The Paradise of the Infidels

[kiaer.ts]

Robert Tracinski is distributing his TIA Daily freely to all new and past subscribers until the election. This is a particularly good article

The Paradise of the Infidels

Why We Can Win, Part 3

by Robert Tracinski

Editor's Note:

The article below is the conclusion of a three-part series—but the first two parts were published a year ago. (Part 3 was pre-empted last August by a little argument we all had over health-care legislation.)The main title of the series is "Why We Can Win."

Part 1

and

Part 2

—follow the links to read them—were published when there was important new evidence of the weakness and collapse of the jihadist creed, particularly in Iran and also to some extent in Pakistan. The situation in Iran has remained unfortunately static since then; the regime has not regained its moral legitimacy or the support of the population, but it has still managed to suppress outright revolution. The situation in Pakistan is static or perhaps a bit worse. At the time, the Pakistani military was actively moving to reverse Taliban gains; now, anticipating an American withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Pakistani government seems to be hedging its bets and once against contemplating an accommodation with the Taliban.

Part 2 of the series dealt with the part of the topic that was mostly timely then: the fundamental weakness of Islamism that repels decent people and causes the eventual rejection of the Islamist creed wherever it is implemented. The installment below deals with our strengths, the positive values that America has to offer. That is the part of the topic that is most timely now, because it is central to the doctrine of counter-insurgency which is now on trial in Afghanistan.

I intended the article below to be the August 9 edition of TIA Daily, but as I was writing it, it got a little out of control—which sometimes happens. So I'm putting it out as a combined edition for August 9 and 10. I'll get back to covering current news on Wednesday.—RWT

We have now understood the weakness that makes our enemies vulnerable to collapse. But we also need to understand our vital strengths, particularly the positive values we have to offer and which we use to lure away the loyalty of the enemy's population.

If the weakness of our enemies is the contrast between their claims to morality and the vicious brutality of their system, our greatest strength is the actual benevolence of our system, which contrasts to all of the lies told about us in the enemy's propaganda.

We just got a very timely reminder of this, with the latest cover of TIME Magazine. I must warn you that the image is disturbing—but necessary to see. It is the disfigured face of a young Afghan woman whose ears and nose were cut off by the Taliban as a typically brutal punishment for some minor infraction. The accompanying article is a realistic projection of what would happen to the Afghan people—particularly to Afghan women—if America were to abandon the country to Taliban rule.

To publish this photo was a courageous and important choice. The allegedly "progressive" left needs to be warned, beforehand, of the kind of

barbarity their policies would unleash—a reality they frantically evaded (both before and after the fact) the last time they urged American retreat, in Southeast Asia. But the point goes beyond a humanitarian appeal to save the women of Afghanistan. It reminds us of a deeper and more important point: the strength we gain through the enormous positive incentives we have to offer the world. It is only through American intervention in Afghanistan, only through the influence there of our political system and philosophy of life, that any kind of human life is possible to the Afghans. That is our strength: that the way of life we offer is not just appealing; it is mankind's only hope, and many Afghans—particularly Afghan women—must realize this fact.

The most interesting part of the TIME story, for our purposes, is this detail: an editorial that explains the cover image assures us that the disfigured young woman "is in a secret location protected by armed guards and sponsored by the NGO Women for Afghan Women. Aisha will head to the US for reconstructive surgery sponsored by the Grossman Burn Foundation, a humanitarian organization in California. We are supporting that effort."

You can tell from the picture that Aisha was a beautiful woman—and I am confident, knowing what Western medicine can accomplish, that she will be again. That implies what the vital next step of this story is, for the publishers of TIME: when Aisha's reconstructive surgery is finished, they must put her on the cover again. Think what the contrast between those two pictures would demonstrate. The Islamists take a beautiful women and turn her into a hideous gargoyle—a symbol of their view of life. Then, through an advanced technology that must seem like a miracle to the rest of the world, we turn her back into a beautiful woman again—a symbol of our view of life.

The sight of a beautiful woman is a symbol of the enjoyment of life here on earth. The Islamists are against beauty, against enjoyment, against life. America is for all of these things. That is all the world really needs to know about the two sides in this conflict.

