"Battle of Ideas" a bad model

[SDR]

By Aysha Chowdhry and Andrew Masloski

Notably absent from the presidential primary campaign is serious discussion of how to implement an effective long-term strategy for protecting the United States from future terrorist acts. Many political leaders in the past have embraced winning "the battle of ideas" against Muslim extremists as the most important component of any strategy, yet this ubiquitous catchphrase stems from an erroneous and counterproductive framework for understanding extremists like Osama bin Laden.

The framework assumes that groups like al Qaeda possess a coherent and compelling interpretation of Islam that the United States must counter to prevent Muslims from adopting it. This flawed understanding should be replaced with a more nuanced approach based on the true nature of the terrorist threat.

The "battle of ideas" approach is counterproductive for two important reasons: first, it encourages the concept of a Manichean struggle. raging between two equally powerful and opposing world views, in effect legitimizing the extremists' understanding of the struggle, and second, it overstates the extent to which bin Laden's world view constitutes a viable theological alternative for the world's 1.3 billion Muslims. These zealous religious views are not only alien to most Muslims living today, but have also earned a place on the fringe of the history of Islamic intellectual thought.

For an effective strategy, the United States needs to take three important steps.

The first is decoupling Islam and terrorism. The 9/11 commission report states that "the enemy is not just 'terrorism' ... it is the threat posed by Islamist terrorism." While it is true that America faces a significant threat from people who identify themselves as Muslims and dress their grievances in religious terms, this does not mean that such people are perpetrators of "Islamist terrorism." The phrase implies that Islam sanctions terrorism and that Muslims are more likely to commit terrorist acts. "Terrorism in the name of Islam" is more accurate.

The second step requires recognition that most grievances expressed by extremists such as bin Laden are secular and political in nature. They are angry about what they perceive as the exploitation of Muslims at the hands of the United States. They enjoy sympathy from Muslims who perceive the United States, and the West in general, as per~ petuators of an unjust global politicaleconomic system. As many have already noted, the attacks of 9/11 targeted American FINANCIAL and military complexes and not Western religious symbols. Though the United States should not accept at face value the legitimacy of al Qaeda grievances, we cannot effectively prevent terrorist acts from taking place without a better understanding of their ultimately profane roots.

The third step involves ensuring the United States actively works for the promotion of human dignity. U.S. policymakers should make a concerted effort to understand the circumstances of the countries of the Muslim world that cause a sense of deprivation and humiliation among their populations, as these factors contribute to sympathy for al Qaeda's political aims. Washington conventional wisdom maintains that Muslims need to believe in an alternative vision for their economic and political future, though the vast majority of Muslims need no convincing that economic prosperity and political freedom are good things. Muslims share the same vision held by humanity everywhere - a secure future for their children and a life defined by dignity and liberty. Thus, policy makers should approach Muslims as partners on the path toward bettering livelihoods in Muslim societies.

If the United States continues to be implicated in the social, political and economic underdevelopment of much of the Muslim world, al Qaeda will continue to gain followers who are blind to everything but the perceived destructive effects of U.S. hegemony. In the end, focusing on winning the "battle of ideas" obscures our view of what must be done to prevent future terrorist attacks. The United States should recognize the true nature of the terrorist threat, identify its root causes, and partner with Muslims to eliminate them.

COMMON GROUND NEWS SERVICE

Aysha Chowdhry and Andrew Masloski work for the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution.

[SDR]

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders
of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple
matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist
dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or
no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the
leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being
attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and
exposing the country to greater danger."

-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg Trials

[Ed Ziomek]

SDR... exceelent read, but I disagree somewhat.

The bullet points...

1. The first is decoupling Islam and terrorism. ....

2. The second step requires recognition that most grievances expressed by extremists such as bin Laden are secular and political in nature. They are angry about what they perceive as the exploitation of Muslims at the hands of the United States. ....

3. The third step involves ensuring the United States actively works for the promotion of human dignity. ...

I say America can do all these things, and still will have terror networks attack us, and terror strikes killing anywhere in the world.

