Since the very beginning of the war on terror and more recently the counter-insurgency campaign in Iraq, the US-led coalition has found it very difficult to define and understand its enemy. Why are these people attacking the beautiful peace loving liberal democracies of the West, and why is it so hard for them to embrace the freedom and democracy that is being presented to them in Iraq? Well, I think most of us will agree that the understanding of the “enemy” has been rather limited and that this is perhaps the biggest problem in both the war on terror and the counter-insurgency campaign in Iraq. The latest pop word in the debate is “Islamic nihilist”.
A nihilist is defined as: "someone who rejects all theories of morality or religious belief”, or simply as an "anarchist". This has got to be the most comfortable definition of an enemy there is. We have no idea why they are fighting so they must be nihilists who believe in nothing. However, isn’t the term Islamic nihilist a contradiction in terms, and oxymoron? If you believe in no moral or religious system, then what on earth makes you Islamic?
The definition of the enemy in Iraq and in the war on terror as an Islamic Nihilist is a real disaster as it means giving up trying to understand the opponent. Winning the war on terror by defining every the enemy as a nihilist means that the war is essentially lost. Without understanding where terror comes from – please do not try to eradicate it! It can only get worse!
(c) Robert Egnell
Since the very beginning of the war on terror and more recently the counter-insurgency campaign in 
14 Comments:
My sister lives in South Florida and when her children were small they lived in a condominium which backed up onto a canal. These drainage canals are a hazard because they are deep with very steep sides making it difficult to get out if one should ever fall in. In addition sometimes alligators find their ways into residential areas via these interlocked waterways. Needless to say mother's caution children about these canals.
Once with her youngest in tow she visited a friend in an apartment building with elevators. She said to her young son: “Come on Christopher, we'll take a ride in an elevator.” To which young Christopher threw himself on the floor, crying, “I don't want to ride in an alligator!”
People live in a world of abstractions in no small part a result of our dependence on language. But sometimes like little Christopher our abstractions can interfere with our hold on reality. Someone noted that we ought to be very careful when war is declared on an abstract noun. In war, after all, we identify targets and destroy very real stuff.
The funny thing about blogs is that you don't get to choose your readers. From readers' perspectives it's easy to find blogs dealing with subject matter and approaches that are unfamiliar. I read with interest your last three posts on ideologies, aid to Africa, and now this one on “Islamic Nihilist.” I was somewhat confused whether I agreed with you or not in every post, but all of them made me think.
I'm no where near qualified to lecture at a University as you do, nor do I have a military background. I've read neither read Francis Fukuyama nor Samuel Huntington. And I'm a very “average American Joe.” Nevertheless, what makes you a very appealing blogger to me is you strike me as practical and thoughtful.
I opposed America's invasion of Iraq along with millions of my fellow countrymen. Last summer Karl Rove was quoted as saying:
"Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers."
Rove's comment was doubly galling: First because it misstates the real positions of American opponents to the Iraqi invasion— both liberals and conservatives. And second because he so succinctly paints a stereotype for the proponents.
It seems to me that in these three recent posts you caution against the dangers of envisioning complex problems in black and white terms. Whether it's ideology, aid, or an enemy, we'd do well to open our eyes to see what actually confronts us. These are good pieces all.
One comment regarding aid to Africa: There is a place for large-scale initiatives, especially like The Global Fund for AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, the IFAD, and trade and debt-reduction initiatives. Small scale initiative are also very important and too often these seem so insignificant they are ignored.
People to people aid, I believe has fewer negative side effects and added altogether the significance is huge. My point is not to suggest that talking about big projects and policy is unimportant, rather when people are involved with others on a first name basis, abstractions like “aid” become less confusing. Ironically, sometimes I think the very warranted criticism of aid to Africa encourages a sense of futility.
Policy discussions are important, but I hope that a sense of possibility for the future could be engendered. Small projects with very specific outcomes and real people helping real people must not be underestimated.
Many thanks for kind comments kaunda. You bring up some very important issues that I often fail to mention in my attack on aid as a policy for development- many of the organisations and projects do fantastic work without which the reciever countries would be in an even grimmer place.
However, my point is that it would be much more preferable if the problems were dealt with by the aid receiveing governments themselves because of a sense of responsibility towards their own people and a will to provide their people with better lives. That accountability is currently not in place in many parts of Africa and my view is that aid is one of the causes of that fact.
