| Submit your comments on this article |
| Terror Networks |
| Don't credit Al-Qaeda by assuming it offers Muslims hope |
| 2008-02-25 |
| Notably absent from the presidential primary campaign in the United States is serious discussion on how to implement an effective long-term strategy for protecting the US from future terrorist acts. Many political leaders in the past have embraced winning "the battle of ideas" against Muslim extremists as the most important component of any strategy, yet this ubiquitous catchphrase stems from an erroneous, counterproductive framework for understanding extremists like Osama bin Laden. The framework assumes that groups like Al-Qaeda possess a coherent and compelling interpretation of Islam that the US must counter to prevent Muslims from adopting it. This flawed understanding should be replaced by a more nuanced approach based on the true nature of the terrorist threat. The "battle of ideas" approach is counterproductive for two important reasons: first, it encourages the concept of a Manichean struggle raging between two equally powerful and opposing world views, in effect legitimizing the extremists' understanding of the struggle; and second, it overstates the extent to which Bin Laden's worldview constitutes a viable theological alternative for the world's 1.3 billion Muslims. His zealous religious views are not only alien to most Muslims living today, but have also earned a place on the fringes of Islamic intellectual thought. For an effective strategy, the United States needs to take three important steps. The first is de-coupling Islam and terrorism. The 9/11 Commission report states that "the enemy is not just 'terrorism' ... it is the threat posed by Islamist terrorism." While it is true that America faces a significant threat from people who identify themselves as Muslims and dress their grievances in religious terms, this does not mean that such people are perpetrators of "Islamist terrorism." The phrase implies that Islam sanctions terrorism and that Muslims are more likely to commit terrorist acts. "Terrorism in the name of Islam" is more accurate. The second step requires recognition that most grievances expressed by extremists like Bin Laden are secular and political in nature. They are angry about what they perceive as the exploitation of Muslims at the hands of the US. They enjoy sympathy from Muslims who perceive the US - and the West in general - as perpetuators of an unjust global political-economic system. As many have already noted, the attacks of 9/11 targeted American financial and military complexes and not Western religious symbols. Though Washington should not accept at face value the legitimacy of Al-Qaeda grievances, we cannot effectively prevent terrorist acts from taking place without a better understanding of their ultimately profane roots. The third step involves ensuring the US actively works for the promotion of human dignity. American policy makers should make a concerted effort to understand the circumstances of the countries of the Muslim world that cause a sense of deprivation and humiliation among their populations, as these factors contribute to sympathy for Al-Qaeda's political aims. US conventional wisdom states that Muslims need to believe in an alternative vision for their economic and political future, though the vast majority of Muslims need no convincing that economic prosperity and political freedom are good things. Muslims share the same vision held by humanity everywhere - a secure future for their children and a life defined by dignity and liberty. Thus, policymakers should approach Muslims as partners on the path toward bettering livelihoods in Muslim societies. If the US continues to be implicated in the social, political and economic underdevelopment of much of the Muslim world, Al-Qaeda will continue to gain followers who are blind to everything but the perceived destructive effects of American hegemony. In the end, focusing on winning the "battle of ideas" obscures our view of what must be done to prevent future terrorist attacks. The US should recognize the true nature of the terrorist threat, identify its root causes, and partner with Muslims to eliminate them. Aysha Chowdhry and Andrew Masloski work for the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution. Chowdhry is a research assistant with the Project on US Relations with the Islamic World, and Masloski is a senior research assistant with the Middle East Democracy and Development Project. THE DAILY STAR publishes this commentary in collaboration with Common Ground News Service. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #6 Yah, it is unscrupulous to spew rhetorical promises, based only on what the gullible might believe. That is exactly what Obama is offering by mouthing Black-Church based slogans like the "audacity of hope." I would guess that when McCain is about to deliver the last kick to his butt, Obama will formally convert to islam so he can promise the 72 virgins to voters. |
| Posted by: McZoid 2008-02-25 18:27 |
| #5 The mention of radical Islam is not totally missing from the campaign. I've heard McCain mention it several times. There are many things I don't like about McCain, but I give him credit on this point. He has not wavered on his determination to fight and eradicate the Islamos. Good news, because it looks like he's our guy now. |
| Posted by: Woozle Elmeter 2907 2008-02-25 10:40 |
| #4 Or we could smash Islam at its roots. Nuke Mecca, Medina and Qom at the height of their swarming seasons. Muslims in Western countries could be offered the choice of obeying secular norms - particularly those norms governing the freedoms of women - or being deported to internment areas somewhere convenient. Yemen sounds good. |
| Posted by: Excalibur 2008-02-25 09:49 |
| #3 ...."Islamist terrorism." The phrase implies that Islam sanctions terrorism and that Muslims are more likely to commit terrorist acts. "Terrorism in the name of Islam" is more accurate. Personally, I just say Islam. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2008-02-25 04:16 |
| #2 Jihadis are warriors; we are at war. However, our leaders somewhat legitimated jihadism by supporting political-islam. Islamists need to be treated as we treated Nazis and Communists where they were at war. Your Muslim neighbors generally don't separate themselves from Iraqi or Paleo terrorists; Islamic doctrine allows for financial jihad and that is where a lot of the $10 billion that is transferred by private US citizens and residents, to Central Asia and the Subcontinent, is going. Soon Muslims will assume demographic majority status in their first Western city (Malmo, Sweden). When that happens the benign-malignant ambiguity will be cleared up. |
| Posted by: McZoid 2008-02-25 04:11 |
| #1 ...."Islamist terrorism." The phrase implies that Islam sanctions terrorism and that Muslims are more likely to commit terrorist acts. "Terrorism in the name of Islam" is more accurate. The brown Chihuahua is barking. No, no, no, the dog that is barking is a brown Chihuahua. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2008-02-25 01:00 |