I'm always on the lookout for sharp new blogging talent, and Darren Kaplan's blog fits the bill. This guest article is timely in light of our recent discussions about Dialogue. It will become even more timely when you read Hungarian Ambassador Simonyi's excellent Guest Blog later this week!
The War of Ideas
by Darren Kaplan
Far too many well-informed and otherwise intelligent people have confused the "war of ideas" we are fighting in conjunction with the War on Terror with the question of whether or not the populations of Arab and Muslim countries have favorable opinions of the United States. Since survey after survey repeatedly shows that people in Arab and Muslim countries have exceedingly poor opinions of the United States, the corresponding but flawed assumption is that we must be losing the "war of ideas."
Case in point: this piece in Slate by Daniel Benjamin. Benjamin correctly identifies the problem:
bq. "Rumsfeld observes that we have no "metrics" for judging how well we are doing in the larger war on terror. Surely a key issue is whose ideas are gaining ground."
Benjamin goes on to describe the sermons and public statements of Muslim clerics, "delivering pronouncements that approach Osama Bin Laden's in spirit, depicting America as the head of world infidelity whose presence in Iraq justifies jihad," the popularity and frequency of which are surely indicative of the United States' relative success in the war of ideas.
But then Benjamin commits an all too common error:
bq. "Rumsfeld might also consider polling data, such as the June results from the Pew Global Attitudes Project, which shows majorities in seven of eight Muslim nations surveyed believing their countries are militarily threatened by the United States-again, much as Bin Laden argues."
The assumption is that we're losing the war of ideas because the majority in 7 of 8 predominantly Muslim countries feel threatened by the United States. The Pew Global Attitudes Project has some polling numbers that are far more revealing of Muslim antipathy toward the U.S. than the ones cited by Benjamin, but that's not important for our purposes - Benjamin's contention that large majorities of Muslims dislike and fear the U.S. is not subject to dispute.
Rather, what should be in dispute is Benjamin's assumption that because large majorities of Muslims dislike and fear the U.S., the U.S. must therefore be losing the war of ideas. Permit me to suggest that Benjamin's assumption is fatally flawed, and that the U.S. can and likely will have no choice but to win the war of ideas without winning the love and admiration of the Muslim world.
The War within the War
I'll concede that finding yardsticks for success in the war of ideas is an exceedingly difficult proposition. Still, gauging success or failure by asking people in some of the poorest and most powerless countries of the world what their feelings are toward the richest and most powerful country in history seems like a highly suspect methodology.
Anti-Americanism is a fact of life well beyond the Muslim world, and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. Much has already been written on that subject, to which I have nothing to add except that the objective fact of Muslim anti-Americanism does not necessarily doom the U.S. in the war of ideas it is fighting in the War on Terror. To the contrary, those who focus on the universally negative attitudes toward the United States and its policies held by Muslims as a "metric" of success in the war of ideas are putting the cart before the horse.
The war of ideas is not a global popularity contest with George W. Bush running against bin Laden for prom king. The war of ideas is an attempt to alter the fundamental thinking of the Muslim world (and particularly the Arab portion of the Muslim world) so that concepts antithetical to radical Islam (chiefly democracy, secularism and civil rights) become highly prized while those concepts from which radical Islam draws sustenance (chiefly "victimism," Islamic supremacy and jealousy of western success) become valueless. In the end, it would of course, be preferable if Muslims also loved the U.S., but that unlikely outcome is unnecessary in order to prevail in the war of ideas.
Instead, we should concentrate on how ideas antithetical to radical Islam are faring in the Arab and Muslim world.
Reports From the Front Lines
In that regard, the Pew Global Attitudes Project gives much reason for hope. Consider that the study also found that:
bq. "Despite soaring anti-Americanism and substantial support for Osama bin Laden, there is considerable appetite in the Muslim world for democratic freedoms. The broader, 44-nation survey shows that people in Muslim countries place a high value on freedom of expression, freedom of the press, multi-party systems and equal treatment under the law."
