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.
Our Military Won’t Defeat Islamism
Does anyone think that Donald Trump’s military plans for Afghanistan and Iraq are going to make a significant difference regarding Islamist violence? Do you believe that “destroying ISIS” will have any significant impact on terrorism in the long term?
I don’t. And I’m concerned that we are deluding ourselves by pursuing these military strategies as a major goal. So what should we do?
We must take a more aggressive approach to defeating political Islam. Let me explain my thinking.
Recently M. Zuhdi Jasser, a Muslim and former Lt. Commander in the US Navy, who has been attacking radical Islam for years, wrote an essay including this comment:
It is vital that we pay close and vigilant attention to ISIS: its plans, its whereabouts, and its public statements. We must also pursue it, relentlessly and until it is decimated. Sadly, this is the same tail we chase with the rise of each radical Islamist terror group in what has become a global whack-a-mole program. As we were on the verge of decimating al-Qaeda, the violent jihadist brand shifted to ISIS. Without treating the real root cause of theocratic Islamism, any chance of decimating ISIS will disappear as the global terror movement shifts to the latest “brand” of violent jihad.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali shares similar views on political Islam in her book, The Challenge of Dawa, for which anonymous wrote a fine review. In her book she writes:
President Trump now has the chance to broaden our strategy. Instead of “combating violent extremism,” his administration needs to redefine the threat posed by political Islam by recognizing it as an ideology that is fundamentally incompatible with our freedoms and a movement that is working insidiously but effectively to achieve its stated utopia. I argue that the American public urgently needs to be educated about both the ideology of political Islam and the organizational infrastructure called dawa that Islamists use to inspire, indoctrinate, recruit, finance, and mobilize those Muslims whom they win over to their cause.
She added the following point:
The administration should acknowledge that combating political Islam by military means alone is not working.
How do we go after political Islam? We must go after all forms of political Islam, whether or not they are violent, and do everything we can to prevent the distribution of this virulent, hateful and destructive ideology that plans to dominate the world.
The biggest culprit in the distribution of this hatred: Saudi Arabia. How did the Saudi regime, one of the most decadent and biggest violators of Islamist tenets, become the primary purveyors of Islam?
In 1964, King Faisal decided to collaborate with the Wahhabis and in spite of his modern ideas, funded the spread of Wahhabism all over the world. From that time forward, Saudi Arabia spent billions:
Over the next four decades, in non-Muslim-majority countries alone, Saudi Arabia would build 1,359 mosques, 210 Islamic centers, 202 colleges and 2,000 schools. Saudi money helped finance 16 American mosques; four in Canada; and others in London, Madrid, Brussels and Geneva, according to a report in an official Saudi weekly, Ain al-Yaqeen.
There are a number of problems we face in tackling political Islam, mostly our own political agenda. We don’t want to damage our relationship with Saudi Arabia; after all, they have also helped us to fight terrorism. We are “encouraging” Pakistan to more aggressively attack terrorist groups and refuse to give them safe haven, yet Pakistan has also received significant funds from Saudi Arabia to support Wahhabi education. The Philippines, Malaysia, Thailand, India and parts of Africa are funded by the Wahhabis.
There are other ways to stop the incursion of political Islam:
A new bill introduced by Rep. Dave Brat (R-Va.) aims to take a step toward fixing a monumental imbalance. Brat’s proposed bill, H.R. 5824, the ‘Religious Freedom International Reciprocity Enhancement Act’ makes it unlawful for ‘foreign nationals of a country that limits the free exercise of religion in that country to make any expenditure in the United States to promote a religion in the United States, and for other purposes.’
To ‘promote a religion’ includes funding ‘religious services, religious education, evangelical outreach, and publication and dissemination of religious literature.’ Should funding proceed anyway in defiance of this bill, the U.S. government can seize the monies.
It was noted that the bill still needed work. And it’s no surprise: the bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations in August 2016 and is still there. Whether this bill has a chance of being passed in any form is debatable.
