9/11 Ambiguities

Yesterday, Condoleeza Rice was on Fox News Sunday, followed by Howard Dean.  It was an opportunity to see and hear two diametrically opposing views on where we are five years into the War on Terror and to  get a sense of how the Republicans and Democrats view the issues that 9/11 brought to our attention in such an unmistakable and undeniable way.

In watching Dr. Rice, a very bright woman who I have a tremendous amount of respect for, I was struck by how poorly she was able to articulate our current dilemmas.  Almost immediately thereafter, watching Dr. Dean, a very bright man who I think has done a fair amount to degrade the level of discourse in our political life, I was struck by how incoherent his positions seemed to be. 

I have been quite open about my disenchantment with the Democrats.  I have been less critical of the Republicans, in part because I think they are more aware of the dangers we face.   However, I think there is a problem plaguing both sides of the debate, which is difficult to engage and even more difficult to articulate.

We know now that since at least 1979, the world of Islamic radicalism, or Islamic fascism, or Islamic expansionism, or whatever we choose to call it, has been at war with the West, and most specifically with the Little Satan (Israel) and the Great Satan (America).  We also know that since 9/11/01 we have been aware of this war and have begun to fight back. 

I would suggest that if, after 5 years of being at war, we still cannot fully name our enemies, this likely represents a particular problem that has less to do with our ability to be clear and precise and more to do with the nature of our enemies, and therein lies a problem.

Looking around the blogopshere and the MSM, there are several different ways people conceptualize this war.

There are those who atomize the problem into a number of discrete elements that can be dealt with in conventional and time tested manners. They believe that al Qaeda is essentially a criminal organization with a religious patina which can be addressed by international coordination and policing.

Another way to imagine the enemy is as an inevitable outgrowth of Islam, based on the Koran; like the scorpion of the story who stings the frog and kills them both, it is in the nature of Islam to be violent. Certainly, Islam's "bloody borders" and lack of "moderate" center, offers an abundance of evidence to support this position, though I think it is an oversimplification.

Despite protestations from both sides, the Bush administration has attempted to act on a more nuanced model, in which we attempt to wage the war of ideas on the battlefield in Iraq. The belief is that if Iraq can be established as a functioning Democracy, with its government responsible to its people, Islam will be forced to encounter its own internal contradictions and will need to reform (or, to at least adhere to the Quietest school of Islam exemplified by Sistani.)

More sophisticated analyses point out that a major part of the conflict has to do with the emergence of relatively primitive cultures into contact with the modern world. The dislocation and humiliation created by the collision of primitive cultures with modernity engenders regression and chaos, and the violent externalization of the conflict via terrorism is an inevitable part of the process of acculturating one quarter of the world's population to the modern world. Since most indicators show that globalization is irreversible and continuing to increase despite 9/11 and subsequent terrorist acts, one can, in this view, feel relatively sanguine that the modern world will ultimately triumph over the 7th century.

I think that to a certain extent, none of the usual ways of thinking about terrorism, and Islamic terrorism in particular, can explain the particular existential dread that terrorism evokes. Whether we think of the war as a series of Small Wars (a la Max Boot), or an attempt to deny sanctuaries and the resources of nation states, or as merely police actions, there are several fundamental ways in which the current war differs from every other war we have been involved in; furthermore, these aspects will only get worse, possibly far worse, before things gets better.

The Modern World demands a very high level of cognitive ability in order to become a full participant. Modern economies are so wealthy that even the most limited people, with the most minimal skills and advantages, are able to live relatively well (fantastically well, in comparison to poor people throughout human history.) This means that if you are a young man with a limited education living in a developing country, even if you are literate and intelligent, you have almost no chance to join in the modern global economy. The most successful developing countries, like South Korea and Taiwan, had populations willing to work hard for their children's sake, accepting their own limitations, in order to ensure their sons and daughters the opportunity to go to school and become successful members of the burgeoning global economy. America has been particularly adept at accepting such "strivers" as new members and accepting their children as Americans. Too many other nations have been unable to accept the implicit trade-off of current status and deprivation for the adults in the interest of their children's future. There remains a very significant portion of the Islamic world that has clearly not yet accepted this trade-off, and is in denial that the trade-off is unavoidable.

