The Power of Freedom over Fear

By Rudy Barnes, Jr.

            The power of freedom over fear was a major theme in President Obama’s address to the nation on December 5.  He said: “Let’s make sure we never forget what makes us exceptional.  Let’s not forget that freedom is more powerful than fear.”  The problem is that U.S. foreign policy does not reflect the priority of freedom.  In Egypt the U.S. is providing $1.3 billion in annual military aid to an authoritarian regime that uses apostasy and blasphemy laws to stifle opposition.  As a result the U.S. has little credibility advocating freedom in a region where allies like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan deny freedom with apostasy and blasphemy laws.

            Apostasy and blasphemy laws are an integral part of ancient Islamic law known as shari’a.  While most Muslims in libertarian democracies embrace the fundamental freedoms of religion and speech, in Islamic cultures the authoritarian laws of shari’a remain the lifeblood of fundamentalist Islam and are the ideals of Islamist terrorists.  If and when most Muslims worldwide reject apostasy and blasphemy laws and embrace the freedoms of religion and speech, then radical Islamism will lose its legitimacy and Islamist terrorism will likely wither and die.  Promoting those freedoms should be a primary objective of U.S. national security strategy.

            The President is right to condemn those who claim that we are at war with Islam.  Moderate Muslims are our most important ally against Islamist terrorism, since they are in the vanguard of the battle to define shari’a and Islamic standards of legitimacy.  It is a battle between the authoritarian laws of shari’a and the libertarian values of democracy, human rights and the secular rule of law.  Islamist terrorism cannot survive in a political environment of libertarian values.  While we must defend ourselves and others against the violence of radical Islamist terrorism, we must also support moderate Muslims and avoid religious polarization.

            What kind of strategy does this require?  First, we must support moderate Muslims in their battle of legitimacy with Islamists for the heart and soul of Islam.  Second, we must fight radical Islamist terrorism where it festers and grows overseas as well as here at home.  In the process we cannot let fear overcome our freedom; but unprincipled politicians like Donald Trump and Senator Ted Cruz have tried to capitalize on public fears by advocating that Muslims not be allowed to enter the U.S. (Trump), and carpet bombing be carried out in territory held by ISIS (Cruz)—measures calculated to inflame fears and cause further religious polarization.

            More security measures will be required to protect against domestic terrorism, but if they restrict our fundamental freedoms then ISIS can claim a victory of fear over freedom.  ISIS seeks to create a theocratic state, or caliphate, in which the harsh laws of shari’a—including apostasy and blasphemy laws—are brutally enforced to produce moral purity through the fear of punishment.  By way of contrast, immorality is inevitable in libertarian democracies where morality is governed by the voluntary standards of legitimacy promoted by religion, not by coercive laws which remain the exclusive province of the state through democratic processes.

            The teachings of Moses and Muhammad emphasized obedience to God’s law and the fear of God’s wrath for disobedience.  Jesus emphasized love over law as summarized in the greatest commandment to love God and neighbor.  For Jesus, there was no fear in the love of God (see 1 John 4:16-21), while Moses and Muhammad relied on the fear of God’s judgment to motivate obedience to religious laws.  The emphasis on freedom over coercive religious law began with the Enlightenment, and at the outset of World War II President Roosevelt said, “We have nothing to fear but fear itself.”  Islamism has yet to accept that credo of libertarian democracy and continues to emphasize the fear of God’s judgment over the liberating power of God’s love.

            The future of Islam depends upon how it relates shari’a to freedom—whether it is considered a voluntary code of moral standards for believers, or coercive laws to be imposed on all.  Islamism promotes the latter view and uses the fear of punishment, both in this and the next life, to subordinate individual freedom to God’s immutable laws.  By way of contrast, religions in libertarian democracies have embraced libertarian democracy and human rights as matters of faith as well as law.  If and when most Muslims do the same, then Islam will deny legitimacy to Islamist terrorists and religious reconciliation and peace will be possible—but not until then.

               

Notes and References to Resources:           

Previous blogs on related topics are: Faith and Freedom, December 15, 2014; The Greatest Commandment, January 11, 2015; Love over Law: A Principle at the Heart of Legitimacy, January 18, 2015; Is Religion Good or Evil?, February 15, 2015; Religion and Human Rights, February 22, 2015; A Fundamental Problem with Religion, May 3, 2015; Religion, Human Rights and National Security, May 10, 2015; The Future of Religion: In Decline and Growing, June 7, 2015;  Fear and Fundamentalism, July 26, 2015; Freedom and Fundamentalism, August 2, 2015; Legitimacy as a Context and Paradigm to Resolve Religious Conflict, August 23, 2015; A Containment Strategy to Defeat Islamist Terrorism, November 1, 2015; Tough Love and the Duty to Protect, November 8, 2015; and Faith, Hope and Love in a World of Fear, Suspicion and Hate, December 5, 2015.

