What the Islamists Have Learned (How to defeat the USA in future wars)

If I were an Islamist, a terrorist, a sworn foe of democracy, here is what I think I would have learned from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. This is what I would write down in my hard-earned manual of instruction.

BY THE WILL OF ALLAH, in all wars to come, may it prepare our brave martyrs for combat operations!

Today, the purpose of war is sharply political, not military; psychological, not physical. The main purpose of war is to dominate the way the enemy imagines and thinks about the war. Warfare is not, these days, won on a grand field of battle. Nor is it won by the force that wins series after series of military victories. Nor is triumph assured by killing far higher numbers of the enemy. The physical side of warfare no longer holds precedence.

The main strategic aim of war today is to dominate the mind of the enemy's public, and then ultimately to dominate the mind of that public's leaders.

Let me offer three examples. At what moment did the war in Vietnam come to an end? At that precise moment when America's leaders decided that they could not resist the unrelenting storyline of the enemy, which had long prevailed in their own press. The press surrendered first, then the leaders of the nation.

Observe that the Cold War ended not in an explosion of unprecedented violence, but rather at the precise moment when the Soviet elites no longer believed their own storyline. Superior ideas cowed them, superior will, superior narratives. Quite suddenly, the invincible Soviet elites folded, accepted humiliation, allowed the Wall to come down, and watched in bitterness as hundreds of millions of formerly captive peoples chose new forms of government.

The endgame was psychological, not military. There was a military component--Star Wars--but nobody knew whether or not that would ever work. It was the idea of that weapon, and will or Reagan to proceed with it.

Yet, as always, will followed storyline. First comes narrative, then the acts that give it flesh in history.

What we have discovered in Iraq is the weakest link in the ability of the United States to sustain military operations overseas. That link is the U.S. media. They are Islamists' best friends.

Experience shows that the mainstream press of the United States is alienated from the U.S. military. In addition, the American press is extremely vulnerable to anti-U.S. propaganda. Thus, the American public will be fed nearly everything that foreign adversaries--our band of brothers--wish to feed it about the war. Therefore, I write: Maxim # 1: To defeat America, impose upon the imagination of its media your own storyline.

Even if you can muster only 10,000 soldiers over the entire countryside of Iraq, paint the narrative like this: The Americans are irresistible occupiers, and yet they cannot prevent small (even individual) acts of destruction. Daily, unrelenting acts of destruction demonstrate that chaos rules. The American strategy, and the American storyline of the war, are invalidated by continuing chaos, highly visible, every single day, on worldwide television. The new dominating story is that the Americans cannot win.

Even though our own forces (for nearly two whole years now) can no longer afford to fight in a single operation lasting longer than a few hours, our martyr-brothers cannot be prevented from committing daily acts of destruction--the more stomach-turning the better--which demonstrate a ferocious will and a determination to destroy.

In such wars, my brothers, whichever party maintains the stronger will, along the most durable storyline, always wins.

To defeat the United States, then, it suffices to demonstrate that their vaunted military, for all its awesome power and tactical bravery in the field, cannot halt daily "chaos." To achieve this victory over America, it is not even necessary to create actual "chaos," but only its appearance. This definition of chaos cannot be made on cerebral, analytic, statistical, or comparative grounds. (In October the Times of London reported, "An average of 112 cars a day have been torched across France" this year, with 15 attacks a day on police and emergency services and nearly 3,000 police officers injured. We don't need comparisons like this or comparisons with traffic deaths and violent crimes in individual U.S. states.)

No, the shadowy existence of this "chaos" in Iraq is projected by a steady stream of stomach-churning, atavistic, destructive acts, staged day by day where the cameras of the U.S. press cannot resist them. Some of these acts bring orange explosions and black smoke, others consist simply of dumping dead and tortured bodies where the public cannot avoid discovering them.

We design these images to show that our fighters will go where the United States will not, that our brave martyrs have harder linings in their stomachs than anyone in the West, and that our ferocity and determination, day after day, cannot be resisted.

The aim of our terror is to induce surrender before the great battles are even fought. This is the true meaning of "asymmetric" warfare. The weaker side in military strength may demonstrate conclusively that it has a stronger stomach for relentless, unstoppable acts of terror.