That's unquestionably a positive sign in the war of ideas against Islamism, which by definition refutes freedom of religion and expression, multi-party elections and equal treatment under the law. In those countries where Islamists have actually managed to fully secure the reigns of government, freedom of expression and the press, multi-party systems competing for real power and equal treatment of all are usually the first things to go. Those facts are self-evident even to Muslims. History also shows that Islamists have had little appeal in free societies that value freedom of speech, freedom of religion and multiparty elections. Islamists have only prevailed in societies where those values never took hold in the first place.
What the Pew Global Attitudes Project evidences is that the weapons we wield in the war of ideas are far more powerful than those of the Islamists. So powerful are those weapons in fact, that they likely transcend the antipathy with which Muslims hold the U.S. as the wielder. Accordingly, the connection between the successful penetration of pro-democracy and freedom ideals into the Muslim world and a positive view of the United States in that same Muslim world would seem to be tenuous at best.
It is even possible for the United States to prevail in the war of ideas and still be detested in Arab and Moslem countries. Indeed, so long as the United States remains at the apex of the world, that is, in fact, the most likely outcome of the war of ideas. Sadly, jealousy of the powerful is a prevailing force even in free societies. The difference is that victory in the war of ideas will ensure that such jealousy will be unlikely to result in violence and terrorism perpetrated against the U.S. and its citizens. Free societies are simply much less hospitable to violent movements even when that violence is directed at other countries. We do not, for example, fear attacks by Brazilian terrorists despite the fact that the Pew Global Attitudes Project indicates that the Brazilians have unfavorable attitudes towards the United States (only 34% favorable) in similar proportions to for example, Lebanese (only 27% favorable). (Pew Survey June 2003 p. 19)
The Lessons of History
The United States has already won a war of ideas at least once in the Muslim world, that's why we are no longer confronting a communist threat on top of the Islamist one we currently face in the Middle East. Nevertheless, our victory in that war of ideas did not result in an outpouring of love for the United States among Muslims. To the contrary, our victory over communist ideas actually resulted in an increase in loathing for the United States all over the world. (Apparently, nobody likes an uncontested champion.) Yet, our victory in the war of ideas against communism cannot be disputed.
Thus, when we consider which side is winning the war of ideas as a component of the War on Terror, care should be taken to divorce the appeal of the message from the appeal of the messenger. Were we selling cornflakes to the Muslim world, no doubt we would seek the most beloved spokesperson in the Muslim world as our pitchman. In contrast, the products the U.S. is "selling" to the Muslim world in the war of ideas—freedom, democracy, civil rights--thankfully sell themselves and do not demand that the U.S. be viewed with admiration or even grudging forbearance by Muslims in order for those ideas to prevail.
Other metrics will have to be devised in order to accurately measure America's current success or failure in the war of ideas.
Excellent post. I've said elsewhere that if the muslim world ends up no more hostile to US interests than France, we've won. The victory condition is draining the swamp, not building a golf course on top of it.
One of the smarter moves Bush made right after 9/11 was increasing the number of Peace Corps slots - actual contact with US citizens doing productive work to better people's lives is a powerful innoculant against support for violence against Americans.
Brilliant.
The war of ideas that the US is fighting is a war of ideas based on the American ideal, not the non-American ideal. Sure, we believe that democracy, secularism, and civil rights are the best way for us--but does this mean that every other country in the world must succumb to our belief system? I think not.
What this article and many others like it shows is that Americans are so arrogant they think their particular form of government can be exported around the world to countries and people with completely different value systems and cultures. This arrogance has gotten so ridiculously out of hand that our government now fights wars against non-state actors "because they hate us for our freedom."(GWB)
The irony is yes, these people do hate us for our freedom, why--not because we have a relatively free society but because our freedom is built on their backs. We demand a stable market for oil--the blood of our economy--and so we support dictator after dictator in the region. We destablize the region further by giving billions of dollars worth of weapons to those selected countries who we need at the moment.
