MikeF]

"One wonders if it would have been possible to keep the ICU and work on moderating them, rather than eliminating the Muslim influence without any idea who else could keep order there." (OD)

Sharia is not subject to modification and moderation in the political sense.

Back in April or May of 2003, I was having lunch with my interpreter at his house. I asked him why he (an Arab) hated Jews so much. He burst out laughing, and he explained that Arab-Muslims don't hate Jews they only hate the state of Israel. Whether that grievance is real or perceived, it is how he thinks.

My understanding of history is that the ME had significant influence by the Nazi version of socialism prior to WWII. After WWII, Saddam picked up on the Russian communist version (specifically the Stalin approach).

As to Shariah, some argue (and I agree) that Muslims are at the tail-end of their version of the Protestant Reformation. They are sorting out how they can/should interpret the Koran, and how they should apply it.

If that holds true, hopefully a centrist version will evolve. Then again, that could simply be wishful thinking.

On another interesting note, Muqtada al Sadr apparently left Iran for a bit to travel to Turkey. IMO, I think he'll probably strive to be a dictator rather than ayatollah after we leave.

Whatever Happened to Muqtada al-Sadr?
By Mark Kukis / Baghdad

Orange Dave- Do you have any understanding of the Islamic threat in Western China? If so, how are they handling it? My limited understanding is that it is based off economic grievances and not religious.

v/r

Mike

[AmericanPride]

My understanding of history is that the ME had significant influence by the Nazi version of socialism prior to WWII.

To what extent would that be possible given British and French control of the Middle East, and their rivalry with Nazi Germany? The Nazis firmly rejected socialism (culminating in the Night of the Long Knives) while Arab nationalists (nominally) embraced it. Arab nationalism drew upon Nazism no more than Gandhi did: the enemy (Germany) of my enemy (Britain) is my friend. Arab nationalism came about as a rejection of imperialism. First the Ottomans, then the Brits, and then the Israelis.

[William F. Owen]

In what sense? I'd imagine that 'post-1945' Arab Nationalism was 'firmly rooted' in pre-1945 Arab Nationalism, which had been developing since the start of the century. On the one hand, you say that the "creation of Israel [as] the primary source of Pan-Muslim discontent is utter rubbish", but then on the other, you claim that Arab Nationalism is founded in National Socialism, which specifically targeted Jews as a part of its program. I don't imagine the creation of a Jewish homeland in the midst of an awakening 'nationalsocialist' community would be anything but at least a source of discontent.

Arab Nationalism in it's "post 45 iteration" was steeped in National Socialist Language. Hitler had supported the regime in Iraq and various Arab independence movements (pre-1945). Modern Bathism is closely related to National Socialism. Add to this that Muslims in the Middle-East had a major axe to grind with Europeans, with or without the existence of Israel.

I think he is confusing reactions, negative, to Israeli attacks into Lebanon with whole broad topic of anti-semitism.

I am in no way confused about any aspect of anti-semitism, based on long and intimate knowledge, nor have any problem differentiating it from anti-Israeli expressions or even the disguising and evolvement of anti-Semitic activities into new forms questioning Israels' right to exist.

Back in April or May of 2003, I was having lunch with my interpreter at his house. I asked him why he (Arabs) hated Jews so much. He burst out laughing, and he explained that Arab-Muslims don't hate Jews they only hate the state of Israel. Whether that grievance is real or perceived, it is how he thinks.

But Mike, "Arabs" are not one homogeneous group with one opinion. Some have no problem with Jews, but a very substantial proportion have centuries of enmity and hatred towards Jews, for all the same invented reasons, that the Europeans did.

[tequila]

Sharia is not subject to modification and moderation in the political sense.

An-Nisaa

Which of the five major schools of sharia law are you referring to? Are they all so inflexible?

I think you are vastly oversimplifying. Sharia, as in all systems of law, depends on the jurists interpreting it and the authorities enforcing it.

The new President of Somalia, Sharif Sheikh Ahmed, was the former head of the Islamic Courts Union which the Ethiopian invasion overthrew. The only result of the invasion has been tens of thousands of dead Somalis and the consequent radicalization of tens of thousands more.

[MikeF]

But Mike, "Arabs" are not one homogeneous group with one opinion. Some have no problem with Jews, but a very substantial proportion have centuries of enmity and hatred towards Jews, for all the same invented reasons, that the Europeans did.

Good point Wilf. I wasn't trying to make any generalizations. It is just a story that I remember and still laugh at at times.

American Pride- I think Wilf answered your initial question. Originally, I stated the Arabs were influenced (not controlled) by Nazi Socialism. Possibly, they used it as a counter to their British/French occupiers.

v/r

Mike

[William F. Owen]

American Pride- I think Wilf answered your initial question. Originally, I stated the Arabs were influenced (not controlled) by Nazi Socialism. Possibly, they used it as a counter to their British/French occupiers.

You are correct, but the origins of the Ba'ath party created in 1940 to opposed Colonialism had a long and well documented connection with the 1920's birth of National Socialism. Thus my statement that the roots of Arab Nationalism, (as a political force) were connected/similar in expression to National Socialism.