You can see the same issue in the Taliban's recent slaughter of a Western medical team that traveled to a remote province to provide care to Afghan villagers. Why kill Western doctors? For the same motive that causes them to disfigure a beautiful woman: to kill off any possibility of living a human life. Some years ago, I linked to adispatch from a reporter embedded with an American unit in Afghanistan, who described how American medics were besieged with pleas for help from villagers who had been living under Taliban rule, with no access to any medical care at all. Summing up the plight of the children, he described it as "a catalog of pediatric suffering." The slaughter of the Western medical team reminds us that this suffering is by design. But it also reminds us that we are the ones with the power to liberate the world from that suffering.

This is not just about medicine or technology. It is true of every aspect of life. Consider the legendary popularity, on the illegal satellite dishes of Iran, of American television shows like "Baywatch," or the stories of young men in Afghanistan having their hair cut in the style of Leonardo DiCaprio from Titanic. (Yes, these popular culture references are about ten years behind the times, but that's modern and up-to-date by the standards of a region still stuck in the seventh century AD.) These aspects of American culture are influential because they represent a way of life in which people are happy, benevolent, and free to enjoy life.

(This, incidentally, is why Dinesh D' Souza's book The Enemy at Home was so viciously evil. In arguing that the "depravity" of American popular culture gives us a bad name in the Muslim world, he is buying into the mythology of the Islamist propagandists—and acting as one of them. But if you live in Tehran or Kandahar, American rappers aren't going to impress you as examples of moral depravity, because you've seen much, much worse. It is what is good about American culture that is going to have a far bigger impact.)

The effect of all of this on the War on Terrorism can be explained by analogy to the Cold War. The Communists collapsed when their claims of material superiority were exposed as false and they lost the loyalty, not just of the people, but even of the elites who were supposed to keep the system in power. But the Soviets weren't just discredited by the permanent poverty and shortages in Communist countries. They were discredited by the sight of prodigious material abundance in capitalist countries. A key step in the conversion of Boris Yeltsin—who would preside over the dismantling of Soviet Communism—was his trip, as part of a delegation of Soviet officials, to an American supermarket. Or remember the great laboratories which showed the effects of capitalism and communism side by side: West Berlin and East Berlin, or Hong Kong and mainland China.

Consider how demoralizing this is to anyone who has accepted the Communist world view. Not only is Communism failing to deliver on its claims of plenty for the masses—but the evil capitalists, who are supposed to be oppressing the poor, are achieving that promise of abundance beyond anyone's wildest dreams.

The problem of the Islamists is similar, but in a different realm. Their claim is not to material superiority but to spiritual superiority. And here again, the problem for the Islamists isn't just that they deliver sadism where they promise virtue. It's the fact that anyone with access to information about the West can see the moral superiority of our way of life.

Think of it this way. Every religion promises an eventual reward, in an otherworldly paradise, for those who are faithful to its creed—while threatening unbelievers with an eventual punishment, a hell. But what if those who believe this creed begin to realize that heaven and hell already exist and have been reversed? What if they see that it is the devout believers who live in a hell on earth—while the infidels live in an earthly paradise?

Those of us who live in the free, prosperous countries of the West do live in paradise, certainly by comparison to the dictatorships of the Middle East. And that indicates to us the long-term strategy for defeating Islamism: lure more and more of the world's Muslims into the paradise of the infidels.

This is, after all, how we converted the Japanese and the Germans after World War II—not just by destroying them in war, but also by being benevolent occupiers and offering them a system and way of life which showered them with spiritual and material benefits.

This is a process that is just as powerful as bombs and rockets in defeating our enemies. In the long run, it is far more powerful. War is only the short-term mechanism which is necessary to allow this long-term process to work.

That brings us to the current context of counter-insurgency war, because this is a form of warfare in which the short term necessity—killing the enemy in combat—is intertwined with our long-term goal: using the positive benefits of our way of life to take away the enemy's base of support in the general population by luring them over to our side.

That's all that counter-insurgency really amount to. The only thing complicated about counter-insurgency is the context in which it arises. The war in Afghanistan is not like the war against Japan. We don't fight the shooting war, then administer a peaceful occupation. Because our enemy was too weak to mount a serious conventional military resistance but too fanatical to give up, we now have to fight the shooting war and administer the occupation at the same time.

The basic idea of counter-insurgency doctrine is that you don't just kill the insurgents; you cut off their base of support in the population by bringing the people the positive values that are to be gained by accepting the occupation.

Of course, this all has to go hand in hand with the shooting war, and even that can add to the sense, among the insurgents and their supporters, that the rewards and punishments promised by their religion have been reversed. Allah is a god of war who promises his devotees victory in battle, but those who encounter American troops realize that we are the real war gods. So part of the story of our counter-insurgency victory in Iraq was how impressed the Iraqis were with the courage, toughness, and efficacy of American troops. Some of the better military reporters, like Michael Yon and Bing West, mentioned the impact this had on the Iraqis and the way in which Iraqi troops looked up to and sought to emulate American soldiers.

There has been a lot of complicated mumbo-jumbo written about counter-insurgency, and General Petraeus famously expressed that doctrine in a series of "paradoxes." But really it's a straightforward proposition, summed up in an old Marine Corps motto: "No better friend, no worse enemy." The message sent by a proper counter-insurgency strategy is: life will be short and unpleasant if you fight us, but long and happy if you join us. Or in the context of this discussion, we can sum it up as: "Give 'em Hell and offer them Heaven."

Both sides of this equation are essential to breaking the enemy's will to fight. In contrast to the squishy liberals, you can't subdue the enemy with elaborate shows of "respect" and promises of foreign aid. You need to shoot a lot of the bad guys first, until everyone figures out that the Islamists are not going to win, ever. As they say, you get farther with a kind word and gun than you do with just a kind word. But in contrast to the anti-counter-insurgency conservatives, you also need to have positive incentives to offer, because the way you win an insurgency is to hand off the war to local allies who believe they will have a good future if they side with you.

This is why I've been warning against a strain of defeatism on the right which was suppressed under the Bush administration but is growing now that Obama is the commander-in-chief. (For an example, see here, though the author dishonestly refers to all advocates of the Forward Strategy of Freedom as "neoconservatives" and "Wilsonians"—while referring to his own libertarian-pacifist view as "Jeffersonian.") This variant of defeatism is opposed to the war in Afghanistan because it believes that counter-insurgency, "democracy promotion," and "nation building" are futile. These anti-counter-insurgency defeatists (if you will accept that overly compounded term) don't believe that these things are being done badly; they believe that they shouldn't be done at all.

For conservatives, this comes from a kind of cultural defeatism. These conservatives take seriously the idea that culture and values are utterly determined by tradition, so that the culture of other regions of the world cannot really be changed or improved. For some Objectivists, I suspect this anti-counter-insurgency bias also comes from an implicit acceptance of the altruist caricature of selfishness as a zero-sum game, so that if we're pursuing a war policy that benefits others, including efforts to avoid civilian casualties, then we must be sacrificing our own interests.

This anti-counter-insurgency defeatism underestimates our enemy's permanent and profound weakness, and it also underestimates our own spiritual strength, the profound and universal appeal of the positive values we have to offer. In effect, it tells us to fight without using our most powerful weapon—the only weapon we have that will transform the world in the long term.

What we have to offer is not exactly paradise—we can't bring people in Iraq or Afghanistan all of the way from a semi-primitive existence to First World opulence. But the idea is to help them achieve some aspect of our paradise. This connects to my idea about the "metaphysics of normal life." We can establish some element of a decent society—such as the absence of everyday government corruption, or an absence of pervasive physical fear—all of which is not "normal," historically and statistically, but which we take for granted as normal here in the West.

By the standards of most of history and much of the world, we live in an earthly paradise, and a crucial part of how we can win against Islamic fanaticism is by enticing more of the world to join us here in the paradise of the infidels.

Edited August 11, 2010 by Ted Keer

[blackhorse]

I await Adonis' rebuttal.

[Greybird]

No "rebuttal" is necessary. It's the same as before. It's always the same goddamned thing as before.

Tracinski wants a continuing crusade. He wants me to be made to help pay for it at gunpoint. He wants to make the West an "example" by using such guns to destroy what's left of its economy and achievements — turning them, first, on ourselves to get the crusades financed, somehow. He's crapping all over the legacy of the moral distinctions made by Ayn Rand and a host of others.

And some here insist that all of the above constitutes a Good Thing.

Nothing has changed.

