I’ve found it interesting to listen to the Presidential candidates with their solutions for dealing with the war, broadly speaking. We hear lots of solutions, but few make any attempt to identify the nature of the problem. Yet it strikes me that there are stark differences in belief as to what the nature of the problem is. If you elucidate the problem, then the solution flows naturally. If you just talk about solutions, then you’re really debating past each other because you have no common basis from which to start.

So far I can count 4 different evaluations of the nature of the problem in the Islamic world. Each of these leads to a different solution, a solution which is obvious if you agree that the problem is what it is:

1. No Problem: This is the belief that Islamic terrorists are goofy and not a threat at all. This is essentially the John Edwards position on the matter. The solution is to then extricate ourselves from the mess in Iraq, and simply let the police do their jobs in stopping would be ne’er-do-wells.
   
2. It’s Something We Did: This is the belief that Muslims are angry at us because of things we have collectively done in our past. Whether it be aiding Saudi Arabia in Iraq or selling arms to Israel or past European colonialism, Muslims are aggrieved due to our past sins. This is essentially the Ron Paul position, and also the politically correct position. Again, the solution here is to withdraw from Iraq and to make amends for past wrongs. If we cease to meddle in Arab affairs and sufficiently prostrate ourselves for our past sins, they will leave us alone, and we can all get along.

   A variant of this argument is that they hate us because they’re poor. Typically, this is accompanied by a Marxist notion that we’ve somehow exploited them to become rich ourselves. This argument breaks down easily, when we see so many terrorists coming form the middle class and from countries flush with petrol dollars. Nevertheless, it is worth mentioning.

3. They Are Organizationally Motivated: This is the organized crime theory of Al Qaeda. In an organized crime syndicate, individual members are motivated by the allure of riches, but also by the rigid strictures of the organization. Becoming a member grants them status. And it also makes them effective in committing their crimes (or acts of terror). But if you bust the syndicate, the old members do not reconvene, or remain loyal necessarily, because they were only ever out adventuring, not out to change the world or anything. So typically they scatter, reducing their effectiveness by orders of magnitude if they even choose to continue doing crime or plotting terror. Organized crime requires the FBI to bust it. A local thug can be easily arrested by a local cop.

   This is essentially the theory posited by most of the Presidential candidates, and of President Bush himself. It is why they all agreed to go after Afghanistan. And it is why some of them wanted to go after Iraq, because they were thought to possess weapons which would increase the effectiveness of the organization.

   Current differences in opinion among those in this school relate to differences in understanding the organizations that face us. Bush believes that Iran could become hegemonic in the region, and therefore supplies arms to Saudi Arabia to counter. Obama says the organization is re-grouping in Waziristan, and so we need to leave Iraq and deploy troops there. But at root, each are attempting to go after the organization that conducts the terror. In that vein, do not be surprised to see Bush attack plastic explosives factories in Iran, factories which supply suicide bombers and IED manufacturers world wide.

   It’s like the drug war. Destroy the fields and you destroy the drugs.

4. They Are Ideologically Motivated: This point of view, one which I have not seen explicitly argued by any of the major candidates (though Giuliani seems to come close) is that the terrorists believe they are on a mission from God, to borrow a phrase from the Blues Brothers. Any organization which is useful to them in re-establishing the caliphate they will use. And as soon as one becomes busted, they will join another.

   According to this view, the only way to stop them is to stop the indoctrination. Yes, you need to go after the immediate threats like training cams in Afghanistan, and we did. But what you really have to do is stop the funding of madrassas which inculcate each new generation with their sense of purpose, and in its place spread your own gospel of the enlightenment. According to this view then, because most of these madrassas are being funded with Saudi dollars to propagate a Saudi/Wahabbist form of Islam, you need to separate the Saudis from their oil money and actively seek out and shut down Wahabbist madrassas around the world, putting your own madrassas in their place, madrassas that teach an enlightened and and modern form of Islam. According to this theory, in twenty years or so, the terrorist movement will dry up, and we can all get on with modernity.

   A corollary to this is that Iran needs to be dealt with as well, though the problem there is not nearly so severe. Iran and Saudi Arabia are opposites, the former being run by an evil theocracy hell bent on destroying the west, but populated by a moderate, western loving people who will quickly join the modern world if given a chance. Saudi Arabia is the opposite, a country run by a moderate monarchy who is friendly with the United States, populated by rabid religious nuts who use their private money to fund jihad around the globe. Iran needs to have a revolution from within, helped along by the United States to the extent that we can. Saudi Arabia needs to be shut down in its entirety. At a minimum, we need to take away all their oil, and forcibly shut down all their Wahabbist institutions.

Obviously, I subscribe to #4. But my main point is that unless you first delineate the problem, and then describe how your solution fits the problem, you’re not going to have much of a meaningful debate. And so far, outside a brief exchange between Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani, we haven’t.

This entry was posted on Friday, August 3rd, 2007 at 9:37 am and is filed under News & Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.