An Ideological Dilemma

Jed Babbin makes a compelling argument via Real Clear Politics for fighting an ideological war against radical Islam.

We aren’t fighting a war against terrorists to win the hearts and minds of the Middle East. We are fighting it to end the threat of terrorism. Victory can’t be achieved with bullets and bombs alone. This is, at its core, an ideological war. Just as we defeated communism by defeating the communists’ ideology, we need to attack and destroy that of the radical Islamists.

Powerline comments and also quotes Michael Ledeen:

"Actually it was the other way ‘round. Communism was destroyed as a credible ideology when we brought down the Soviet empire, just as fascism was destroyed when Hitler and Mussolini were defeated. And so...win the war, islamofascism will wither and die."

While Richard agrees and expands the argument toward potential solutions by linking an article by Ariel Cohen. Richard cross-posted at the Jawa Report.

In Jed Babbin's excellent opinion piece at Real Clear Politics, we are reminded of our failure to adequately engage the Islamists in the idealogical battle that is as much a necessity in the War on Terror as the military operations:

As Cohen suggests in his article, we've accomplished much already, such as toppling the governments of Afghanistan and Iraq and replacing them with emerging democracies (albeit they are still works in-progress), however, these efforts have done little to discredit, demoralize or defeat our enemy the jihadists. Now, it's time to fully engage in the ideological nature of the conflict and do with words and pictures what we might otherwise accomplish through bullets and missiles...

(...) U.S. officials should demand that Muslim states reform their educational systems to expunge messages of hate against Christians, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists. They must demand that governments cease to operate hate-spewing radical mosques and madrassas, which exist solely to indoctrinate potential terrorists. And the Bush administration should use the CIA to topple or destabilize radical Islamist movements Islam and regimes that support them.

The analogies of Babbin are interesting, but incomplete. We bankrupted the Soviet Union which, as much as anything else, played a significant role when that wall came tumbling down. However, when it comes to even moderate Muslim countries, many rich in oil, we are doing the exact opposite by enriching them. And there are few practical alternatives to that on the horizon anytime soon.

It also leads to the ideological dilemma I referenced in the title. While Saudi Arabia and the UAE, among others, may be moderate Muslim states, our doing business with those governments as currently comprised undermines the very ideological argument it is being rightfully asserted we must make.

That complex combination of circumstances make fighting the war on terror a delicate exercise. It is going to require a strategy comprised of both diplomacy and might, all the while retaining a position in the world where we can proselytize our ideology, or democratic ideals, without falling into the trap of being hypocritical. And it is going to require some shifting mix of all those things over an extended period of time.

I can think of only one way to assure success in that regard. This complex fight we call the Global War On Terror (GWOT) must be rhetorically simplified and ultimately codified within our national conscience so that the nation can both better understand it as well as sign on to it and its longer term ramifications.

While I am a very strong Bush supporter, if we are presently failing in any way as regards the GWOT, it is in meeting that necessary step outlined directly above. We can manage the next two years without it and any Bush legacy should justifiably include having gotten the nation engaged as regards the GWOT. But it is going to take a states-person of some capability to emerge into the presidency in 2008 to accomplish what must be done for any next step in the GWOT to be truly effective. Otherwise we run the risk of going pillar to post, leaving unaccomplished yet necessary objectives in our wake as we go.

That could ultimately result in a significantly much longer and more costly war than what we are experiencing now.

Comments

[roy]

That could ultimately result in a significantly much longer and more costly war than what we are experiencing now.

Monday, March 06, 2006 at 11:17 PM in Politics | Permalink

This is no longer significant. Already this war is costing far more than GWB 'promised' and others had already predicted him wrong concerning the duration of this war.

[splashtc]

Get the Imans on board and the battle is won.

[roy]

In the history of mankind how many countries used an atomic bomb against others?