Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Assessing the Threat of Radical Islam
From the Islamic State and al-Qaeda to the Islamic Republic of Iran and all their various affiliates — how dangerous is radical Islam to the West? There have been a number of posts on Ricochet that have touched on this subject. Paddy Siochain asked whether European democratic socialism can muster the will to fight for its own survival. In response, Majestyk argued that secular humanism — which he seems to define as scientific progress or rationalism — is so advanced in the West that Europe doesn’t need a will to fight because the barbarian, low IQ members of al-Qaeda, ISIL, and others can never really threaten us. This view was echoed in a comment by Jim Kearney, where he suggested that a will to fight is unnecessary, as we’ll soon have such advanced remotely-controlled or robotic weapons that we’ll never have to engage the Islamic radical man-to-man again. Though he admits that, in limited situations, there may be a need for actual human soldiers, I assume that he believes the Western cultures will be able to maintain a small warrior class of special forces operators who can carry out such limited actions.
So that got me to thinking that — even among the Ricochetti — there is a variety of views about the threat posed by radical Islam. I’m curious to hear what you think and why. For starters, I’ll lay out what I think.
The Current Threat
From Afghanistan in the East to Tunisia in the West, Islam is in a kind of civil war. The radical elements of the Sunni and the Shi’a theological schools compete both for power and for the right to be the main challenger to the West. That last part is what I find disturbing. The two wings of radical Islam are not just competing for the control of the Islamic world, but for the entire globe. A large component of the competition is about who is the most effective challenger to the West; who can subdue us most effectively. Now, just because someone wants to challenge the West doesn’t make them an effective challenger.
Right now, radical Islam has landed one very lucky sucker punch — 9/11 — that killed nearly 3,000 people. If they had been able to replicate that kind of attack once a year, no one would doubt its status as major threat, worthy of our full attention and might. However, 9/11 remains alone. Most attacks in the West from Radical Islam have been mercifully limited, and the death toll has been relatively low. Run-of-the-mill murders outpace deaths from radical Islamic terrorists in America and Europe. If that is the case, need we really be concerned about radical Islam?
It is not just a matter of body count. The countries where radical Islam is strong have a lot of natural resources, particularly in oil. The world economy would be affected by an Iran that controls not only its own oil fields, but also those of Iraq; combine that with a nuclear weapon and the threat becomes a nightmare. A rising Sunni tide that overthrows the Saudi monarchy could also change the world economy. As such, the location of radical Islam makes it dangerous and poses a threat to our interests in the world.
Given this, I’d say that a radical Islam confined to the Arab/Persian world is a serious-but-low threat to Western lives, but a great threat to the world economy. But if nothing changes, the militaries of Europe and America are adequate to the task.
The Potential Growth of Radical Islam
What keeps me up at night is the potential growth of Radical Islam, and I am afraid there’s a bull market for it in the world right now. When fighting broke out in Moscow in 1918 between Lenin’s Bolsheviks and the Left Socialist-Revolutionary Party led by Maria Spiridonova, there were about 1,800 men (both sides combined) fighting for control of Russia. Lenin’s regime did not look like much of a threat to the world. Even over the next 12 years — when the Russian economy could not match the level of output of the Czarist regime in 1915 — Communism hardly looked like the worldwide threat it would soon become. Nor did the Nazis, after the failed Beer Hall putsch in 1923, look like they would take over nearly all of Europe in just 13 years.
How things can change. Here are the reasons I think the prospects for the growth of Radical Islam are good.
We believe in tactical victories; they believe in survival. Any group forced to face the Americans, British, Canadians, or French in open battle will lose. However, our enemies see no need for tactical victory; their standard is survival. They draw powerful lessons from the PLO in this regard. Arafat became a legendary leader by losing — always and without exception — every battle he fought with outside enemies. But while losing, he slowly gained power until, ultimately, he was able to rule the West Bank and Gaza without ever defeating Israel. Arafat’s strategy was not to win outright, but to survive with just enough power to keep the conflict going.
We have seen this strategy employed in Iraq and Afghanistan to great effect. Once, beating the enemy comprehensively on the field of battle was enough for them to consider peace. Not any more. I am afraid we don’t want to defeat the radical Islamic fighters in a way that would make them feel as if they were defeated. Now, when we beat them in battle, they shrug and think that is part of the plan. It is very dangerous when what feels like a win to us does not feel like a defeat to our enemies.