A society with such a large population of young men who have almost no opportunity to obtain status in the global economy (which mean they can have only very limited opportunities for marriage, family, and children) but have the promise of high status in the present and future worlds through "Jihad" will find the option of religiously sanctioned violence hard to resist. 

When you add into the mix that modernization, even the peripheral modernity found in the underdeveloped world (there are now ~2.5 billion cell phones on the planet), now offers the individual powers of destruction that dwarf what was available to armies in the past, the problem begins to come into focus.  It is not only the US Army that promises to make you an "Army of One" but now Islamic Jihad offers the possibility of becoming a "Jihadi Army of One." 

[Perhaps, more properly, we should recognize the enemy as "Jihadi Armies of One or A Few" but in the interest of brevity I will stick with "Jihadi Army of One" as the name of the enemy.]

During WWII, we had to defeat armies, and did.  In the Cold War, we had to defeat Nation states espousing an antithetical ideology, and we were able to defeat Communism by showing that it doesn't work.  In the current war, we need to defeat not only Nation states, but a "million armies of one", possibly 100 million "Jihadi Armies of One." 

This is why the two sides of the debate at home are so confused.  The Left and the Democrats are correct that by fighting back we risk changing a million "Jihadi Armies of One" into 100 million "Jihadi Armies of One."  Yet if we don't fight back, we run the same risk!   The alternatives for those 100 million young men is not between a job and family in a modern economy, but between high status and enhanced self regard versus humiliation and despair.  In such a case, almost all are potential recruits for violent Jihad.  We have already seen, on numerous occasions, young men, who would be derisively labeled as losers by most of their contemporaries, decide to form their own "Jihadi Army of One" to commit Jihadi acts of terror (Seattle's attack being the most recent.)  Small Jihadi Armies are busy all over the world.  Jeffrey Imm at the Counterterrorism blog reports on 9/11 and News Reporting on Jihadist Terrorism:

I have been collecting news on Jihadist terrorism every day for the past 4 years on a series of websites, but mostly on a news group for UnitedStatesAction.com, and for Counterterrorism Blog for the past year - scanning an average of 30 news sources per day for reports of Jihadist terrorism. When I first got started in September 2002, I found around 2000 stories per year by September 2003. By September 2004, this increased to 6400 stories per year, and by September 2005, this was 5460 stories per year. By September 2006, this is well over 7000 stories per year. Look for yourself on the website with these stories.

For the past year, September 2005 to September 2006, for the 7000 Jihadist terrorist stories, the titles, weblinks, and few word description alone for the stories on Jihadist terrorism represent nearly 900 pages - it is highly improbable that most Americans have seen or heard even 10% of these stories.

Here is the crux of the problem.  There are approximately 1.3 billion Muslims on the planet, most of them members of third world societies that have failed in almost every way.  They are colliding with the modern world in ways which enhance their marginalization and their feelings of humiliation.   We desperately do not want the entire Muslim World to be our enemies, yet there is very little we can offer by way of inducement for them to join the modern world.   Look at how this must sound to a young Muslim man:

Come join the modern world!  You will lose your privileged position, lose your feelings of superiority over your women and the infidels who are so much more successful than you, and have to give up your belief that your religion is the only possible way to salvation.  In return we will give you the crumbs that fall off our table and if you are very lucky, a job at McDonald's or Nike, so you can raise a family of children who will one day soon know more than you, stop listening to you, and will be embarrassed by you. 

I am afraid the only way out for those young men is for their countries to become accountable.   Yet the risk is that once they have the power, they will turn to the easy promise of Islam (which works so well in Iran) and we will have new enemies in possession of Nation states, to deal with.   This is why we must stay in Iraq, no matter what, while at the same time recognizing that we could yet lose.  It may be that Islam is incompatible with democracy.  The increasing lethality of the individual means we do not have unlimited time to find out.