For the highpoints of President Obama’s Oval Office speech on freedom over fear, see

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-tries-to-ease-anxiety-over-terror-attacks-with-oval-office-address/2015/12/06/95d9a34c-9c72-11e5-bce4-708fe33e3288_story.html?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_headlines.

On how the repression of human rights in Egypt aids Islamist terrorism, see  https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/egypts-state-of-repression/2015/12/03/6fbf98dc-991c-11e5-8917-653b65c809eb_story.html?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_opinions.

On the danger of ISIS polarizing Muslims from those of other religious beliefs, see Fareed Zakaria at https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-am-a-muslim-but-trumps-views-appall-me-because-i-am-an-american/2015/12/10/fcba9ea6-9f6d-11e5-8728-1af6af208198_story.html?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_opinions.

On the need for Muslims to deny legitimacy to Islamists and ISIS, see Thomas L. Friedman at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/09/opinion/you-aint-no-american-bro.html?emc=eta1&_r=0.

In How Anti-Blasphemy Laws Engender Terrorism (Harvard Law Review, May 2015), Amjad Mahmood Khan has described how blasphemy laws in Pakistan, Indonesia and Nigeria support radical Islamist terrorism.  See http://www.harvardilj.org/.../Antiblasphemy-Laws_0608.pdf.

On how Trump’s inflammatory rhetoric has actually helped clarify issues on religion and freedom, see http://www.thestate.com/opinion/op-ed/article48855990.html.

 

On the ISIS objective to create an authoritarian theocracy (calipahte) based on shari’a and fear, see http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/07/leaked-isis-document-reveals-plan-building-state-syria; also http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2015/1207/Understanding-ISIS-Leaked-document-reveals-nation-building-plans.

Faith, Hope and Love in a World of Fear, Suspicion and Hate

  By Rudy Barnes, Jr.

            Another episode of darkness, this time in San Bernardino.  Is there any light to dispel the darkness that threatens to overcome us?  The Apostle Paul wrote the Corinthians:

1. If I speak in the tongues[a] of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3. If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast,[b] but do not have love, I gain nothing.

4. Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

8. Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10. but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. 11. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 12. For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

13. And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love. 

1 Corinthians 13

            You have to be a senior citizen to remember the TV series, I Led Three Lives.  It was set in the McCarthy era of the 1950s when there was a pervasive fear of Communists, similar to the fear of radical Islamists today.  It was just as difficult in those days to identify Communist sympathizers as it is to identify radical Islamists today; but there were demagogues like Senator Joseph P. McCarthy and J. Edgar Hoover who stoked public fears, suspicion and hatred for surreptitious Communists to further their own ambitions.  It was an ugly time when fear and suspicion trumped the virtues of hope and love among Christians who knew better.

             Today Trump and Cruz sound a lot like McCarthy and Hoover, with radical Islamism rather than Soviet Communism the threat.  And in many ways, public fear and suspicion based on religious beliefs is more pernicious than those based on political beliefs.  It is a real challenge to recognize and deal with a hidden threat among us—Communists then and radical Islamists today—without obsessing over the threat and allowing fear, suspicion and hate to corrupt us.  Loving others requires sharing our lives with people of other religions and protecting them from those who would do them harm, and there is no place for hate in the process.

            Amidst the darkness of religious fear, hate and violence, there are promising signs.  On the theological front, an Indonesian organization known as Nahdlatul Ulama, or NU, has challenged Arab Wahhabist and Salafist forms of Islamism that have provided legitimacy for Islamist violence, and is offering an alternative understanding of Islam that is compatible with the values of libertarian democracy.  According to A. Mustofa Bisri, the spiritual leader of NU: The spread of a shallow understanding of Islam renders this situation critical, as highly vocal elements within the Muslim population at large — extremist groups — justify their harsh and often savage behavior by claiming to act in accord with God’s commands, although they are grievously mistaken.  According to the Sunni view of Islam, every aspect and expression of religion should be imbued with love and compassion, and foster the perfection of human nature.

            On the secular front, education initiatives are challenging Islamist violence.  Gordon Brown, a former prime minister of Britain and now a UN special envoy on global education, has highlighted a Lebanese common school curriculum of shared values for Muslim children that has a focus on how the rights and duties of citizenship relate to religious diversity.  