America’s enemies need radical Islam. Radical Islam is not isolated on the world stage, and they do not fight America alone. Russia and China do not share radical Islam’s ultimate goals — and both face threats from it themselves — but see in a weakened and distracted West an opportunity to solidify their own power. Russia might even envision a triangulation such that it trades total cooperation against growing Radical Islam for a free hand in the former Soviet Union. In any case, Russia and China see an upside in the growth of radical Islam, so long as its primary focus is on the United States and Western Europe.
The Western response to radical Islam is heavily constrained. Fighting the war the terrorists want to fight is expensive and — perhaps — unaffordable. Look at the Charlie Hebdo attacks: the Islamists traded the lives and costs of training two terrorists for the lives of a dozen “enemies,” as well as the time, energy, and resources of tens of thousands of French police and soldiers. Even now, the survivors of Charlie Hebdo are not able to live in their own homes, have 24-hour protection, and are moved from place to place nearly every day. Who really won that exchange? The Kouachi brothers died … but did they lose? Do the radical Islamic terrorists feel defeated after that attack?
If radical Islamic terrorists get a safe area under the protection of even a weak nuclear umbrella, how much more could they ramp up the costs of the Europeans in fighting an insurgency in Europe? How likely are the Europeans to fight back effectively compared to the likelihood of their striking a deal? Spain backed out of the fight after a single attack. France rallied to Charlie Hebdo, but did they really set the radicals back in response? How many journalists are looking at the life of the staff of Charlie Hebdo and saying, “That is not for me”?
This is where the will to fight is so necessary. We have to be willing to inflict a defeat that actually feels like a defeat on the Islamic terrorists. I am not sure we are willing to do that. Iraq gave us one opportunity, but we threw it away in 2011. If Afghanistan slides back into civil war or — worse yet — back into the hands of the Taliban, will radical Islam feel defeated by the American-led war there?
Is not the lesson taught by the PLO still true? If the terrorist fights long enough, we give up and they win. They can lose every battle but, if they just survive, they will win.
Economic advantage is not enough. The constraints Western democracies face in fighting radical Islam are severe and the costs are asymmetrical, in the terrorists’ favor. This disparity gives radical Muslims a distinct edge. Claire Berlinski has written convincingly about France’s turn from political correctness to fighting Radical Islam, but she also writes about how defense spending is falling around Europe, even in France. It is not hard to see how the radical Muslims could continue to increase the cost of the war on Europe without suffering much in return. Outside of the deaths of the attackers, what cost has France imposed on them?
Technological advantage is not enough. While the West’s technological edge is a great strength, it is not enough to win by itself. Technology has to be applied correctly; if we do not apply our technological edge in way a that makes the radical Muslims feel they are defeated, it will be for nothing. I take little comfort in the stupidity of my enemies and believe that doing so makes you vulnerable to defeat. I don’t think they are so stupid that they can’t make at least some use of technology in a way that will pose a real threat to us. If Iran can develop ballistic missiles, they can develop missiles that can kill satellites.
Moreover, radical Islamists don’t have to develop all the technology they need. They can get it from more advanced countries that would like to see the West weaker. Even relatively small increases in the technology available to terrorists willy likely impose massive costs on us.
Culture does not win on its own. From the battle of Manzikert in 1071 to the fall of Constantinople in 1453, the Byzantines thought their superior culture, learning, and way of life would defeat or tame the Turks. Istanbul is the capital of Islamic Turkey to this day. We have a superior way of life, and our culture produces human flourishing, freedom, and wealth. By any measure we would use, we should be far more attractive to the Muslims than we are. But we are not more attractive to them, because they believe that even though their lifestyle is harder and poorer than ours, their current path might lead them to power. Power is a great tempter. As long as they believe that power can be theirs, they can avoid the temptation of Miley Cyrus, Facebook, and economic liberalism. If they are ever made to feel that they can’t achieve power and that their way of life will only lead them to defeat, our culture may look a lot better to them.
In conclusion, I feel we have not figured out how to impose defeat on our enemies. I think we had a chance to make the radical Islamists feel defeated in Iraq, but failed to follow through. When we win, our enemies don’t feel defeated; when they win, we do. No one wins a war that way. Because of the general belief among our enemies that you can inflict costs on the West while bearing the costs of Western counterattack, the threat of Islam will grow. Technologically sophisticated countries that believe their interests are advanced by a weaker West might well provide our enemies with technological aid. Without the knowledge or the will to impose significant defeats on the enemy, we will give them the time to grow in strength and numbers until they can become a much more significant threat than they are now.
