A War of Ideas
By Eric Lorber
The “War on Terror”. This phrase can be heard everyday, echoed by our politicians, our news media, our friends and families. But what does this term mean? What are we fighting against? Are we really fighting against terror?
We are not fighting against terror. Terror is not a goal, but rather a strategy to achieve that goal. With the huge focus in American society on preventing terror and stemming the flow of terrorism, often we forget to examine not only the causes of terrorism, but also the goal of those who employ it as a tactic. We must examine its causes and objectives to formulate an appropriate response.
We are aware Islamists are the primary force behind the current trend of terrorism. Pundits and politicians claim that, by providing young Islamic men with political representation and economic opportunity, the U.S. can end terror. However, who is leading the movement employing terror? Is it a poor, humiliated Islamic man? Osama bin Laden was worth an estimated $300 million dollars. This is hardly the realm of poverty.
For what then are the leaders of the Islamist movement arguing? The answer is no less than the re-establishment of the Islamic Caliphate, a single religious and political leader that will serve as the monarch of all of Islam. But why? What is their grievance with liberal democracy? Hasn’t the success of Western civilizational development, from Plato to Luther to Locke and Hobbes, shown them the best way to live their lives?
No, and the reason is the ‘hideous schizophrenia’ of the West. But, before discrediting the term as offensive and radical, one must closely examine its meaning. Egyptian Sayyid Qutb, an Islamist philosopher who was involved with the Muslim Brotherhood and eventually executed by Gamal Abdel Nasser, coined it. It refers to the moral degradation that has occurred in the United States because of the separation between church and state, hence schizophrenia. Islamists, and moderate Muslims for that matter, believe living a fulfilled life means incorporating religion into all aspects of it. Before dismissing this analysis as fundamentalist, take the example of one’s occupation. Does it often fulfill any deep spiritual need, does it serve a higher purpose? Looking at pop culture further illustrates this complaint. Does listening to Britney Spears on the radio serve some deeper purpose or greater good? These are extremely serious questions and need to be asked and answered. Clearly, it appears that these Islamists, although heinous in their methods and actions, may have a valid point in their criticism of our culture.
What is frightening is the amount of planning and strategy that Islamists, from bin Laden to Egyptian Islamic Jihad, have put into ensuring that the Middle East does not fall victim to the same schizophrenia. They are proposing an alternative system, the Caliphate, and they are vigorously pursuing this goal by attacking all the governments blocking their way, both Middle Eastern and American.
The more perplexing issue is our response to such a profound challenge to our ideas. The terminology I have heard used in our fight against an ideological attack is nowhere near the same level. We respond with attacks on our culture and morality with words like pre-emption, democracy, and freedom of speech. While certainly important terminology, we are not addressing their core critique. We are not asking ourselves if we should become a more spiritual society. We are not asking ourselves if indeed, their critique is valid.
There is a fundamental disconnect between their strategy and ours. President Bush advocates meeting the terrorists head on, but how can we meet them head on when we are fighting their profoundly felt ideas with our politics? In order to win a war one must know thy enemy.” It is quite evident that we do not. We cannot even correctly identify that we are fighting a war against ideals, not terror. Until we realize exactly what we are facing, America will never be safe from attack.
By Eric Lorber
The “War on Terror”. This phrase can be heard everyday, echoed by our politicians, our news media, our friends and families. But what does this term mean? What are we fighting against? Are we really fighting against terror?
We are not fighting against terror. Terror is not a goal, but rather a strategy to achieve that goal. With the huge focus in American society on preventing terror and stemming the flow of terrorism, often we forget to examine not only the causes of terrorism, but also the goal of those who employ it as a tactic. We must examine its causes and objectives to formulate an appropriate response.
We are aware Islamists are the primary force behind the current trend of terrorism. Pundits and politicians claim that, by providing young Islamic men with political representation and economic opportunity, the U.S. can end terror. However, who is leading the movement employing terror? Is it a poor, humiliated Islamic man? Osama bin Laden was worth an estimated $300 million dollars. This is hardly the realm of poverty.
For what then are the leaders of the Islamist movement arguing? The answer is no less than the re-establishment of the Islamic Caliphate, a single religious and political leader that will serve as the monarch of all of Islam. But why? What is their grievance with liberal democracy? Hasn’t the success of Western civilizational development, from Plato to Luther to Locke and Hobbes, shown them the best way to live their lives?
No, and the reason is the ‘hideous schizophrenia’ of the West. But, before discrediting the term as offensive and radical, one must closely examine its meaning. Egyptian Sayyid Qutb, an Islamist philosopher who was involved with the Muslim Brotherhood and eventually executed by Gamal Abdel Nasser, coined it. It refers to the moral degradation that has occurred in the United States because of the separation between church and state, hence schizophrenia. Islamists, and moderate Muslims for that matter, believe living a fulfilled life means incorporating religion into all aspects of it. Before dismissing this analysis as fundamentalist, take the example of one’s occupation. Does it often fulfill any deep spiritual need, does it serve a higher purpose? Looking at pop culture further illustrates this complaint. Does listening to Britney Spears on the radio serve some deeper purpose or greater good? These are extremely serious questions and need to be asked and answered. Clearly, it appears that these Islamists, although heinous in their methods and actions, may have a valid point in their criticism of our culture.
What is frightening is the amount of planning and strategy that Islamists, from bin Laden to Egyptian Islamic Jihad, have put into ensuring that the Middle East does not fall victim to the same schizophrenia. They are proposing an alternative system, the Caliphate, and they are vigorously pursuing this goal by attacking all the governments blocking their way, both Middle Eastern and American.
The more perplexing issue is our response to such a profound challenge to our ideas. The terminology I have heard used in our fight against an ideological attack is nowhere near the same level. We respond with attacks on our culture and morality with words like pre-emption, democracy, and freedom of speech. While certainly important terminology, we are not addressing their core critique. We are not asking ourselves if we should become a more spiritual society. We are not asking ourselves if indeed, their critique is valid.
There is a fundamental disconnect between their strategy and ours. President Bush advocates meeting the terrorists head on, but how can we meet them head on when we are fighting their profoundly felt ideas with our politics? In order to win a war one must know thy enemy.” It is quite evident that we do not. We cannot even correctly identify that we are fighting a war against ideals, not terror. Until we realize exactly what we are facing, America will never be safe from attack.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home