A "Truman Doctrine" Against Islamists?
Although the term bristles some, I'm using "Islamism" in the sense of those who wish to either violently or non-violently implement Sharia law in their respective governments. A lot of ink has been spilled since 9/11 about troop levels, the utility of staying/going in Iraq and Afghanistan, bombing or not bombing Pakistan, etc.
In other words, our foreign policy discussion has centered around individual places like Pakistan and Afghanistan. But where has anyone ever outlined or attempted to outline what our grand strategy should be in combating Islamism? And why have we not seen this? In 1947, Harry Truman outlined the policy of containment that would remain basically unchanged until the end of the Cold War. Truman was vindicated long after his death in setting the stage for the eventual demise of Soviet Communism. Do we possess a "Truman Doctrine" in the same way America did about the Soviet Union?
It seems the fundamental mistake in the wake of 9/11 was in not addressing the enemy. Rather than laying the finger on Jihadists or political Islamists, George Bush ambiguously declared war on "Terror." As if we declared war on kamikazes.
I think this goes a long way in explaining our lack of grand strategy against Islamists. Political leadership has never come out in this country and actually stated who the enemy is. And if you can't matter-of-factly state who your enemy is, how can you possibly articulate a strategy to defeat them?
So what might a modern "Truman Doctrine" have looked like or should look like in confronting the global jihadist/Islamist movement?
- Comment (24)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Apr '11
Re: A "Truman Doctrine" Against Islamists?
There are about 1.5 billion Muslims embracing various visions of Islam from Sunni/Wahhabi fundamentalism to Shi'a/Ismaili separatism, Sufi mysticism, and B'hai/Ahmedi apostatism. So what kind of grand strategy would encompass them all?
Maybe a better idea would be to confront the very basis of Islam by challenging its truth claims in a manner similar to the "Higher Criticism" of Christianity or John Crossen's "Jesus Project." A TV series like, "In Search of the Historical Muhammad," or "Mysteries of the Koran" might be instructive given that, outside of the Islamic sources, there is little evidence that Muhammad actually existed. At least that's the opinion of archaeologist Yehuda Nevo, former director of the Negev Archaeological Project, who could find no inscriptions or coins bearing the name Muhammad contemporary with the lifetime of the Prophet. Moreover, Prof. John Wansbrough of the University of London, after studying the Koran in its original Arabic, determined it was a compilation of texts originating in the Ninth and Tenth Centuries and not a single text composed in the Seventh.
Muhammad may, in the end, turn out be the Islamic equivalent of King Arthur. And that would be worth knowing.
Edited on Nov 28, 2011 at 5:58amJul '10
Re: A "Truman Doctrine" Against Islamists?
All very good. Though surely the West faced magnitude in numbers with much of Asia and Eastern Europe enslaved under Communism. Bush came close in his "find them wherever they are...with us or against us..." but again, he was framing it in terms of fighting "terror" rather than an ideological enemy. I think someting like a rebranded Truman doctrine would be appropriate and not overly ambitious or expensive. Containment in other words. America will not allow countries to fall either by election or by conquest to Islamist jihadists. Should a country go that way, a few week punitive expedition would follow and then immediate withdrawal, never allowing jihadist governments to gain a sure footing. This could also be done to protect minority Christian or Muslims being persecuted in those countries. And then repeat as necessary.
Oct '10
Re: A "Truman Doctrine" Against Islamists?
Truman was drawing the line at Greece and Turkey. Where do we draw the line for containment for Islamism? Inside the line are Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, Sudan, Oman and perhaps the northern states of Nigeria. Where do Pakistan, Bangladesh and the Gulf states sit? What about Morocco? Mauritius? Indonesia?
Jul '10
Re: A "Truman Doctrine" Against Islamists?
A very good point. But in practice, the line was not strictly drawn in Greece and Turkey, as the Korean and Vietnam wars soon followed before Truman's death. And China was more or less allowed to fall to Mao under Truman's watch. I have not given this idea more than a few minute's thought, but yes it would need to be hammered out where the lines are drawn and what statea pose the greatest danger. Not offering it as the best option, but just a suggestion worth critiquing.
Apr '11
Re: A "Truman Doctrine" Against Islamists?
This is a great post. You're asking exactly the right questions.
Mar '11
Re: A "Truman Doctrine" Against Islamists?