I think there is no better time to impose a real defeat on radical Islam than right now, but fear most of the West lacks the will to do so. Does this mean we will lose in the long term? No, but we will eventually have to fight a much stronger enemy than we do right now.
What do you think? Where am I wrong? Where am I right?
Published in Foreign Policy
I like this idea who can we meet the “need” filled by Radical Islam another way? Veyr interesting think about that.
Another aspect that needs discussing is how extremist Islam makes the strongest case for Western values. The West does not proselytize at all, does it? Why can’t it take advantage of Muslim discontents, of Muslim war-weariness and degradation to promote more ardently the deficiencies of Islam. An opportunity really only the extremists provide.
“Look here Muslims, the West is surely not perfect but we have prosperity, comparatively high employment, popular sovereignty generally speaking, religious vibrancy and a content populace. Do you have any of these? Do you understand how barbaric ISIS, Al Qaeda, Assad and Hussein have been – all in the name of Islam? Do you not see that women can lead highly productive lives when free to do so, and that the strictures of Islam are in error in denying this? Do you not see that the Western mind is open to discovering the handiwork of God in its study of nature, and to constantly improving the World’s standard of living through science? Do you not see that choosing to follow some religious practice is infinitely more a mark of virtue than being compelled to do so at the point of a beheader’s sword?” Etc., etc., …
This the ‘real’ war, I maintain.
The electability of Hamas and the Brotherhood is a problem, not a virtue. True, the Brotherhood isn’t overtly violent in the US, though it has been systematically infiltrating and subverting the US for decades. (Over twenty years ago I had a client at one point whose brother had by then been in the US for many years as an organizer for the Brotherhood.) Instead, it runs and inspires propaganda and influence operations that run through education, media and in to the national security establishment.
Diana West rightly saw parallels between Communism in the 30s and 40s and the way the Brotherhood (and now ISIS) operate in the US. The CPUSA, like its employers, was a highly hierarchical organization and once the US was in allied with the USSR, overt sabotage was off the table. The Brotherhood itself is highly disciplined and patient, but it has trained many who want faster results, which is where al Qaeda and ISIS come in.
Hizbollah has its own agenda but is largely an arm of the Iranian revolution; it does a lot of work for the Iranian cause. ISIS, now becoming its own Islamic revolutionary state, will probably use Iran as a model for some of its overseas operations.
That’s not what your statement said, however.
Assad is fighting the Islamists. Again, that’s not what your statement said. What does this have to do with Ukraine?
A highly unlikely scenario, to say the least. They are fighting each other on at least 3 fronts.
What’s the connection between this statement and mine?
Words are easy to write. 14 years later and we’re nowhere in “defeating our enemy”. I don’t know how getting in the middle of our enemies killing each other helps us in any way, other than facilitating the victory of one over another.
This kind of push requires real confidence in our civilization. I would love to see that at the same time the terrorist has to feel like he is losing to make the push far more effective. Build up the costs on the Radical Muslim for following his current path and show confidently and robustly that there is a different path to take. Doing this effectively is the trick.
Radical Islam today, just as the Mahdist revolt did in its time, gains a foothold (popular support) where there are perceptions of injustice on the part of the ruling dispensation and nobody else seems to care about it – in fact many other countries seem to support that dispensation regardless of the injustice because it is to their own advantage.
I don’t think the West can dispense justice in the Middle East – the West is not that powerful – but we could really help them and ourselves by ceasing to support injustice. Iow: stop propping up corrupt monarchies and bloody handed dictatorships and predatory regimes – systems which are perceived as unfair and rapacious by many of the people they govern and control. There may not be an immediate pay off – in fact there may be a price in the short term – but in the long term it’s enlightened self interest because we stop being part of the problem. Let’s stop kidding ourselves that we were doing a great altruistic job and then Radical Islam came out of nowhere and spoiled it all because the people are just that way inclined and also nuts.
Also good, because then we won’t be trying to control them and their resources. Let them sort it out without our interference.
(Though on the downside, the Middle East is in the….middle…of a lot of important places and trade routes. They’re going to remain sort of geographically crucial,with or without a prized commodity like oil.)