Regarding AIDS and malaria research and projects, I see these as rare instances of cooperation instead of the pure donor-receiver relationship.
Finally, person to person aid is a tricky question and I have noted that you are yourself involved in providing a computer for a friend in Kampala. (I thought perhaps Amazon.com or .co.uk would be willing to send computers to Uganda) . I am myself often involved in such small and personal projects here in Dar es Salaam. The only problem I see is that as soon as you become a donor you enter a completely different form of relationship in which you have unnatural power. I am extremely happy that my post at the university here does not come with a few books or computers from my home institution, because that would give me an unnatural position of power within the department. It is that power which enables a 24 year old Princeton graduate within US AID to lecture 75 year old politicians and village elders on good governance without it even being strange.
Person to person charity is great since it often serves to fill extremely important needs, but one should be aware that real friendship and eqaulity seems to end the same moment one get involved in it.
What do you think?
kaunda,
It was a beautiful illustration of the problems of language by the way! Without the possibility to choose my readers I also never would have stumbled across that beautiful mind of yours. It is a fascinating thing this blogging.
Robert
The first mistake in understanding is equating the tactic of terrorism with the aims of an enemy. Terrorism is a perfectly logical action against an overwhelmingly superior military force....it is, in fact, the only effective one; and it is effective. By "fighting a war on terror" we are basically assigning the same murky goals as defining our enemies as Islamic Nihilists.
I hate to bring up the lessons of Vietnam, but it did teach us a great deal about how to lose a war. Our failure there was primarily due to thinking of the enemy as merely Viet Cong...gooks....who just wanted to kill Americans because they hated us and wanted to spread Communism throughout Asia. We failed to learn what their fight was about and what they were willing to pay in order to win.
We are making the same mistake in Iraq. Dehumanizing an enemy may make us feel noble and makes for good propaganda...but it's a lousy way to fight a war.
You are absolutely right Jay! Terrorism is a method, a form of tactic, and cannot be waged war against.
You are also right in bringing up Vietnam which is the most important previous counter-insurgency campaign of the US military. What is striking is of course that the military and administrations after that have learned very little, and most often the wrong things from Vietnam. As you riightly point out, the consequences are to be seen in Iraq.
Returning to the mistakes of the past (Vietnam) to somehow relate to the War being waged upon the Western World, is foolhardy.
Even if I studied wagon building and became an expert in the repair of such vehicles, it would not help me in any way in the repair of my Toyota.
Vietnam was a foolish endeavor, led by John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Baines Johnson.
We were neither attacked nor hated until we stuck our nose into someone elses problem. Thanks JFK and LBJ.
In 2006, radical islamic terrorism is our problem, having been attacked and told we will be attacked again, if we do not do as the terrorists demand. In the words of a warrior of the past, NUTS. We will not let up our guard, and the mumblings of the malcontents, who oppose Bush more than terror itself, will not derail us in the carrying out of our mission.
The safety of our civilian population is why our warriors are fighting and sacrificing. Sometimes I see some of the civilians who quite frankly are not worthy of such sacrifice being given for them, and have my doubts. But to protect the good, we must protect the bad also.
It serves no purpose to me to discuss the right or wrong about attacking an enemy first, before any more 9/11's happen.
Our warriors are winning, so discussion concerning the merits of defending ones life by fighting a preemptive war are useless.
What is more important is the simple question, Are you standing in the way of my security? If so, you are standing on dangerous grounds. American civilians deserve complete security, so we can work in peace on the problems of the world. Like, improving our farming ability so that more of the world can be fed. So our researchers might find a cure for aids. Our taxpayers have to have the ability to work in safety to earn wages that the government can tax, to help our needy and the needy of the world. This security is worth sacrificing for, and thank God America has such wonderful unselfish warriors.
I came across your blog, when you challenged my blog at BE.
I must say I enjoy reading your blog and am considering linking to it.
Web loafer,
a great thing it is that I challenged you (and probably went down in a crushing defeat by now). I actually came across your blog before the challenge and likewise enjoyed reading it.
