Fighting Ideas with Ideas

[JD]

There has been much dialogue recently espousing the notion of 'fighting ideas with ideas'. It seems logical, but I also suspect extremely difficult. If it is such a good idea, then it is highly likely that it would have been done before and that there would be historical examples from which to draw. Unfortunately, I am drawing a bit of a blank. I can come up with Alexander the Great adopting Persian affectations but after that I am a bit stumped.

So the question is, who in the past has successfully fought ideas with ideas and are their techniques still valid today?

JD

[Adam L]

There has been much dialogue recently espousing the notion of 'fighting ideas with ideas'. It seems logical, but I also suspect extremely difficult. If it is such a good idea, then it is highly likely that it would have been done before and that there would be historical examples from which to draw. Unfortunately, I am drawing a bit of a blank. I can come up with Alexander the Great adopting Persian affectations but after that I am a bit stumped.

So the question is, who in the past has successfully fought ideas with ideas and are their techniques still valid today?

JD

I don't quite get what you are saying. Do you mean adopting your enemies ideas to win them over or more of creating an equal ideology. Perhaps you are talking more of indoctinating them in our "western" ways." Please elaborate.

Adam

[Schmedlap]

So the question is, who in the past has successfully fought ideas with ideas and are their techniques still valid today?

We did, in the cold war. The fall of the Soviet Union would not have been followed by the transition of former eastern bloc countries to democracy/capitalism if we had not "won the war of ideas."

[VinceC]

Really, all wars are about ideas.

Both sides try to convince the other that it's pointless or not worthwhile to keep risking your life for the ideas you're fighting for. Those ideas usually involve the widely held worldview of the each side -- who should rule, and how. Both winning and losing will profoundly influence ideas of who was right and wrong and why.

The U.S. Revolution was primarily fought over the idea of Independence. The U.S. Civil War was fought over the idea of preserving the union versus the right of self-determination.

Power, and my right to use it, is an idea many have fought and died for.

Most World War II victors -- Communists, Western Democracies and monarchies -- believed their collective ideas had triumphed over the twin ideas of fascism and militant royal imperialism. Many important battles took place in the arena of ideas.

The 30 Years War involved interpretations of religion and how they would affect political power.

The Arabic/Muslim conquests after the death of the Prophet were so successful because they were accompanied by religious ideas that a billion people continue to find compelling.

Turn the question on its head. Has any successful military compaign been devoid of ideas? Has any successful, long-lasting victory taken place in the absence of convincing the population that the victorious power deserves to rule?

[ProfessorB]

I don't think the point is that war is devoid of ideas -- that would be a pretty tall order for any human endeavor. The question is whether "our" ideas could "win" against "their" ideas. Presumably, then, this would amount to an Ideological Death Match between the western liberal-capitalist world order and the non-western Islamist theocratic world order.

I think the answer is, "no," not because "our" ideas are weaker or worse or what-have-you, but because any battle of ideas presupposes some common frames of reference. Colonial revolutionaries in Mass, Georgia, etc., could challenge their royalist neighbors and the crown on shared ideological ground -- the common inheritance of the Magna Charta, etc. Blues and greys could challenge each other's interpretation of federalism and state's rights.

But Marines and Japanese naval infantry were never really able to reach consensus of the validity of Bushido, were they? And I think the same problem is at work here. It isn't that democracy or human rights aren't in some sense global concepts, but that the basic frames of reference -- what, for example, constitutes a "right"? -- between the two sides today are polar opposites.

So I'm not at all sanguine about the notion that the now-departed Karen Hughes or her successor can "win" Muslim voters over to our side. That is a fight, in idea-based terms, that Islam has to manage for itself.

