In the July/August issue of The American Interest, AEI Resident Scholar Michael Rubin argues policy makers must first acknowledge the religious basis of Islamist terrorism. Only then can both moderate Muslims and Western policymakers craft strategies to ensure that moderates win the battle of interpretation:
The rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS)—in January 2014 when it overran Fallujah and Ramadi and then most dramatically in June when it seized Mosul—caught not only the U.S. government by surprise, but also most Iraqis and other denizens of the broader Middle East. Far from simply staging hit-and-run attacks like an ordinary terrorist group, ISIS proved itself militarily, staging complex campaigns, fighting on two fronts simultaneously, holding on to territory comparable in size to the United Kingdom, and transporting thousands of fighters in secret over hundreds of miles.
What has really shocked both the United States and its allies in the Islamic world, however, is the Islamic State’s theatrical brutality. This was no easy feat: Westerners have long since become inured to outrages from this region. They have weathered the 1997 slaughter of tourists at Luxor, Egypt, the Taliban’s war on women and the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas, countless Jerusalem bus bombings, and of course 9/11. But the sexual enslavement of Yazidi women and the constant stream of YouTube videos showing crucifixions, beheadings, and homosexuals thrown off tall buildings took outrage to a new level.
Honest people differ about the tactical wisdom of naming Islam as a source of terrorism. Some prefer to call it like it is, their argument being that to evade this point is to signal weakness to the enemy. Besides, we have clear ways of doing so; it has been well understood for almost thirty years in intellectual and policy circles that “Islamic” and “Islamist” mean different things. The problem, however, is that this distinction in English does not translate well, or at all, into Arabic and other Middle Eastern languages. So the concern is that naming Islamist terrorism for what it is will play into and strengthen the jihadi narrative that the Christian West wants to destroy Islam. Even pro-Western, anti-jihadi Muslims often warn against explicit rhetoric linking Islam with terrorism, not just the opportunistic, fundraising purveyors of “Islamophobia.” The irony of Western policymakers shying away from public discussion of the religious roots of Islamist extremism is that both extremists and their opponents in the Middle East recognize full well the Islamic religious component of extremism and, within Arabic debate on satellite stations like Al-Jazeera or Al-Arabiya, do not mince words—either in support or in opposition.
The upshot is that, whatever is said in public, it is crucial to acknowledge the religious basis of Islamist terrorism when officials seek to devise strategy. Only then can both moderate Muslims and Western policymakers craft strategies to ensure that moderates win the battle of interpretation. That being the case, is there a way to complement military and economic pressures on ISIS with an information strategy? Indeed there is.
To read the full article, click here.
from AEI » Latest Content http://ift.tt/1FWMTUW
0 التعليقات:
Post a Comment