     The curriculum focuses on “the promotion of coexistence” by embracing “inclusive citizenship” and “religious diversity” and aims to ensure what the instigators call “liberation from the risks of . . . sectarianism.” But the new curriculum is more than an optimistic plea to love thy neighbor and an assertion of a golden rule common to all religions. It teaches pupils that they can celebrate differences without threatening coexistence.

     The Lebanese curriculum is designed for children starting at age 9 and includes four modules. The first tells the story of the global human family, asserting that all are equal in dignity. The second focuses on the rights and duties of citizenship, irrespective of religious or ethnic background. The third covers religious diversity, including the “refusal of any radicalism and religious or sectarian seclusion.” In the fourth, the emphasis shifts from the local to the need for global cultural diversity.

     Of course, there is a long way to go before this experiment bears fruit, but the fact that it is happening today in Lebanon is of global significance because of the country’s decision to offer schooling to all Syrian refugee children.  Operating under a double-shift system — Lebanese children are taught in the morning, Syrian refugees in the afternoon — the public schools now house more refugee pupils — nearly 200,000 Syrian boys and girls — than local ones.

     Lebanon’s offer of school takes young people off the streets and ensures that they are being taught in an ordered environment. More important, the curriculum’s focus on peace and reconciliation between religions is an antidote to the extremist propaganda of the Islamic State. The curriculum challenges the narrative of the violent extremists that there is an irreconcilable divide between Muslim believers and the apostate “others.”

   

            The NU initiative originated in Indonesia, which has the largest Muslim population in the world but is not an Arabic country, and the education project is in Lebanon, which has religious diversity unlike any other Arabic nation.  Both are challenging the extremism and violence of radical Islamism as representative of mainstream Islam.  Past efforts that originated in the Arabic Middle East, like a common word in 2007, have not reached the general public and have had little effect.  Perhaps these recent initiatives will succeed where a common word faltered.   

Notes and References to Resources:           

Previous blogs on related topics are: The Greatest Commandment, January 11, 2015; Love over Law: A Principle at the Heart of Legitimacy, January 18, 2015; Jesus Meets Muhammad: Is There a Common Word of Faith for Jews, Christians and Muslims Today? January 25, 2015; Is Religion Good or Evil?, February 15, 2015; Fear and Fundamentalism, July 26, 2015; The European Refugee Crisis and Radical Islam, September 6, 2015; and Tough Love and the Duty to Protect, November 8, 2015.

On the promising NU movement from Indonesia that is challenging the legitimacy of radical Islamism, see http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/27/world/asia/indonesia-islam-nahdlatul-ulama.html?emc=eta1.

On the Lebanese education project highlighted by Gordon Brown as a powerful antidote to the Islamic State, see https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/antidote-to-isis-school-for-syrian-refugee-children/2015/11/29/4750d708-9232-11e5-8aa0-5d0946560a97_story.html?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_opinions.

Fareed Zakaria has noted the difficulty of Muslims to acknowledge and condemn the Islamist radicals among them and the concomitant demagoguery of U.S. politicians.  Zakaria concludes that “This is the first time that I can recall watching politicians pander to mobs — and then congratulate themselves for their political courage.”  He must not be old enough to remember the McCarthy/Hoover era.  See https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/anti-muslim-rhetoric-isnt-brave/2015/12/03/8442019c-9a01-11e5-94f0-9eeaff906ef3_story.html?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_opinions.

  

Religion, Refugees and the Law: Where Jesus Meets Muhammad Today

 By Rudy Barnes, Jr., November 29, 2015

            The teachings of Jesus and Muhammad continue to resonate throughout the world, and where Muslim refugees seek asylum in Europe and America the relationship of those teachings to politics and the law has created points of conflict.  Senator Ted Cruz has said that no Muslims—only Christians—should be admitted to the U.S., while President Obama has said that a religious test to evaluate asylum seekers would be “shameful” and “not American.”  Can religion be considered in deciding whether to admit refugees to the U.S.?

            The answer is yes—but Michael W. McConnell has pointed out that both Cruz and Obama are wrong.  While religious belief should not be the basis for excluding refugees, it should be considered in deciding who to admit as refugees.  The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 defines a refugee as a person who has fled from a country and cannot return because of a well-founded fear of persecution on account of religion—as well as race, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group.

            There are other ways a person’s religion can be relevant to their refugee status.  All refugees admitted to the U.S. should accept the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, but fundamentalist Muslims who put Islamic law (shari’a) above secular law and do not recognize government as separate from their religion cannot do that.  That is evident in the apostasy and blasphemy laws in Islamic cultures that preclude the freedoms of religion and speech that are an integral part of the U.S. Constitution and the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights.