Imagine this scenario: If a foreign nation had 20 or so bases scattered throughout the United States, supported a dictator who suppressed Americans to ensure a stable market for our goods, and also interferred in our relationships with our neighboring countries--how long would it take before Americans hated that foreign nation? Now imagine the look of pure incredibility you would give someeone from that country when they ask, "Why do you hate us?" This is what has been going on in the Middle East for decades.
Finally, the problem Americans have is they always seem to resort to a "war" instead of a "solution". The war on poverty, war on drugs, war on crime, and now the war on terror (with its sub-war of ideas). The symbolism of war does not work and in fact shows the lack of sophistication within American society to handle the reality of the problem. Using the "war of ideas" to discuss these problems only shows a complete swallowing of the current stream of propaganda.
You also mentioned in the article how the US had won the war against communism in the region and now no longer faced a double threat.
This is completely wrong. National Security Council documents from the 1940s and 1950s clearly state that while the public perception and marketing of the various problems with the Middle East would be stated within the communist vs. democracy contest--the truth was these "commuist" groups and movements were in reality nationalistic and ethnic. However, because the battle against communism was a greater importance and easier to sell to the American people, the nationalistic basis of these groups was never mentioned and in fact buried.
So the threat is actually the same. In fact the US faces the same dilemma it did at the start of the Cold War, how best to explain and market this war--it's apparent from Bush's ramblings that he has chosen the same path as previous American foreign policy. Only this time instead of labeling these groups "communist" they've simply changed the terminology to "terrorist".
Easy yardstick to show we are winning:
Given a choice would a muslim in any muslim country prefer to move to another muslim country or the US of A?
This war is on in part because the muslims are losing their children to the infidel.
Patrick: home front morale is more important than troop morale. Once in a fight troops will get a certain added determination just from taking casualties. The home front is where a long war will be won or lost.
Now over all I'd say the Cold War was worth it. The cost was high but in the end it destroyed the USSR and it's misery factory. There are a lot of people in the world grateful for what America has done.
This war, like the Cold War must be sold and sold well at it's beginning or we will never get to a successful end.
Our goal in the Cold War was to bring democracy to Eastern Europe and prevent the further expansion of National or International Communism. I'd say we exceeded our goal without global nuclear war. Not bad.
Now our goal is to bring democracy and liberty to the Middle East. A goal worthy of out talent no? It will be better for them and for us.
To summarize Kaplan, it appears that he would rather earn the respect of the Muslim world, not become their best friends, and I completely agree with that.
Uh, Patrick, you may think we're fighting non-state actors to convice them to assume our political system, but I'd suggest that we're fighting them because they keep killing our people, whether wholesale (9/11) or one at a time (Daniel Pearl).
If you can suggest a way to get them to stop doing that without restructuring their social and political systems, please let me know and I'll look at it quite seriously.
A.L.
This is very well put. After all, in the war for hearts and minds, we would be very happy to convert Middle Eastern attitudes into European ones, and, as we all know, the Europeans hate us.
Patrick,
Arrogance is what wins wars. It is why America has such a winning record. We also have a record of turning our enemies into our friends. Except for Vichy.
You might want to review the movie "The Mouse That Roared" for an insight into the American character. Compare what it means to be conquered by the Americans vs being conqured by the Russians.
Americans have a lot of arrogance. But we got it the old fashioned way. We earned it.
Gabriel,
I would prefer European hatred. Sure it is intense. What makes it different is that the Europeans will not go to war over it. Twice was enough.
Let us hope our muslim brothers are not so thick.
Patrick:
"we believe that democracy, secularism, and civil rights are the best way for us--but does this mean that every other country in the world must succumb to our belief system? I think not."
Then what belief system should they support? Communism, radical islam, the current corrupt governments they currently have. Help me out here. If your answer is that they should get to decide, then I would argue that you are in favor of democracy where the people decide who their leaders are and work together to define how the government should work. But, please tell me, what system is better then ours or at least just as good. I really want to know.
