U.S. diplomacy lacks moral imperative in war of ideas with al-Qaeda

November 15, 1:58 AMGeopolitics ExaminerMichael Hughes

Previous Next

2 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Geopolitics Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

  U.S. public diplomacy has not appealed to the Muslim faithful

The U.S. is not losing the battle of perception against al-Qaeda in the Muslim world purely because they see America as a Godless society. Due to a systematic failure in public diplomacy, Muslims also see the U.S. lacking any foundational moral code whatsoever – divine, Kantian or otherwise.

In his article in The Journal of International Security Affairs, former director of Voice of America Robert R. Reilly asserts that the persistent focus on image over content in diplomatic policy since the end of the Cold War has yielded nugatory policies that inhibit our ability to effectively promote American values. I tend to agree because the United States always seems to want to constantly communicate “how we look” to the world as opposed to telling them “who we are.”

What does America stand for? The Britney Spears effect
The solution is selling the justice of the U.S. mission as superior to that of Osama bin Laden’s cause, who has, believe it or not, claimed the high ground in his public relations war against the West. Instead, the U.S. is piping Britney Spears pop songs into the Middle East because we want to sell our culture of prosperity and happiness. Mr. Reilly references British author Frank Furedi who adeptly describes a deeper problem, that being "the lack of clarity about what the West stands for”:

For a brief moment, many observers believed that 9/11 would represent a rallying point and provide the West with a sense of mission. However, in the absence of a coherent system of meaning, the West struggles to promote its own values; instead, it relies on tawdry advertising and marketing... This focus on improving ‘the image’ indicated that the U.S. was not prepared to engage in a serious battle of ideas.

America’s inclination towards advertising and branding to promote everything - including our value system - has done near irreparable damage.  Advertising is based on successfully preying on the passions and emotions of its target. However, exploiting impulse will not work in winning over an audience that is devoutly passionate about faith, such as those who fervently adhere to Islam.  Reilly superbly captures the utter inadequacy of this tact:

People animated principally by religion are not going to be “diverted” by entertainment, sports or music technology because they are primarily interested in saving their souls. No one animated by moral concerns is likely to be diverted by amoral ones. Islamism is fueled by a sense of moral outrage that is widely shared in the Muslim world. Music will not soothe this savage beast. Islamist recruits are inspired by theological hope, perverted as it may be. Without a replacement for this hope, they will not be diverted. In fact, they are more likely to be infuriated by the condescension implicit in the attempt to divert them. Certainly, they will not be driven to respect the source of the diversion.

Defining American Purpose & Justice
The author goes on to say that the way Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and John Paul II explictly stated Western values, saying that they “spoke unequivocally about the inviolability of each human being, endowed by God with inalienable rights”.  This unyielding expression of faith in the natural law of equality was part of the reason that democracy overcame communism. The West won the war of ideas because their actions were guided by purpose - a purpose grounded in justice.

Without placing American actions in the context of purpose and relating it to justice, the world has interpreted the U.S. as acting purely in raw self-interest, motivated by money and power – and not a greater good or a higher cause. Muslims have judged our actions as exploitative.  They have not seen good intentions when they look into the eyes of Americans, but they have seen dollar signs and oil rigs as a result of the shallow lens that we have provided.

In World War II the world backed the ideology of the Allied powers because it was pitted against the nefarious Nazi ideology that was based on racial superiority and world conquest. Not only that, but our actions were aligned with our proposed objectives of fighting for human equality. More importantly, because of the way we seriously espoused our beliefs, we were able to explain our deeds in just terms.

Now, our inability to explicitly communicate our true values and our inability to effectively contrast our just actions with those of our extremist enemies, the impression is left that Western society is based on moral relativism as opposed to moral certitude. Thus, America’s sense of right and wrong seems situational, based on whatever best meets the “national interest” rather than making decisions in pursuit of a universal good.

How to win the war
Islam, like Christianity and Judaism, is a religion that professes a moral life shall lead to everlasting peace in the Kingdom of God. Islamism is not Islam. And the Western nations need to uncover the Islamist ruse, this perversion of religious teachings to meet their political goals. To defeat this extremist doctrine in the guise of faith, Reilly advocates a three step process: (1) reestablish moral legitimacy, (2) understand the nature of the enemy, and (3) undermine its claim to moral legitimacy. Reilly points out the consequences of not doing so:

As M. Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, has warned, “Unless the President can articulate the harm of the Islamist movement distinct from the ability of Muslims to practice their faith of Islam in freedom, he cannot make any progress in this war.” There is a great hesitancy in doing exactly this because of the sensitivity of dealing with what is thought to be a religion. The consequence of this reluctance has been to give al-Qaeda, in the words of Robert Andrews, “a theological safe haven.”

The author writes that the U.S. must do this by clearly calling Islamism what it is: a totalitarian ideology that is actually the antithesis of the Islamic faith, and vilely perverts the religion’s teachings:

Islamism, on the other hand, is an ideology in the classical sense of the word. It insists upon an alternative “reality”—one that collapses the separate realms of the divine and the human, and arrogates to itself the means for achieving perfect justice here in this world. It insists that reality conform to its demands, and its adherents live under its particular reality and obey its laws.

Muslims do not mind democracy but, as Reilly puts it: “they do not want to live in a democratic atmosphere at the expense of their beliefs and convictions.” By clearly defining our moral cause and the tyrannical nature of a pseudo-religion, America has a fighting chance of winning the hearts and minds of Muslims.  But the objective shouldn't be getting Muslims to fall in love with freedom and democracy.  However, at a minimum, our mission should be getting the Islamic flock to despise Islamism.

Related Articles: