The Ideological War with Islamofacism

Share this
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Islamofascism is an idea, and ideas need to be fought on the battleground of ideology.

A major complication the U.S. has faced since the beginning of the War on Terror over a decade ago is the fact that while our vast military superiority can destroy every terrorist training compound, arms cache, and even individual leaders, it cannot destroy the source of the problem, that is, the ideas associated with radical Islam.

These ideas are very much like a cancer: If one cell is allowed to multiply, it can continue to spread indefinitely. The ideas of radical Islam can continue to multiply even after all of their hard assets are left in ruin.

The radical jihadists of today cannot counter our fighter squadrons, they cannot challenge our aircraft carrier groups, and they will likely never outmaneuver an entire Army Brigade Combat Team, but what they lack in hard power, they make up for on the battleground of ideas.

On the ideological front, these radicals are a more than capable adversary. For example, the Islamic State has a highly effective propaganda machine which has allowed them to attract thousands of foreign nationals to their ranks and secure support from like-minded individuals across the globe.

Groups dedicated to radical Islamofascism may go by many names, but they generally are united in their goal: the dominance of their twisted interpretation of Islam, be it internationally, locally, or regionally by any means necessary. In this regard, the Islamic State in particular is very much the arbiter of Islamofascism.

Of the few victims that the Islamic State has not slaughtered, they have demanded conversion or a tax (known as a jizya), making them dhimmi, a term from the historical caliphates of antiquity applied to what are essentially second-class citizens.

Their brazen tactics and uniform totalitarian ideology are enough to make Mussolini himself blush. Islamofascists simply replace the ultranationalism of traditional fascism with radical religious zealotry.

The tactics, though, are almost identical: the utilization of political violence against those seen as weak, authoritarian politics, and imperialism are hallmarks of the Islamic State and Islamofascists in general. Of course, there are the politically correct nay-sayers like economist and part-time pundit Paul Krugman who argue that Islamofascism is nothing more than a “propaganda term” used to support the War on Terror.

But what the dear professor (any many like him) has missed while making his rounds on the major news outlets, flashing his Nobel Prize calling card, and feeling it necessary to comment on everything from Israeli policy to gun control, is that the Islamic State’s actions are what brought this parallel into being, not some contrived propaganda machine. The late journalist and self-described socialist Christopher Hitchens utilized the term; if Krugman’s imagined conservative propaganda machine somehow converted him during his lifetime it would have been nothing short of a miracle.

The Western democratic world is ideologically divided. Instead of uniting against an existential threat, Western democracies are busy bickering amongst themselves over trivial nuances. Aside from international leaders quarreling with one another about the particulars of what should or should not be done, we in the U.S. also have politics taking precedence over policy in regard to national security; a first in our relatively short history.

We have bought into political correctness and the idea of moral equivalence so much so that we are convincing ourselves that the pervasive threat posed by radical Islamofascism is not existentially dangerous and that terrorists can be reasoned with.

I can’t speak for our world leaders, but where I grew up in small town North Carolina, if an armed man (much less thousands of them) makes it perfectly clear that he wants to kill you, you tend to take them seriously and respond accordingly.

In some great feat of misguided mental gymnastics, many Western leaders have convinced themselves that when faced with videos of beheadings, the mass murder of minority groups, and dozens of videos proclaiming a desire to destroy the West, that these people are not a pervasive, existential threat.

The leaders of the Islamic State must be particularly frustrated. Even when their brutal tactics are so abhorrent that they are literally disavowed by Al Qaeda, the West still responds only half-heartedly. I imagine they are as baffled by our collective lack of recognition as I am.

“Half-hearted” is a perfectly accurate description of our response thus far. Only after remarkable atrocities and public outcry did President Barack Obama see it fit to begin aiding our Kurdish friends via airstrikes. As per usual though, the president made sure to qualify his belated response assuring the public that no boots would be on the ground. Talking points, it would seem, now influence policy as much as they do political campaigns.

The Islamic State will probably be bombed into oblivion, or at least temporarily crippled, but what will happen then?

Perhaps the greatest weakness the West faces when confronting groups like the Islamic State is our short term strategic mentality. We tend to formulate policy around election cycles while radical jihadists formulate it around generations. This is why they are gaining ground on the battleground of ideology; they are generationally committed decades from now, while our leadership is more concerned with midterm elections.

The Arabic word Jihad literally translates to “struggle,” and the ability of Islamic radical groups to persist in their struggle is their grand strategy. Persistence, for them, is the key to victory.

While the battlefield of ideology seems uncertain, there is a silver lining. In addition to our kinetic weapons being superior to our adversary, so too are our ideological ones.

The shared Western beliefs of democracy, the rule of law, religious tolerance, and freedom of speech are superior to the fascism, violence, and the glamorization of wanton death utilized by groups like the Islamic State. Western leaders, and the public in general, need to realize the power, importance, and superiority of our ideological weapons. Life, liberty, and happiness will always be preferable to the death, totalitarianism, and misery of our adversaries.

The Western world, and the U.S. in particular, needs to realize that it is ok to be proud of our ideals, and in turn protect them. For far too long we have allowed our good graces to get the better of us; we have essentially become apologetic in practicing and defending our beliefs.

Instead of uniting together against a common enemy, Western leaders try and put our adversaries on a morally equivalent plane and explain away their actions. Just because we in the West believe in everyone’s right to their opinion, it does not mean that everyone’s opinion is right.

Thankfully, the Islamic State is slowly but surely becoming universally condemned by political and religious leaders alike. That said, the Islamic State is currently only the most violent and provocative iteration of a much larger problem we face against radical Islamofascism. Boko Haram, Hamas, Ansar al-Sharia; the list goes on and the numbers are many, but at the end of the day these groups and the iterations of them to follow are part of the larger radical Islamofascist problem.

There is no doubt that in the short term these radical jihadist groups need to be defeated on the traditional battlefield, but unless we are united and determined in our ideology, they will simply spring back up like a weed.

The Western world needs to determine a new narrative, a determination of what is acceptable and what is not. Until we have a united philosophical doctrine, our tactical engagements in the Middle East are the equivalent of a band aid on a gunshot wound.

Ideas can only be defeated with better ideas, and until we begin to properly acknowledge that ours are indeed better compared to those of the radical Islamofascists like the Islamic State, they will continue to persist.

Originally published at The Blaze


Share this

About the Author

The Endowment for Middle East Truth
Founded in 2005, The Endowment for Middle East Truth (EMET) is a Washington, D.C. based think tank and policy center with an unabashedly pro-America and pro-Israel stance. EMET (which means truth in Hebrew) prides itself on challenging the falsehoods and misrepresentations that abound in U.S. Middle East policy.

Invest in the truth

Help us work to ensure that our policymakers and the public receive the EMET- the Truth.

Take Action

.single-author,.author-section, .related-topics,.next-previous { display:none; }