Monday, April 17, 2006
Call It The War On Jihadism
In an earlier post, here, I had complimented Sen. Rick Santorum for his outspoken defense and characterization of the current war as being waged against "Islamic Fascists" rather then against "Terror". It's essential to know and name your "Enemy" to fight effectively. I have used the term "Islamist" to distinguish the violent, radical, fascist, jihadist faction in Islam from majority of Muslims and the broader religion of Islam. But no one has a really good, simple and broadly acceptable term for and definition of our enemy.
Jonathan Rauch suggest a good solution to that problem. I think the suggestion makes sense, has historic authenticity, and is timely. So, I'm going to quote extensively from his National Journal article, A War On Jihadism -- Not 'Terror':
"'I think defining who the enemy is is a real problem in this war,' says Mary Habeck, a military historian at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies. 'If you can't define who's a real threat and who's just exercising free speech, it's a problem.' As it happens, Habeck is the author of one of three new books that, taken together, suggest the time is right to name the battle. It is a war on jihadism.
Jihadism is not a tactic, like terrorism, or a temperament, like radicalism or extremism. It is not a political pathology like Stalinism, a mental pathology like paranoia, or a social pathology like poverty. Rather, it is a religious ideology, and the religion it is associated with is Islam.
But it is by no means synonymous with Islam, which is much larger and contains many competing elements. Islam can be, and usually is, moderate; Jihadism, with a capital J, is inherently radical. If the Western and secular world's nearer-term war aim is to stymie the jihadists, its long-term aim must be to discredit Jihadism in the Muslim world.
No single definition prevails, but here is a good one: Jihadism engages in or supports the use of force to expand the rule of Islamic law. In other words, it is violent Islamic imperialism. It stands, as one scholar put it 90 years ago, for 'the extension by force of arms of the authority of the Muslim state.'
In her new book, Knowing the Enemy: Jihadist Ideology and the War on Terror , Habeck sets out to map the ideological contours of Jihadism. The story begins, but does not end, with religion. 'Western scholars have generally failed to take religion seriously,' she writes.
'Secularists, whether liberals or socialists, grant true explanatory power to political, social, or economic factors but discount the plain sense of religious statements made by the jihadis themselves.' Pretending that Islam is incidental, she notes, is not just incorrect, it is patronizing.
Jihadists, she writes, are not merely angry about U.S. policies. They believe that America is the biggest obstacle to the global rule of an Islamic superstate. Ultimately, in the Jihadist view, 'Islam must expand to fill the entire world or else falsehood in its many guises will do so.' Violence is by no means mandated, but it is assuredly authorized.
And always has been. The point that Bush, Blair, and others understandably finesse is that the ideology of Jihadism traces its lineage to the very beginning of the religion of Islam. It has 'roots in discussions about Islamic law and theology that began soon after the death of Muhammad and that are supported by important segments of the clergy (ulama) today,' Habeck writes."
Two other new books strikingly document the connection. One is The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims. Edited by Andrew G. Bostom, it provides more than 700 pages of source material on jihadist doctrine and practice (including many fascinating translations from Arabic). A second is Islamic Imperialism: A History, by Efraim Karsh, a political scientist and historian who heads the Mediterranean studies program at King's College (part of the University of London).
A key point from these books is that there have always been two distinct threads running through the religion of Islam - one moderate and adaptable to other religions and cultures and the other rigidly 'Jihadist'. Thus , our problem becomes recognizing this tension within Islam so that we can engage and encourage cordial relations with the moderates while energetically fighting and thwarting the Jihadists. Properly naming the enemy is essential to both these objectives and to devising national strategies to accomplish them.
One could argue that the Bush Administration is doing that in practice while not clearly articulating its position for reasons of diplomatic or religious nicety. Perhaps, but the lack of a clearly defined enemy is very unhelpful in explaining why we should fight a long war. I think it would help immensly if the Administation would adopt this approach and terminology. It would open up a solid array of historical scholarship to define the problem, the enemy, and how he thinks and has acted through history. In a Nuclear Age, I don't think we can afford not to have a broad popular understanding of the essential characteristics of our enemy.
As Rauch's article puts it : "This is a struggle over Islam and who's going to control Islam," Habeck says. "If you can't talk about that, you can't talk about most of the story." Specifying that the war is against Jihadism -- as distinct from terrorism or Islam (or Islamism, which sounds like "Islam") -- would allow the United States to confront the religious element of the problem without seeming to condemn a whole religion. It would clarify for millions of moderate Muslims that the West's war aims are anti-jihadist, not militantly secular. ...... Habeck cites one other reason to call the enemy jihadists: "This is what they call themselves."