[Philip Coates]

I suspect that Adonis may actually agree with (at least part of) what Tracinski has to say.

It's a shame that such a brilliant man as Tracinski quit? was booted from? the ARI and its programs. Or maybe he just wanted to free lance?

He overstated the case in parts i and ii that the bad guys were going to fall in Iran or Pakistan because of their brutality. And remember how long they hung onto power through intimidation and fear in the Soviet empire. It was about seventy years.

But other than that, lots of useful insights. And he's right about the transcendent power of having morality on your side. One more reason not to throw it away by bombing mosques and madrassas and nuking muslim cities.

Or even opening your mouth to advocate that. Tragic that there are Oists who don't see that.

In the case of the battle between Objectivism and all the forces opposing it, pick up the standard of a shining and uncompromising morality.

Don't let it fall because you are tired or weak or cynical or feel beleaguered.

Edited August 12, 2010 by Philip Coates

[Philip Coates]

Until the day that we have laissez-faire and have to survive in the dangerous world that exists, the idea that we should not be spending 'tax money' to fight people who would plant nukes in cities, blow up buildings, throttle out oil supply, distribute nuclear materials to terrorists is too silly to respond to at greater length.

You can question the -place- or venue of the fight.

Not the fact that we -must- fight.

[Philip Coates]

Tracinski (part one):

"Our objective is, or should be, to permanently suppress the threat of Islamic terrorism by overthrowing regimes that sponsor terrorism, destroying the terrorist organizations themselves, and as a consequence discrediting the theocratic ideology on which these regimes and organizations are based."

[blackhorse]

Greybird, your libertarianism is moral anarchy. One can preach tolerance and "live and let live" mantra's all day long, but pontificating about "islam is not the problem" from the safety of the USA is a cowardly act. Want to know what a world dominated by islam will look like - then look to the middle east - the persecutions of Christians, Jews, and Hindu's - the disrespect of women - the laws that call for stoning and beheadings - the arrest of reason to Allah - fatwa's, honor killings, ad nauseum. Even Thomas Jefferson understood the danger. If a man wishes to be a muslim then that is his business, but I entertain no illusions about the anti-reason, anti-liberty, anti-man philosophy that permeates islam the world over. Sure there are muslims who appreciate the liberty of the USA, but when it comes down to brass tacks which idea - reason or mysticism - will they ultimately embrace? It is the hypocritical muslims - those who embrace some reason and the liberty in the US Constitution - which posters on this forum defend, but they my friends are a tiny minority of the islamic world at large. Maybe you can see yourselves living in an islamic dominated world.-if so, good luck with that.

Edited August 12, 2010 by blackhorse

[blackhorse]

If a man chooses to be a muslim then I believe that that is his right, he has the freedom in the USA to do so, a freedom which I do defend. Such freedom, however is not recognized in the most of the middle east. Maybe someday islam will renounce and shed its intolerant doctrines and beliefs. That would indeed be a massive renaissance of the mind.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

blackhorse,

Steve (Greybird) and I disagree at times. For as harsh as that disagreement has gotten, I have never known him to be cowardly. You are out of line.

I am letting your latest semi-bigoted rant stay this time because I do no want to be hamhanded and I have hopes your concern will translate into something far more productive than bigoted bitching about Islam. But you are really on the line of bigotry--and on the line behavior-wise by insulting a man as a coward simply because you disagree with him.

Cool it.

Michael

[blackhorse]

Michael, It is not my intention to be malicious to anyone. I was simply trying to illustrate a point.

[Libertarian Muslim]

Hmmm..

I do believe the Taliban in Afghanistan need to be defeated.. Their ideas are cancerous.. However, the world still doesn't seem to realize that this can not be done with only military power.. Afghanistan is a place where people will fight for their independence for decades until they get it.. They do not want to have their lands occupied and are very proud people..

I also believe that not all of the Afghan resistance should be classified as the Taliban, in fact a great number of them are just people who are against having occupiers in their land and these are people who don't support the Taliban's ideals and practices..

A comparison could be to look at a place like Chechnya.. The reason I bring this comparison is because the occupier is not the US and so it might be easier for people to understand without being biased..

Chechnya is a place where there are two groups fighting against Russia and its puppet government there.