[Bob's World]

Bottom line is that its a crazy world out there, and broad generalized categorization of people by their religion or race is an ignorant waste of time.

Fact is that religion is virtually NEVER the causation for populace based warfare. Same for race. They are both, however, extremely powerful, and and therefore oft used, tools of motivation for the same.

Look past the surface (i.e., ignore the media and the politicos) and seek a deeper understanding of both the nature of populace-based conflict and and the conflicts that you seek to understand.

While every culture measures things differently (or values things differently), essence is fairly universal. Some populaces prefer a heavy religious tint to their governance, let them have that. Some prefer a single leader with a great deal of power vested in him/her. Let them have that. When they aren't getting what they want because you in your wisdom have both picked something 'better' for them; and also set up obstacles to them getting what they want, watch out. This all goes to the universal concepts of "goodness" of governane and "legitimacy" of governance."

Resist your American urges/instincts and set "Effectiveness" of governance and "democracy" of governance aside and look at these other populaces through THEIR lens. Seek to understand what is "goodness" for them and you will be a friend. Avoid taking on the role of "legitimizer" of that same governance in the process and you will be a success.

Fact is that Israel has serious "legitimacy" issues in the eyes of their neighbors, and the US is not helping them resolve that by being so biased to their cause. Let them stand clearly on their own two feet (and they can), and things will smooth out over time. (and this does not mean cut and run, nor to force them to give up hard earned terrain like the Golan that provides a strategic risk to the state if surrendered).

The US has serious legitimacy issues in the region as well, in that we have imposed our selves to the degree where we have become the source of legitimacy of many governments that lack "goodness" in the eyes of significant segments of their own populaces. When we target this we begin to back off of the bullseye. By our inane focus on building capacity and democracy we actually fix ourselves to the bullseye and increase our own risk.

Perhaps this is counter-intuitive, but this is where I am right now, and not much I'm seeing out there is moving me from this current position.

[AmericanPride]

Originally, I stated the Arabs were influenced (not controlled) by Nazi Socialism. Possibly, they used it as a counter to their British/French occupiers.

Influenced. Somewhat. Not decisively. The Nazi program was one of expansionism and colonialism (in Europe) -- Arab nationalism sought to remove the yoke of colonialism. And yes, they did use nationalism as an counter-instrument to British and French imperialism. The same way the Vietnamese used communism in Indochina and the Afghans and Pakistanis used religious instruction to resist the expansion of Soviet communism. The National Socialist program did not develop into an Arab 'model' -- the Arab nationalists pursued a relationship with the Germans for very basic and ancient political reasons: the enemy of my enemy is my friend. And the Germans found it to their benefit to pursue relations with a people who no longer desired to be ruled by the persistent and old enemy of aspiring continental powers.

On the one hand, Wilf claims that the creation of Israel as a catalyst for Arab hostility is "utter rubbish", but on the other, he claims that the most powerful and ruthless anti-semitic ideology informed the Arab program and that a "very substantial proportion [of Arabs] have centuries of enmity and hatred towards Jews". If Arab nationalism is founded on anti-semitic ideology (which is really the only relevance in arguing of some existential relationship between Arab nationalism and Nazism), and Arabs have some centuries-spanning disgust with Jewish people, how is the creation of a Jewish homeland in the middle of the Arab population NOT a "primary source" of discontent?

[AmericanPride]

Dave,

What you describe, IMO, is just politics. But politics often requires compromise because that is how it is ensured the other party cooperates. But there are a combination of factors that prevent that from occurring in the American narrative: we don't compromise because (1) we're used to winning decisively and overwhelmingly (Indians, Mexico, Spain, Germany, Japan) and (2) all of our enemies just so happen to be (so-called) enemies of freedom, happiness, capitalism, and God. No American politician would be elected if he advocated working through the systems and actors already in place. Some do only because they disguise it as "detente" or something else. It is my opinion that American culture is simply not prepared for COIN in the context of the GWoT. The Romans, British, Persians, Greeks, and even the Mongols were fairly adept at co-opting 'lesser' leaders and nations regardless of their cultural/political/social identity.

[William F. Owen]

On the one hand, Wilf claims that the creation of Israel as a catalyst for Arab hostility is "utter rubbish",

I made no such claim. I just rejected the notion that the creation of the modern state of Israel is the primary source of discontent. Each Arab nation had it's own agenda and post-colonial problems, plus tensions with neighbours. To claim it's all about Israel is to be grossly ignorant of modern middle east.

he claims that the most powerful and ruthless anti-semitic ideology informed the Arab program and that a "very substantial proportion [of Arabs] have centuries of enmity and hatred towards Jews".
If Arab nationalism is founded on anti-semitic ideology (which is really the only relevance in arguing of some existential relationship between Arab nationalism and Nazism), and Arabs have some centuries-spanning disgust with Jewish people, how is the creation of a Jewish homeland in the middle of the Arab population NOT a "primary source" of discontent?

