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.
Don’t Forget the Strong Horse
When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, they will naturally want to side with the strong horse. When people of the world look upon the confusion and atheism of the West, they see that Islam is the strong horse.
These were the words of Osama bin Laden; they were prescient after 2001 and are still relevant today. In all the discussions about killing General Suleimani of Iran’s Quds Force, the focus has been on challenging Trump’s authority to have him killed and the possible reaction by Iran to the strike. Left out of the discussion is an understanding of the Arab and Islamist mentality and how we should take that into account now and in the future.
The term “strong horse” became better known in a book by Lee Smith published eight years ago called The Strong Horse. Here is how Lee Smith describes Arab hatred toward the US:
The war that Arabs are waging against the United States, some in deed as well as in word, is merely a massive projection of the same pattern of force, with a tribe bound as one to defend against and defeat the outsider. The Arabs hate us not because of what we do or who we are but because of what and who we are not: Arabs.
In a review of Lee Smith’s book, Daniel Pipes commented further on the strong horse:
What Smith calls the strong-horse principle contains two banal elements: Seize power and then maintain it. This principle predominates because Arab public life has ‘no mechanism for peaceful transitions of authority or power sharing, and therefore [it] sees political conflict as a fight to the death between strong horses.’ Violence, Smith observes is ‘central to the politics, society, and culture of the Arabic-speaking Middle East.’ It also, more subtly, implies keeping a wary eye on the next strong horse, triangulating, and hedging bets.
Smith argues that the strong horse principle, not Western imperialism or Zionism, ‘has determined the fundamental character of the Arabic-speaking Middle East.’
The Iran regime is a prime example of adherents to the “strong horse” theory and every belief that follows. They are not afraid to die and, in fact, celebrate death. They have probably been stunned at our response to their latest actions since they see us as a “weak horse.” Our killing of Suleimani was long overdue in one sense, after the years we “cowered” in the eyes of Iran.
Keep in mind that although Iran condemns the US, they also know that our military forces are far superior. In addition, they may not be afraid of death but they can’t take over the world if they are decimated. I’d wager that they are more interested in creating the image of challenging us and constraining us than in destroying us; the former is certainly more realistic than the latter.
Now, people worry about Iran’s response to the attack and I am quite certain they will respond, if for no other reason to maintain their image of a strong horse; they need to remind the other countries in the Middle East that they are still the strong horse in that region. I’d like to suggest that their perceptions of us are shifting, however. The US will no longer tolerate their attacks on us or their violence; we will no longer use only words to discredit them, but rather will take powerful action. We are not afraid.
Only time will tell us who will emerge as a strong horse now.
Published in Foreign Policy
One of the things I noticed in my years in the Middle East was that words were often not primarily meant to persuade on the strength of the facts they presented, but on the poetry. My managers often blatantly misrepresented the facts (ie. lied) in meetings to create an image of what they wished was true. Think of Bagdad Bob.
More formally, there’s taqqiya (lying to protect the religion). That must have been a frustrating time, @limestonecowboy!
Yep. And there’s also an unspoken expectation that subordinates will lie or at least, never call anyone on it to save face for the boss.
The US is the most powerful country in the world today – the ultimate strong horse. Has that resulted in the support one should expect, given this theory?
Think Obama, @zafar. We’re still fixing the damage he did. Eight years is a lot of time to hurt our credibility.
That’s interesting. I’ve thought of our culture – or, more specifically, our popular culture – as one that naturally sides with the “dark horse.” I could see some value of our love for the underdog, but as we can see today, it can become unhealthy.
In fact, I think this is at the root of the Left’s current swing to side with “Palestinians.” Of course they don’t know anything about the issue, just that Israel seems like the strong horse, and Arab countries the weaker ones.
(Also, I promise that I haven’t forgotten about the post I owe, it’s just taking me time to put something together that is fully expressive without being too long.)
Another thing they know: this wasn’t a drive-by. We reached out and touched Soleimani specifically. We knew where he was going to be and when he was going to be there. What was the source of that information?
I think that’s just one other reason to hate Israel; Israel is the strong horse in the region.
Has support for the US really gone up since then, or has it gone down?
I’d guess up.
Plenty of Europeans don’t, and won’t, like “us” no matter what. But in order to see more support, it requires us to do something that gets our cousins across the pond to say “oh, yeah! I don’t like dumb things either!”
I think it’s impossible to know. Nikki Haley, behind the scenes at the UN, was often told how often her efforts to push back and hold people accountable were greatly appreciated by many. But nobody would go against the flow. They voted with the mob.
The quote said “side with,” not “support” or “like.” I’d think the meaning of “side with ” is closer to “support” than “like,” but still, it’s a little different.
Boring technical solutions come handy sometimes.
“Hey, could you make that thing over there go boom?”
“Yeah, just as soon as I overcome this sudden wave of ennui I’ll get right on it.”
With the current U.S.-Iran situation, you have not just a Strong Horse/Weak Horse situation, but a Crazy Horse metric to factor in, because the Trump hatred in the western media and among the ruling class type politicians have used his alleged instability as a way to try and turn the public against him.
Iran might not believe any of that. But it did seem that when he first came into office, and especially after he order the early military strike in Syria, Iran was far more reluctant to test Trump out than they have been in the past 12-18 months. The increasing boldness may have been tied to the belief that the hyperbole they had been hearing from the western pols and media were unfounded, and Trump was going to be a risk-adverse president as Obama was in the Middle East.
