Glassman and "beyond violent extremism"

Posted By Marc Lynch Saturday, May 9, 2009 - 5:55 PM Share

Former Under-Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy Jim Glassman responds to my remarks on Thursday about the need to expand the "war of ideas" conception beyond combatting violent extremism. Glassman argues:

"Lynch makes it sound as if the only way that public diplomacy during my tenure engaged with the “Islamic world” was through anti-violence and anti-extremism activities related to the war of ideas. That’s ridiculous."

He writes that his office had only a few million dollars, while international exchange and educational programs had a far larger share of the overall public diplomacy budget. He didn't try to cut any of those programs, he says, but only wanted to add the "war of ideas" against violent extremism to the mix.

Fair enough. I'm a fan of traditional public diplomcy as well, and I've often expressed my admiration for Glassman's efforts to expand such activities into the new media realm and to adapt to the new information environment. But on this specific, very important, point.... why might I think that Glassman intended to shift the focus of the war of ideas on combatting violent extremism?

Jim Glassman, June 24, 2008:

While educational exchanges and other such efforts seek over the long term to encourage foreigners to adopt more generally favorable views of the United States, the war of ideas today should have a different, specific focus. The aim must be to ensure that negative sentiments and day-to-day grievances toward the U.S. and its allies do not manifest themselves in violence. We want to create an environment hostile to violent extremism, especially by severing links between al Qaeda and like-minded groups and their target audiences.

Jim Glassman, July 8, 2008:

The focus of today's war of ideas is counterterrorism. As the National Strategy for Combating Terrorism of 2006 puts it: "In the long run, winning the War on Terror means winning the battle of ideas."
So let me be specific. Our mission today in the war of ideas is highly focused. It is to use the tools of ideological engagement -- words, deeds, and images -- to create an environment hostile to violent extremism. We want to break the linkages between groups like al-Qaeda and their target audiences.
....
Unlike traditional functions of public diplomacy like education and cultural exchanges, the aim of the war of ideas is not to persuade foreign populations to adopt more favorable views of the United States and its policies. Instead, the war of ideas tries to ensure that negative sentiments and day-to-day grievances toward the United States and its allies do not manifest themselves in the form of violent extremism.

Jim Glassman, December 1, 2008:

In the war of ideas, our core task in 2008 is to create an environment hostile to violent extremism. We do that in two ways: by undermining extremist ideologies and by encouraging young people to follow productive paths that lead away from terrorism.

Perhaps I somehow misunderstood Glassman's intentions, and he did not mean that the focus of engagement should be on creating an environment hostile to violent extremism and not trying to build support for U.S. foreign policy?

(1)

HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE

CLARECHO

10:39 PM ET

May 18, 2009

Beyond Violent Extremism

We all miss the boat when we focus on kinetic attack as the primary danger facing western civilization. By devoting so much attention, blood and treasure to just the critical mission to stop violence, we miss the bigger picture that is Islamic Jihad: our actual 1400 yr. old enemy. It's why conflating our war with doctrinal Islam with al-Qa'eda and like terrorist groups is so myopic. These groups are nowhere near defeated, but even if they were, Jihad would not be done and we and our Constitution would not be safe. Nor would we if we solved the Arab-Israeli conflict tomorrow--worthy goal in its own right, but utterly inadequate to the millennial struggle against Shari'a.

"Resistance" (muqawama) in Islamic doctrine means Jihad - and Jihad is military war to spread the Islamic faith ('Umdaat al-Salik, o90). But it's not only military--it's diplomatic, financial, ideological, legal, moral, psychological and so much more--which is why our own "war of ideas" must be, too. We're not just trying to ensure no more 9/11's. We're trying to stay free of Shari'a. Britain capitulated last year, and Shari'a is now legal and enforceable across the UK. Most Americans do not want us to be next.

This is why Rob Satloff is so spot on with his observation that the Muslim Brotherhood and its network of off-shoots in the US, such as CAIR, ISNA, ICNA, the Fiqh Council of North America, MSA and others are so dangerous. Our leadership and society have been methodicaly lulled into a suicidal state of complacency about the insidious influence of 'non-violent extremists' - as Rob noted, the ultimate objective of both kinetic and cultural jihad is imposition of Shari'a. If they can accomplish the same thing by using our own freedoms and laws against us, why go to the trouble of blowing things up?

A Muslim Brotherhood document from the 2007-8 Holy Land Foundation trial said: "...their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions." ("An Explanatory Memorandum On the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America, 5/22/1991" )

Yes, we want people to like us and support our foreign policy objectives--that's one definition of power projection. But in the end, it's much more important that our enemies fear and respect us enough to give up trying to destroy us. Better yet: we use both kinetic and ideological means to so utterly defeat the enemy that he no longer matters. That's what the real "war of ideas" is about...but we have to wake up and educate ourselves to the threat first.