You are also contradicting yourself. You state that "Americans are so arrogant they think their particular form of government can be exported around the world to countries and people with completely different value systems and cultures." But, then you state that"these people do hate us for our freedom, why--not because we have a relatively free society but because our freedom is built on their backs." So, which is it? Do they "hate us" because democracy, secularism, and civil rights don't fit in with their completely different value systems and cultures. Or do they "hate us" because they really want democracy, secularism, and civil rights but feel that Americans have denied them access to it by supporting dictator after dictator. Do they reject our values or do they want them? You imply they do both simultaneously.
By the way, if you don't like the term "war on terror" then what do you want to call it? The "chessmatch with terror"? The "debate with terror"? The "everyone's a winner game of terror"? The "let's get together and discuss with the terrorists over a few beers and nachos"? I can't help but think that if I met a terrorist in a hallway somewhere, he would much rather slit my throat than engage in a debate over value systems, and I think of that as a war.
M. Simon,
Actually, I agree with you entirely and didn't intend my comment to be sarcastic: European "hatred" is qualitatively different and certainly less dangerous. Indeed, I would be happy if much of the violently anti-American (anti-Western) Muslim world shared a similar "hatred" for us.
Gabriel,
It is worse than that. Despite knowing your general position I thought you were being sarcastic.
Muy bad.
Simon
Great stuff.
How about the Human Rights war -- fighting for a free press, a press allowed to criticize politicians and policies?
Or, a War against Dictators? Of course, our dictator allies wouldn't like this, too much.
A World w/o Dictators. In my lifetime. Imagine?
A non-war solution to a non-state problem:
Here's basically what I believe the US is doing right now. They're fighting a war against something it is impossible to fight a war against.
To my reading, al-Quada is similiar to the Earth Liberation Front--an amorphous group without any centralized organization, without any leadership, and the sole requirement of membership is to commit an act supportive of the group's overall mission. The FBI has found it impossible to stop the ELF, simply because there is nothing to stop--individuals will simply slash the tires of an SUV, or burn a development and spray-paint the letters "ELF"--boom, that act of ecological terror is now blamed on the ELF.
Al-Quada has many of the same characteristics; no centralized leadership (bin laden is more of a terrorist foundation, giving grants to people with interesting ideas), no centralized organization (there may be some small-level organization, particularly around the fundraising), and numberous individuals around the world can join by simply attacking anything seen as a Western interest.
How does the US fight this? IN EXACTLY THE WRONG WAY. Instead of declaring these people terrorists and criminals and creating an international tribunal to find and prosecute these people--the US declares war on two different countries. What??? Terrorists do not rely on countries, they rely on ideas and disenchanted people to act upon those ideas. Bush's policies could be taken directly from the al-Quada handbook on how to increase recruitment--all he is doing with these reckless useless wars is increasing hatred and the numbers of people who will act upon that hatred.
Several people asked what me what name would I give the "war of ideas". The question isn't what name should we give this, the question is why do we need to have a name? Shouldn't this "war on terror" just be an expansion of the American criminal justice system? Instead of calling for yet another stupid silly "war" why not call it something new like "international law".
If we used an equitable fair international legal system to find and prosecute these people, bin laden would have been found long ago. But since Bush has painted this situation in the words of a crusade of good vs. evil, countries and people who would have helped find a criminal are now helping a freedom fighter.
Patrick:
You make a few erros in fact in your argument. First, Al-Qaida does have centralized leadership. Why do you think bin Laden's so important?
Second, you argue that declaring war on countries is not the right tactic. Well, we didn't declare war exactly on "countries" but rather on "regimes." The Taliban regime was closely tied to Al-Qaida, no one's ever questioned that. And Hussein's regime in Iraq funded terrorists. You yourself have pointed out the hypocrisy of not taking on Saudi Arabia for its terrorist support (a position most people on this site share). Isn't that also taking on another "country" as you define it?
