Table Of ContentDebating the War of Ideas
This page intentionally left blank
Debating the War of Ideas
Edited by
Eric D. Patterson
and
John Gallagher
DEBATING THE WAR OF IDEAS
Copyright © Eric D. Patterson and John Gallagher, 2009.
Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1st edition 2009 978-0-230-61936-4
All rights reserved.
First published in 2009 by
PALGRAVE MACMILLAN®
in the United States—a division of St. Martin’s Press LLC,
175 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10010.
Where this book is distributed in the UK, Europe and the rest of the world,
this is by Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited,
registered in England, company number 785998, of Houndmills,
Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS.
Palgrave Macmillan is the global academic imprint of the above companies
and has companies and representatives throughout the world.
Palgrave® and Macmillan® are registered trademarks in the United States,
the United Kingdom, Europe and other countries.
ISBN 978-1-349-38209-5 ISBN 978-0-230-10198-2 (eBook)
DOI 10.1057/9780230101982
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Debating the war of ideas / edited by Eric D. Patterson and John Gallagher.
p. cm.
ISBN 978-1-349-38209-5 (alk. paper)
1. War on Terrorism, 2001– 2. Terrorism—Religious aspects—Islam.
3. Jihad. 4. Democracy. I. Patterson, Eric D. II. Gallagher, John.
HV6432.D432 2009
355.0201—dc22 2009017836
A catalogue record of the book is available from the British Library.
Design by Newgen Imaging Systems (P) Ltd., Chennai, India.
First edition: December 2009
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
C O N T E N T S
Foreword vii
Preface ix
List of Contributors xi
One Approaching the War of Ideas 1
John Gallagher and Eric D. Patterson
Two Jihadism’s War on Democracy 21
Walid Phares
Three “Dangerous Concepts” and the Struggle
Within: Reclaiming State and Politics
from the Islamists 35
Maajid Nawaz
Four Sharing with Equals: Modernity,
Fundamentalism, and the Future 55
Karen Armstrong
Five Taqiyya: War and Deceit in Islam 67
Raymond Ibrahim
Six Debates over Just War and Jihad: Ideas,
Interpretations, and Implications across Cultures 83
James Turner Johnson
Seven The War of Ideas: The Role of the “Afterlife” 101
Alan M. Dershowitz
Eight The Clash of Civilizations? 111
Akbar Ahmed
vi Contents
Nine D ebating Absolutism and Pluralism
in Contemporary Islam 131
Asma Afsaruddin
Ten Democracy, Religion, and the War of Ideas 143
Eric D. Patterson
Eleven Inter-civilizational Conflict between Value
Systems and Concepts of Order: Exploring
the Islamic Humanist Potential for a Peace
of Ideas 157
Bassam Tibi
Twelve The War of Ideas as Therapy: Reflections on
a Eureka Moment in the “War on Terror” 175
Abdelwahab El-Affendi
Thirteen Waging Trans-epistemological Warfare 195
Jarret M. Brachman
Fourteen Counter-radicalization and Europe’s New
Security Dilemma 209
Lorenzo Vidino
Fifteen The Struggle for Islamism in the Levant: The
Case of Northern Lebanon 221
Bernard Rougier
Sixteen Dissonance and Denial: U.S. Foreign Policy
and the War of Ideas 239
Robert Spencer
Select Bibliography 255
Index 261
F O R E W O R D
Conflicts to advance political ideas are ever-present throughout history. The
twentieth century was marked by “warring ideas” where ideologies associ-
ated with blocs of nations collided, producing not only economic and polit-
ical competition, but also large-scale war and loss of human life. The Cold
War victory over totalitarianism and the apparent consensus of the 1990s
in favor of political and economic democratization did not last, as the trag-
edy of September 11, 2001 attests. In fact, as this intriguing volume reveals,
the alleged consensus simply never was. Debating the War of Ideas presents an
important array of views on core ideological issues affecting millions around
the world, particularly the West and the Muslim world (broadly defined). It
offers valuable insights into the complex, often highly divergent perspectives
of this debate, one that has at times manifested itself through armed con-
flict. Policy makers, diplomats, scholars, and military commanders—from
all sides—must understand the nature of this debate as the basis for making
decisions that will greatly impact the duration and direction of this intense
struggle. Understanding the war of ideas is a leadership issue.
