A rchive Date
[ 15-09-2006 ]
Category
[ International Relations ]
sub-Categoy
[ Terrorism ]
|
[http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=071706C
Defining Binladenism
By Josh Manchester : 17 Jul 2006
The ideology of Al Qaeda can be refuted, but only if it is clearly defined. Defining and refuting binladenism today would serve us by helping capture terrorists and foiling attacks: Al Qaeda is alive and well, but the recruits who seek it are motivated by the ideology that defines it, and the societies which produce those recruits are less likely to do so if they can offer some rigorous debate as to why binladenism is an affront to Islam.
Could an attempt to define "binladenism" apart from Islam bear fruit? Could Osama's own statements be used to show a contrast to the Koran and the central doctrines of Islam? Is there evidence that the basis of a doctrine of liberty exists within Islam, and that binladenism is opposed to it?
Michael Novak, the religion scholar, writes of ways to find freedom in Islam in his book, The Universal Hunger for Liberty. "Any religion that promises reward or punishment after death for actions performed during life, as Islam does, embodies a theory of liberty, even if that theory is tacit and undeveloped. ... Every woman and man reflects; each chooses; each one on reflection repents or approves of some of those past choices. These preconditions of a theory of liberty are universal."
In strategic terms, starting a conversation that defines binladenism would exploit the ideological success of the war in Iraq. Such an "offensive" move could cleave the Muslim world ideologically in our favor and introduce new memes into the war of ideas that rages largely unknown to non-Muslim westerners.
Indeed, there are signs that a serious debate is ongoing in the Muslim world over binladenism. Omar of Iraq the Model reports on the progress of the ideological war within Iraq. After analyzing more than 500 comments on a BBC Arabic site about the current Israeli campaign in Gaza, he draws this conclusion:
About three dozen comments were made by Iraqis both inside Iraq and in exile and all these comments were supportive of Israel or at least against Hamas as far as the topic is concerned except for only three comments; that's a 10:1 ratio while as you probably have guessed, the opposite ratio is true about the comments by the rest of Arabs...
But what really makes me feel optimistic about this new Iraqi way of thinking is that it shows how Iraqis are beginning to distinguish between terrorism and rightful acts of resistance not only in Iraq but also on a global level and are showing decreasing tolerance for extremism and this in my opinion is what builds peace in the region or any given region of this world.
A debate is raging in the Muslim world, but the US, rhetorically anyway, has little role in it. The Iraqis have discovered the true intent of our enemies: the subjugation of populations; the repudiation of liberty. Moreover, the Iraqis are discovering the futility of violent extremism. Here's a task for "public diplomacy": help the rest of the Arabs, and Muslims in Europe too, feel the same way as the Iraqis do.
An historical parallel is helpful to understand how this could be done. In President Reagan's first press conference as president, he attempted to define the nature of the Soviet Union and show its amorality in the same breath. "As good Marxist-Leninists, the Soviet leaders have openly and publicly declared that the only morality they recognize is that which will further their cause, which is world revolution." Reagan was showing that the Soviet Union had an amoral core, that it was opposed to the conception of religious morality as many people experience it. More importantly, his efforts to define his enemy were sustained and unyielding.
U.S. News and World Report recently put out a brief update on the status of our ideological war, suggesting we are falling short:
The White House's National Security Council has convened yet another interagency committee to develop a strategy aimed at marginalizing extremists ... this is at least the fourth attempt at coordinating federal efforts on infowar. But critics say the effort is typical of [Undersecretary of State Karen] Hughes's quick-hit, political campaign-like approach to what is a years-long ideological struggle.
Instead of a "quick-hit, political campaign-like approach" to public diplomacy, the US should gird itself for a long struggle of ideas and all of the conversations and debates that struggle will entail. The catch is that those in the Muslim world who agree with the West's rebuttal of binladenism might leave their loyalties open to question. How to encourage and shape the debate while not poisoning it with our very participation? This is our dilemma.
Josh Manchester is a TCS Daily contributing writer.
©2000-2006 TCS Daily
 World Fact Book (CIA)]
|