            The concept of legitimacy with its two components of voluntary moral standards and coercive legal standards can help resolve these issues of politics and law.  So long as religious rules of behavior are voluntary and not imposed on others as coercive legal standards, they are compatible with democracy, human rights and the secular rule of law.  But when a religion advocates God-made law over libertarian human rights and man-made secular law, it is subversive to the principles of libertarian democracy.

            It is on this point that Judaism, Christianity and Islam differ.  Moses and Muhammad both taught the supremacy of God’s law as a standard of legitimacy and righteousness.  Jesus was a Jew who taught the supremacy of love over law and summarized that principle in the greatest commandment to love God and your neighbor as yourself—including your unbelieving neighbor.  Putting the primacy of love over law allows believers to embrace advances in knowledge and reason, including democracy, human rights and the secular rule of law, while the holy laws of Moses and Muhammad keep believers mired in the obsolescence of ancient times.

            At the root of religious conflict today are religious laws that fundamentalists seek to impose on others.  If Jesus and Muhammad were to meet today, they would embrace the concept of love over law and seek to reconcile their followers into a universal family of God.  They would emphasize their teachings as moral imperatives of faith rather than coercive laws to prevent their followers from imposing a tyrannical theocracy, and would recognize advances in knowledge, reason and the concepts of libertarian democracy as matters of faith as well as law.

            Religion is growing around the world, and the Pew Research Center has predicted that Islam will overtake Christianity as the world’s largest religion by 2070.  Religion will continue to play a major role in shaping cultural values and law in the future, for good and for bad.  Islam is in transition, and Muslims will determine whether their religion is compatible with libertarian democracy and human rights or is a form Islamism that seeks to impose shari’a on others. 

            Islamist terrorism depends upon the legitimacy of Islamism which has been enhanced among young Muslims by U.S. military interventions in the Middle East and sustained by apostasy and blasphemy laws that prohibit any criticism of political Islam.  The freedoms of religion and speech would allow moderate Muslims to challenge the legitimacy of Islamism with democracy, libertarian human rights and the secular rule of law, and that would promote justice and peace in Islam and minimize the threat of Islamist terrorism to the rest of the world.

            The focus of this website has been on the moral imperatives of faith as standards of legitimacy rather than on mystical beliefs.  The greatest commandment to love God and neighbor brings together the moral and mystical dimensions of religion, and it is a common word of faith for Jews, Christians and Muslims.  Imposing religious laws on others is not an act of love.  If we love our neighbors we will seek to liberate them from the oppression of fundamentalist religion so that they can experience the freedoms of libertarian democracy and the secular rule of law.

               

Notes and References to Resources:           

Previous blogs on related topics are: Religion and New Beginnings: Salvation and Reconciliation into the Family of God, January 4, 2015; The Greatest Commandment, January 11, 2015; Love over Law: A Principle at the Heart of Legitimacy, January 18, 2015; Jesus Meets Muhammad: Is There a Common Word of Faith for Jews, Christians and Muslims Today? January 25, 2015; Faith as a Source of Morality and Law: The Heart of Legitimacy, April 12, 2015; Religion and Human Rights, February 22, 2015; Religion, Human Rights and National Security, May 10, 2015; De Oppresso Liber: Where Religion and Politics Intersect, May 24, 2015; The Future of Religion: In Decline and Growing, June 7, 2015; Fear and Fundamentalism, July 26, 2015; Legitimacy as a Context and Paradigm to Resolve Religious Conflict, August 23, 2015; The European Refugee Crisis and Radical Islam, September 6, 2015; The Muslim Stranger: A Good Neighbor or a Threat, October 25, 2015; A Containment Strategy to Defeat Islamist Terrorism, November 1, 2015; and American Exceptionalism: The Power of Persuasion or Coercion, November 15, 2015.

On how religion and the law relate to legitimacy, see the Introduction to The Teachings of Jesus and Muhammad on Morality and Law: The Heart of Legitimacy (The J&M Book), at pages 10-14 posted at http://media.wix.com/ugd/a8edf7_93f4a89980ce42b39de0cef674718f43.pdf , and see Religion, Legitimacy and the Law: Shari’a, Democracy and Human Rights, posted at http://media.wix.com/ugd/a8edf7_4bb25a284b114fc59288980958aafcce.pdf.

On Michael W. McConnell’s commentary on religion, refugees and the law, see http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/11/yes-we-should-consider-refugees-religion-000325.

On a promising movement in Indonesia that is challenging the legitimacy of radical Islamism, see http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/27/world/asia/indonesia-islam-nahdlatul-ulama.html?emc=eta1.

Dualism: Satan's Evil Versus God's Goodness

  By Rudy Barnes, Jr.