There are the extremists including a lot of foreigners who are trying to establish a Taliban or Saudi style Caucus wide 'Caliphate' under their strict black and white version of Islam where they can force women to cover everything, ban music, kill their opposition etc.

And then are the Chechens that are fighting to liberate their occupied land and to establish their own Chechen republic as they have been doing for hundreds of years, to be independent and rule their own lives.. There are foreigners in these groups (mostly Turks, Bosnians and other Caucus peoples) but they're not like the extremists in the previous group.. They don't resort to dirty tactics and have no want to be ruled by some Wahhabi or Taliban style interpretation of Islam.. They simply want their freedom as any of us would after being humiliated, subjugated and occupied by a foreign force..

Afghanistan is the same.. The US and NATO are occupiers in that land, just as the Soviets and British were before them.. And just as the Russians are in Chechnya now.. They have no right to be there and the people there are proud and want to free their land from occupation..

If the US left (which it should), they could give military support the groups that are fighting against the Taliban (which the US refused to do previously and instead supported the Taliban) despite war heroes like Massoud, known as the Lion of Panjir begging for US assistance against the Taliban..

But the best thing the US could do would be to help the Muslim world promote education in that area.. Help places like Turkey that are trying to bring a correct understanding of Islam to the Muslim world, the correct and balanced view that was held by the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. That is the major fight, it's not a military one, it's one of ideals.. About who's ideas are better.. If the US was sincerely interested in helping Afghanistan succeed it would change its actions rather than promoting more violence..

[Philip Coates]

> Want to know what a world dominated by islam will look like - then look to the middle east - the persecutions of Christians, Jews, and Hindu's - the disrespect of women - the laws that call for stoning and beheadings - the arrest of reason to Allah - fatwa's, honor killings, ad nauseum...If a man wishes to be a muslim then that is his business, but I entertain no illusions about the anti-reason, anti-liberty, anti-man philosophy that permeates islam the world over. [blackhorse, #7]

> Such freedom, however is not recognized in the most of the middle east. Maybe someday islam will renounce and shed its intolerant doctrines and beliefs. [balckhorse #8]

> You are out of line....I am letting your latest semi-bigoted rant stay this time [MSK, #9]

Michael, it is your forum. You are allowed to "censor" it if you wish, to expell people who disagree with you like Perigo ands Diana do.

But there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING 'BIGOTED" about those two posts!!!

When he speaks of 'muslims' and of 'Islam' he is talkling about the overally bad, antt-reason, anti-freedom, anti-separation of church and state, pro-shariah TENDENCY** in the religion. And he is 100% correct about that.

Should he have called an opponent a 'coward', no. But I woould think one would have to violate the posting guidelines characteristically and repeatedly. You supposedly don't allow trash talk either. But you uttered not ONE EFFING PEEP when GHS, Jeff R, Adam S, etc. slimed me.

** Note the use of language: a tendency is not referring to any one individual but to a -statistical- fact. Just like one would say there is a tendency for asians to be better educated in American than hispanics.

Edited August 13, 2010 by Philip Coates

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Phil,

I sincerely hope that one day you will get you head out of the anti-techological sand, where you have it shoved like an ostrich, and actually use some of the resources available right in front of you.

Take the issue of time stamps.

You are quoting a post that has been altered after mine was made.

Do you know what the original post said?

No.

Do you engage mouth without knowing?

Yes.

Do you think I'm going to take you seriously when you do that? Do you think anyone should?

I don't. It's irrational.

All you have to do is read. You don't even have to click a mouse since you don't like technology.

Time exists. A is A.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Since you, Phil, and JR and GHS hold your own with each other why would Michael interfere? You're complaining that he didn't? How much work is he to do here considering what we get for free? You're trying to trap Michael inside your sophistical rhetoric--that is, you should have left you and your love-to-hate Internet buddies out of this.

--Brant

[Philip Coates]

> You are quoting a post that has been altered after mine was made. [MSK}

Good point. I missed that. (Can you describe if he said anything substantively different, though?)

[Brant Gaede]

> You are quoting a post that has been altered after mine was made. [MSK}

Good point. I missed that. (Can you describe if he said anything substantively different, though?)

You also missed everything else.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Good point. I missed that. (Can you describe if he said anything substantively different, though?)

Phil,

Sure.

Read Post No. 9.

Michael