The attack and killing of Soleimani has forced them to re-evaluate that belief, and now they have to wonder if when Trump threatens to take out their cultural sites, is he just engaging in his own hyperbole, or does he really mean it? The media and the Dems have been talking as though World War III will well underway by Super Bowl Sunday, so they’re not much help in assuaging the mullahs fears that if they strike back hard and claim credit for any attack in retaliation for Soleimani’s death, it might not just be the rank-and-file grunts in the Revolutionary Guard or the Iranians surrogate terrorists outside of the country whose lives are put at risk. If they kill a bunch of Americans, President Crazy Horse might target them personally.
How did that go with the Iran thing? Without muscular sanctions – basically threatening organizations that don’t comply – would they have gone along with it?
Tells you something about majority opinion.
It is better to be feared than loved. Trump is much scarier than Obama.
Or….withdrawing from the nuclear deal left them with fewer realistic options and less to lose.
When Reagan did the joke about “We begin bombing in five minutes” the same dynamic was in place. Was he semi-serious in entertaining that thought, at a time when the left in the U.S. and Europe were freaking out and desperately trying to scuttle the “Star Wars” missile defense plan, or did Reagan know the mic was open and tossed that one out simply give the folks in the Kremlin something to think about, amid all the hyperbole already from Reagan’s enemies that he was a dangerous lunatic who would blow up the world?
Sometimes Republican presidents who don’t have much of any support in the media or from the folks in the Permanent Government can use that opposition to their advantage — Nixon and Kissinger’s bluff against the Soviets in the ’73 war in the Middle East was based in part around the media hype that he was so crazed due to Watergate, who knew what he might do? Here, it’s up to Iran to decide if Trump’s bluffing about taking the battle into Iran if the mullahs retaliate, or if they could put their own lives at risk if Trump does to them via an airstrike what he did to Soleimani last Thuesday (or even if he didn’t kill them, what Reagan did to Qaddafi in Libya back in 1986, when he got too bold about exporting terror attacks).
Depending on just one thing paints one into a corner. ?
I’m not exactly sure what you mean. I am far from the most plugged in member at Ricochet, so you may very well know something important that I do not.
I’m speaking entirely from a cultural confidence perspective. If Americans aren’t going to advocate American values, who will? One aspect of cultural confidence is making it clear that if you throw a punch our way, we’ll throw one back.
I think that translates pretty well across cultures. In my not-particularly humble opinion, it’s the Obamas and the Merkels of the world who complicate and confuse these matters.
To be honest, Progressives seem confident about their American culture – which they view as the elite global default. (And to be fair it functions like that to a large extent.)
Perhaps it’s an iteration of the culture wars?
“Remember while you’re out there risking life and limb, we’ll be in here thinking what a sucker you are.”
— Famed 1930s politician Rufus T. Firefly, from “Duck Soup”
The Fredonian leader’s ethos about fighting battles has pretty much been the mullahs words to live by over the past 41 years. They’ve counted on the restraint of American presidents not to target Tehran or any other cultural sites inside Iran, while sending the grunts out or paying foreign operatives with petrodollars to carry out attacks against U.S. interests outside of their country.
They’ve never shown any indication they want to die — they want others to die to advance their cause, but they personally want to live long, healthy lives and get their 100th birthdays celebrated on The Today Show. Abandoning the nuclear agreement isn’t going to change that desire, so the question goes back to whether or not they think Trump is merely sabre-rattling when he threatens attacks inside the country if they retaliate for Soleimani’s death, or would he really give the military the go-ahead?
Spending the final years of their lives living in underground bunkers to avoid prematurely spending time in a coffin might or might not happen, but it’s something they’re no doubt contemplating right now as they decide what their next move is (other than rooting for a Democratic win come November).
That sounds right. But it seems way to particular to the “Western” way. How many other cultures – not just historically, but even in our current era – wouldn’t see the condescension inherent in thinking that we can just apologize for vaguely understood past aggressions without any acknowledgement of the fact that the other guys weren’t exactly angels?
I always think of the fact that Hitler tried to reason with Churchill, but he absolutely loathed Chamberlain.
“Oderint dum metuant” Let them hate us so long as the fear us.. a favorite saying of Caligula.
But it was also the operational strategy behind most Roman military and diplomatic efforts for hundreds of years from the Roman republic period through much of the Empire.
Who would have seen Trump as Caesar? Hitler maybe, but Caesar? I see another outbreak of TDS over this one.
Not to step on anybody’s toes, but my preference is just that they respect us. I think others have seen our ability to instill fear as the opposite of appearing weak. I think it’s the wrong dichotomy.
Winners don’t sweat the small stuff (and are often condescending).
Random Muslim Mullahs leading mobs to burn buses in Bangladesh because somebody, somewhere, in Denmark, drew a cartoon of Muhammad is not a sign of strength. It’s a sign of pettiness and weakness.
Sure. But weak men are the most dangerous ones. For them to break from wicked ways requires their weakness to be exposed to them. Some will lash out violently (and, typically, impotently), most will change course.
Also, I’m not sure that these provocations are in the same category. A cartoon vs. attacking our embassy… Is the embassy as much for our benefit as it is for theirs? (I’ll concede that this question could probably start some valid debate. Even so, I think we win.)
Sounds like Hollywood! (Sorry, been listening to everyone’s take on Ricky G. at the awards last night.)
Unfortunately there’s no consensus outside the choir about who the wicked and weak ones are. Everybody accuses their opponents. We might actually all be, at least a little.