Released one year after 9/11, the 2002 U.S. National Security Strategy
stated, “The great struggles of the twentieth century between liberty and
totalitarianism ended with a decisive victory for the forces of freedom—and
a single sustainable model for national success: freedom, democracy, and
free enterprise.” An important assumption of the U.S.-led invasions of both
Afghanistan and Iraq was that people everywhere value “freedom” similarly
and will readily embrace the opportunity to increase individual liberty, even
if such an opportunity is provided through the military force of an exter-
nal power. Both the Taliban and Saddam Hussein were brutal oppressors of
freedom and dissent, and it was believed that removing them would lead to
rapid, widespread popular action in support of democracy, individual rights,
and the rule of law. Further, it was thought that the security, governance,
and economic development necessary for sustainable self-government would
develop mostly uncontested, albeit with help. Yet, events have not unfolded
so deliberately in either case. It seems clearer now that a sustainable model
for national success whether in the West, the Muslim world or anywhere,
must fully account for the deeply held personal and collective beliefs of the
viii Foreword
people—their ideas about issues like governance, justice, social identity,
reform, and so on. Simply put, ideas matter.
The apparent differences between the people of the West and the Muslim
world are exceeded by the beliefs they have in common about humanity,
respect, opportunity, peace, and cooperation. Yet, in the execution of pol-
icy and politics, much seems to get lost in translation. As the former com-
mander of Task Force 134 (Camp Bucca theater internment facility in Iraq)
from 2007–2008, I had an opportunity to interact firsthand with thousands
of Iraqis who had been involved in actively opposing both the Iraqi Security
Forces and Coalition forces. Through a program of proper care and custody,
family involvement, religious teachings with moderate Islamic clerics, liter-
acy training, and continuing education, we were able to better understand the
detainee population as individuals, as Iraqis, and as Muslims. This reintegra-
tion program not only achieved remarkably low recidivism, but it helped put
citizens committed to stability and reconciliation into Iraqi society. Progress
was based on understanding, just as the “Anbar Awakening” in 2007 reflected
a greater understanding of the Coalition among Iraqis. As the late Sheikh Abd
al-Sattar Abu Risha stated, “The insurgency occurred because we saw you
Americans as invaders. The Awakening occurred because we realized you
were our allies.”
Those seeking a better understanding of the ideological aspects of this
broader conflict must realize the complexity of how Western and Muslim
societies interact. The wide-ranging views presented in these sixteen essays
demonstrate this complexity, and are sure to arouse disagreement in every
reader. That is the point of this book: to showcase the rival viewpoints present
in this debate. Issues discussed within these essays include: How long has this
“war” been underway, and how has it changed over time? Is it between the
West and the Muslim world, or mostly a struggle within the Muslim world?
Do democratization and globalization strengthen Muslim and Western ties,
or exacerbate the perception that Islam is threatened? Do the broad freedoms
of Western liberalism represent hope, or an extreme individualism that weak-
ens society’s moral foundation? Is Islam peaceful and tolerant, or rigid and
violent? Is there a duality in Islam that must be addressed? Does U.S. foreign
policy underestimate the importance of sovereignty and self-determination?
Is there an inevitable “clash of civilizations?” And how can the various actors
and interests in this debate move forward?
Of course, one important way to move forward is to learn and try with
some humility to understand the competing viewpoints. This is not to say
one cannot determine some ideas are better than others and therefore worth
fighting for, but understanding the different perspectives is the foundation
of constructive dialogue and progress. This understanding is, perhaps, the
beginning of the end of the fighting.
—Dr. Doug Stone, Major General,
United States Marine Corps (Retired)
P R E F A C E
It began on a bus. The coeditors of this book had met just months before, but
were entering a one-year period of government service together. The bus was
taking us to an orientation retreat and we fell to talking about our studies and
teaching and how our intellectual interests were intertwined with our work.
In John’s case, he had just finished three years teaching at the U.S. Military
Academy at West Point, and had briefly visited Iraq just weeks before. As an
Army officer, he had served in the Sinai, Germany, and Kosovo in previous
years. Eric, a career political scientist, was just leaving two years as a visit-
ing scholar at the State Department where he had worked on and traveled to
Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Eastern Africa.
For two hours on that bus ride in September 2007, we applied a very
simple notion to U.S. foreign policy, global affairs, and the war on terror-
ism: “ideas have consequences.” We agreed that U.S. foreign policy was at
its best when it refused to back down on its core intellectual commitments:
this was the legacy of Truman, JFK, and Reagan. We saw President Bush
attempting the same with his “freedom agenda,” but we noted how major
elements of the freedom agenda were disregarded by senior administration
officials, and that U.S. policies were often contradictory or just ineffec-
tive at defining our interests and promoting shared values. That conversa-
tion, which tested the patience of other passengers, ranged widely: Bush’s
speeches and the National Security Strategies of 2002 and 2006, how differ-
ent presidential candidates in the forthcoming presidential election might
engage the War of Ideas, the original work of West Point’s Combating
Terrorism Center, issues of public diplomacy and strategic communica-
tions, the unequal role of government agencies, the ambivalence of some
government officials about “Western values” as cultural imperialism, the
universality of human rights and civil liberties, applying the notion of
“warring ideas” to Latin America and the authoritarian regimes in Beijing
and Moscow, and the critical matters of culture, religion, and language
proficiency (how many U.S. government employees speak Dari or can read
Arabic?).
