September 20, 2002
The striking thing […] is the lack of connection between the ends, elimination of the terrorist threat from Islamist radicals, and the means, a military attack on, and defeat of, the secular Baathist regime in Iraq—a regime which the Wahhabi-inspired religious fanatics who drive al-Qaeda view as an ally of convenience at best. (If at all; Dubya’s crowd is soft-pedaling the argument that Hussein has something to do with al-Qaeda, because they haven’t been able to show convincing evidence).Just as a reminder for those keeping score: I’m not a pacifist; I’m not even an isolationist. But I keep seeing questions like Dodgson’s go unanswered. [11:44 AM]So, suppose we fight what den Beste views as the battle of Iraq in the War on Islamia, or something like that, and suppose we win. Will that, in fact, refute any of the arguments of the Islamists? No. It will play into their hands. We will show them an Arab country which has adopted a secular regime, with no religious trappings, getting the pants beat off of it in a conflict with the actual West, which will only reinforce their argument that religious revival is a road to glory.
"I'm not even an isolationist."
My life's mission remains incomplete!
Being temperamentally an isolationist (hallo, Mr. Henley!), and no fervid supporter of an Iraqi war, I'm not the respondent Dodgson is looking for. But I will raise some questions of my own. (OK, they're written as statements, but they're really meandering questions.)
Den Beste, after all, was not arguing solely about religious culture in the Middle East. However much the Arabs and non-Arabs, secularists and theocrats may cordially despise one another, their motivations for supporting anti-Western, anti-Ameican, anti-Israeli terrorism are not distinct. There are any number of loyalties in play at the same time - pan-Muslim, pan-Arab, Sunni, Shi'a, etc., etc. Charles's arguments are essentially a variation on the "Arab Street" theme: any display of force against one group automatically strengthens the hand of some other anti-American element - in this case the demise of a secular regime heightens religious enthusiasm elsewhere. Where? Iran? Not bloody likely, if you ask me. More plausibly so in some Arab states, though it's not quite clear why a drubbing of a secular regime would nullify the lesson of the scattering of the Taliban. Is the "decisive use of force will strengthen the religious nutbars" argument really more reflective of circumstances (and human nature) than the "decisive show of force will make those suckers behave" thesis?
Meanderingly yours,
"Decisive use of force will make those suckers behave" has been Sharon's consistent policy for the last 30 years. Has it really made Israel more civilised or more secure?
The trouble with trying to hold down resentful populations by military occupation is that gets enormously expensive. And it's quite clear that the logic of the warhards, like den Beste, is one that ends with American (and possibly British) troops occupying the Arab countries indefinitely or until they are prepared to elect democratically leaders the US will accept.
It's not just ruinously expensive financially, though it is that — see the experience of the British and the Soviet Empires. It also has a terrible effect on the morale of the occupying power, as it finds itself forced into greater brutalisation. This is most obvious in Israel at the moment. But it was also the reason that led de Gaulle to abandon Algeria, and some similar process was a large part of the reasons why the USA was defeated in Vietnam.
There's no doubt that a modern liberal democracy like the USA can fight conventional wars very successfully. But the evidence suggests that we're not very good at fighting what Kipling called "the savage wars of peace".
Hard-Hitting Moderator: Teresa Nielsen Hayden.
Comments on Charles Dodgson is weighing in: