by Gabriel C. Lajeunesse
Download The Full Article: The War of Ideas, Revisited
Three years ago, in this forum, I argued for an increasingly robust U.S. effort in what had been described by many as the "War of Ideas"—the battle for hearts and minds among Muslim populations. This struggle is between the worldview of radical Islamic extremists on one hand and the liberal values of liberty, human rights and freedom of conscience on the other. This is the foundational struggle in the global war on terrorism. I argued for a renewed effort, akin to that undertaken during the Cold War, to support reformers and moderate voices within their societies. Further, I described the woeful gap in U.S. strategic communications efforts as compared to the nimble use of new media by violent extremists and called for redoubling of U.S. efforts, both by the government and by key influencers in civil society. While the Bush administration's Middle East Partnership Initiative made some attempts in that direction, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Hurricane Katrina and economic troubles pushed these aspirational goals to the back-burner. President Obama seemed to take up the banner of the War of Ideas in his inaugural address:
"We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense. And for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken -- you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you. ..To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are —to unclench your fist."
Yet despite these words and this vision, the administration has more often adopted a policy of realism and engagement that may be described as a pragmatic approach to Foreign Policy. This type of worldview has often resurfaced in U.S. policy circles—particularly in times of transition such as after World War I or at the end of the Cold War. Policy of this sort is designed to strike a balance between U.S. ideals and U.S. interests—and result in choices that seem quite reasonable considering the circumstances, regardless of their palatability—with reasoning along the lines of "He may be an S.O.B., but he's our S.O.B."
Download The Full Article: The War of Ideas, Revisited
Lt Col Gabriel C. Lajeunesse writes and researches on topics related to international criminal law, the Middle East and national security policy. He has been a visiting fellow at the Georgetown School of Foreign Service, where he taught a course on radical Islam, and the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Lt Col Lajeunesse is a graduate of the University of Massachusetts, Lowell, and has been awarded a Masters degree in Middle Eastern Studies from the Naval Postgraduate School and a Juris Doctor degree from Georgetown University Law Center. He is a term member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
About the Author(s)
Comments
I think there is ample evidence to support the idea that we fight for whatever the politicians either think will net them a positive "legacy" (GW Bush) or the least amount required to stay in office without being called "weak" on foreign policy/defending the security interests of our nation.
Both are a little scary: we get nationbuilding from one that ignores reality and we get ambiguous guidance from the other that ignores the contradictions of a response with no heart. When 9/11 happened- I would have rather had some more pragmatism. Today- with Egypt, etc- I'd rather have some more moral high-ground. Interesting that we got it backwards.
So, Omar- I'd submit that we are acting in the pragmatic interests of the current administration that had (before last NOV) a HUGE vision of overhaul along progressive lines for the country that wanted Afghanistan to affect that effort in the least way possible. Vietnam anyone?
Back in '03 we had similar (in Afghanistan) interests, but different at the same time (in aggregate): act in the non-pragmatic interests of the neo-cons to establish a Western-style democracy in Iraq (to be a beacon to the rest of the Middle East) and have our effort in Afghanistan be just enough to not affect THAT effort.
In both cases our Afghan efforts were meant as an economy of force in order to allow the main effort of the government somewhere else. Call it a demonstration maybe.
Some clarity about what the US is intervening FOR will be helpful. If we are not winning hearts and minds and not acting as glocal policeman (a job for which the US does not seem to be getting paid by the global government) then what exactly are the interests that are being defended? They can be different in different places, but at least all concerned should know (among themselves if they think its not good to make it public). Right now, on this blog alone, there seems to be very little agreement about what those interests are?
I think it's presumptous to assume we're going to win, influence, or mold anyones mind with predictable results. I don't know what people under my own roof are really thinking, or how they'll respond to something I say or do.
Our big one is yet to come and it will probably be with Iran, and it won't be a short one either. We aren't going to win anyones mind, so we'd best figure out a plan B.
Does the US government even understand what supporting freedom is?
We give billions of dollars to the Egyptian dictatorship.