Third, someone else already pointed out your double jeapordy w/ the issue of "hating us for our freedoms" argument. You argue that Arabs hate us because we are free. I'd add to that that it seems you think Arabs the most spiteful people on the planet if they hate use "because" of the freedoms we enjoy.
Fourth, you also argue that our freedom was built on "their backs." Since it's clear you mean the US, you are very wrong here. The US had no interest in the Middle East until well after the Second World War. Our riches weren't built on "their" backs.
Fifth, that argument implies that you assume economics is a zero-sum game. That's a position held over from mercantilism. Current economic theories dictate that wealth is "created". The world has more wealth today than ever before. It's not just a question of redistribution. If you think that's all it is, you're more than welcome to start redistributing your wealth. But don't ask me to redistribute mine.
Finally, you seem to argue against "our" system. I don't think anyone's trying to export the US Constitution and its very specific system to the world, Iraq included. We're trying to export the very values you base your argument from: democratic self-determination, free speech, free press, freedom of religion, etc. Current consensus on human rights dicatates that these (and other rights) are INALIENABLE.
That means that no one, no state and no community, can strip an individual of these rights. Got it? That means that we can't just say to the Arab world: if 50% +1 vote for a brutal dictatorship, that's OK. No. The other minorities (women, homosexuals, ethnic groups, religious & political dissidents) have rights, too. That's what we want to support in the Middle East. Why do you oppose that? Why do you critize that? What would you rather the world look like?
I for one am willing to fight wars against dictators. And, yes, that means death and other terrible things. But I won't sit by watch the brutality in the world from the comfort of Harvard yard and think well of myself for not having gotten my own hands dirty in the process.
Good points, Miguel. Here's my rebuttal to them.
1. al-Quada leadership--From the way various al-Quada operations have gone, the group doesn't appear to have a centralized structure like traditional terrorist organizations. Bin Laden is obviously some kind of leader, but I don't believe that taking him out would stop al-Quada in the least, unfortunately it would probably turn him into a martyr. To that end I view him as more of terrorist patron--the wealthy man with terrible ideas who's willing to support others in their fight.
2. War on countries vs war on regimes---Yes, you are right, not taking on the House of Saud for its obvious support of terrorism is a huge mistake. And yes, the Taliban was a supporter of al-Quada. But I do not believe fighting a war against either of those regimes will work in the long term. The only mechanism that can handle the problem of international terrorism is international law---not a war between various regimes or countries. A war never solves anything, it only creates a foundation for the next war.
3 and 4. Yes, I believe those people committing violent acts against Western interests in the Middle East do hate us for our freedoms. Perhaps freedoms is the wrong choice of word--maybe greed or manipulations or interference--would be a better choice. To many of these people (I'm only talking about the violent ones here) America has simply replaced the British who replaced the French who replaced the Ottomans, etc. Although America didn't really have much interest in the Middle East until after WWII, we have been the major power in the region for almost 50 years, creating countries inserting dictators and the like. And since America did not become a superpower until WWII, yes much of our riches have been built on their backs--they know it and believe it to be so.
5. Economics a zero-sum game---When a country establishes a dictator, then pays him off to remove the natural resources while leaving the country destitute, that is not capitalism--it is theft.
6. Exporting American values---There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution of our country that requires us to fight wars to free and liberate other nations. While you have a grand ideal of ridding the world of dictators, that is not the purpose of America. Bush and supporters of the Iraq war for "liberation purposes" have entirely missed the boat. It is not our job nor our responsibility as a country to be the exporter of American values throughout the world. People seem to have this mistaken idea that this is what we should be doing---FAR FROM IT. Not only is such a task impossible, it is short-sighted enough to forget all the other so-called wars that have been fought in the name of liberation. Wars like Vietnam, where we liberated millions by killing and poisoning them.
