There is a global force, claiming universal validity, which is opposed to the institutions and values of the United States. The preceding statement, if made in 1960, would surely have referred to international Communism and its leading state representative, the Soviet Union. Today, however, it refers to international radical Islamism, also referred to as “jihadism” or “radical extremist Islam.” The United States and its allies have not yet found the best strategy to deal with this force. The strategy of containment worked against international Communism; it may also be effective against radical Islamism.
The United States confronted the forces of international Communism from the late 1940s until the fall of the Soviet Union. The primary strategic posture of the United States during this period was known as “containment.” There were many arguments about how much the containment policy should rely on military force, and how much it should be based on the tools of diplomacy and other peaceful means. Massive Soviet military force made a direct attack on Russia or its near allies impractical, even had the United States wished to take that course. The policy that resulted from these arguments was a compromise reached between the “hawks” and the “doves” in the government.
Containment was a policy based upon American confidence, as well as American fear. The underlying belief in the superiority of American economic, political, and social institutions assured policymakers that the Communist system would eventually fail. The substance of the policy was to resist military aggression, oppose Communist influence in the United States, Europe, and other regions, and to use public diplomacy and propaganda to undermine popular support for Communist regimes.
The radical Islamists are well entrenched in their home territories because Islam is very nearly the universal religion in those areas. By identifying themselves with this tradition, the Islamists gain the support of the people. Their ideas are much more familiar to their cultures than were the ideas of the Communists. On the other hand, they are much weaker militarily than the Soviet Union was, as well as more distant from strategic targets. Their primary weapon in the U.S. and the West is subversion and infiltration.
The policy of containment, adapted to the specific character of the Islamist threat, can be effective in protecting the United States and its allies from attack, without the necessity for the use of large military forces in the Middle East or South Asia. Anti-terrorist measures in our home territories need to be accompanied by a campaign of public diplomacy and propaganda designed to undermine popular support for the Islamists. Since the Islamist creed is an extreme variant of Islamic belief, there is a strong possibility of isolating the Islamists within their societies. As the example of Communism demonstrates, we can contain the threat of radical Islamism until the Islamic people themselves reject it.
Glenn A Knight
In my study
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Just how radical are they?
Based on my reading of the Koran, I think the "radicals" are mainstream. I have a Muslim friend born in Kuwait who claims that the "radical" interpretation is a very small minority. A very small minority capable of toppling governments and seriously affecting policy in Saudi Arabia and other middle eastern states. A very small minority with enough time on their hands to riot worldwide in response to cartoons in a newspaper.
How does one go about deciding just how many "radicals" there are in the Arab/Muslim world?
Hello. This post is likeable, and your blog is very interesting, congratulations :-). I will add in my blogroll =). If possible gives a last there on my blog, it is about the Impressora e Multifuncional, I hope you enjoy. The address is http://impressora-multifuncional.blogspot.com. A hug.
I have to agree with Sean at least to a degree here. Is there a litmus test to determine who qualifies as "radical" and who does not? Parts of the Koran and a chunk of the history of the Islam support the current "radical" approach to the religion far more than is comfortable to a westerner with a Christian background. Much of the spread of early Islam was at the point of a sword.
In looking at the geography and sources of money for most of these radical groups it seems to me the logical method to combat "radical" Islam and to increase the national security of the United States is through energy independence. Economic warfare helped bring down the Soviet Union, and reducing the funding available for the radical Islam would certainly make life more difficult for them.
The difficulty lies in removing our dependence on oil (not just foreign oil). Solar, coal, wind, hydro, nuclear and geothermal all offer opportunities for power generation but have their drawbacks. The United States has massive coal deposits still, but coal is still a fossil fuel and therefore has a limited lifetime.
It seems to me that we need a nation wide resolve to address this problem (much like Kennedy's determination to go the moon). A low cost, renewable, clean, power source can remove our need to deal with the Middle East as much, and by selling the technology to other countries we can reduce the global need for oil. This would take the teeth out of OPEC and reduce the funding for extremist groups since much of their money comes from oil rich parts of the world.
My favorite choice for this sort of thing would be nuclear fusion since it is cleaner than fission and power plants could be built wherever is convenient instead of relying on climate conditions (sunlight, water, wind, or geothermal locations). The technology still needs research and development to be viable. Are there other sources of power generation that show as much potential?
Post a Comment