The War Against Terrorist-spawning Islamist Ideology Needs a Name

The report from the 9/11 Commission states, correctly, that we’re threatened not by abstract terrorism, but by those who perpetrate it in the name of Islam. David Brooks picks up this line in today’s New York Times, arguing that naming our enemy correctly is a crucial step toward understanding its nature and defeating it:

“It seems like a small distinction - emphasizing ideology instead of terror - but it makes all the difference, because if you don't define your problem correctly, you can't contemplate a strategy for victory.

“When you see that our enemies are primarily an intellectual movement, not a terrorist army, you see why they are in no hurry. With their extensive indoctrination infrastructure of madrassas and mosques, they're still building strength, laying the groundwork for decades of struggle. Their time horizon can be totally different from our own.”

I’m glad to see these points restated, because they deserve the attention of policy makers, academics, public intellectuals, and pundits of all sizes. They’re not new, as these links to the writings of Binyamin Netanyahu and the current issue of Policy Review make clear. Daniel Pipes nailed the problem well ahead of Brooks when he said:

“I think the US government and many other institutions have made a profound mistake in declaring this to be a war on terrorism. In part, it is nonsensical if you think about it. You cannot have a war on terrorism. Terrorism is a form of violence. It is not the enemy. It would be like having war on trenches or war on battle ships, or war on surprise attacks perhaps in 1941 after Pearl Harbor. Terrorism or battleships is the means or a fact of war. It is not the enemy. But the US government has a reason in doing this. It is being euphemistic, it is being cautious. It avoids making new enemies; it is avoiding the problem of having bias internally against Muslims. Although there are virtues in this careful description of the enemy as violence; it is not a good idea.”

In 2001, Bernard Lewis of Princeton wrote in the New Yorker of bin Laden’s belief that America is in decline yet still seductive, an image that borrows on that of Satan in the Koran:

“For Osama bin Laden, 2001 marks the resumption of the war for the religious dominance of the world that began in the seventh century. For him and his followers, this is a moment of opportunity. Today, America exemplifies the civilization and embodies the leadership of the House of War, and, like Rome and Byzantium, it has become degenerate and demoralized, ready to be overthrown. Khomeini's designation of the United States as ‘the Great Satan’ was telling. In the Koran, Satan is described as ‘the insidious tempter who whispers in the hearts of men.’ This is the essential point about Satan: he is neither a conqueror nor an exploiter—he is, first and last, a tempter. And for the members of Al Qaeda it is the seduction of America that represents the greatest threat to the kind of Islam they wish to impose on their fellow-Muslims.”

We’re in need of a name for this war. I’ve written about the “War on Terror” in lieu of the “War on Terrorism,” but that isn’t satisfactory, either. As Walker Percy (a personal hero of mine) said, man is a namer. We process our environment through naming it, which is a first act of understanding, conceiving, grasping. “Nazi,” “Communist,” “fascist,” or “Maoist” all connote evil ideologies that denied history and human nature and brought about the deaths of tens of millions of people in the last century. Only those whose beliefs are so radicalized, or so carefully hidden, would willing categorize themselves as adherents to any of those ideologies. What we need is a one-word term that similarly captures the ideology upon which radical Muslim terrorists act. “Occidentalists” comes to mind, but it’s too long and odd. Islamism might work, although I doubt our willingness to employ the name Islam in a term of opprobrium, both for legitimate fears of insulting non-violent Muslims, and for its perceived support for a war of civilizations.

Lewis has also argued that Arab dictatorships are in many ways based on Nazi propaganda that was spewed into the Middle East during WWII. After the fall of France, colonial administrators in French Protectorates had the choice of siding with De Gaulle’s Free French in London, or the new rulers in Vichy. They chose Vichy, and the doors were slung open to radio broadcasts that reflected the racialist, totalitarian ideology of the Third Reich. At the same time, he’s argued that modern Islamic terrorism differs from that Nazi-inspired form of rule, even if it works with it and thrives in the oppressive atmosphere that Arab dictators create:

“The Islamists' approach is quite different from that and has its roots in the history of Islam. Though, of course, it is also influenced by outside ideas. I would not call it Fascist. I would say it is certainly authoritarian and shares the hostilities of the Fascists rather than their doctrines.”

So we’re left with the race, as Brooks says, to be the next X. Naming the war that will occupy us for some time to come will be a great step to X-dom. It's a crucial step in defeating the cynics and uniting the country behind the effort to preserve America's peace and prosperity. Applications accepted.