I am not that impressed. As a history of the (failed) American "soft power" war, its OK, but what exactly is the suggested "change the reality"? The author abruptly stops at that point, which may tell us that he is intelligent and doesnt want to make an ass of himself, but it tells us nothing else.
There is a new paradigm (post-national? post-Westphalian? post-whatever?) struggling to be born in the world, but neither this author nor I know too much about it, so lets leave that aside. Within the "old paradigm", we can still try and think rationally. I have to get back to work, but here are a few random thoughts:
1. The whole "its an ideology, not a state" idea is 93% bull####. There is an "idea" of socialism which has been around ever since capitalism (or earlier, depending on how you define it) and it is STILL around. There is an idea of Islamism. There are many ideas. And it probably makes a difference when a rich country spends money promoting one and suppressing another. But that is not the problem wars are being fought over. Abrams and company may believe that, but maybe even they dont. Maybe they too have other, more prosaic aims in view (like protecting Israel? or grabbing oil fields...though I could never understand what anybody will do with their oil if they dont sell it to the people who need it?).
The particular armed groups that launched the most spectacular Islamist attacks have a specific physical and organizational presence (unfortunately, its in Pakistan). They are not really "stateless". If the states that shelter them are forced to confront them, half the job is done. If no state is willing to tolerate them then they will whither to "late red brigade" levels and the only "reality" needed to confront them will be law enforcement and intelligence work. The ONLY military action the US needed was action to force actual states to change their policies...and states that did not change policy would face very severe and escalating consequences. Soon enough they would either change their behavior or be overrun by their newly strengthened enemies (who doesnt have enemies?) or become almost walled off pariahs like North Korea. The rest is law enforcement... or a waste of money.
2. If the US has to continue supporting Israeli occupation then the US will continue to face propaganda problems in the Muslim world (and not just the Muslim world) and no "war of ideas" is going to change that. The notion of winning a war of ideas while continuing to support Israel (all the other "crimes" of the US have a much smaller impact..in propaganda terms, they are an order of magnitude less effective than the issue of Palestine, which, for most people in the world, is a no-brainer and so is easy to use in propaganda and hard to counter) seems pointless. But maybe there IS a way out: maybe the US can tell the truth? It can emphasize that Israel is one issue, many other accusations are false and there are practical benefits to being friendly with the US even as it continues to support Israeli occupation. ....OK, this point is a pipe dream on my part.
3. I think my main point is that the whole debate may be "not even wrong". Practical issues of who is funding whom, who provides training and shelter? who does not cooperate with law enforcement? and what military force should or should not be used to change this behavior?...that counts for more than all this "war of ideas".
What do I know..
Bookmarks