By Patricia H. Kushlis
As anyone who knows me realizes, I have never been a fan of the Bush administration's misnamed "war on terror." For the record, I am likewise no fan of the "war of ideas." In fact, the administration's overuse of military jargon as an excuse through which to approach the world makes me ill. Not only is it wrong, but it's also a fantastic way to create enemies who never previously existed. Just brand their views as ideas that we need to eradicate: that'll do it.
If we're lucky, the responses might rate the hurling of relatively innocuous shoes over overly fortified American Embassy walls. If not, the reactions could be far worse.
John Brown in his post "Thoughts on the 'War of Ideas'"also questions the appropriateness of the phrase. So does Donna Oglesby in a comment on Matt Armstrong's post in which he advocates James Glassman's continuation as Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy until a new Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy is confirmed - but after W's administration has finally limped out the exit.
Meanwhile, I'm not entirely sure what and whose ideas Glassman wants to wage war upon.
Presumably he's talking about militant Islam although he does not say so explicitly. But is ideological warfare painted with a broad brush the best way to deal with a richly endowed band of anti-American terrorists headquartered somewhere in the Pakistani hinterlands? I doubt it. Hasn't worked over the past six years so what's to say a US government sponsored Internet campaign will change things now. Besides, anti-American terrorism does not just come from radical Islamic groups. Terrorism is foremost a weapon of the weak against the strong. I'm sure you've heard that one before. Besides, in my experience, it's true.
In addition, seems to me the "war of ideas" to which Glassman has hitched his star should be viewed primarily as a struggle between moderates and radicals within Islam- not as a war between Islam and the West. At least that's what the specialists on political Islam have repeatedly said. And if this is the case, then the American government's goal should be to help - not hinder - the efforts of the moderates to succeed in their struggle for the hearts and minds of Muslims as they strive to modernize Islam.
Warfare via Internet
Moreover, I have another objection to Glassman's approach to fighting the "war of ideas" and this is a very practical one. From what I understand, the "war of ideas" is being waged almost exclusively, if not entirely, via the Internet. Has anyone asked the question what percentage of the Muslim population in places like Pakistan and Afghanistan for instance - or even Turkey or Indonesia - have regular Internet access, let alone are regular Internet users?
I'm going to bet that the numbers are small - at least in comparison with the 1.1 billion or more Muslims worldwide. So how does the US government reach the 99% or more who are not militants - providing this is the "war of ideas" being waged? Sure, I know that militant Islamists have used and continue to use the Internet to connect with one another and that the most likely Internet users are young men. An aside: The ones I saw in Internet Cafes in Turkey in 2006 were all playing games: Dungeons and Dragons by far the most popular.
But to base an American government information campaign - I'm not even sure I'd call it public diplomacy - on the Internet alone and to do it through one of the most neglected, poorly funded and understaffed State Department Bureaus (IIP) makes no sense to me.
Preventive public diplomacy
Shouldn't this country's goal be foremost preventive - e.g. dissuading Muslims from becoming radicalized in the first place? And if so, shouldn't the US be trying to reach non-radicalized Muslims through means to which they have greater access like books, periodicals, radio and even satellite television as well as the Internet? How about helping to build schools run by secularists and train teachers so that Muslim youth are not forced to attend madrassas too easily subverted by radical Imams if they want any kind of education at all.
If most of America's Cultural and Information Centers had not been destroyed through lack of funding and neglect in the years after the Cold War, such Centers run by Americans (and I don't mean American Corners without Americans tucked away in someone else's libraries) could at least be used as bases to reach them.
That is if the US government still had vibrant book translation programs, robust periodical collections, knowledgeable staff and 24/7 radio and television broadcasting that could and does reach people in various corners of the globe through their own languages.
But this means not only radically changing the message on Day One of the Obama administration but also fundamentally changing the way in which the US conducts its public diplomacy and delivers its foreign aid. Can and will this happen under an Obama administration and through a Clinton State Department? One can only hope.