We sell weapons to Saudi Arabian dictatorship.
We force our idea of government in Iraq and Afghanistan. We give billions to the elites in these countries.
We give billions to the Pakistan elites.
Meanwhile we ignore people who actually want to be free from the yoke of a tyranical government, such as the people in Haiti, which has a government that prevents aid from getting to its own people.
We have a mentality that it is ok for the government elites to have weapons, but not the people, even though it goes against our own heritage.
Perhaps we are trying to support the better of the worst, but it does seem very iffy at times. I think we should try something different. Drop foreign aid. Support people based on the values of the people, not governments based on strength and stability of those governments.
We have a little discussion going about this topic at http://www.brownpundits.com/2011/02/21/barbarians-primitives-savages-an…
Some of it seems relevant to this discussion.
Ideas are necessary and inevitable for even the poorest of the poor. But the practicalities of life weigh more heavily than ideas. If under the status quo, I own nothing, then I have nothing to lose and should attempt to overturn things. If under the status quo, I have things that guarantee my survival and offer a better life in the future, then I will not oppose the status quo. People have believed in no end of flawed isms and ologies, as long as they offer stability and a shot at improving their lot.
To Dr. Lajeunesse,
Great article, and I totally agree with your line of thinking. The war of ideas has been undermanned for a realpolitik approach to the Middle East. I think that President Obama should have spoken more from the heart, and less from a consensus of ideas from his group of policy wonks, when it came to Egypt and Tunisia.
I voted for the man, but it appears, to me at least, he hasn't taken charge yet, in his heart, in the way that his gut should tell him so. He seeks out too much consensus of opinion from the people around him, for my liking anyways. I sometimes want to shout out loud "Your the boss man, let's get to it !" This is the time to really trust your instincts,
"Use the Force Luke".(Maybe I'm too much of a dreamer.)
We, as a country, are behind the curve in these changing times of the Middle East. Our message machine has four flat tires and is spinning it's wheels in a ditch. As a nation, we have to rely on realpolitik to deal with the world as it is, and not as we would like it to be, but their comes the time when we should be leading the way for our ideals. The world is full of monks and we are not a monastery.
On the other hand, I was very impressed with Mike Mullen, and the diplomats, in their handling of the Egyptian situation. You could almost hear them say:
"We don't want see another Tienanmen Square"
I would give our team an A over all. I think the leadership get's it overall, even though I think they have not maximized their potential yet as a team. I want them to really turn it on, and take their game to the next level. These cats have the ability, and that includes young Hillary Clinton too, to really change the world for the better. They should never forget that we are the good guys.
Dr. Lajeunesse, you really nailed it once again, this article is a must read in my opinion.
We do need to invest in the 'power of ideas' like we never have done before. I'm very pleased to see that the good guys have people like you turning up the heat.
Good on ya' man!
Gabriel,
You argue for an increasingly robust US effort in the "War of Ideas". However, noone in his right mind engages in war without considering whether he has the strength and the strategy to win it. You propose a two pronged strategy in your article: support those who seek liberty and bolster information operations. This strategy contains three important flaws. First, our support may weaken, rather than strengthen those who seek liberty. Being a recipient of US assistance thus not increase a movement's credibility and appeal in the Middle East. Second, those who seek liberty may refuse our support and capitalize on this anti-american stance. A 2006 CSIS Report entitled, Arab Reform and Foreign Aid, Lessons from Morocco, mentions this problem: "Many see a rejection of Western assistance as an opportunity to cast a vote against the policies that Western governments pursue in the Middle East. For example, the secretary general of the Moroccan national press union recently vowed to reject any assistance that came under the guise of the Greater Middle East Initiative." Third, supporting those who seek liberty requires ending support to those who inhibit this quest for liberty. In your article, you deny this by stating "While we may, of pragmatic necessity, have ties to many less than savory regimes, we also must simultaneously support reformers from within." I do not see how it is possible to conduct credible information operations without removing this ambiguity first.
