|FROM ||Ruben Safir
|SUBJECT ||Subject: [NYLXS - HANGOUT] [firstname.lastname@example.org: #862: Pipes argues "The Enemy Has a Name" in the Jer. Post]
|From lest-hangout-at-mrbrklyn.com Fri Jun 20 15:45:09 2008
Received: from www2.mrbrklyn.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by www2.mrbrklyn.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id m5KJj7Wn016366
for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 15:45:09 -0400
Received: (from majordomo-at-localhost)
by www2.mrbrklyn.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id m5KJj76W016365
for hangout-outgoings; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 15:45:07 -0400
X-Authentication-Warning: www2.mrbrklyn.com: majordomo set sender to lest-hangout-at-nylxs.com using -f
Received: from www2.mrbrklyn.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by www2.mrbrklyn.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id m5KJj5lA016361
for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 15:45:07 -0400
Received: (from ruben-at-localhost)
by www2.mrbrklyn.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id m5KJj4co016360
for hangout-at-www2.mrbrklyn.com; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 15:45:04 -0400
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 15:45:04 -0400
From: Ruben Safir
Subject: [NYLXS - HANGOUT] [dplist-at-danielpipes.org: #862: Pipes argues "The Enemy Has a Name" in the Jer. Post]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
----- Forwarded message from "D. Pipes Mailing List" -----
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 07:21:42 -0400
From: "D. Pipes Mailing List"
Reply-To: "D. Pipes Mailing List"
Subject: #862: Pipes argues "The Enemy Has a Name" in the Jer. Post
#862: Pipes argues "The Enemy Has a Name" in the Jer. Post
Daniel Pipes Mailing List
June 19, 2008
Articles | Weblog | Reviews
* Shoeless George Bush[ Discusses Islam]
* Bush Declares War on Radical Islam
* [Appeasement and] Why Europe Balks
The Enemy Has a Name
by Daniel PipesJerusalem PostJune 19, 2008http://www.danielpipes.org/article/5629
If you cannot name your enemy, how can you defeat it? Just as a physician must identify a disease before curing a patient, so a strategist must identify the foe before winning a war. Yet Westerners have proven reluctant to identify the opponent in the conflict the U.S. government variously (and euphemistically) calls the "global war on terror," the "long war," the "global struggle against violent extremism," or even the "global struggle for security and progress."
This timidity translates into an inability to define war goals. Two high-level U.S. statements from late 2001 typify the vague and ineffective declarations issued by Western governments. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld defined victory as establishing "an environment where we can in fact fulfill and live [our] freedoms." In contrast, George W. Bush announced a narrower goal, "the defeat of the global terror network" – whatever that undefined network might be.
"Defeating terrorism" has, indeed, remained the basic war goal. By implication, terrorists are the enemy and counterterrorism is the main response.
But observers have increasingly concluded that terrorism is just a tactic, not an enemy. Bush effectively admitted this much in mid-2004, acknowledging that "We actually misnamed the war on terror." Instead, he called the war a "struggle against ideological extremists who do not believe in free societies and who happen to use terror as a weapon to try to shake the conscience of the free world."
A year later, in the aftermath of the 7/7 London transport bombings, British prime minister Tony Blair advanced the discussion by speaking of the enemy as "a religious ideology, a strain within the world-wide religion of Islam." Soon after, Bush himself used the terms "Islamic radicalism," "militant Jihadism," and "Islamo-fascism." But these words prompted much criticism and he backtracked.
By mid-2007, Bush had reverted to speaking about "the great struggle against extremism that is now playing out across the broader Middle East." That is where things now stand, with U.S. government agencies being advised to refer to the enemy with such nebulous terms as "death cult," "cult-like," "sectarian cult," and "violent cultists."
In fact, that enemy has a precise and concise name: Islamism, a radical utopian version of Islam. Islamists, adherents of this well funded, widespread, totalitarian ideology, are attempting to create a global Islamic order that fully applies the Islamic law (Shari‘a).
Thus defined, the needed response becomes clear. It is two-fold: vanquish Islamism and help Muslims develop an alternative form of Islam. Not coincidentally, this approach roughly parallels what the allied powers accomplished vis-à-vis the two prior radical utopian movements, fascism and communism.
First comes the burden of defeating an ideological enemy. As in 1945 and 1991, the goal must be to marginalize and weaken a coherent and aggressive ideological movement, so that it no longer attracts followers nor poses a world-shaking threat. World War II, won through blood, steel, and atomic bombs, offers one model for victory, the Cold War, with its deterrence, complexity, and nearly-peaceful collapse, offers quite another.
Victory against Islamism, presumably, will draw on both these legacies and mix them into a novel brew of conventional war, counterterrorism, counterpropaganda, and many other strategies. At one end, the war effort led to the overthrow of the Taliban government in Afghanistan; at the other, it requires repelling the lawful Islamists who work legitimately within the educational, religious, media, legal, and political arenas.
The second goal involves helping Muslims who oppose Islamist goals and wish to offer an alternative to Islamism's depravities by reconciling Islam with the best of modern ways. But such Muslims are weak, being but fractured individuals who have only just begun the hard work of researching, communicating, organizing, funding, and mobilizing.
To do all this more quickly and effectively, these moderates need non-Muslim encouragement and sponsorship. However unimpressive they may be at present, moderates, with Western support, alone hold the potential to modernize Islam, and thereby to terminate the threat of Islamism.
In the final analysis, Islamism presents two main challenges to Westerners: To speak frankly and to aim for victory. Neither comes naturally to the modern person, who tends to prefer political correctness and conflict resolution, or even appeasement. But once these hurdles are overcome, the Islamist enemy's objective weakness in terms of arsenal, economy, and resources means it can readily be defeated.
Related Topics: US policy, War on terror
You are subscribed to this list as ruben-at-mrbrklyn.com.
To edit your subscription options, or to unsubscribe, go to http://www.danielpipes.org/list_edit.php
To subscribe to this list, go to http://www.danielpipes.org/list_subscribe.php
(Daniel Pipes sends out a mailing of his writings 2-3 times a week.)
Sign up for related (but non-duplicating) e-mail services:
Middle East Forum (media alerts, event reports, MEQ articles)
Campus Watch (research, news items, press releases)
You may freely post or forward this text, but on condition that you send it as an integral whole, along with complete information about its author, date, publication, and original URL.
----- End forwarded message -----
http://www.mrbrklyn.com - Interesting Stuff
http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software
So many immigrant groups have swept through our town that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998
http://fairuse.nylxs.com DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002
"Yeah - I write Free Software...so SUE ME"
"The tremendous problem we face is that we are becoming sharecroppers to our own cultural heritage -- we need the ability to participate in our own society."
"> I'm an engineer. I choose the best tool for the job, politics be damned.<
You must be a stupid engineer then, because politcs and technology have been attached at the hip since the 1st dynasty in Ancient Egypt. I guess you missed that one."
© Copyright for the Digital Millennium