So what else can we do? Ayaan Hirsi Ali makes several recommendations in her book. Some of her most challenging ideas include identifying genuine moderate Muslim communities who have no relationship or history with extreme groups (which eliminates several popular organizations); prohibiting government agencies from working with non-violent Islamist groups such as ISNA and the Muslim Student Affairs Association; screening immigrants for beliefs in Islamist ideologies; screening and rejecting prison chaplains with Islamist views; conducting surveillance of Islamic centers and mosques suspected of association with Islamist groups; revoking tax exempt status for Islamist organizations.
We may always need to fight political Islam; it is an insidious virus that may not have a permanent cure. But once we free ourselves of our fear of being accused of Islamaphobia or being pre-occupied with the reactions of other foreign governments to our actions, we may finally be in the business of providing effective national security for our country.
What other suggestions do you have for fighting political Islam at its roots?
Published in Islamist Terrorism
Again and again, I see the argument being made that all religions are equally good or equally bad. A variant of this is the assertion that terrorism can’t possibly be motivated by the true Islamic religion, because religion isn’t about hate.
The lack of logic behind these assertions is so extreme that one hardly knows where to start in critiquing them. But they have become pretty much the conventional wisdom.
We should be clear that this isn’t Donald Trump’s policy in Afghanistan (though it is now his responsibility).
Our policy in Afghanistan represents the collective wisdom of the nation’s leaders, intelligence services, foreign policy elites, military strategists, think tanks, consultants and academics gathered from seventeen years of brutal conflict.
The collective expert strategy: more of the same for longer.
Honestly, the Afghan War is the foreign policy equivalent of Head Start.
Who is this “we” who should do this or that to start a new strain of Islam? That would be one incredible feat of social engineering, given that the West has experienced a precipitous decline in people who believe in much of anything! Certainly not Christianity or Judaism, except maybe culturally. It’s pretty tough to fight something with nothing. Speaking as a Catholic, we’re having a struggle right now just to keep our own house in order, thank you very much.
I like Jasser and Hirsi Ali, but I think they’re way too optimistic. Hirsi Ali is an atheist for Pete’s sake! How is she going to convince true believers in the cruel and capricious god of Islam of anything??
I think there’s way too much projection of our own values and rationalism onto other peoples. I only have the most impolitic of suggestions to make to deal with the problem of Islamic terrorism, so I won’t make them. I will only say they run short of Islam’s conversion by the sword. But only a little.
I’m going to be very blunt and say that this is absolutely untrue.
Fanatical Islam exists in the minds of people. The people with these ideas, this form of the religion will not change their minds. The only way to eradicate this murderous pestilence is to eradicate the minds that hold those beliefs.
In other words, not only can a military solution work, it is the only way to solve the problem. The reason it hasn’t worked yet is because we haven’t taken the threat seriously enough to do what is necessary. Even when I was in Iraq in 2005, we weren’t allowed to search or destroy mosques that were clearly harboring the enemy. This is not how you win a war. We spend billions for every thousand dollars they spend. This is not a recipe for long term success.
Our strategy must change. The strategy must take advantage of our overwhelming military power and we must wipe out every mind that supports this murdering mindset. One could hope that after a whole lot of them are dead many others might re-evaluate their beliefs, but the eradication must not end until all are done away with. Islam delenda est.
Western civilization wasn’t able or willing to do what was necessary 1000 years ago and we have continued to pay a price. After mid 19th century they became docile, but they have re-emerged as the threat they always aspire to be. Our survival cannot afford to lose to them again.
This is a good versus evil conflict and the good side is us. This is not a debatable point. There has rarely been a clearer reason for war than the one we have had thrust on us, but our culture, steeped in christian values as it is, cannot conceive of the hatred and murder directed intentionally at us and thus we hesitate.
They will continue to get stronger and richer, while our wealth will be drained. It won’t happen today or tomorrow, but it must happen if we won’t change our ways. It is best to fight them now when we have such a powerful advantage, rather than wait for them to be equals or superior to us as they were in the Crusades.
When the public, state and feds have the same contempt for Islamism as they do for the KKK. Only then will we begin to win. A whole bunch of the good guys blood will be spilt before we are even close to this. Islam was birthed by the devil. Nothing good comes from it.
