An Asymmetric War of Ideas

[marct]

Hi Steve,

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.

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.

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.

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