Honestly, if the West practiced what it preached wrt foreign policy it would be completely unbeatable as an attractive and compelling example. Look at how many people are attracted to it despite the double standard – think how many more would be without one.
I don’t believe that the West lacks confidence in the value of its principles. I think the West just needs to live up to those principles, even when its inconvenient in the short term.
Believe in democracy? Accept the outcomes of elections, even when we don’t like the results. Don’t encourage military coups.
Believe in the benefits of private property and the free market (ie capitalism)? Don’t engage with Governments that undermine both in order to get a good deal from them.
Believe that freedom of religion and the equality of citizens is an absolute good? Don’t ally with Governments that actively oppose both of these in the societies they control.
It’s not always easy to do, but it’s just not that hard to understand: be consistent.
Manfred Arcane…
Brian Wolf:
…”This kind of push requires real confidence in our civilization. I would love to see that at the same time the terrorist has to feel like he is losing to make the push far more effective. Build up the costs on the Radical Muslim for following his current path and show confidently and robustly that there is a different path to take. Doing this effectively is the trick.”
But there is no higher cost to the radical Muslim, then seeing the support for Islam eroded among rank and file Muslims. The West should be vigorously pushing out the message: “There is a better way – come join us”. Push Christianity, for Pete’s sakes. Will we ever have a riper opportunity to spread the Good Word?
Otherwise, I am with AIG, let’s contain the nut jobs to their locales, cut off their funding, and watch them turn on, and eat each other. Right now we seem to be getting in the way of that entertainment.
This is taqiyya, to say and agree to anything the West may want, then for the muslims to behave differently. It has been going on for 1400 years as they have slaughtered their way across the Middle East and now into the West. The Koran is a powerful book to them, and Mohammed, for them was the perfect man, and they are required to imitate him. You will not get them to change their minds with all your socialist blather. They will behave just as their pedophile , murdering, adulterous, lying, savage of a leader told them to. Why do you think they are slaughtering all the Christians, and other religions, not just other sects of islam? Because those people oppressed these islamic savages in some way?
Remember what the hordes said when they finished burning off the Alexandrian library? If what the books had to say wasn’t in the Koran, it was evil and if it was in the Koran it wasn’t necessary. Destroying priceless artifacts? And now they want to destroy the Pyramids.
Same difference with Christians, how many of them are you going to change their minds that Jesus wasn’t perfect? Christians are to emulate him.
I understand this is how fundamentalists think. It would take some convincing to cause me to believe that the majority of residents of Muslim countries couldn’t be turned away from that faith with sufficient cause, brainwashing from birth notwithstanding. Islam = murder, beheading, … may be enough.
To disagree with someone above, I do not believe America has civilizational confidence. It has been “fundamentally transformed,” to borrow a phrase. Obama’s re-election indicates to me that, in broad strokes, “most” people believe that we are a racist nation, founded on slavery (not with slavery present – slavery was the foundational principle), and sexist – in newspeak, cis-normative – and ruled by people that are deliberately preventing poor people from ever rising from poverty.
Basically, it’s asking Pajama Boy to defend the American way of life.
So, my main fear about Islam? Less complex than the arguments above: I don’t think we have the socio-political will to stop Iran from getting the bomb. I heard that one of the reasons The Deal was so great was because Iran had no possible source of uranium. Then, essentially 24 hours later…oops!
The “Death To America And Israel” chants are not “for local consumption.” I read, some time ago, a former Iranian terrorist say of Khamenei, “When a Persian says he’s going to do something to you…believe him!”
Now, this is where I’m not quite certain, but am somewhat confident – If we are nuked – a major city, several cities, a successful EMP attack – there will be no unified political consensus on a given response, or even whether to respond. And if it’s significant enough, all political structure bets are off.
This is basically my fear in the post above. We don’t have the confidence to take the fight to the terrorists they way we should. Leaving them any safe harbor lets them decide when and where to attack. Even the very best defense can be pierced eventually. The Muslims terrorists must feel the cost growing in the fight and see the returns of their fight be little to nothing. I am afraid things like the Iran deal make the think that war is worth fighting because we desire peace at any price and they believe, wrongly I think, that with a little more pushing, a few more attacks we will give in to whatever they want. We have to change that calculus in their the minds and that takes strong and sustained action, something we might not have the stomach for any longer.