Comments

[Ken Spiker]

I tend to agree with this analysis, unfortunately. I think there's evidence that a majority of terrorists are not the wretched of the earth but often as not educated and seemingly with prospects for the future. Of course that's in the real world; in their minds they live in a fantasyland of religious lunacy in which they're heroes and favored of God. The Palestinians, it appeared at one time, were on their way to having a viable society. Many were working in Israel and many had access to education. Then Hamas and other terrorists appeared and destroyed any possibility of a normal life for Palestinians. It is mass insanity. These are people, even educated people, who have no experience of normality, outside of religious fantasy. They can't imagine what a normal life might be like. They will struggle to destroy any possibility for improvement in their own lives or that of their communities. They invariably poison their own wells. This in not true of other poor populations in the Third World. For them religion is often a stabilizing force and comfort. But for some reason Islam fails to provide spiritual comfort to its believers. Instead it alienates them from the rest of humainity and provokes a murderous resentment. Of course there are Muslims who can bridge the gap between modernity and religion and they should be encouraged and helped. But the enormous weight or inertia of the millions steeped in other-worldlyness and fantastic dreams of superiority are an almost insurmountable problem. In a way, we can only imagine patiently continuing to protect ourselves and defeating them militarily wherever possible. Maybe the global economy will win them over in the end. This could go on for a long time.

[David Thomson]

“In watching Dr. Rice, a very bright woman who I have a tremendous amount of respect for, I was struck by how poorly she was able to articulate our current dilemmas.”

I suspect this is to due to political correctness. Being blunt about “our current dilemmas” might upset the overall Muslim community. This alone may explain why Dr. Rice sounds so inarticulate. Alas, it’s the only theory which makes sense to me.

[ktel]

"A society with such a large population of young men who have almost no opportunity to obtain status in the global economy (which mean they can have only very limited opportunities for marriage, family, and children) but have the promise of high status in the present and future worlds through "Jihad" will find the option of religiously sanctioned violence hard to resist."

That's a biggie, but it is inherent to the concept of polygamy as a zero sum game. Grand Poobah over there has 18 wives, that means 17 poor bastards have none. Something as basic as this inevitably colors other aspects of life. The concept of the non-zero sum game is counter-intuitive, and in this case I'm afraid it's also totally alien. It's not just the global economy in which they can't advance, but the local as well.

Without the concept of the non-zero sum game, it becomes obvious that the West must be destroyed, because the presence of our wealth is the cause of their poverty.

[Jack]

Come join the modern world! You will lose your privileged position, lose your feelings of superiority over your women and the infidels who are so much more successful than you, and have to give up your belief that your religion is the only possible way to salvation. In return we will give you the crumbs that fall off our table and if you are very lucky, a job at McDonald's or Nike, so you can raise a family of children who will one day soon know more than you, stop listening to yo, and will be embarrassed by you.

You summed it up well.

[TomCS]

Congratulations for attempting the leap in perspective which seems extraordinarily difficult for the insular, if well educated, mass of Americans. Here your professional background is a real strength: just what is the new, villagised, globalised world offering to the new generations of muslim Asians, who, let us not forget, are also living in a crazily changing world, with access to satellite channels, modern appliances and the beginnings of universal, non-religious education?

I think you have identified some of it, and with greater sensitivity than some of your commenters. Adrift in a world which offers few prospects of earning the lifestyle that is being fed to them by the (until recently almost entirely US dominated, majoring on local versions of MTV) new media, much more literate and ambitious than their illiterate parents, what is a decent working class son of a camel-trader to do? The consolations of religion is a traditional response, in many societies, and I doubt that the strength of the freeway churches in middle America is entirely unconnected with middle-class economic frustration.

ktel's point about the non-zero sum game is spot on: indeed the whole premise of capitalism is a non-zero sum promise, and accepted in the west because we have the experience of it working, even if nobody knows precisely how. Unless we can begin to offer an alternative answer to my bright camel trader's son, we do risk him and millions of others deciding that the best option for them is to become their own Jihadist army. I trust you agree that this is not an irrational conclusion given the conflicting worlds they are facing.

