Looks Like I'm Not the First One to Think What I Think
From Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (page 21):
Experts have long pointed out that one of the key differences between Islamist extremist terrorism and previous forms of terrorism is that they are not seeking to negotiate with those they terrorize, but rather to create conditions that can drive the West away, undermine secular and moderate regimes in the Arab and Islamic worlds, and create the conditions under which they can create “Islamic” states according to their own ideas of “Puritanism.”Just wanted to throw that out. I'll write more on Cordesman's piece tomorrow.
This is why it serves the purposes of Islamist extremists, as well as some of the more focused opponents of the US and the West, to create mass casualties and carry out major strikes, or carry out executions and beheadings, even if the result is to provoke hostility and anger. The goal of Bin Laden and those like him is not to persuade the US or the West, it is rather to so alienate them from the Islamic and Arab world that the forces of secularism in the region will be sharply undermined, and Western secular influence can be controlled or eliminated. The goal of most Iraqi insurgents is narrower – drive the US and its allies out of Iraq – but involves many of the same methods.
...Such actions also breed anger and alienation in the US and the West and provoke excessive political and media reactions, more stringent security measures, violent responses, and all of the other actions that help instigate a "clash of civilizations." The US and the West are often provoked into playing into the hands of such attackers.
posted by The Commentariart at 6:40 PM
3 Comments:
Interesting...
I wonder if you have ever considered paralells between Al Qaeda and the KKK?
Both cloak themselves in religion, both are unbelievably brutal, both rose in response to perceived humiliation. And both are at odds with modernity.
I have been thinking about these connections recently, wondering if there is anything to learn there about how to defeat terrorism.
It seems counterintuitive: the harder we are hit, the theory seems to go, the more important it is to not retaliate, since any retaliation plays into AQ's hands in creating a Western-Islam conflict.
By that equation, wouldn't the ouster of al-Qaeta and the Taliban from Afghanistan actually be seen as a stunning victory for al-Qaeta, since they finally succeeded in provoking the West into action against an Islamic state, thereby alienating the West from the Islamic world? If so, what would the theory posit should have been the correct response to 9-11, if acting to neutralize al-Qaeta is forbidden?
Tagryn,
This is not as simple as your portray it, whereby any action by the US against any Muslim is a net gain for al Qaeda. The problem is the conflation between al Qaeda and Iraq. It's very difficult to use military action against al Qaeda, especially the very low-scale invasion of Afghanistan, as evidence that the United States is the big bad guy out to conquer the Muslim world.
However, when we invaded Iraq with a massive force and continue to occupy the country years later, with no end in sight, and kill more people than the terrorists we are there to defeat, al Qaeda has an opportunity to portray us as the enemies of Islam - after all, according to them, why would we invade an oil-rich country in the heart of the Arab world?
This does not mean "don't fight back". This means "fight back carefully".
Sivert,
I hadn't thought of the analogy, but it's there - I tend to think of the KKK and related organizations as much less ideological than al Qaeda. Al Qaeda has much more in common with classical European fascism and communism, I think, than the low-level proto-fascism of the KKK.
Post a Comment
<< Home