Well, with all due respect, I hope we don't accept a containment policy against those wanting to impose Sharia law on the rest of us. As nice as Truman's policy sounded, to keep the commies in check, it was pretty ineffective. Throughout the decades following Truman Communism continued to expand, and it wasn't until Reagan's policies of defeating the evil of Communism that their influence contracted and mostly disappeared. The problem with the spread of Sharia law is few people see it as a threat, and therefore, don't support any bold policy to restrain or curtail it let alone defeat its expansion.
Mar '11
Re: A "Truman Doctrine" Against Islamists?
Herkybird: A TV series like, "In Search of the Historical Muhammad," or "Mysteries of the Koran" might be instructive given that, outside of the Islamic sources, there is little evidence that Muhammad actually existed. At least that's the opinion of archaeologist Yehuda Nevo, former director of the Negev Archaeological Project, who could find no inscriptions or coins bearing the name Muhammad contemporary with the lifetime of the Prophet. Moreover, Prof. John Wansbrough of the University of London, after studying the Koran in its original Arabic, determined it was a compilation of texts originating in the Ninth and Tenth Centuries and not a single text composed in the Seventh.
Muhammad may, in the end, turn out be the Islamic equivalent of King Arthur. And that would be worth knowing. · Nov 28 at 5:44am
Edited on Nov 28 at 05:58 am
Archaeologists make the same kind of claims about Abraham and Jesus, and they have had little influence on Jews and Christians. Ultimately, Islam will have to be reformed from within. The best way of bringing that about is by defeating the more aggressive radical elements and giving the whole a reason to seek a better, more peaceful path.
May '10
Re: A "Truman Doctrine" Against Islamists?
"Why have we not seen this?". Easy. It is Constitutionally appropriate and correct to fight an alternative political/economic doctrine. But, while Islamism is most assuredly just as thoroughly political and economic as communism was, it also has the patina of religion. And it is both Constitutionally and politically incorrect to fight against religion. For that reason, I think the TV series approach, either investigative or otherwise, makes the most sense? Hey Rob, how about a TV series about a bunch of friendly jihadis who hang out together at a local bar? You could call it "Inshallah."
Apr '11
Re: A "Truman Doctrine" Against Islamists?
How's that working out in Afghanistan? Iraq? How much difference did sending troops to Somalia make?
I think you can make a strong case that what tipped the scales in favor of the West during the Cold War was not the Truman Doctrine but CNN. Why? Because for the first time people could actually see the difference between the way people lived in Western Europe and America versus they way they lived in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. It didn't matter what the talking head in front of the camera was saying. You could look over his shoulder and see the shiny cars, the nice clothes, the windows with glass instead of plywood in them.
Islam is not going to reform itself from within unless someone from without offers a competing and compelling alternative vision. And than will not come from the barrel of a gun.
Feb '11
Re: A "Truman Doctrine" Against Islamists?
Look, the Islamists will fail. Why would you take a bunch of 7th century goat herders seriously? They are economically backwards. They will do far more damage to their countries than anything else imaginable. If they want to impose Sharia on their own countries, let them. It isn't our country.
Our grand strategy should be 1) stop letting them in to our country--virtually zero visas to Islamic countries; 2) because they are a minority within a minority, we should arm whoever wants to fight them [let them kill themselves]; 3) we should not go invading under any circumstances; 4) because they have only raw materials to sell, we should seek other sources.
Mar '11
Re: A "Truman Doctrine" Against Islamists?
I agree. Sadly, I don't think there is a good answer -- certainly not with Mr Obama.
Political Correctness is the Islamist's secret weapon; more powerful than a Hellfire missile.
Since this has been going on for about 1500 years, I don't see an early end to it -- the best we may hope for is that when it comes out more into the open, as it will, "The West" will finally wake up -- I am not holding my breath.
Edited on Nov 28, 2011 at 11:22amMay '11
Re: A "Truman Doctrine" Against Islamists?
Time for a root-cause analysis.
We are pursuing the same failed policy in the mid-East as we followed in Viet Nam. Namely, we are fighting a proxy war. Russia, China and N. Korea are the major supporters through the provision of weapons and other support to the Islamists. We are not willing to take the war to Russia, or China now any more than we were in the Cold War.
Until we figure out a way to fight Russia and China directly (think in terms of economy, propaganda and overwhelming strength) we will always be fighting unwinnable proxy wars.