[TomMacNY]

JD--
When actors representing forces/states in conflict appeal to (a.) noncombatants in theater or (b.) civilians of the opponent , the appeal is likely to be largely in this vein. Thus 'propaganda/public-relations' will be weighted with such content.
*
--Syrian King Assad was interviewed recently {August...September'07 ?} . Concerning the American initiative (liberation\\invasion/occupation) in Iraq , he made a comment to the effect that " 'Democracy' is done to better one's condition , not for chaos ".
*
--Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in a remarkable public letter to U.S. civilians one year ago <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15952309/> , addressed "Noble Americans" , observing that :
"Both our nations are God-fearing, truth-loving and justice-seeking, and both seek dignity, respect and perfection.
"Both greatly value and readily embrace the promotion of human ideals such as compassion, empathy, respect for the rights of human beings, securing justice and equity, and defending the innocent and the weak against oppressors and bullies."
[Note that the Iranian head of state emphasizes the commonality between our and their cultures/civilisations , anticipating Professor Bs concern over "some common frames of reference."]
*
--Abu Musab al-Zarqawi revealed what might be considered 'bias' when he proferred that "Shiites are infidels" (ca 2005 , from recollection of news report).
*
--Osama bin Laden's letters to Americans have a different thrust...[2002]
<http://islamcommentaries.com/binladen_letter.htm>
"iii) The blood pouring out of Palestine must be equally revenged.
(b) You attacked us in Somalia; you supported the Russian atrocities against us in Chechnya, the Indian oppression against us in Kashmir, and the Jewish aggression against us in Lebanon.
(c) Under your supervision, consent and orders, the governments of our countries which act as your agents, attack us on a daily basis;
(i) These governments prevent our people from establishing the Islamic Sharia, using violence and lies to do so.
Also, <http://www.ucgstp.org/bureau/wnp/wnp0044/binladen.html>.
--[2007]
http://counterterrorismblog.org/2007...transcript.php …. on September 7, 2007 Counterterrorism Blog SITE Institute: Transcript of Bin Laden Video {excerpts}
"The genocide of peoples and their holocausts took place at your hands: only a few specimens of Red Indians were spared, and just a few days ago, the Japanese observed the 62nd anniversary of the annihilation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by your nuclear weapons."
"And among the things which catch the eye of the one who considers the repercussions of your unjust war against Iraq is the failure of your democratic system, despite it raising of the slogans of justice, liberty, equality and humanitarianism. It has not only failed to achieve these things, it has actually destroyed these and other concepts with its weapons - especially in Iraq and Afghanistan- in a brazen fashion, to replace them with fear, destruction...."
"Then you claim to be innocent! This innocence of yours is like my innocence of the blood of your sons on the 11th - ...."
"It has now become clear to you and the entire world the impotence of the democratic system and how it plays with the interests of the peoples and their blood by sacrificing soldiers and populations to achieve the interests of the major corporations."
"And with that, it has become clear to all that they are the real tyrannical terrorists. In fact, the life of all of mankind is in danger because of the global warming resulting to a large degree from the emissions of the factories of the major corporations"
[Finally , waxing supply-side, manifesting a Marxist slant...]
"There are no taxes in Islam, but rather there is a limited Zakaat [alms] totaling only 2.5%. So beware of the deception of those with the capital. "
* * *

In conventional war concerned primarily with subduing uniformed combatants (as Japanese occupation , followed by Allied liberation of Pacific islands in WWII), the war of ideas is minimized.
The recent transition of status of Coalition forces in Anbar, from Enemy#1 , to forces due cooperative approaches, involved a re-mapping of Sunni perceptions of Shia, AlQaeda-in-Iraq , and Coalition forces . No longer are Zarqawi & binLadens' views supreme.

The flowering of liberal democracy and free trade agreements through Latin America during the 1990s, and the present movement toward socialized autocracies and directed trade , represent the surge of victory and the sigh of defeat in the political-economic sphere, regarding aspects of trade policy and tariffs, local industries , mobility of capital , ownership of assets, partisanship and terms of office ... all of which have engendered armed conflicts at other times.
* * *
Much criticism (some well-earned) has been directed toward the Bush Administration's war 'of choice' in Iraq. The formation of a functional government in Iraq will/is require(ing) Shia and Sunni , Arab , Kurd , and Persian , of various local , tribal , and clan affiliation, to weigh and assess the relative merits of Wahabism, Pan Arabism, Marxism, Baathism, Islamofascism, nationalism, Zionism, etc, from all these perspectives. Thus the entire region , and the Islamic world at large , has been forced into a searing dialog concerning 'extreme' versus 'moderate' Islam , etc. This forced dialog has accelerated the 'Muslim Reformation' and probably decreased the duration of the invective directed toward the West (if/while amplifying the latter).
T m

[JD]

Thanks for everyone's reply's.