The controversy over the travel ban has stirred up a debate that is to our benefit both politically and demographically. Most Americans who care one way or the other were for the original travel ban. The polls have only moved in Trump’s favor on this since Trump took office. Engaging in this debate also makes Muslims more nervous about coming to America. That is a good thing. There’s not a lot of data on this yet, but I think we will see a downturn in Muslim immigration just like we are seeing lower immigration from Mexico. More assimilation and less terrorism will result naturally from this change in attitude.
True Lies (1994) was the last movie I saw that portrayed Muslims as terrorists.
I’m growing old now waiting for another movie that perpetuates the fact, not the stereotype, but the fact that almost all terrorists are Muslim. Make that movie, Hollywood, and America will feel a tingle up its leg as they see ugly truths about the world we live in portrayed as what they are, not what well-meaning liberals wish they were. Make that movie Hollywood, and America will go see it!
Invoke FARA – the clerics from theocracies are, ipso facto, agents of a foreign government.
Sorry–it went right over my head. There are some who would argue with your premise, though.
So we will have to fight this wisdom unconventionally! I get tired of these ridiculous arguments, too, David, but I think there’s too much at stake to simply throw up our hands and give up. That’s why I keep searching for creative solutions. Sometimes I feel like Sisyphus!
I agree with you, WC. I’d point out, if there were an interest in creating a “new Islam,” that Christianity developed Protestantism in response to the Church. Whether there is enough desire within Islam to modernize it is in serious doubt. I also agree with your comment about projecting our values. I heard recently that GW Bush still thinks that people want freedom even if they live in tyranny. Lots of tribal societies have no concept of what he’s talking about. We can talk about wiping out Islam or some other extreme approach, but that’s not going to happen. So from a practical standpoint, what would you do?
We’ll have to disagree, Skyler, although I appreciate and respect that you bring the warrior’s perspective. The idea of wiping out millions of people in these times is inconceivable to me. In fact, I’d wager that the effort will only breed more anger and retribution. We will all be living in a constant war footing. I don’t want that to happen. But I so appreciate your thoughts.
Could you elaborate on this point, BTN? I’m having some difficulty understanding how less immigration will lead to these outcomes.
Sorry, RS. Could you explain FARA and its implications?
Ms. Quinn has gotten closer to the truth but still misses it. The problem is that most Muslims oppose religious freedom. Majorities in many countries support the death penalty for apostasy, for example. Political Islam is just a manifestation of this much deeper issue and would not exist if there were a stronger tradition of toleration for dissent and freedom of conscience in these societies. Further, this tendency holds back many Muslim-majority societies from broader economic and social development. Freedom of conscience creates a broader marketplace of ideas that fosters entrepreneurship and social dynamism.
Instead of arguing against political Islam, we should be arguing for freedom of religion and freedom of conscience. We can appeal to Muslims on a fundamental basis here: all of them are part of sects that have been oppressed terribly by Muslims from other sects (e.g., Saudis against Shia, Syria against Sunni, etc.). They will not have peace until they learn freedom of conscience, and we will suffer spillover terrorism from their civil wars as a result.
We conservatives have a role to play here. Sadly, liberals have become so secularized that they no longer advocate for freedom of religion. They are even hostile to religious expression in the public sphere. This is especially troubling given the deep history of the United States in protecting freedom of religion. They cannot stand up for freedom of religion in the Muslim world (or China for that matter) if they fail to do so at home. It is up to us to step up and be those advocates. It is a righteous cause, and it will redound to our benefit if we are successful in advancing peace in the Muslim world by advancing freedom of conscience.
One final point: this approach gets us out of the West vs. Islam issue that is a primary weakness of Ms. Quinn’s thesis. We have a common interest here in freedom. There are even long traditions to be cited in Islam, such as the Treaty of Medina that was negotiated by Mohammed himself. An inclusive message of freedom will be more effective than one that simply opposes a vague notion of political Islam.
