I know enough history (studied professionally under many Ph.Ds, so please don’t come at me with some charge of autodidacticism), to understand what happens when one side in a conflict makes a strategic mistake regarding its capabilities.
Crikey! Even a primary school bully knows to steer clear of the hefty and determined defender of his less aggressive schoolmates. You hardly need assistance from PhDs for that!
I note that you fail to mention the Vietnam war, a debacle where military might proved ineffective in the face of persistent guerilla counter warfare. Some defence analysts have already drawn a comparison with the West’s current military might in the face of Islamist persistence.
I’m an ex-defence scientist myself, working in the field of operations research (mathematical modelling of war scenarios with a view to calculating and therefore planning for the most cost-effective strategies). This was back in the 70s and Israel was held up as a model for the limitations of our science. On paper, she should never have won that 6 day war, let alone survive the even more perilous assaults of 1948. She won because “God was on her side”, her people were highly motivated and their morale strong.
Of course, “God” is not enough. As an Arab saying goes: Trust in God but tie your camel first. To win, you must also have the practical means.
Kant demonstrated that science (or empiricism) cannot prove or disprove metaphysical statements such as “God dictated the Koran to Mohammad”. Where do Hegel or Nietzsche demonstrate otherwise?
Just what, besides half-baked philosophical musings and weak parroting of Salim Mansur, do you have to add to the debate and analysis?
I have my own voice and, so long as the moderators at Pajamas Media allow it, I will speak out.
I can no more predict the future than can you. However, so long as supremicism (“my p—s is bigger than yours” if we must bring Freud into this) reigns, then bloodshed is inevitable.
Soppy interfaith dialogue will get us nowhere just as fast – or slowly.
I like Salim Mansur because he is a political realist and an outspoken defender of fellow Muslims and ex-Muslims who are critical of Islam in its current mainstream manifestations. He sees the rot and he does look “deep and hard”. However, he is determined to stay true to his faith tradition. He is not an apologist: he is simply loyal, that’s all.
Like anyone, I can try my hand at prophecy. There is a third or alternative path to bloodshed or suicide. I call it the path of integration, where both Islam and the post Christian West will be altered by the other, each will make concessions and sacrifices, each will both “win” and “lose”.
I see Christ’s death and resurrection as central to the religious symbolism around this integration. Islam must concede that Jesus did die on the cross, that God can indeed allow such a fate to one of His greatest prophets. On the other hand, Christianity must concede that the literal resurrection is a nonsense (ex-Bishop Spong is leading the charge here).
Such symbolism has power. It is not mere mystical mumbo-jumbo. What really hurt on sep11 almost six years ago now was not the 3000 lives lost, as tragic as that was. What hurt was the symbolism, the power of Islam to reach into the very heart of the post Christian West. You can skite all you like about the West’s military might, the fact is it was of no avail on that fateful day.