Thanks to Instapundit for the reference to Rauch's article. I think it this is a useful and timely suggestion. Read the article and try the books; I have Bostum's book and it is a lengthy, well documented product. Habeck's sounds very interesting at about 1/3rd the page count.
Jonathan Rauch suggest a good solution to that problem. I think the suggestion makes sense, has historic authenticity, and is timely. So, I'm going to quote extensively from his National Journal article, A War On Jihadism -- Not 'Terror':
"'I think defining who the enemy is is a real problem in this war,' says Mary Habeck, a military historian at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies. 'If you can't define who's a real threat and who's just exercising free speech, it's a problem.' As it happens, Habeck is the author of one of three new books that, taken together, suggest the time is right to name the battle. It is a war on jihadism.
Jihadism is not a tactic, like terrorism, or a temperament, like radicalism or extremism. It is not a political pathology like Stalinism, a mental pathology like paranoia, or a social pathology like poverty. Rather, it is a religious ideology, and the religion it is associated with is Islam.
But it is by no means synonymous with Islam, which is much larger and contains many competing elements. Islam can be, and usually is, moderate; Jihadism, with a capital J, is inherently radical. If the Western and secular world's nearer-term war aim is to stymie the jihadists, its long-term aim must be to discredit Jihadism in the Muslim world.
No single definition prevails, but here is a good one: Jihadism engages in or supports the use of force to expand the rule of Islamic law. In other words, it is violent Islamic imperialism. It stands, as one scholar put it 90 years ago, for 'the extension by force of arms of the authority of the Muslim state.'
In her new book, Knowing the Enemy: Jihadist Ideology and the War on Terror , Habeck sets out to map the ideological contours of Jihadism. The story begins, but does not end, with religion. 'Western scholars have generally failed to take religion seriously,' she writes.
'Secularists, whether liberals or socialists, grant true explanatory power to political, social, or economic factors but discount the plain sense of religious statements made by the jihadis themselves.' Pretending that Islam is incidental, she notes, is not just incorrect, it is patronizing.
Jihadists, she writes, are not merely angry about U.S. policies. They believe that America is the biggest obstacle to the global rule of an Islamic superstate. Ultimately, in the Jihadist view, 'Islam must expand to fill the entire world or else falsehood in its many guises will do so.' Violence is by no means mandated, but it is assuredly authorized.
And always has been. The point that Bush, Blair, and others understandably finesse is that the ideology of Jihadism traces its lineage to the very beginning of the religion of Islam. It has 'roots in discussions about Islamic law and theology that began soon after the death of Muhammad and that are supported by important segments of the clergy (ulama) today,' Habeck writes."
Two other new books strikingly document the connection. One is The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims. Edited by Andrew G. Bostom, it provides more than 700 pages of source material on jihadist doctrine and practice (including many fascinating translations from Arabic). A second is Islamic Imperialism: A History, by Efraim Karsh, a political scientist and historian who heads the Mediterranean studies program at King's College (part of the University of London).
A key point from these books is that there have always been two distinct threads running through the religion of Islam - one moderate and adaptable to other religions and cultures and the other rigidly 'Jihadist'. Thus , our problem becomes recognizing this tension within Islam so that we can engage and encourage cordial relations with the moderates while energetically fighting and thwarting the Jihadists. Properly naming the enemy is essential to both these objectives and to devising national strategies to accomplish them.
One could argue that the Bush Administration is doing that in practice while not clearly articulating its position for reasons of diplomatic or religious nicety. Perhaps, but the lack of a clearly defined enemy is very unhelpful in explaining why we should fight a long war. I think it would help immensly if the Administation would adopt this approach and terminology. It would open up a solid array of historical scholarship to define the problem, the enemy, and how he thinks and has acted through history. In a Nuclear Age, I don't think we can afford not to have a broad popular understanding of the essential characteristics of our enemy.
As Rauch's article puts it : "This is a struggle over Islam and who's going to control Islam," Habeck says. "If you can't talk about that, you can't talk about most of the story." Specifying that the war is against Jihadism -- as distinct from terrorism or Islam (or Islamism, which sounds like "Islam") -- would allow the United States to confront the religious element of the problem without seeming to condemn a whole religion. It would clarify for millions of moderate Muslims that the West's war aims are anti-jihadist, not militantly secular. ...... Habeck cites one other reason to call the enemy jihadists: "This is what they call themselves."
Thanks to Instapundit for the reference to Rauch's article. I think it this is a useful and timely suggestion. Read the article and try the books; I have Bostum's book and it is a lengthy, well documented product. Habeck's sounds very interesting at about 1/3rd the page count.