            Evil is an impossible reality for monotheists.  According to the late Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, those who believe that God is all good, all powerful and the creator of all things cannot be monotheists and also believe that Satan’s evil exists independent of God’s goodness.  That would make them dualists rather than monotheists.  Dualism originated with the Gnostics of ancient Persia, who believed that the forces of darkness (evil) were in a cosmic battle with the forces of light (good); and Sacks acknowledged that dualism is found in both Judaism and Christianity.

            Rabbi Sacks addressed dualism in the context of religious violence, and he explained that “Dualism entered Judaism and Christianity when it became easier to attribute the sufferings of the world to an evil force rather than to the work of God.”  For Sacks, God is the source of the bad as well as the good, judgment as well as forgiveness, and justice as well as love, so there is no room for Satan in Sacks’ monotheism.  Sacks explains that “…the bad God does is a response [punishment] to the bad we do.” 

            Sacks articulates a dualistic concept of an omnipotent God universal in matters of justice (Elokim) and particular in His compassion for the Jews as a chosen people (Hasham).  God loves and judges, forgives and punishes, and Sacks acknowledges the complexity of such a concept, and that dualism simplifies it.  Sacks attributes religious violence to a “…pathological dualism that sees humanity as…divided between the good and irredeemably bad.”  It is the Us versus Them dichotomy that is associated with fundamentalist and exclusivist religions that assert one true faith, one inerrant and infallible holy book, with all others false and condemned by God. 

            Jesus was a Jew who, according to the Gospel accounts, was tempted by Satan before he began a public ministry that predicted a coming kingdom of God based on love and mercy rather than on divine law, judgment and fear.  It was a spiritual kingdom opposed to Satan’s worldly domain.  Jesus and the Jews of his day spoke of Satan’s evil as opposed to God’s goodness, and Jesus exorcised the demonic minions of Satan.  In The Lord’s Prayer Jesus taught his followers to pray for God’s kingdom to come on earth as it is in heaven, and to deliver us from evil.  And like Jesus, Muhammad spoke of Satan as evil and the spiritual enemy of God’s goodness.

            According to Jesus, neither God nor Satan favors one religion over others.  Jesus taught that all who do God’s will, as summarized in the greatest commandment to love God and one’s neighbor as oneself, are his spiritual brothers and sisters in the family of God.  The Hebrew Bible teaches that those who fear God and obey God’s Law are rewarded, while the disobedient are punished.  The Qur’an also teaches that those who fear God and obey God’s law (shari’a), and believe in the Qur’an as the final, perfect and immutable word and law of God will experience eternal paradise, while all unbelievers will be condemned to eternal damnation. 

            Such exclusivist views give rise to what Sacks calls altruistic evil, which is based on the belief that God saves His chosen (Us) and condemns all others (Them).  Satan uses that theme of fear and condemnation and does a convincing imitation of God, and Satan does some of his best acting in the synagogue, church and mosque.  How do we tell the difference?  God uses love and mercy to reconcile and redeem, while Satan uses fear, hate and violence to divide and conquer.   

            All religions—and for monotheists, even God—can be the source of good and evil.  The seeds for the evil of Islamist terrorism germinate from a fear that reason and advances in knowledge are a threat to their traditional beliefs, and that fear has spawned a virulent form of Islamic fundamentalism that motivates hate and violence toward unbelievers.  But most Muslims, like most Jews and Christians, are not religious fundamentalists and share belief in the greatest commandment as a common word of faith.  It is the love of our neighbors—even our unbelieving neighbors—that distinguishes God’s goodness from Satan’s evil.

           

            In a world of increasing religious pluralism and danger from Islamist fundamentalism, true justice depends on Islam embracing the values of democracy, libertarian human rights and the secular rule of law.  Those secular values have been embraced by Western religions but rejected by Islamism.  Unlike Moses and Muhammad who taught the supremacy of holy law, Jesus taught the supremacy of love over law.  The victory of the light of God’s love over the dark forces of Satan’s fear, hate and violence will require a mix of the powers of persuasion and coercion, with the ultimate objective of undermining the legitimacy of Islamist fundamentalism, so that religious reconciliation and lasting peace are possible among all people of faith. 

            Are good and evil spiritual forces engaged in a great cosmic battle, or is God the source of all good and evil?  Rabbi Sacks was right to blame religious violence on a pathological dualism that considers unbelievers as evil, but wrong to reject the idea that evil can be a spiritual force separate from God that motivates devout believers to harm unbelievers.  It is ironic that Islamists share a belief with fundamentalist Jews and Christians that their ancient holy laws are God’s standard of righteousness and that the immorality prevalent in libertarian democracies is sin—the product of Satan’s evil—and should be punished.  To that end Islamist terrorists consider themselves instruments of God’s judgment and kill unbelievers and sinners.