I was thinking some more on this and I came back to the idea of winning over people by the attractiveness of an argument or an ideal. One example was the 'idea' of Rome, this great civilisation that people wanted to be a part of. Throughout their empire were symbols of their great power, such as buildings, that must have impressed the locals enourmously. Another example may be the British Empire where the idea of being British held weight. Further, the French revolution empowered the masses and delivered the civil code. Lastly, the Moslem Empire and the attraction the new ideas held at that time.

In the contemporary sense, the encouragement of open debate with radical ideas rather than just assuming nobody will listen to them has merit. People will fight for big ideas - religion, freedom, survival etc - and if they are convinced one idea is right and another is not, then they will fight for that cause. Similarly, if they can be encouraged to modify that view, it may be to one side's advantage.

I may be off the mark here, but there appears to be sound reasons for seeking to fight ideas with ideas and I think there are many examples in the past, the American Revoltuion among them, that owe a large degree of succes to motivating power of grand ideas.

Your thoughts?

JD

[Brian Hanley]

So I'm not at all sanguine about the notion that the now-departed Karen Hughes or her successor can "win" Muslim voters over to our side. That is a fight, in idea-based terms, that Islam has to manage for itself.

Islam won't. It can't. It is an algorithm of hermetically sealed thought that has no foundation within it for synthesis or argument with itself. It enforces itself by death sentences. It's ideological base is fundamentally opposed to the value set we of the West depend on for democracy and our way of life. Islam, just like Communism, must be confronted head-on at its roots, and the message needs to be repeated over and over again.

I should point out that Islam is crystal clear about this ideological war. They have published manifestos that couch this century in terms such as, "There are three great ideologies in the world. Communism, Capitalism and Islam. Islam defeated Communism in the last century. Islam will defeat Capitalism in this century." Etcetera, etcetera, tracts, blah, blah.

The roots of Islam to be relentlessly attacked intellectually are:
- Koran was not the word of god, but of man. Mohammed committed many crimes and was not perfect. Men decided what was and was not from Allah. Therefore men decided what was and was not in Koran. Parts of Koran have already been edited. Therefore Koran can be renovated for the modern era.
- Islam allows slavery. Islam has committed greater crimes of enslavement by an order of magnitude than the USA did. (Over half of all slaves out of Africa went to Muslim lands. 4.5% to North America.) We fought a war to rid ourselves of slavery. Islam is still enslaving "those who your right hand possess in war" in Sudan.
- Islam is an obligate religious dictatorship. It is written without possibility for misinterpretation. This is wrong and it must be directly attacked as wrong.
- Islam dictates that anyone leaving Islam is to be executed. Remember how much it took to save the life of that Afghan who converted to Christianity?
- Mohammed gave Arabs the imprimateur of superiority by virtue of race. Only Arab Muslims cannot be made slaves. All others, including Muslims, can be slaves. Thus it is a racist creed.

Those are the core issues that must be raised over and over until Islam and the whole world cannot help but incorporate the argument into their conciousness.

To make drive it home, one must make the points about where those ideological choices lead. They lead to poverty, class division, war, backwardness. It's 10th century thinking frozen in time.

[ProfessorB]

I'm afraid I don't have so apocalyptic a view of Islam. I've certainly encountered similarly Manichean rhetoric from the American Right (the pamphlets of the John Birch Society in the 1960s are particularly instructive), various Christian sects, and any number of radical/New Left movements. Life-or-death, us-or-them rhetoric is splendid when you're recruiting, and that's generally what it's used for. Remember President Bush -- you're either for us or you're for the terrorists. That kind of all-or-nothing approach makes for good T.V. and little more.

Incidentally, it also bears keeping in mind is that we did not confront Communism "head-on" -- the entire history of the Cold War is a history of avoiding head-on confrontation (by both sides). The particular genius of Ronald Reagan was that he managed to sound like a doomsday prophet but was actually remarkably flexible when it came to managing relations with the Soviet Union -- much to the chagrin, one notes, of the most ideologically reliable members of the Republican Party coalition.

