Quick Thoughts

I watched Brian Lamb's interview of Michael Scheuer earlier today, and came away impressed with the man's integrity but unconvinced by his analysis. Here's his argument:

1. His overarching point is that we need to understand our enemy's motives for declaring war against us so that we can do something to assuage (for lack of a better word) their grievances. This is an intent-based strategy (as opposed to a capabilities-based strategy). His argument is that Osama's grievances flow from our foreign policy history in Arabia, and that Osama's particular perspective on American perfidy is widely held by the Muslim world. Al'Qaeda didn't attack us because of our freedoms or prosperity (as professed by the Administration and Congressional leaders), they attacked us because of our presence in the Middle East and our support for Israel. That is a distinction that must be made. Because the Muslim feeling of humiliation and duress is rationally derived, and because it is so contagious and flammable, it must be addressed on its own terms; its premises must be negated or eliminated or soon we will be at war with Islam in general. Therefore we must alter our foreign policy to soothe the rising temper of an increasingly self-aware global threat.

2. In this context, Scheuer argues that Operation Iraqi Freedom was a strategic catastrophe. Prior to this ill-advised excursion in Mesopotamia, Osama's call to arms was obscure and very theoretical. With our shortsightedness we have given bin Laden the very thing he needed to gain ascendancy: a clear and present example of Western Imperialism. His sermons about jihad ring true because we have supplied them with the veneer of immediacy. Because of the "War on Terror" the men of Islam have been given "identity steroids"--i.e. feel much more strongly about their Muslimness-- and because they feel more Muslim they are more sensitive to Muslim status. Finally, because Bush has given them a huge reason to feel aggrieved in their status, Muslims who feel very Muslim are now much more vulnerable to the calling of jihad.

That's his argument. So long as one takes it descriptively and not prescriptively, I largely agree with it; as an "is" statement, it is very plausibly true. However, I'm reticent to agree with the "ought" statement that Scheuer derives from this. Here's a quick hit of why:

1. Osama is a follower of Sayid Qutb. Qutb's critique of the West was theological and philosophical, not geo-political. Qutb diagnosed Christendom with what he termed the "hideous schizophrenia" -- i.e. the separation of church and state, religion and the society, belief and practice:

Qutb argues that the hideous schizophrenia of "separation of religion from the social order" became forever entrenched into Western civilization once the Church began to establish dogmas that contradicted logic and declared war on scientific inquiry.

Qutb was also very clear on what he thought of liberalism:

Western values are commonly understood as liberal democratic; they include the protection of individual rights, limited government, and the rule of law. Qutb views these values as misshapen philosophical concepts which are outgrowths of jahiliyyah. When the West pushes faith into a corner, Qutb argues that it alienates God from society, thereby rejecting faith as part of the social order.

Qutb speaks of "voices of alarm...warning mankind of its catastrophic end under the white man’s faithless civilization." Because the West is inherently evil and corrosive, Qutb believes that Islam must dismantle and quarantine it.

Islam cannot accept any compromise with jahiliyyah, either in its concept or in the modes of living derived from this concept. Either Islam will remain, or jahiliyyah; Islam cannot accept or agree to a situation which is half-Islam and half-jahiliyyah. In this respect Islam’s stand is very clear.

Yes, Qutb's stand is very clear, and so is Osama's. The West is the far enemy, and it is by far the worst foe Islam faces. The near enemy--i.e. the apostate regimes of Dar al'Islam--is less worrisome. America, being the most seductive and corrosive mutation of the hideous schizophrenia, must be defeated and sealed away from impressionable Muslim minds before Islam and its societies catch the Sickness unto Death.

2. Osama's grievances include the humiliation given to the ummah by Ataturk's dispanding of the Caliphate, and the fall of the Ottoman Empire. He also laments the fall of Al'Andalus. What we're supposed to do about those things is beyond me.

3. In fact, I'm skeptical whether the "intent" of the jihadis is so vulnerable that any move by us could substantially affect it. In the age of instant communication and global cultural dissemination, we are a threat to Reactionary Islam merely by being who we are.

4. Modifying our policy in the Middle East in a way that would purchase the Islamist's good will would almost certainly mean a policy of departure--a departure of policy, in its true terms. Our presence in the region is risible because we allow apostate regimes to stay in power and while there spread our infectious ideas into the popular culture. To fix this we would have to stand back while Islamist movements took power and gained control of the world's oil supply. What we would get in return would be a nightmare: an Islamic empire of rich and powerful rulers with an illiterate and mal-informed public holding the world hostage to energy while they armed themselves with petrol-dollar weaponry. We went to war against Saddam in 1991 to stop this eventuality, and he symbolized only naked power. A well-armed oil empire with the charisma of a global religion behind it would be disasterous.

5. Radical Islam has a millenium of grievances to use as a call to arms. Therefore, "intent" can be our long game, but we are walking into a trap if we make it our short. Instead, in the near-term we need to focus on Islamist capabilities, the dreaded marriage of WMD with the terrorist will to use them. The reason for this is multi-layered. One of the layers even derives from Scheuer's concerns: if America is hit with a large-scale, high-casualty terrorist attack, then it will not just be Muslims who believe they are in a war; Americans will believe they are in a war, too, perhaps with all of Islam, and they will move decisively to end it.