Thanks for your approach, John. I have one problem with it that I brought up earlier. Since most Muslims are in other parts of the world, and are not exposed to freedom, have no concept of religious freedom, but in fact live in tribal and warring cultures, why should freedom of religion appeal to them? How do you propose we teach them to appreciate religious freedom? I think you are operating from a Western viewpoint that makes no sense to people who’ve spent centuries pursuing conquest. If I’m not mistaken, Mohammed’s Treaty of Medina was made before he realized that people were not going to step up and voluntarily join his religion. So if you have a way to bridge this huge cultural gap, I’m all ears. And you can call me Susan.
Hirsi Ali’s view of Dawa is interesting – and it makes sense. It can take the form of a march through the institutions – viz Gulen in Turkey. But the thing is that the roots of Islamism – say political Islam – do not lie in the West, they lie in the Muslim World. So it would make sense for the West to do its own version of Dawa there. Deal with the cause, not repetitively with the effect.
CAIR etc. are bit players, they have no wasta in the wider Muslim world. They consume its culture, they don’t produce it.
Fact: the West has tried to alter Muslim (and other) cultures and thereby polities to remake them in a more acceptable form – during the period of colonialism, and arguably since WWII, from a position of overwhelming relative strength.
Why has it failed?
Imho because of lack of clarity, or rather, consistency.
Is the West secular? Overwhelmingly yes. Does it support secular over non-secular dispensations? Sometimes, but not always – it depends.
Does the West believe in equality? Yes. Does it support equality? Sometimes, but not always – again, it depends.
Does the West believe in self-determination? Yes. Does it support self-determination (roughly speaking: democracy)? Sometimes, but not always. Yet again – it depends.
Now this ‘sometimes’ is completely human, and self-interest is not a crime, but short sighted self-interest is not smart – and ‘sometimes’ doesn’t inspire the commitment that successful Dawa requires. Not in yourself, not (and that’s the point here) in others. It cannot successfully recruit to a meaningful ideology.
What does the West stand for? Demonstrably?
Mubarak has been mentioned here approvingly – but supporting Mubarak, and others just like him, is exactly what resulted in the Arab Spring. Good decision? With the wisdom of hindsight – meh.
When you support polities/institutions that tell you what you want, and whose support is bought and then maintained by threat then you inevitably get polities and institutions that are run by dishonest, corrupt cowards.
These aren’t going to generates the commitment that motivates the long march through institutions and results in deep structural change in a society’s architecture of power wrt the state, the individual and organised religion. Due to their very nature they have shallow roots. In the long run they are self-indulgently bad investments.
The salient thing about political Islam is that it is political – a (bad) response to political circumstances, to the real political problems that real people have. And political Islam has come to the fore because it is often the only alternative to the Mubaraks that is left standing. It was not always so – at one point the Arab world hummed with nationalist and Marxist movements – but it has become more and more the case today.
It’s worth asking why.
Consider Iran. Would Mossadegh really have been so much worse than the Islamic Republic? Because that’s where overthrowing Mossadegh inevitably led.
I honestly fear we sow the wind.
A thoughtful exposition, Zafar. And your comment just above may well be true. But I think we must persist in finding solutions, flawed and inconsistent though they may be. Ah, it’s so difficult to figure out. Thanks.
I’d prefer to argue with my premise too; it’s heartbreaking that one billion people are in thrall to such an inhumane, despicable belief prison. We can’t seem to do anything helpful in South Chicago or Newark but we are going to remake a 1400 year old belief system that totally shapes the moral, ethical and political worldview of one billion people.
Seems kind of mad to me.
It’s not difficult to figure out what’s consistent – it’s difficult to act on it.
I agree. We (outside of the religion) can’t remake it. It must come from inside Islam, and the prospects of that kind of change are not good. And if it doesn’t happen . . .
That’s why we would lose.