So let's start thinking about answers. With respect, I don't think the current exercise in Iraq is part of the question, let alone part of the answer, and I don't believe that "winning" Iraq will change the game, which is about winning the hearts and minds of camel-traders' sons. Part of it will have to be a more modest, less triumphalist presentation of the benefits demonstrated by the US-led global economy, and a real attempt to move beyond blind support for Israeli governments, right or wrong. Part of it will be creating the opportunity for camel traders' sons (and not just the sons of camel trading sheikhs) to advance in their own societies, other than through violence.

What this analytical approach does however demonstrate is the danger of the rhetoric about a war on terrorism. Terrorists are a police issue, not a military one: when you send sledge-hammers to crack nuts, you mainly end up with strained wrists. The Marines and the airbourne cavalry have no useful or relevant answer to the camel-traders' sons' questions. Iraq will I suspect be another Vietnam, because it is the wrong war, for the wrong reasons, with the wrong technology: even if the coalition withdraw in good order, and leave a functioning quasi-democracy, it will not have answered any of the real questions.

[ZF]

We have faced a challenge before which was similar in most respects to the current one, exactly as you formulate it. That time it was the American Indians. Over 100 years of mostly vacuous vanity have since convinced us that 'of course' we could find a better set of answers if our generation were now faced with the same problem. Today's Muslims are beginning the process of showing us that we are not in fact necessarily capable of coming up with a more morally attractive set of solutions.

Here I think is the nobility behind GWB's policy. He has taken the high road, attempting a constructive engagement wioth the Muslim world, knowing that if we can't make that work we will end up travelling forcefully and effectively along the low road. There were many early Americans, nowadays often forgotten or airbrushed out of history, who tried hard to do the same thing with the Indians.

[James]

http://www.theadventuresofchester.com/archives/2006/09/from_every_moun.html

"Ricks stated that this level of courtesy, used by McMaster even while implicitly threatening those who opposed him, is both necessary and extremely effective in the Arab world because the core value of that society is honor, or dignity, or respect. Ricks believes that when “Americans speak to the Iraqis about freedom, something is lost in translation.”"

Perhaps we need to present the modern world in a different fashion, appealing to honor, dignity and respect.

[Heroic Dreamer]

It was not necessary in World War II to fully understand the German psyche, or for that matter the Nazi Movement. To fight successfully this enemy it was only really necessary to understand that the Nazis were supported by Germany. To defeat the Nazis we had to cut off the German support of the Nazis. We had to confront Germany.

Fast forward than to the present - Islamic Fascism is also state nourished. Iran nourishes Hezbollah and Hamas. Saudi Arabia nourishes the Wahhabis. We need to cut off the state support of Hezbollah and Hamas from Iran, the state support of the Wahhabis by the Saudis. We need to confront Iran and Saudi Arabia.

In many ways, Bush is fighting this war in a backwards fashion. He is attempting to grow democracy before confronting and defeating the state support of Islamic Fascism.

[Terry]

I agree with most of your analysis but believe that you (and Heroic Dreamer) are heading off into wishful thinking when you believe "the only way out for those young men is for their countries to become accountable."

My understanding of the nature of identity construction for Muslims (particularly Middle Eastern and Arab) is (for most people) Islam first, family next, tribe next, .... (eventually) country/state.

If this is in fact a correct understanding of the usual outcome of the socialization processes at work, then attempting to hold "countries" accountable and cut off "state" support is not likely to succeed since people's identities (and this means from the lowest to highest social strata) is oriented around *non-state* concepts, actions, and loyalties (such as the religious injunctions for Jihad).

When push comes to shove, the "states" and "countries" are more accurately characterized as tribes with common religious identification far more than they are "states" in the Westphalian sense. (Where the common religious identification does not exist, the "states" - like Iraq - are fractious and unstable.)

