Like practically everyone I’m a bit Jihaded out. It’s like reading a comic and no longer caring that Nick Fury is about to go back in time to kill Hitler. The invisible woman and the guy with super long arms, you had me, but this is too much! Osama Bin Ladin wanting the United States out of Saudi Arabia, fair enough, but the messiah riding in on a white horse to drive back the anti-christ, after defeating the Roman Empire? Really?
Or, as a dude (it has to be a dude) that maintains creepybasement.com wrote about serial killer BTK wearing his victims underwear: “Normally, I try not to pass judgment on the people I write about, even killers. However, this is just too disgusting…I don’t understand it, and I hope I never do.” Whatever the reason for shooting teens at an Ariana Grande concert, I take the CreepyBasement.com approach that sometimes something is so odious that you know it’s sick and the particulars of why are irrelevant.
If I have to keep up on something so odious, I’d rather read a detached and contextualized account, as Dyer presents here. It isn’t sensational like your average CNN ISIS update on some poor hostage getting his head cut off or threat #1592 to slaughter the infidel.
Gwynne Dyer senses that there is a need for some perspective rather than daily insanity and Don’t Panic, a short history that traces the origins of ISIS from the Iraq War (II) up until 2015, provides this. The central thesis is that the Islamists require a foreign intervention or hatred of Westerners to inspire Muslims to take up their cause. Whether it’s Russia in Afghanistan, the U.S. in Iraq or Jews in Israel, he argues convincingly that the Jihadists want and need infidels to meddle so they can rally the population to their side.
I think there’s obvious truth in this argument and it is important not to take the Jihadist bait at every cast. Still, even if the West basically ignored them and stayed out of the Middle-East, the Jihadists will always manufacture some sort of grievance, legitimate or not, and attempt to kill and antagonize. After the first Iraqi war the Americans did not occupy Iraq for Dyer’s stated reasons and they defended Muslims in the Balkans. In return they got 9/11. So the question is how to slow down the Islamists without also inspiring more people to join their cause? The best argument I’ve seen is to allow secular thugs like Sadaam or Assad to suppress them. Not an admirable position, but as Obama learned in Syria, there’s no third option available. Maybe provide an air strike if things get real bad, but that’s about it.
Personally I think the battleground is one of ideas and I think the West has done a horrible job articulating the merits of liberalism. Liberalism is not about iphones and strippers, it is about freedom. George Bush II attempted to make this argument and I think he was sincere, but the freedom he preached was hard to square with a massive invasion. Likewise Steve Bannon sees a war between Christianity and Islam, but there is nothing underpinning his side of the war, since the majority of the West is no longer even Christian. Trump himself isn’t Christian and he is a manifestation of everything rotten that liberalism allows: materialism, ego-centrism and vacancy of mind and purpose. Suicidal post-modernism is also not useful as shooting teens at a pop concert or removing girls genitals isn’t alright and believing it is amounts to suicide.
This is where I think Dyer goes astray. His argument is that the Middle-East is a tiny portion of the Earth and insignificant to the West. We should just ignore it like you’d ignore a bee and it won’t bother you. Even if you get stung, best just to move on. Terror attacks aren’t car crashes or bee stings though, they are political acts.
If it is a war of ideas you need to offer up a strong counter-point and some of the ideas, for example, held by British Muslims, population 2.7 million, are horrific. Terror attacks stemming from such ideas aren’t meaningless like a car crash, they are the outward manifestation of political beliefs. If these ideas gain sway there will be sectarian violence, as we see in the Middle-East and now frequently in France and Britain. To call out these ideas, as citizens do, is derided as racist, but I’ve yet to see a Western politician articulate their side of the argument with conviction. Dyer doesn’t seem to see this as necessary either. It shouldn’t then be shocking that, when this responsibility is abdicated, the worst manifestation of liberalism, who happens to be speaking truthfully on this issue, is elected.