Let me reply to your comment with a few points where I think we disagree: First, history does not provide lessons, but it is useful for creating deeper understanding of the contemporary context. We should therefore never forget Vietnam or nay other counter insurgency campaign when looking at Iraq. Many of the tactical problems that US soldiers are facing are moreover very similar to those of the Vietnam war. The one thing I would have hoped that US leaders learned from Vietnam was to never underestimate the enemy in his own backyard, and also the enormous importance of understanding the enemy and what drives him. It was not done in Vietnam and therefore the US lost, and it was not done at the beginning of the campaign in Iraq. The results are again rather heartbreaking.
My second problem with your argument is that it is very onesided. Security is a subjective emotion and while many Americans felt threatened by Iraq (mostly due to false intelligence), the rest of the world did not share that emotion of fear regarding Iraq. So what you argued with reference to Vietnam - "We were neither attacked nor hated until we stuck our nose into someone elses problem." - is precisely what the rest of the world says about the US campaign in Iraq.
This leads me to my final and most important point. Again I shall use your own words: "The safety of our civilian population is why our warriors are fighting and sacrificing." You are absolutely right, but that is exactly why we should continue debating whether the decision to invade Iraq was appropriate. I was a supporter of the war in 2003 and I would have been so even without the WMD threat. Saddam was in my view a big enough threat to Iraqi, regional and global security to get rid of him.
However, from a purely pragmatic perspective I feel that the way the war was conducted, and I quote Eliot A. Cohen from the Washington Post on July 10th this year: "I could not imagine, for example, that the civilian and military high command would treat "Phase IV" -- the post-combat period that has killed far more Americans than the "real" war -- as of secondary importance to the planning of Gen. Tommy Franks's blitzkrieg. I never dreamed that Ambassador Paul Bremer and Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the two top civilian and military leaders early in the occupation of Iraq -- brave, honorable and committed though they were -- would be so unsuited for their tasks, and that they would serve their full length of duty nonetheless. I did not expect that we would begin the occupation with cockamamie schemes of creating an immobile Iraqi army to defend the country's borders rather than maintain internal order, or that the under-planned, under-prepared and in some respects mis-manned Coalition Provisional Authority would seek to rebuild Iraq with big construction contracts awarded under federal acquisition regulations, rather than with small grants aimed at getting angry, bewildered young Iraqi men off the streets and into jobs.
I did not know, but I might have guessed."
Because of the conduct of the campaign in Iraq, I therefore feel that US security is much worse off than it was before the invasion. The US has not only gained enormous amounts of new enemies, it has also lost its credibility as a force for good (in the eyes of the rest of the world). In that sense, the brave soldiers are fighting in vain.
This means that the battle against terrorism, which was not originally linked to Iraq at all, is suddenly greatly worsened due to the incompetent invasion in Iraq - and your allies are fleeing! I therefore argue that had I known what we now know about the conduct of the war in Iraq I would not have supported it.
Robert
They came down to breakfast somewhat late, and, as soon as they arrived, the Biggleses swooped up the last fragments that remained on their plates, and made a stately march out of the dining-room, Then http://startso11.info/Kontredans.html Miss Hoogencamp arose and departed, leaving a whole fish-ball on her plate.. Hour after http://startso11.info/Lublin+sklepy.html hour passed, and her wrath refused to be quelled.. Well, then, there lived Monsieur Poopoo ever since he came from dear, delightful Paris, as he was wont to call the city of his nativity--there he took in the pennies for his kickshaws--there he laid aside five thousand dollars against a rainy day--there he was as happy as a lark--and there, in all human probability, he would http://rebestal.info/content.html have been to this very day, a respected and substantial citizen, had he been willing to let well alone.. But that all dreams are to be interpreted bisexually, seems to me to be a generalization as indemonstrable http://startso11.info/do+gier.html as it is improbable, which I should not like to support.. Van Kamp passed the http://wowyesaf.info/sustonit.html note to his wife and sat down or a large chair.. A deputy sheriff, provided that lawyers were not too indulgent in allowing acknowledgment of service of court processes, http://storyah44.info/przemys%C5%82+elektrotechniczny.html in postponing levies and sales, and