Skip to comments.The New Bolsheviks: Understanding Al Qaeda
Posted on 11/17/2005 1:25:30 PM PST by Buzwardo
Victory in war, and particularly in counterinsurgency wars, requires knowing ones enemy. This simple truth, first stated by Sun Tsu more than two millennia ago, is no less important in the war on terrorism today. It has become almost common wisdom, however, that America today faces an enemy of a new kind, using unprecedented techniques and pursuing incomprehensible goals. But this enemy is not novel. Once the peculiar rhetoric is stripped away, the enemy America faces is a familiar one indeed. The revolutionary vision that undergirds al Qaedas ideology, the strategy it is pursuing, and the strategic debates occurring within that organization are similar to those of Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism at various periods. Whats more, the methods that led to the defeat of that ideology can be adapted and successfully used against this religious revival of it.
Certain strands of Islamist ideology are so similar in structure to basic tenets of Marxism-Leninism that the comparison is unavoidable. The similarities are most apparent in the writings of Sayyid Qutb, an Egyptian Islamist and a member of the Muslim Brotherhood executed in 1966. Qutb, who produced a pamphlet called Milestones that summarized much of his work, has powerfully influenced the modern jihadist movement, especially Ayman al-Zawahiri--Osama bin Ladens deputy and the ideologue of al Qaeda--and Abdul Musab al-Zarqawi, emir of the al Qaeda organization in Iraq.
(Excerpt) Read more at aei.org ...
Sayyid Qutb ping
Certain strands of Islamist ideology are so similar in structure to basic tenets of Marxism-Leninism that the comparison is unavoidable.
Thanks for posting this.
The Clintonites and the Left have been on a Marxist-Leninist "Jihad" for years in America.
This only confirms how closely they are working with their Islam brothers in the global struggle, intentionally or otherwise.
BUMP to read later especially important given the connections all over the place between Leftist ideology and Al quaeda.
The problem is that everyone is framing this as a Communist vs. Capitalist debate.
In the mind of a lefty, religion went out years ago debunked by science. Since they can't prove god, god does not exist. Therefore when Al Quada attacks it MUST be because of economics: these people are from poor nations and are simply mad because they're oppressed by a corporate machine.
Don't believe me? Look at how the riots are being treated in France. Look at what University professors are writing about the war on terror.
But Al Quada IS driven by a religious fervor. Osama has admitted it himself. But for some reason, lefties don't listen to what he says.
People on the right get it a little better. Right wingers take a "use force against force" type of stand. True it's all terrorists understand and it is an effective technique the problem lies in the tactics of the enemy. These people are not going to meet us on big battlefields. First of all, they can't afford to raise, train and equip large armies. Secondly we would push one button and destroy said army.
This has created a faceless enemy. Where do we turn our aggression too?
Our enemy is desperate. They'll use anything they can to their advantage and just like the Knights that failed in the Crusades, the West believes they can fight a clean war with well defined rules. If we won't shoot at women and children, guess who most of the combatants will be? If we won't shoot at hospitals, guess where all the canon fire will come from?
The problem is that whereas nobles of old had absolute authority over their fiefdoms, Democracies revolve on debate. Thus the key to Al Quada's victory lies in keeping the war going as long as they can. Eventually the US and it's Democratic allies will tire of this and drop their guard again.
This is a very dangerous situation and every TV show/Movie/"unbiased" news report that gives creedance to terrorists just strengthens their resolve.
Just posted a link to your Qutb essay.
outstanding post. thanks!!
Interesting, but essentially incorrect.
The most important reason for Marxism's success is that for over 100 years it was able to consistently recruit ardent followers among the most intellectual and advanced people on the planet. It did so by promoting a goal that a great many people found worth dedicating their lives to, that of complete human equality.
Fundamentalist Islam is not going to become popular among students at Harvard and Oxford, as most people find its real goals repugnant. They will make common cause with it to attack their own society, but they don't really want it to win.
Islamofascism is a dead end socially, militarily and politically. The only real question is how much damage we let it cause before we destroy it.
This article is essentially and extended analogy and certainly suffers the imperfections that analogies commonly do. Having said that, I think Islamofascist true believers and Marxist true believers are both informed by putatively Utopian ideals that motivate them to set a lot of things aside, including consistency and good sense. As such my sense is that Islamofascists will have no more problem lining up support among the lettered elite than their Marxist counterparts did.
I will be extraordinarily surprised if you turn out to be correct.
I see absolutely no examples of the best and brightest of First World college students dedicating their lives to the ultimate triumph of Islamofascism. This contrasts dramatically with the history of Marxism for over 100 years.
The difference is, of course, the stated goals of the two movements. Those of Islamofascism have essentially no appeal to westerners. Those of Marxism can still hold appeal, if you ignore their history when put into practice.