[skiguy]

The roots of Islam to be relentlessly attacked intellectually are:
- Koran was not the word of god, but of man. Mohammed committed many crimes and was not perfect. Men decided what was and was not from Allah. Therefore men decided what was and was not in Koran. Parts of Koran have already been edited. Therefore Koran can be renovated for the modern era.
- Islam allows slavery. Islam has committed greater crimes of enslavement by an order of magnitude than the USA did.
- Islam is an obligate religious dictatorship. It is written without possibility for misinterpretation. This is wrong and it must be directly attacked as wrong.

Brian,
I used to think this of Islam, but I don't anymore. Most of the things you said can be equally applied when debating with, for example, an atheist about the Bible. (written by men, not the word of God, condones slavery, theocracy, etc.) I know I often take offense when people say stuff like this about my beliefs, so......

And, IMO, you can't equate Communism with Islam. One is a form of government, the other is the religion of many people.

[invictus0972]

Really, all wars are about ideas.

Both sides try to convince the other that it's pointless or not worthwhile to keep risking your life for the ideas you're fighting for. Those ideas usually involve the widely held worldview of the each side -- who should rule, and how. Both winning and losing will profoundly influence ideas of who was right and wrong and why.

The U.S. Revolution was primarily fought over the idea of Independence. The U.S. Civil War was fought over the idea of preserving the union versus the right of self-determination.

Power, and my right to use it, is an idea many have fought and died for.

Most World War II victors -- Communists, Western Democracies and monarchies -- believed their collective ideas had triumphed over the twin ideas of fascism and militant royal imperialism. Many important battles took place in the arena of ideas.

The 30 Years War involved interpretations of religion and how they would affect political power.

The Arabic/Muslim conquests after the death of the Prophet were so successful because they were accompanied by religious ideas that a billion people continue to find compelling.

Turn the question on its head. Has any successful military compaign been devoid of ideas? Has any successful, long-lasting victory taken place in the absence of convincing the population that the victorious power deserves to rule?

Hi Vince!

Great post! In some respects, you are absolutely correct. All wars do come down to some kind of basic idea. However, I think there is a distinction to be made between what we are dealing with today and some of the examples you list above. At the end of the day, these were politico-economic wars. It is true that Germany was a fascist nation. However, Hitler's motives for invading his neighbors were mostly dominated from a geopolitical perspective. One of Hitler's rallying cries was a call for "lebensraum" or "living space". In other words, Hitler wanted to dominate Central Europe in order to increase the economic prosperity of Germany. This had a lot to do with the fact that Germany developed late as a nation state and did not have colonial possessions. He was not necessarily concerned with spreading fascism.

Contrary to popular belief, the Revolutionary War had less to do with liberty, equality, and fraternity than the belief that one should be free to make as much money as possible from whomever one chooses to market to, without unnecessary taxation. This is to say that it was a rejection of mercantilism. Of course issues of liberty were interwoven within the struggle, but the overarching motives behind the Revolutionary War were politics (system of governance) and economics (system of trade).

Your examples of the Thirty Years war and the Islamic invasion of the Middle East and beyond come closer to what we are referring to with ideological warfare, but they still fall a little short. The Thirty Years war was basically a rejection of a political system in which the Roman Catholic Church was tapping into the wealth of feudal rulers, and the Islamic invasion of the Middle East was one tribe establishing its dominance over another. However, you are right to suggest that ideologies played an important role in these conflicts, more so than the other examples.

Now, I finally get to my point. In all of the examples, there was something akin to a state or a tribe directing the conflicts. In the age of the information revolution, the state/tribal leaders have less control of the ideological perspectives of their constituencies. So, subcultures develop that are able to promulgate their ideologies through the internet, and they are able to mobilize others to commit acts of violence based merely on ideological factors. The "retreat of the state" has facilitated a new era when ideological factors are becoming more and more relevant. When we refer to waging the war of ideas, I think we are really trying to figure out how to convince millions of individuals not to participate in or support acts of violence. It has nothing to with tangible systems of politics and economics. On the contrary, conflicts in the future will be based on intangible things connected with culture and belonging.