If I understand Ayaan Hirsi, she does not separate political Islam from Islam in general but acknowledges that individuals make choices, some can just accept the prayer and the moral guidance and others can take on the whole thing. Islam is the problem and there have always been and always will be true believers who take it to its inherent extremes. There seem to be more true believers in Islam ready to kill or cooperate with killers in it’s name than there are Christians who become selfless saints living just for others. We can’t defeat Islam in the rest of the world. Afghanistan was a costly disaster because we stayed there and tried to transform it into something it won’t become and we wouldn’t know how to transform it if it were possible. It was delusional. After toppling the Taliban and dismembering al Qaeda we should have left with a simple instruction we’ll be back if Afghanistan becomes another safe haven. That is all we could have hoped for and we should have known it. We had to invade, terrorism against us grew because we failed to punish past acts. That isn’t interventionism. Staying and fruitless trying to fix Afghanistan or Iraq was interventionism. It is beyond us. We should know that by now. I assume or hope we’re trying to get ourselves in a position to say that credibly again. The M.E. and North Africa are different for geo strategic reasons and we will not defeat Islam there either but it must always be costly to be an enemy of the United States and the size shape, nature and reach of such enemies vary and the approach must also vary.
Defeating Islam in the US, however, is achievable and that means keeping it from growing artificially from outside help. Let’s continue to get the price of oil down, stop all Saudi money flows into our political system; Saudi supported Mosques and schools are as political as their lobbying money, their support for politicians and groups who promote Islam. Muslim Americans under the constitution can attend their services and pray and build mosques and educate their children in their faith, but why allow outside funding? Do we need or benefit from Muslim immigration? Certainly some times, but we can’t ever know about individuals, and we have to make choices about who immigrates and millions from every country on earth are lining up to immigrate. We do not have to pass legislation to make better choices, we can require that Muslim visa applicants who have ties to any terrorist groups, terrorist family members, or come from terrorist supporting countries have to prove that they are not supporters of political Islam. Most of the things we should be doing do not require legislation nor do we need to attract media attention and make it about President Trump. No tweets. Just do it.
Thanks, I. I appreciate your distinction between Muslims here and abroad. I think your comments on Iraq and Afghanistan are spot on: if you become a haven, we come back and blast you. And your suggestions for this country are right on also, and they are do-able. We just have the spine to do it!
Susan, I think the best we can do with this unsolvable problem is to manage it as it grows. Kinda like an inoperable cancer in the body. The problem with Islam goes back to the Promise in Genesis.
We spoke before about God having a plan for Israel and the Jews. Well He has a plan for Islam too. Can anyone explain the Islamization of Europe ? Yes they need cheep labor. However, anyone with sense can see it will come at the cost of their necks. When the illogical happens there may be an unseen hand orchestrating events. I believe God has placed scales over the eyes of the secular world, for the fulfillment of his plans. Human history is finite . There will come an end of days as purposed by God . Will we see this in our lifetime ? I don’t know, no one does. However, things are getting awful interesting.
Sure, the vast majority of terrorists are Muslims, either born abroad or born here. Fewer of them coming in will mean less of a group of people who are much more likely than adherents of other religions to commit terrorism. Less Muslim immigration means fewer people in America who are steeped in the traditions of Islamic countries. This means that Muslims in America will be less likely to be able to immerse themselves in a vibrant Muslim diaspora. They will be more likely to marry and work with people whose religion or lack thereof is compatible with American values and more likely to give up Islam or at least moderate their beliefs. Assimilation is the natural result.
I got into this thread too late to read all of the prior posts, so excuse me if these points have already been made; TLDR:
3 step process to defeating radical islamic terror.
Simple process. I know things have changed a little since I first thought of this back in 2016 – in response to Hillary’s world plan – the campaign materials just listed “Defeat ISIS” as a goal – without any explanation or supporting policies of how that would be accomplished.
Duh! That does make sense; they’re not going to find as many Muslims steeped in radical, so they are more likely to seek out relationships with the larger population. Welcome to the melting pot! Thanks for explaining it.
Great list, Occupant! I highlighted the sentence above because up until now, these voices have been ignored. Since they are criticized by the pseudo-Islam representatives as Islamaphobic, and the media helps them, it’s difficult to get their voices heard. We need to do what we can to get their voices out there. Thanks!
FARA = Foreign Agents Registration Act. Still on the books.
Islamic clerics bringing Saudi $ to build mosques = Germans bringing Nazi $ to promote that (1938)