Marc
I agree that the quote: "This struggle is between the worldview of radical Islamic extremists on one hand and the liberal values of liberty, human rights and freedom of conscience on the other" is much too simplistic. Our own country struggles with where to draw the line between incorporating Christian-based principles and more secular ideals not to mention social justice versus freedom.
Trying to get two American Christians to agree with what "the Truth" is is problematic- not to mention two Americans agreeing on political (or Universal) "Truths"- like basic freedoms and rights ("culture wars" anyone?).
I submit that our 200+ year existence, culture and example are much too young to make any "universal" declarations about ideas and "wars of ideas" that will inspire groups of people to move toward a "better life". The overwhelming example in History- it would seem- is that groups of people build networks of contacts and processes that give them a sense of belonging and worth. The means and ways change, but the ends seem to stay the same. If "freedom" and "universal rights" aren't viewed by a group as leading towards a sense of belonging and/or worth- then I doubt those ideas will have any traction with that group. Democracy doesn't seem to have inspired most in Egypt as much as a sense of fair-play has- and "fair-play" is very subjective.
I will predict one thing, however. Whatever worldview "wins" in the near-term in the Moslem "world"- I doubt it will be one we are espousing through official or pop-cultural channels- our pop-culture seems to disgust many people (it would not surprise me if Al-Qaeda wasn't behind most American reality shows- what else does a better job of displaying our collective depravity, lack of principles, complacency, and utter absence of anything worth emulating?).
Al-Jazeera doesn't champion "freedom" and "rights" as much as it champions "social justice". That concept has a currency we don't seem to understand outside of our inner cities. Regardless of the historical track record of those systems who have strived for "social justice"- much of the world seems to respond better to those promising it than what we are pushing (freedom and rights). We like freedom and rights because we have bought into the social/political system here and feel a relative sense of justice in it. Many (most?) people in the world don't feel the same.
Maybe we need to look at the carrots that seem to make the donkey move instead of the ones we are enamored with.
A false dichotomy:
"This struggle is between the worldview of radical Islamic extremists on one hand and the liberal values of liberty, human rights and freedom of conscience on the other."
You have set up a profoundly held truth, that being of Islam, whose adherents follow the five pillars as an act of worship to Allah against nebulous liberal values. These liberal ideas have been teased out over the last three hundred years as part of the Enlightenment(the Age of Reason) and they have little to offer followers of Islam. The worldview of one god, the Prophet Muhammad and his truth claims in the Quran, are not the preserve of radical Islamists. Secular Muslims accept the truth of the Quran and the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad. Our issue is competing truth claims.
The way to counter claims you consider false is with Truth. The liberal intelligencia's claim to there being multiple truths and that making claims to 'Truth' is arrogant, is in itself an imperialistic truth claim. It does not wash in Muslim countries that spectate on "Western Society" with its freedom of conscience and accompanying abuses, fractured families, gender confusion and materialistic avarice. Muslims want their children protected from a culture that has produced sexting, record levels of STDs,and debt. Life is too short and fragile and they love their children too greatly to trade them for liberty, human rights and freedom of conscience. There is the truth, as proclaimed by Muhammad, and you have the freedom of conscience to believe or remain an infidel. Moderate Muslims may make nice neighbours but unless you repeat the Shahadah and follow the five pillars you remain an infidel, beyond the truth.
If you want a war of ideas you need to differentiate between truth and lies, then decide what you believe. It requires exploration into the foundations of our society, culture, and governance. There you will find the roots of our liberty, and our freedom of conscience, the freedom to adopt truth or lies. What motivates western countries to send their sons and daughters to spill their blood in distant lands?
There are foundational truths that result in nations serving their enemies, pursuing reconcilliation as opposed to global Jihad, and establishing peace, most noticably in Europe, between nations and people groups that have exacted terrible brutalities on one other.
Lies are attractive, they need to be otherwise how could so many people beleive them? I submit that there can only be one truth and our struggle is combating lies and establishing the Truth. That is a battle that takes courage, divides brother against brother and nation against nation. It explains why we need police and military forces and why,despite a 300 year enlightenment experiment, the world looks as dangerous as ever.