World War 4

Jonathan Rauch has a great article in National Journal that expands on Philip Bobbitt's concept of the three world wars (World War 1, World War 2, and the Cold War) as phases of a larger conflict that defined the direction of governance of the nations of the world. Brilliant both in its extension of Bobbit's ideas and in it's analysis of the needs of both Western nations and Islamic theocracies in relation to Afghanistan, Iraq, and Palesite.

Quite distinct from Islam as a religion, Islamism proposed a system of government that had imperial aspirations and that sought to abolish the private sphere and secular politics. First in Iran in 1979, then in Afghanistan a decade later, it showed it could defeat a modern secular state. It began to dream of driving "crusaders" and Jews and secularism out of all the Islamic lands, and even perhaps out of America.

As totalitarian ideologies go, militant Islamism is not one of the most appealing. It preaches asceticism, repression, and isolation. As a social system, it is largely parasitic, better at buying technology than inventing it, able to destroy with skill but much less adept at building. Its main allure is that, for many people living under the thumb of regimes that are authoritarian, incompetent, and corrupt, Islamism seems to offer the only hope of a passably honest, passably efficient alternative.

Sure to be decried in some, more liberal sectors for its brutal honesty and look at the Islamic states' shortfalls, it is even more insightful in the realm of the theocrat's hopes for Western failure in the Middle East.

The jihadis filtering into Iraq perceive this even if some Americans do not. If the United States succeeds in proving that there is a liberal, moderate alternative to both the Baath Party and militant Islamism, the Islamists' false choice is exposed. The establishment of a reasonably competent, honest, and stable government in Iraq would be a staggering blow to the appeal of political Islam worldwide.

From the Islamists' point of view, this is a life-or-death struggle. America must fail in Iraq. Ideally, America should also fail to establish a competent, honest, stable Palestinian state, and a competent, honest, stable Afghan state. But Iraq is the big one. From the jihadis' point of view, a victory over America in Iraq -- meaning the Americans go home without having managed to set up a viable, moderate government -- would be a twofer. American prestige and power would be wounded, and the false choice between Islamism and corrupt secular tyranny would be confirmed. "You see?" the Islamists would say. "It really is just us or the devil. The Americans won't stay and can't win."

While the Guardian puts out articles talking about Bush exploring "exit strategies", Rauch realizes something (and I believe the Bush administration does as well) that the folks at the Guardian may never understand: the only possible exit for the West is in victory. There is no exit without the establishment of a new, fair, liberal, inclusive government.

Required reading.

Posted by zombyboy at September 7, 2003 07:26 PM | TrackBack