As a result, Islamists are fighting a two-pronged conflict. On the one hand, they have initiated a wide-reaching war against US interests and allies which includes not only direct combat against US military forces, but also attacks like those of 9/11 that target Americans and other Western civilians. Second, in the Middle East the Islamists view the acceptance of a corrupt, godless, immoral system by the civilian populace as being responsible for the Western system’s spread. Consequently Islamists are engaged in a comprehensive battle for hearts and minds.”
If this critique sounds familiar, it is. Essentially it is the analytical argument once raised by revisionist historians like Walter LaFeber and Lloyd Gardner back in the 1970’s and 1980’s in support of 3rd world Marxist guerilla movements. Except this version of the argument has authors that- correctly in my view – favor capitalist globalization and oppose the attempt by Salafist terrorists to stop it. The authors turn the moral argument of the New Left revisionists on its head while accepting major parts of the economic analysis. From that point they proceed to argue that moving the tactical conflict on terror in the direction of Huntington’s thesis, so that Muslims begin to perceive a clash of civilizations, plays to al Qaida’s strategic strengths. 4th Generation warfare theory is not invoked at this point but it could easily have been.
The article is a good example of synthesis and if the authors do not exactly propose anything strikingly new they do weave an effective meta-analysis using a preexisting but current set of powerful themes.
Page 2 of 2 | Previous page
Anonymous:
September 19th, 2005 at 2:25 pm
I fail to see how a “clash of civilizations” is any different than globalization vs. Islam. The West in general and the U.S. specifically is seen as the agent (and beneficiary) of globalization. The end result is the same. The “beauty” (if I can use that word here) of bin Laden’s attack was that he transformed what was a civil war into an “us vs. them.” This makes it much easier for him to rally the troops.
Barnabus
TM Lutas:
September 23rd, 2005 at 12:11 pm
I can’t agree with the article, starting with the tile. What is being missed is that this is a multi-dimensional problem. Certain aspects of this *are* a clash of civilizations. Properly understood these levels of conflict are mystical, religious, and moral.
The problem of bin Laden is that he takes these elements and moves that paradigm from where they should be to where they shouldn’t be, the realm of economics and politics. He launches aggressive war and misuses the battlefield. Both Core and Gap and Clash of Civilizations work as theories. The great mish-mash is in misapplying the CoC, something that this article furthers, and does not retard.