in settlement of litigated cases, might pick up three hundred dollars, a good sum for those times, a fact which Mr.. In words and other encouragement http://startso11.info/www.Kalimero.gov.pl.html Mr.. ' 'Oh, let http://startso11.info/eleclerc.html it wait,' says he.. It looked for a time as though these barely expressed relations were to end in marriage, but this happy culmination was frustrated by the sister, whose http://startso11.info/suszarki+merida.html motives have never found a complete explanation.. Now, when I http://startso11.info/nagie+darmo.html went up the Matterhorn Mr.. The beast he bestrode responded with a rapid whisking of its tail and a great show of effort, as it ambled off down the sandy road, the rider's long legs seeming now and then to touch http://startso11.info/odwars.pl.html the ground.. After this debut in http://startso11.info/forum+irlandia.html speaking, he went to the exhibition for two days more, to the mutual satisfaction of all concerned.. I let them infloonces go to friendship, http://storyah44.info/praca+stegna.html ef you'll take it so.. The latter, I grieve to say, was a pure invention of the Colonel's--an oratorical addition to the scanty information he had obtained the previous http://startso11.info/www.reeds.pl%5D.html day.. Cady insisted on bringing in the cakes herself, and grinned as she whisked her starched blue skirts in and out of the dining-room. http://startso11.info/angielski+ze+s%C5%82uchu.html. The actor appeared http://startso11.info/frre+swx+tv.html to be slightly bewildered, and seemed hardly to take in the full meaning of the old gentleman's words.. Jane Watkinson sat down to the piano and commenced a powerful piece of http://startso11.info/badania+okresowe+pracownik%C3%B3w.html six mortal pages, which she played out of time and out of tune; but with tremendous force of hands; notwithstanding which, it had, however, the good effect of putting most of the children to sleep.. We must stand by http://startso11.info/nianie.html each other, whispered Abner.. Ingham's a good fellow--always on hand; never talks much--but does the right thing at the http://startso11.info/girlfrend+t%C5%82umaczenie.html right time; is not as unpunctual as he used to be--he comes early, and sits through to the end.. Oh! Of http://startso11.info/three+doors+down+be+like+that+t%C5%82umaczenie.html course not! he blundered, and went back to the woodshed...
very good blog congratulations
regard from Catalonia Spain
free samina malik
http://freesaminamalik.blogspot.com/
http://www.petitiononline.com/poetess/petition.html
Well here is a "nihilist" sir,
and as a "nihilist" I want to know what on earth is vague about rejecting the idea of colonization sir? what is that u can't understand about us? we dont want to be occupied, we dont want ur democracy which u spread with cluster bombs, we dont want ur interference in our region, we dont want ur exploitation to our wealth, we dont want ur beautiful bombardments, we want to be left alone, we dont need u to civilize us, WE ARE HUMAN BEINGS, exactly like u, we are able to achieve progress without ur interference, u r supporting dictatorships and claim that u r spreading democracy!!!!!!! what kind of democracy is this? killing women and children and implanting a racist entity: a militant machine whom u call israel, and u r supporting it to kill us, raping us in abu gharieb,
do u call this beautiful democracy?
well, NO THANKS, we dont want it, just leave us aloooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnnnnneeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
is it so difficult to understand?
Ponto de vista...
I agree--I think it is both dangerous and misleading to underestimate the importance of language in shaping how we perceive the world.
I wonder, though, to what extent 'nihilist' refers to the ideology held by these particular militants, and to extent it simply reflects their aims--to create anarchy and disorder. In this sense, they truly may be 'Islamic Nihilists'--Islamic, because that's how they identify religiously, and 'nihilist' because they aim to create chaos, hence undermining the US-led coalition.
While the portrayal of such militants in foreign media is clearly meant, as you suggest, to show them as irrational and anarchic, it would be interesting to see how they are portrayed in Iraqi media. If they are similarly referred to as 'Islamic Nihilists,' the political implications of such a term are hard to ignore. Domestically, such a term might imply that such militants offer no alternative to 'western occupation' besides anarchy. The term, therefore, might serve to undermine the actions of the militants, portraying them as purely reactionary.
Nyantara,
It has been a while since I wrote on the blog, but I love the fact that it still attracts excellent comments. Your alternative interpretation is hard to argue against. I completely share your interest in how Iraqi or Afghani media portrays these actors. What is of great importance is to have a strategy when developing a narrative or when choosing a concept.
Post a Comment
<< Home