Hitler backed Arab anti-colonial movements. Arabs nationalist themselves adopted Ba'athism, which clearly has it's roots in National Socialism and European proto-fascism.
Arab nationalists viewed all their problems as being ones created by colonial occupation - something inherent to their expressions of National Socialism.
There has been centuries of Arab-Jewish tension in the middle-east - the same as there was in Europe.

So to blandly state that the "primary source" of discontent in the Middle-East, starting in 1948, is the creation of Israel is to be simplistic beyond belief. Is it a source of discontent. Yes. But to put it beyond that, is the hoary old argument of "wouldn't the Mid-East be at peace if it wasn't for the Jews."

I reject simplistic and inaccurate history and made the same observations in regard to China - strangely something none of you are arguing about!

[orange dave]

A number of points here.

First, the argument that Israel wasn't real reason for Muslims' discontent. From my (Asian) perspective, my reaction would be that WWII isn't the real reason China hates Japan either. When you press Chinese people on different aspects of the Japan situation, for instance why they don't hate Germany as well, they don't always give the answers that one would expect. They don't really understand that Germany has repented for their crimes, while Japan hasn't nearly as much. Also, I think their hatred of Japan actually predated WWII or the Japanese occupation. So actually I think this point still supports the historical analogy.

Bottom line is that its a crazy world out there, and broad generalized categorization of people by their religion or race is an ignorant waste of time.

If I'm a particularly clever of enemy of the US, and I see that statement, my next thought is going to be how to use religion to organize and exploit this blind spot in western analysis. Bottom line, I don't think it's possible to make that kind of statement on a blanket ideological level. You could try using a regional or historical approach to make your point though.

It is my opinion that American culture is simply not prepared for COIN in the context of the GWoT.

I agree, and I think one of the most effective uses for this historical analogy could be harnessing the fear many people have towards China's rise in a productive capacity. If you overstate China's capabilities, most people will believe it, and then by extension they will be more willing to defer to authority on issues related to Muslim relations.

[Ken White]

It is my opinion that American culture is simply not prepared for COIN in the context of the GWoT.

and say that the US is not prepared for nor adept enough for COIN operations as they are now envisioned. We do not do it all well, we're too impatient.

Ergo, we should not do it. There are other ways...

[goesh]

"Which of the five major schools of sharia law are you referring to? Are they all so inflexible?" (Tequila)

All 'schools' of Sharia have as Qu'ranic foundations total Patriarchy and all completely and totally endorse the pillar of Zakat (charity), hence wealth remains so concentrated in the hands of so few and so much of the Islamic world remains mired in 3rd world status. Likewise, no schools are able to in any way radically depart from the precepts that define believers and non-believers. Variations abound on interpreations of impurity and family life and conduct amongst the Ummah and lots of ontological issues and interpretation of Sunnah.

"Fact is that religion is virtually NEVER the causation for populace based warfare" (Bob's World)

Some could argue the Crusades were just that and our conquest of America carried a fundamental assumption that Heathens were doomed from the get-go and thus doomed to spirtual damnation, it didn't much matter what was done to them. I would strongly argue that every broken treaty indigenous people made with the US Government had at its base, powerful relgious assumptions. The Pilgrim types of our early years made an effort to convert Indians to Christianity and this essentially became a model for the infamous boarding schools that were in operation well into the 1950s here in America. This need to convert manifested in about the same manner in Canada with the First Nation people and with the Aboriginies of Austrailia as well. This phenomena was transcultural and transgenerational. Some have even argued that the concept of Indians as heathens ( infidels) fully justified scalp and ear bounties and psychologically facilitated atrocities but I'm getting off on a tangent.

[Steve Blair]

Convert or kill was the basic mantra for the Spanish efforts in Central and South America, where the indigenous population suffered much more than their counterparts further north.

But back to the thread's main point, I would agree that current American culture certainly isn't geared for COIN, although I would posit that it's more the official culture (as in politicians and other "decision makers") than the rest of us.

[orange dave]

One thing I forgot to reply to before.

Orange Dave- Do you have any understanding of the Islamic threat in Western China? If so, how are they handling it? My limited understanding is that it is based off economic grievances and not religious.

In terms of the historical big picture, I believe that Xinjiang is the only really successful case of outside colonization of a Muslim land. So from that angle the more interesting question is why things have remained so calm there, and perhaps one could credit Chinese economically oriented, culturally relativistic policies. But actually, that's kind of conjecture, as I don't have any perspective of the situation on the ground.

But back to the thread's main point, I would agree that current American culture certainly isn't geared for COIN, although I would posit that it's more the official culture (as in politicians and other "decision makers") than the rest of us.

So, going back to this example, if a president decided to make take a different path on Somalia, do you think he could be could sell it to the public and get reelected? Especially supposing it were a major component of the WOT? I think it might be possible for a candidate with other strengths, but they wouldn't be running on foreign policy or the WOT. ...Or, I don't know, maybe Obama disproves me. But, even though he was gearing up for a big fight on foreign policy, the election was really won on the economy. It's an open question.