On Alan Combs last night, Air America, interviewing Deepak Chopra, and the comments were that (let me try to get it right)... superficially, America and the terrorists of the world, are diametrically opposed. But deep down inside, it is almost like we are identical. We need each other to define ourselves, we serve each other's purposes, or something. They believe themselves to be heroes, we believe ourselves to be the heroes.

History of man has always had this dilemma, Cain and Abel, two sides who are virtually brothers. with different philosophies, want to kill each other? Maybe it is our primal humanoid flaw to dominate all, even our own kind?

So my vote is that we certainly can HUGELY minimize the hate and animosity, yes, by applying what is mentioned, by granting racial respect, and economic respect, and human rights respects. So far, that has been a pipe dream even here in the United States, with even today's reminder of someone in an extremely high position saying... "Obama cannot become President because he is an African American!"

But the possibility of completely erasing the worldwide terror threat, so it never happens again, impossible, and it certainly will happen here again.

By the way, as an aside, one year from now just after the election, almost to the week, this Iraq debacle will be TWO WORLD WAR 2'S LONG (America's involvement)!!! I mention this because another broadcaster today mentioned that there are two camps in this political election... those who want to stay and win Iraq, and those who want to quit Iraq.

The "stay and win" side is deemed patriotic, the other side is considered traitorous and allowing the terrorists to win!!!

Two World War 2s is too long, to gain nothing. Every single day has been a loss.

And I know how strong our patriotism is, flawed as this system has developed!

Good to hear from you again.

[Architorture]

i don't know if the cain and abel reference is a good one in a thread about decoupling religion and politics...

and i think the use is a little loose... cain was clearly in the wrong by the actions he took... he killed abel out of anger and jealously. biblically they are not treated as equals...

although what might be more fitting when speaking of solving terrorism or world suffering in general the cain and abel story presents and interesting item...

the first question asked of God by man in the Old Testament is asked by Cain "Am i my brother's keeper?' God never gives a direct answer... i like to think that the teachings on how to treat others found throughout the rest of the bible are probably a good answer to that question...

[Richard Haut]

interesting example, but remember that "am I my brother's keeper ?" was said AFTER the brother was dead.

as for terrorism and religion, here is the Cain and Abel story at told in the Bible and the Koran:

first part:

Bible:

[Architorture]

i know the question came after the act...the time of the question isn't so interesting as the question itself and it being the first question asked of God by man in the bible... also the fact that it is not directly answered is interesting- instead it is met with condemnation as if Cain should already know the answer to the question.

it certainly is interesting to see the differences in the biblical and koranic versions of the stories...

i sort of like the cut and dry 'take abel out to the field and off him' version in the bible- abel seems to get a bit wordy in the koran version...

although you would wonder how one could jusify the current agenda of terrorism as an act against the aggressors of the west if abel's words still hold true...

[Richard Haut]

"the current agenda of terrorism"

- and what exactly is that ?

all the world's major religions teach humanity - but it did not stop an Israeli Knesset Member from the Ultra-Orthodox Shas party today publicly blaming gays for recent earthquakes in the region. (reported in Ha'aretz).

[Ed Ziomek]

SDR...thanks again for another lively topic!

Rich...Gays causing earthquakes? That's a new one.

My favorite quote of today comes from the political scene, where we seem to not learn any lessons about anything on Iraq or terror... two candidates slamming the third for lack of experience!

Wait a minute, aren't we failing here? Isn't the bus going off the cliff here? Economically. Politically. Public relations wise. International prestige. Jobs. Inflation. Even our tourists are now in more danger going overseas, or in Mexico (which I love!!!) Of course the threat lately is an OPEC swing to the Euro over the dollar as mentioned here many times, that will be interesting!

I used to tell my sons... I have 40 years of failure in the business marketplace, made money, lost all of it, and you want MY ADVICE? "Don't listen to me." And they haven't either!

Also reminds me of Napoleon...asked by one of his generals..."Why did you promote the younger guy, over the experienced general?"