           

            The challenge for people of faith, whether monotheists or dualists (or both), is to learn to love all their neighbors, including unbelievers and strangers, and in a dangerous world that includes the tough love of protecting their neighbors from those who would do them harm.

Notes and References to Resources:           

Previous blogs on related topics are: Religion and New Beginnings: Salvation and Reconciliation into the Family of God, January 4, 2015; The Greatest Commandment, January 11, 2015; Love over Law: A Principle at the Heart of Legitimacy, January 18, 2015; Jesus Meets Muhammad: Is There a Common Word of Faith for Jews, Christians and Muslims Today? January 25, 2015; Promoting Religion Through Evangelism: Bringing Light or Darkness, February 8, 2015; Is Religion Good or Evil, February 15, 2015; Religion as a Source of Good and Evil, March 1, 2015;  A Fundamental Problem with Religion, May 3, 2015; Religion, Human Rights and National Security, May 10, 2015; Fear and Fundamentalism, July 26, 2015; Politics and Religious Polarization, September 20, 2015; A Containment Strategy to Defeat Islamist Terrorism, November 1, 2015; Tough Love and the Duty to Protect, November 8, 2015; and American Exceptionalism: The Power of Persuasion or Coercion, November 15, 2015.

The quotes from Rabbi Jonathan Sacks are from his book, Not In God’s Name: Confronting Religious Violence (Schocken Books, New York, 2015) at pp 49, 51 & 53.  For a review of Rabbi Sack’s book, see http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/08/books/review/islam-and-the-future-of-tolerance-and-not-in-gods-name.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share.

On the origin of Satan as the personification of evil in 1^st century Christianity, see Elaine Pagels, The Origins of Satan (Rndom House, New York, 1995).

The Editorial Board of The Washington Post characterized the Paris attacks as evil. See https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/facing-evil-in-paris-and-beyond/2015/11/14/c0f82606-8afd-11e5-be39-0034bb576eee_story.html?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_headlines.  The editorial asks, “What can containment mean in a war like this?”  For my response see A Containment Strategy to Defeat Islamist Terrorism, November 1, 2015; Tough Love and the Duty to Protect, November 8, 2015; and American Exceptionalism: The Power of Persuasion or Coercion, November 15, 2015.   

Paul Waldman refers to the debate over whether to use the words “radical Islam” or to avoid using the word Islam in referring to Islamist terrorism as a “silly, distracting” debate.  See   https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/11/15/the-silly-distracting-debate-over-whether-to-use-the-words-radical-islam/?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_opinions.  It is a legitimate and important debate since Islamist terrorism must be recognized as a fundamentalist (and evil) form of radical Islam, or Islamism, in order to be effectively countered within Islam.

In the battle against ISIS and Islamist terrorism, experts have explained how global powers can smash ISIS and agree that it will take religious reform within Islam.  Maajid Nawaz, a former Islamist, has criticized those who say that Islamist terrorism has nothing to do with Islam as disingenuous.  It will also take putting the defeat of ISIS ahead of ousting Assad from power in Syria, and establishing legitimate governments in Islamist cultures which provide “fair justice” (that must include libertarian human rights, beginning with the freedoms of religion and speech).  See  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/18/world/middleeast/envisioning-how-global-powers-can-smash-isis.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share&_r=0.

On the objective of Islamist terrorism to polarize Western society by destroying the “grayzone” of tolerance to pave the way to Jihad, see https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hating-muslim-refugees-is-exactly-what-the-islamic-state-wants-europe-to-do/2015/11/15/dfe0ca84-87d1-11e5-be39-0034bb576eee_story.html?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_opinions.

On the Paris attacks as “precisely chosen targets” chosen by ISIS, with Paris as “the capital of prostitution and vice,” see  https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/we-are-everything-they-hate-mourners-gather-at-paris-attack-sites/2015/11/15/c09acbbe-8b39-11e5-bd91-d385b244482f_story.html?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_headlines.

On the Paris attacks as a precursor of an apocalyptic Jihad and the end times sought by ISIS, see  https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/for-the-islamic-state-paroxysms-of-violence-portends-apocalypse/2015/11/16/7020482e-8c99-11e5-baf4-bdf37355da0c_story.html?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_headlines.

American Exceptionalism: The Power of Persuasion or Coercion?

 By Rudy Barnes, Jr.

            America the Beautiful is a hymn of faith and patriotism that reveals where the love of God and country come together to define American values:

America, America,

God shed His grace on thee,

And crown thy good with brotherhood

from sea to shining sea.

…God mend thine every flaw.