By the very nature of America being a nation-state, it cannot do the job so many "liberators" want it to do. Nation-states always have their own agenda, and those agendas always benefit the nation-state--NOT other nation-states. In fact, the only organization with the mandate and the responsibility of doing the "liberating" is the United Nations--because it is composed of all nation-states and has the best chance of rising above individual agendas to find the common good. (East Timor is a good example)
By cutting the UN out of the second war on Iraq, Bush revealed that he did not have the goal of liberation as his main rationale for war. He had the nation-state agenda of stopping the WMD from being built--the ONLY legal justification for war. It has only been after the illegal occupation started that this fictional liberation argument has risen as a cause for war.
Those who support the war have forgotten that wars are the easy path and the least successful. The hardest path, but the most successful, is building and using international organizations to solve international problems.
"A war never solves anything, it only creates a foundation for the next war."
This remains one of the dumbest aphorisms in existence, and the frequency of its repetition does not make it less dumb. One literally cannot have any understanding of history and still believe this.
Patrick, there's a guy named Hitler over here who agrees with you completely - and arguing from his own experience, believes the next major war with Naziism in Germany is just a matter of time.
Colour the rest of us skeptical.
And Mr. Tojo, we think you'll be looking for a while as you try to find the foundations of the next war between Japan and America. So sorry. To the Carthaginians, and American southern slaveowners in the audience, aren't you glad war never solves anything, and you can continue your existence in peace under the grand aegis of international law.
No, force never solved anything... except maybe slavery, European fascism, and communism.
Meanwhile, what's the record of "International Law?" The League of Nations, Rwanda, Halabja, The Holocaust, The Kulak Genocide. Yeah, real inspiring. I can see why you describe this as "the harder path," Patrick. Even war's horrors pale next to this dismal record.
Clue: we seek not the easy or the hard path, but the effective one. Sometimes, international organizations are the effective path - but that can't be an article of religious faith.
War and other forms of force are legitimate tools of statecraft. Diplomacy is a tool of statecraft too. Each tool has its uses, and also its limiting conditions. BOTH are required to justify themselves, as the above litany of atrocities fostered, condoned and protected by "international law" demonstrates conclusively.
If we grasp that and agree, we can have an interesting conversation about any specific situation. A conversartion that bases itself on an understanding of statecraft and human history, and human behaviour.
If that common ground is not there, rational conversation becomes impossible. It means one is talking to a religious zealot whose worldview is based on blind faith, rather than a pragmatic interlocutor (who may or may not have a religion). And that's a waste of everyone's time.
Which category would you choose be in?
There's a famous Edward Lansdale piece in Foreign Affairs (1964) called "Viet Nam: Do We Understand Revolution?"
His point was that the struggle was a political one, and that if we won the war, it would be because the Viet Cong was actually much closer to the concerns of the rural peasantry than the corrupt and elitist Saigon regime. The war would be won by taking our own capitalist/democratic revolution to the hamlets, not by bombing the North into submission.
The comparison isn't perfect, but in a sense, we're trying to present a revolution in the Arab world against a powerful (if deeply flawed) set of ideas, Islamism.
To win this battle for "hearts and minds" will take deep understanding of why Islamism has such appeal, noticing the small and subtle material ways in which it is advanced, and reacting accordingly.
Yup, that's going to be part of it. Which is why Bernard Lewis is a national treasure.
"To win this battle for "hearts and minds" will take deep understanding of why Islamism has such appeal, noticing the small and subtle material ways in which it is advanced, and reacting accordingly."
The catch: the conclusions may not be the ones liberals expect. They may add strength to one's beliefs, or they may not. That's the risk when one walks this particular path.
For instanced, part of the reason for that appeal may be cultures that value strength and force above other ideals, and who therefore refuse to respect those who cannot and will not weild same strongly. Or it may involve a form of "the madness of crowds" - and history is not encouraging re: mankind's ability to derail such phenomena without removing many of the agents of its spread (i.e. war, and mass casualties).