Sep '11
Re: A "Truman Doctrine" Against Islamists?
John Lewis Gaddis takes a stab at our post 9/11 grand strategy in historical context here. Our 2002 National Security Strategy is here and 2006 is here.
Apr '11
Re: A "Truman Doctrine" Against Islamists?
[Comment removed by an editor. The Ricochet CoC forbids the promotion of violence]
Edited on Nov 28, 2011 at 3:05pmJun '10
Re: A "Truman Doctrine" Against Islamists?
I recommend "Winning the Long War: Retaking the Offensive against Radical Islam" by Ilan Berman with forward by Newt Gingrich. We have the strategic thinkers. What we lack is a statesman.
May '10
Re: A "Truman Doctrine" Against Islamists?
Brilliant. Respond to the relatively small group of nuts, followed by their larger group of hangers-on, followed by the massive group of people who want to live their own lives, by declaring them all to be mortal enemies. Tell them that they are evil criminals for practicing their religion.
What a great way to influence people.
There are no short-cuts, people. Bombing back to the stone age doesn't win, nor does withdrawing and pretending it isn't our problem. We ignored the seeding and breeding of ugly weeds in the garden for a century, then we want to send off a few cruise missiles, slaughter a few civilians to get at the terrorists, and have it all go away before the next election. That's the kind of thinking that convinced Whittaker Chambers that he had signed on to the losing side.
GWB had very smart advisers who know history and Islam just fine. The strategic decision to define the war against the tactical expression was sensible, because you want to make the war fight the conduct, not those religious people who do not participate in the conduct.
Now, go back and re-read Norman Podhoretz.
Jul '11
Re: A "Truman Doctrine" Against Islamists?
First of all one needs to study history and realize that no one from the west ever has honest straightforward relations with an islamist country nor will they ever have a decent relationship with any of these countries. Yet this is not our problem as every now and then we have a leaders who discuss carrots and sticks and that is something islamist leaders do understand.
Our problem is one of political correctness and liberal hypocrisy and those are our ills as a society. What will either happen is a refutation of these mental illnesses by society in general or an Ayn Randian war against them and I fear the latter is upon us.
When the feminists of our country begin fighting and beating the institutionalized misogyny of Sharia then I'll know we are making progress. When moderate muslims speak out against radical Islam and the news covers it I'll know we are making progress.
The inquisition was a cancer for Christianity in the same way that radical islamists are a cancer for Islam. Time will solve this issue but probably not in our lifetimes.
Jan '11
Re: A "Truman Doctrine" Against Islamists?
To paraphrase VDH, Naziism and Japanese Imperialism were defeated because they were humiliated. To obtain total victory, one must humiliate and discredit ideologies or nationalism.
However, the problem is that there are aspects of tribalism admixed with the religion of Islam.
Because radical Islam (mostly tribalistic beliefs) and theocracies are intrically intertwined, and because multiculturalism is our norm, humiliation of such a belief system is not possible in the Western World at this time.
Feb '11
Re: A "Truman Doctrine" Against Islamists?
Recent articles in the Telegraph and LA Times about an $80,000 pagan alter built at the Air Force Academy suggest that this country is simply too addled to effectively deal with Islam or much of anything else for that matter. Political correctness and cultural relativism are symptomatic of a rot, a national self loathing, that is beyond cure. We are living the narrative of some future Gibbon.
Oct '10
Re: A "Truman Doctrine" Against Islamists?
"I think you can make a strong case that what tipped the scales in favor of the West during the Cold War was not the Truman Doctrine but CNN." - Herkybird.
Much the same is true of Islam. The penetration of modernity through the internet and satellite TV is the most substantial threat Islam has ever faced. And the rulers of Islamic countries know that they will be facing rebellion once the general population accelerates it's migration towards the realization that their future ambitions are frozen out.
To some extent, the "Arab Spring" is an attempt to throw off those rulers, in the belief that those rulers are what retards their culture. Once the control of the Islamists is secure, they will begin to discover that their very religion is what holds them back.
Traveling in the Mid-East and South Asia, it is amazing to see how many accomplished Muslims hold only a nominal religious commitment, and those that travel to the West generally shed their Sharia enforced lifestyle altogether. Many retain their Muslim identity and a degree of piety, but simply put off the sharia behavior that stifles their comfort, as with a bottle of wine with dinner.