Confirm thy soul in self-control,

thy liberty in law. (page 396, United Methodist Hymnal)

            Americans believe that God has blessed their nation, and they look to God to mend its flaws with a confirmation of its self-control and liberty in law.  That is the foundation of American exceptionalism—the idea that America should share the blessings of liberty in law by making democracy, civil rights and the secular rule of law available to those beyond its borders.  But that idea has often been flawed by America’s lack of self-control in the use of its coercive powers, as evidenced by its military interventions in Vietnam and Iraq.

            America’s military power is essential to protect the freedom of Americans and their allies, but too often that power has been deployed to promote national interests that are more related to national pride than to freedom.  Today Islamist terrorism is a very real threat to freedom.  It is motivated by radical Islamist beliefs grounded in distorted interpretations of the Qur’an that deny fundamental human rights and promote Jihad (Islamic holy war).  Holy war is an ancient religious concept ordained by the ban of Deuteronomy 20:16-18 and exercised by Joshua at Jericho, and it was resumed by Christians in the Medieval Crusades and Inquisitions. 

            Radical Islamism is a religious and political threat to liberty in law, and it is competing for the heart of Islam, which is predicted to supersede Christianity as the world’s largest religion by 2070.  Radical Islamism is a fundamentalist form of Islam that promotes rigid authoritarian and theocratic standards of legitimacy that conflict with democracy, human rights and the secular rule of law.  Other religions have similar fundamentalist sects, but in Judaism and Christianity they are non-violent and a minority among more moderate majorities.  Radical Islamism is dangerous since it promotes violence and is intolerant of conflicting beliefs, and it is growing.

            The authoritarian and theocratic ethics of radical Islamism and the libertarian and democratic ethics of other religions in the Western world represent conflicting concepts of legitimacy, but that conflict does not have to be violent.  Fundamental differences in religious standards of legitimacy can be resolved by updating the ancient teachings of Moses, Jesus and Muhammad with advances in knowledge and reason and then finding common ground on political issues.  Muslim scholars have set an example by proposing the greatest commandment to love God and one’s neighbor as oneself as a common word of faith for Jews, Christians and Muslims alike; and in today’s pluralistic world, that means loving those of all and no religions.

            When believers of competitive and exclusivist religions become neighbors, the freedoms of religion and speech are essential to peaceful coexistence.  There can be no love for neighbor if those freedoms are denied, and Islamist apostasy and blasphemy laws do just that.  If and when Muslims embrace liberty in law as a matter of faith as well as law, radical Islamism will be denied its legitimacy and relegated to minority status among Muslims, denying Islamist terrorism its life-blood.  Undermining the legitimacy of radical Islamism should be the objective of American exceptionalism, and that depends upon powers of persuasion, not of coercive military force, which has only enhanced the legitimacy of Islamist terrorism among young Muslims.

            America should have learned painful lessons in legitimacy from its misuse of military power in Vietnam and Iraq; but those lessons in legitimacy have been neglected by President Obama, who has ignored human rights and aided authoritarian regimes, and increased U.S. military involvement in Syria and Iraq after earlier vowing not to do so.  At the same time, Arab allies in the region have reduced their roles in fighting ISIS, and Turkey has become ambivalent, seeming to support ISIS as it opposes Kurds seeking independence, leaving the U.S. once again perceived by many Muslims as an infidel intervenor in the Middle East.

            American exceptionalism has long been a motivating force in U.S. foreign policy, and it can be a positive force so long as it relies on persuasion rather than coercion in promoting the ideals of democracy, human rights and the secular rule of law—which are not just American values, but universal values.  But when American exceptionalism motivates the use of coercive military force to reshape the world in its own image, it does more harm than good—as in Vietnam and Iraq.  Today American exceptionalism has bad connotations around the world.  To regain respect it must emphasize the power of persuasion over coercive military power.

            The awesome power of America’s military has seduced its leaders to rely on its hard coercive power rather than using the soft power of persuasion to promote liberty in law.  It confirms Lord Acton’s razor that Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  Donald Trump is a caricature of the arrogance of power.  Joel Chandler Harris debunked such arrogance in his tale of Brer Rabbit and the Tar Baby, in which Brer Rabbit persuaded Brer Fox to extricate him from a tar baby and throw him into a familiar briar patch.  Islamic cultures have been a veritable tar baby for the U.S. military.  In such hostile cultural environments, wisdom dictates reliance on the powers of persuasion, but the arrogance of American power has favored the use of coercive force to achieve victory.  As in Vietnam and Iraq, the results are predictable.