And he answered in more colorful terms than these..."Take at look at those war-horses over there, they have been with me how many years, and how many wars, and how many victories, and how many defeats, and guess what...they are still war horses. I won't promote them either."

By the way, sorry I brought up the Bible... Incest, child sacrifice, sodomy, genocide, exterminations, exiles, ... well, maybe it is "pertinent stuff" after all?

[ArchiMotion]

Humm,

Very pertinent.

Step one - One cannot decouple Islam from terrorism, as there is no link, except in the mind of the terrorists groups. So this is a useless pursuit.

Step two - can agree on that one. The US needs to improve it's foreign policies.

Step three I agree. I guess we didn't do so well with Guantanamo.

And truly, by helping better the lives of Muslims.

How about sending over a bunch of gifts to the Muslims on a regular basis and giving them all the help they need to improve their economies and nations.

"I say America can do all these things, and still will have terror networks attack us, and terror strikes killing anywhere in the world."

Very true Ed.

"On Alan Combs last night, Air America, interviewing Deepak Chopra, and the comments were that (let me try to get it right)... superficially, America and the terrorists of the world, are diametrically opposed. But deep down inside, it is almost like we are identical. We need each other to define ourselves, we serve each other's purposes, or something. They believe themselves to be heroes, we believe ourselves to be the heroes."

In a sense this is true, but still not convincing enough....

"So my vote is that we certainly can HUGELY minimize the hate and animosity, yes, by applying what is mentioned, by granting racial respect, and economic respect, and human rights respects. So far, that has been a pipe dream even here in the United States, with even today's reminder of someone in an extremely high position saying... "Obama cannot become President because he is an African American!"

This is completely agreeable. If we can't get it right at home, how are we gonna do it abroad?

Cain and Abel? Think the analogy is not relevant.

"Wait a minute, aren't we failing here? Isn't the bus going off the cliff here? Economically. Politically. Public relations wise. International prestige. Jobs. Inflation. Even our tourists are now in more danger going overseas, or in Mexico (which I love!!!) Of course the threat lately is an OPEC swing to the Euro over the dollar as mentioned here many times, that will be interesting! "

This I agree. The war on terrorism, rather then making the world "more safe for democracy".... (of course that is not the idea, but a joke), or how about, a more secure place.... to the contrary, has made the world a more dangerous place as it encourages more of the same.

"By the way, sorry I brought up the Bible... Incest, child sacrifice, sodomy, genocide, exterminations, exiles, ... well, maybe it is "pertinent stuff" after all?"

It is clear from the discussions those participating in the debate truly do not understand the stories of the Bible.

With that said, great post. Maybe a little late to get on track, but thought would throw in a few words to the topic.

ya all take care now.

[Antisthenes]

oh and stop training and financing them in the first place.

a little science education goes a long way....

[Richard Haut]

indeed ....

I am sure that the American media has not given too much space to the news that the Turkish and Iranian military have been cooperating on how to deal with the US-backed Kurdish terrorists working out of Iraq.

[SDR]

US-backed Kurdish terrorists

Another element missing from the American media, I guess. Can you refer me to a source ?



SDR

[Richard Haut]

just one reference of many:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2007/110907_b_PKK.htm

[ArchiMotion]

You guys forgot your own discussion on this topic last year -->>

Lies and the Lying LiArs Who. . .

[Richard Haut]

we didn't forget

there is a Turkish Army of 300,000 heavily-armed troops on Iraq's northern border.

a full-scale invasion has been under discussion in Turkey for some time.

make no mistake - if the Turks - backed by the Iranians and Syrians (who also suffer from these US-backed terrorists) - actually move then not just the face of the military situation in Iraq, but the so-called "enemy" faced by America alters as well.

not only in the north - the instability which America has brought to the region endangers the rulers in Saudi and the Gulf who are holding down large Shia majorities.

American troops in Iraq have only one main supply line - from the south. And everybody in the Middle East knows it. Why do you think that the British withdrawal from Basra was so serious ?

America has the most supply-dependent army in history.

Get your troops out - while you can.