If these conclusions are supported by the evidence, then frequent application of military force, or even massive application of military force, may become legitimate aspects of "reacting accordingly" until a general understanding takes hold throughout the Muslim world that (a) Westerners are dangerous prey, and (b) that Islamism is a path to misery that lacks the mandate of heaven.
The conclusions may not be what the Right expects, either, of course. In fact, they probably won't be. But since I'm talking to you, I wanted to use some examples from your ballpark re: how an honest assessment may yield uncomfortable conclusions re: what is necessary.
Joe, haven't we tried the Ataturk approach already, if that's what you're suggesting? I mean, Saddam Hussein saw himself as a reformer, and it seems to have backfired...
I'm not suggesting any specific approach, but I am suggesting an openness to following where the evidence may lead, even if it contradicts our prejudices or taboos.
Undcerstanding is so often seen as an alternative to military action - in fact, if done honestly, it may demand that action instead. Think of them as a dyad (Athena) rather than 2 separate entities (Apollo vs. Ares)
RE: Attaturk. That approach seems to have worked reasonaly well in Turkey, and with so few examples of decent government in the Isdlamic world, it often becomes a prominent feature in debates. The Attaturk approach seems to require some historically-specific factors, however, and I'm not sure how transplantable it is. The best we can probably do is note what those factors are, and try not to get in the way of those developments too much if we see them again elsewhere.
Here's another one of those situations where you and I seem to be in complete agreement...I was clumsily wondering aloud at the failure to export the Attaturk model, seeing as how that has been our approach to Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia for some time now. And of course force will sometimes be necessary, and we should be clear about that.
But what I was really thinking about when I brought up Lansdale was the idea that it's the local application of our ideals that will ultimately define our success. I think that these local councils and how we interact with them is much more important than our dealings with the IGC. Are they getting enough attention? I don't know.
The hard part about the local councils is that the Shia are very suspicious that we're trying to shut them out, and it sounds like that is indeed our policy.
On the one hand, shutting the Shias out may prevent them taking over due to superior organization. On the other hand, they aren't our enemy yet, and shutting them out may make that outcome a certainty.
one more thought re: Attaturk-
Perhaps a great leader needs to come along who isn't secular and hostile to Islam a la Attaturk, but can articulate a reconciliation of Islam and modernity. I would think that such a person would have to come from within the clergy itself.
Patrick:
You make one fundamentally fatal error in the moral premises for your argument. You adopt two mutually contradictory premises.
On the one hand, you base your entire argument on the supposition that we ARE responsible for the rights of others (either negativeily, when we exploit them, or positively, when we encourage human rights). Since I know that you support unviversal conceptions of human rights (not to mention international law), I know that your moral premise from that position is that we are responsible to help make the world a better, safer, nicer place.
On the other hand, you argue that it's not the duty of the US (or, presumably, any other nation/group) to try to make the world "safe for democracy" or advance our values (the very same values held in Premise 1).
So. Which is it? Is it our duty to make the world a better place? Or is it not? You can't hold on to both premises. You can't be a human rights internationalist and still hold on to ideas of national isolationism. You have to choose one or the other. You can frame an argument along either premise, but not both.
Finally, I do think the US Constitution -- and especially the Declaration of Independence -- gives the US that role. After all, "we hold these truths to be self-evident that ALL men are created equal ..." The US Constitution endorses a set of rights and principles for governmtal legitimacy that are NOT reserved only for American citizens, we state that they hold for all others as well.
Miguel,
Let me try to clarify.
Responsiblity for Human Rights---You are right I do believe that America (or any country) is responsible for human rights. You stated my moral premise on this point almost perfectly, with one small change that becomes huge in situations like Iraq. I believe we ARE ALL responsible to make the world a better, safer, nicer place.
Duty of the US--This small change directly relates to the second point on the duty of the US. What I am arguing is that it is not the sole responsiblity of the US to make the world safe--in fact having the US act in such a manner is very destabilizing the rest of the world. But having international organizations work on global human rights actually makes America's job easier, because the work is split up amongst many nations instead up just one superpower.