Besides, brothers, there seems to be a psychological tic in the minds of American journalists, which prevents them from understanding that our terror is ultimately aimed at them. Today, yes, they think it is aimed at their government, and will cripple their political opponents within that government. Without qualm or fear, therefore, they do our bidding day after day. Willingly, gleefully, with much self-congratulation, they pump our storyline into the bloodstream of the Western public.

This is far easier than anyone ever taught us. This is our new discovery, our contribution to the history of warfare. Before our very eyes, the West grows fainter and weaker every day.

Maxim # 2: Take heart, then, my terrorist brothers! Bin Laden is even more correct than we knew before the last two years. The West does not have the will to resist. Those elites among them who do have the stomach to fight back, inexorably, day after day, are being undermined by their own media.

Now and in the future, the media will do our work. All we need are martyrs sufficient in number to keep a steady stream of orange flames and black smoke before their cameras, and to dump before them bodies that are stone-cold dead, and bear all over them the unmistakable blue marks of power drills and other disfigurements.

Of such martyrs, we need each day only a handful. In 365 successive days, we need fewer than one thousand.

This small band of brothers can defeat the most powerful army in human history. The path, my brothers, is to come to dominate the minds of their public, which they must suppose is supporting them, and in reality turns quite quickly into our best ally.

This is not so huge a task, my brothers! In the long run of glorious history, the time required is like the blinking of an eye.

Michael Novak is George Frederick Jewett Scholar in Religion, Philosophy, and Public Policy at the American Enterprise Institute.

I suspect that at least some of this country's deterioration began when the 17th Amendment was ratified. Now both houses of congress are subject to popular passion, rational or not, every 2 years. This reduced the Senate's capability for deliberation and protection of states' rights, as the state legislatures were the ones previously choosing the senators.

I also suspect some deterioration was had when the electoral college became a state by state sounding board for which presidential candidate had the most votes in each state. I believe that the intent of the electoral college was to be a deliberative body which would cast ballots for the president. This put a protective layer between the Presidency and, once again, the popular passions, rational or not. This layer is all but gone.

I don't think there's a need for a king, just the reinstallment of a genuinely independent electoral college and the repeal of the 17th Amendment (not to mention impeachment of a number of judges). Reconsideration of ballot initiatives at the state level might be prudent as well; look at California's veritable phone book of initiatives every 4 years.

I think you are absolutely right, but... I think our beloved POTUS was so taken aback that Karl Rove didn't come through for him yet one more time that he has actually lost heart himself!

Newsweek Mag has a cover of father Bush standing in front of Dubya with the big red headline of "FATHER KNOWS BEST!" (then a quick reference to Jim Baker, et al on this dumb committee that's going to try to make another horse, but will only make a camel!)

I fear that George W. is going to just pitch everything over the side and we'll have another horrible episode like under Gerald R. Ford with more millions slaughtered like with Pol Pot in Cambodia in the Killing Fields!!!

I pray I'm totally wrong, but hey... look closely at everything that's going on... Everything that can be misinterpreted politically by Republicans IS being misinterpreted and misunderstood and wrong actions being taken. I fear it's going to get way worse, before it starts getting better.

He was SO confident... and now he's NOT!!!

First of all, I appologize for not responding to your comments before this. I haven't been on the forum as much as usual over the last few weeks. I did however see your comments in the time frame in which they were posted, and intended to return sooner than this to respond.

Your comments regarding Bush's demeanor as a result of Rove not coming through may be accurate. It's always a let down to see your side take a beating. I'm sure Bush thinks that he is at least in part to blame and that would take a toll on anyone.

As for Rove, I've never seen him as some of the other forum participants do. I don't think he is either the paria or the brainiac people describe him to be. In the end, Bush is the guy that has made the final call on anything Rove was up to. Except for execution, Bush is the ultimate decision maker. Did Rove screw this up? Well the "Rs" didn't maintain control, but there were a lot of dynamics at play. Even in the best of times it's tough to prevent losing seats in the last off year election of a sitting President. The RNC leadership would be as problematic as anyone else. I think there were some mistakes made. I'm sure there's enough blame to go around.