So what is being proposed here as a way forward strikes me as analogous to attempting to negotiate away the baptism requirement (for Catholics) with the Vatican, on the grounds that the Vatican is a "country"/"state". It won't get very far as what is attempting to be negotiated away (believe/support for Jihadism based, for example, on the Koran) is more important to most "citizens" than the state itself.

[Heroic Dreamer]

Terry: Good point.

But not all Islam is a radical war machine. Not all Muslims actively engage in waging violent Jihad. Jihad is actively promoted by radical islamists, and these islamists enjoy state sponsorship. If you cut off the state sponsorship of radical islamists you eliminate much of the oxygen in the movement.

You can deflate a mob intend on killing by intentionally refocusing its attention elsewhere - and perhaps this is the genius of introducing democracy in the Middle East - it serves to refocus attention away from jihad - but unless we directly confront Iran and Saudi Arabia and force them to stop their financing and promotion of radical islamists throughout the world, the problem will keep returning.

[Steve]

Why do you have a tremendous amount of respect for Condoleeza Rice? Mind you I don't disrepect Dr. Rice. I like her and see seems like a bright person.

But all this hype about Condoleeza Rice? What has she actually done, or shown to distinquish her from any other Secretary of State? Her performance has seemed mediocre when compared to the hype.

Now I really don't blame Dr. Rice. She wasn' the one raising unreasonable expectations about herself. That was done by others. And those who did so from what I could tell were being racists for doing so. Like it was so extraordinary that Dr Rice was smart, a woman, and beleive it or not Black. Yes, she was a black, but she was a smart black. Can you imagine that. How rare and extra-ordinary of a find that was. An intelligent Negress. Will wonders ever ceise?

Well, no, an Intelligent Black Female isn't such an extra-ordinary find. Those who think it is reveal their racism. There are plenty of intelligent black females out there but just because someone is an intelligent black female doesn't mean that the person would become an extra-ordinary Secretary of State.

I mean no disrespect against Dr Rice, but please show me where she has excelled in any of the positions she has held in government. She hasn't performed poorly. If I would grade her I would give her a B or a C. Better than some Secretaries of State. Absolutely better than Albright. But average and not living up to the racist inspired hype about her.

[seanb]

No, sorry that won't wash. First, lack of self esteem is not peculiar to the modern globalised world. It's a romantic notion, beloved of left wingers, that the crushing poverty and ignorance experienced by those in the third world somehow confers a sense of self esteem on those who suffer it. It doesn't. The poor goat herd knows that compared to the priveliged tribal chief he is a loser, just as the comparitively fabulously wealthy MacWalmart worker does. Globalisation simply makes him aware of and allows him to transfer his loathing and envy to the greatest power.

Second, it doesn't explain why all failing cultures don't indulge in terrorism (though given the success terror has had and the sympathy it engenders, not to mention the craven capitulations, they soon might). Your theory doesn't explain why there are practically no Hindu, Bhuddist, Christian or MacDonald's worker terrorists. It doesn't explain why Jihad is peculiar to one particular culture.

Your theory is an excellent explanation for why people become criminals. Only Islam explains why they become Jihadis.

The fact is that the modern world is fatal to Islam which lacks the flexibility to adapt to it. Adaptation would been seen as capitulation, something which Islam is ideologically incapable of. Osama figured this out long ago (Mohammed even earlier), they both understood that it's all or nothing and wage a brave but savagely inhuman war on all those whom they correctly see as their deadly enemies. The shame felt by the world's losers is not the cause of terror, it is merely a useful propaganda tool in the hand of those previously mentioned terrible twins. As it has been for communism and fascism.

Feelings of personal failure result in despair and criminality (The jihad of one). It's ideology that moulds this into something truly dangerous. Communist revolution was a mere flash in the historical pan compared to Islam, which has had over a millenium to train it's legions of adherents. Furthermore it has always shown itself to be most violently dangerous when it's strong not when it's weak.

Jihad was a spectacular success in the past and is doing pretty well now. The greatest danger comes from its success, not from its failure. From creating victims, not from being one.

The Al Qaida symbol is a strong horse, not a broken backed old camel.