These international organizations could handle the dirty work of creating legitimate governments. They would then be supported financially and logistically by various nation-states--who are able to "outsource" their responsibility for human rights onto these global organizations. The region/country being helped then has the reassurance of knowing the international community is rebuilding their country--not wondering if America is stealing their natural resources.
NATO is a good example of a global organization that has grown in a way comensurate with the needs of today. As you know, NATO used to be strictly a European treaty for protection from the Soviets. But as the Soviets have disappeared (or maybe not according to Dean) NATO now has a focus similar to what I'm talking about. NATO now has become an outsourcing security company capable of stablizing a country or region--without the appearance of direct involvement by a particular nation-state. Of course NATO acting by itself also presents a problem of appearing as a strictly "western" organization--NATO actions "out of region" would probably have to mandated by the UN, or something like the UN. Another problem is NATO is a strictly military organization, what I think is needed for al-Quada is something like a tremondously expanded Interpol supported by an International Criminal Court. Then terrorists, who are criminals not warriors, can be handeled legally instead of criminally. Of course, short-sighted people in the Congress have already passed silly legislation against such a international justice system, so that option is severely restricted.
So, the short answer is this: Every country is responsible for human rights, but the most effective long term means to satisfy this human rights responsibility is through international organizations, not through individual nation-state actions. Remember, Hitler invaded Czechoslavkia to "liberate" the Sudenland Germans--anytime a nation-state talks about "liberating" I look for the real reason.
Your final belief on the US Constitution holding all men equal is unfortunately not held by the people running our government.
How then to explain Jose Padilla (an American citizen), held for about a year in a military prison without access to an attorney, without being charged, or being produced before a court. Not very equal there.
How then to explain those 600+ men held in Guantanimo Bay without access to an attorney, without being charged, being held in sub-standard prison camp conditions, without Americans even knowing their names or exactly how many POWs there are. Those men don't appear to be treated "equally".
How about the thousands of men of Arab descent who have been discriminated against in the past two years, by "voluntary" interviews with the FBI (anytime the FBI wants to talk to you it's not voluntary), by fingerprinting and searching without search warrants, by being put onto to useless watch lists. If someone looks like they're from the Middle East, their "equality" is severely restrained.
Patrick:
OK, so you've taken the position of internationalist intervention, but added that it must be done w/ international cosensus. Of course, this opens you up to the problem of wondering whether an action has to be "internationally popular" for it to be mora/ethical. Again, let's look at the reasons behind French & Russian opposition to the war.
Secondly, you open yourself up to poor examples from history. You mention the Czech example. This was a clear example of internationalist failure. Germany was allowed to invade Czechoslovakia after an international conference of great powers, who told the Czechs to let Germany take the Sudetenland. I hope this isn't the case of internationalism you seek. We could also look at the example of Italy's invasion of Ethiopia, where the international community did nothing. Or the Spanish Civil War. And that's only looking at one decade!
You also mentioned NATO and its successes. I'd ask you to look at the messes made by internationalist interventions in Kosovo or Rwanda and tell me if this is necessarily the "best" way to approach problems.
The problem w/ arguments based on MORAL premises is that they depend on MORAL argumets and actions made by MORAL agents. This means that I'm allowed to act according to my moral conscience (and here's the kicker) even if the whole world opposes me. After all, slavery's bad not because it's unpopular, but because it's immoral. If the world were to decide that slavery were made legal, wouldn't I have every right to fight against it?
Again, check your premises.
Patrick:
Also, your solution is extremely idealistic. I'd be great if international law & its organisms had that force (Interpol, courts, etc). They don't. So. What do you suggest we do in the meantime? You can't solve real political problems w/ hypothetical solutions in a more-perfect world. You have to act. And you have to act now. Or millions of people could die. So. What do you do? The problem w/ statesmanship is that it calls for TOUGH decisions like that one. What do you do? You have limited time to act.