I am not a big fan of these commissions. They were not elected to represent us. They do not currently hold office and have no business doing what they are doing. Typically these commissions are set up to provide cover for those that were elected. I don't care for that. If you were elected to the office that has responsibility, then you should make the decisions concerning that responsibility without having to say, "But they told me to..."

Your fears are shared here. One "Killing Fields" was enough for any lifetime. If it happens again, it would be inexcusable and unforgivable. As for things being misinterpreted, I guess it's human nature for people to guage what has just taken place by their set of values. To your and my way of thinking, there are definately some misinterpretations taking place and IMO, those will be used to support some pretty piss poor policies over the next few years.

Concerning Bush's mindset there are a number of pressures and dynamics that come to mind.

There has been a big a real tug-of-war taking place on several major issues. There's the War on Terrorism and then there are domestic issues, not the least of which is illegal immigration. Whether it be conservatives or other special interest groups both public and private, Bush has been under a number of guns, to do 'the right thing'. The question is, according to who? IMO he's been listening to some of the wrong people on certain issues, but it would seem natural that certain doubts would creep in from time to time, especially after a political setback.

With regard to the War on Terrorism, it seems the Democrats have decided not to overtly challenge the war or demand that it be abandoned. That will work to our favor. As long as Bush can craft the debate to reflect national security, I think he'll have breathing room. Heaven help us if Iraq's armed forces cannot take most of the control by June 2007. What that will guarantee in the long term is somewhat up in the air, but our ability to change those dynamics is more than likely limited. Perhaps the best that we can hope for is to develop a stable government that might mirror Saudi Arabia. Despite my misgivings on Saudi Arabia, it could be worse. It could be a nation developing nuclear weapons with evil intent. Hopefully future Iraq will not go that route due to our intervention. And perhaps that and a possible moderating force is the best we can hope for.

Is Iraq's leadership that pro western? Is it too friendly with Iran and it's supporters? Will Iraq inevitably become a democracy that hates Israel and looks the other way as long as the terrorists within don't target it any longer? I don't think anyone knows. I think most that think they do, have grave reservations.

Bush probably did take a bit of a psycological hit. I think he'll rebound. I wish him the best in doing so. I just hope the policies he decides to implement will be the right ones. I doubt this election will impact has long term goals all that much, but I could be wrong. My advice would be stay the course on Iraq and let the terrorists know in no uncertain terms that we will continue to bring our best game. On other issues, I would simply ask him to listen to the conservative base more. This election was not a result of him doing that too much. It was a case of him doing it too little.

I appreciate your comments. Your concerns are valid. I would hope very much that they are not realized.

Well sir... I appreciate your comments too. I just can't help noticing that the President has suffered a "full court press" from all sides, even now including the tabloids that are speculating the Laura and he will split the sheets over his spending too much time with the Secretary of State and that he's fallen off the wagon... yada, yada, yada... What a crock!!! (my own brother brought this to my attention over the past weekend)(gag!)

Some things are changing behind the scenes in spite of what the President is saying. I think Cheney is finally falling out of favor in spite of Bush's loyalty. This really saddens me as I identify with Cheney as he is nearly my exact age.

What troubles me the most is that Bush didn't sweep the Clinton crappola out of the bureaucracies, even the CIA when he finally got into office. The controversary over the election caused a delay that may have changed everything.

He is now being sabatoged so frequently by leakers and manipulators in the un-elected government and it's constantly hurting him and making him vulnerable to the malevolent media!!!

I firmly believe history repeats it'self, inspite of it'self! The period when LBJ and Nixon drove us deeper into Vietnam and then Ford flubbed the exit with the Fondas and the CONgress screwing the pooch at every opportunity... I'm just afraid it can and will happen nearly the same to the point of another disgraceful wall being erected in Washington D.C.

The only thing that's saving us from that is the lack of drafted soldiers being slaughtered in such huge numbers this time. Nobody's running to Canada and burning their draft cards. The leftist demonstrations haven't really started... yet!!!

I just pray that we don't repeat the history of going from a Ford to a Carter once again, in order to get to the next Reagan!!! I don't ever want to see us go there again!!!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.