    

Notes and References to Resources:           

Previous blogs on related topics are: Religion and Reason, December 8, 2014; Faith and Freedom, December 15, 2014; Religion, Violence and Military Legitimacy, December 29, 2014; The Greatest Commandment, January 11, 2015; Jesus Meets Muhammad: Is There a Common Word of Faith for Jews, Christians and Muslims Today? January 25, 2015; Religion and Human Rights, February 22, 2015; The Power of Humility and the Arrogance of Power, March 22, 2015;  A Fundamental Problem with Religion, May 3, 2015; Religion, Human Rights and National Security, May 10, 2015; De Oppresso Liber: Where Religion and Politics Intersect, May 24, 2015; Christians Meet Muslims Today, June 21, 2015; Freedom and Fundamentalism, August 2, 2015; How Religious Fundamentalism and Secularism Shape Politics and Human Rights, August 16, 2015; Legitimacy as a Context and Paradigm to Resolve Religious Conflict, August 23, 2015; A Strategy to Defeat Radical Islam: Containment, not Confrontation, November 1, 2015; and Tough Love and the Duty to Protect Life and Liberty, November 8, 2015.

Seymour Martin Lipset has cited Alexis DeTocqueville, Max Weber and Samuel Huntington in support of the idea that American religions motivated the American success story that defined American exceptionalism.  See Lipset, American Exceptionalism: A Double-Edged Sword, W. W. Norton & Company, New York, 1996, pp 60-67. 

Andrew J. Bacevich has predicted the end of American exceptionalism and said “…the American people ought to give up the presumptuous notion that they are called upon to tutor Muslims in matters related to freedom and the proper relationship between politics and religion.”  But Bacevich misses the point that “freedom and the proper relationship between politics and religion” are the means to defeat Islamist terrorism.  See Bacevich, The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism, Henry Holt and Company, New York, 2008, pp 176, 177. 

Richard Cohen has described American exceptionalism as a misguided mix of patriotism, politics and religion that has caused Americans to sanctify their traditional values and ignore their flaws, contributing to the decline of America in relationship to other nations. See Richard Cohen, The Myth of American Exceptionalism, The Washington Post, May 9, 2011. 

For a discussion of American exceptionalism and military legitimacy, see Barnes, Religion, Legitimacy and the Law: Shari’a, Democracy and Human Rights at page 8 posted in Resources at http://www.jesusmeetsmuhammad.com/. 

On how the U.S. military can be a force of persuasion rather than coercion, see Barnes, Back to the Future: Human Rights and Legitimacy in the Training and Advisory Mission, Special Warfare, Jan-March 2013, posted in Resources at http://www.jesusmeetsmuhammad.com/ and at http://media.wix.com/ugd/a8edf7_3ceb977e13df46129e7fe22b9dae6789.pdf .

On how current U.S. policies are supporting authoritarian regimes and denigrating human rights in the Middle East, see Jackson Diehl, at https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-olive-branches-are-lifelines-for-authoritarian-regimes/2015/11/08/87a1b2b2-83e8-11e5-a7ca-6ab6ec20f839_story.html?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_opinions.

On how Erdogan’s Turkey seems to be supporting ISIS while opposing the Kurds, see Roger Cohen, at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/08/opinion/sunday/turkeys-troubling-isis-game.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share&_r=0. 

On how U.S. Arab allies are withdrawing their air support as the U.S. escalates its military operations against ISIS in the Middle East, see Eric Schmitt and Michael Gordon, at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/08/world/middleeast/as-us-escalates-air-war-on-isis-allies-slip-away.html?_r=0.

Tough Love and the Duty to Protect Life and Liberty

 By Rudy Barnes, Jr.

            The greatest commandment makes loving our neighbors as ourselves a moral imperative of our faith, and that requires the duty to protect life and liberty in a dangerous world with the use of force.  Moses and Muhammad had no trouble doing that, but Jesus complicated the issue when he taught: …do not resist an evil person.  If someone strikes you on the right cheek turn to him the other also. (Matthew 5:39)   And Jesus went on to say: You have heard it was said, Love your neighbor and hate your enemies.  But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you…. (Matthew 5:43,44). 

            Many pacifists have taken those sayings literally as a prohibition against any use of lethal force, but most Christians consider the sayings as hyperbole that was typical of Jesus.  Otherwise it would be impossible to protect life and liberty in a dangerous world.  The real challenge for the faithful is not whether lethal force can be used, but when and how it is used, and that raises issues of tough love and the duty to protect.

            The duty to protect life and liberty is based on love for others—not hate for those who threaten them—and it requires the use of lethal force by those police and military forces who are charged with the duty to protect.  When and how lethal force is used is governed by rules of engagement that are grounded in self-defense and the defense of others; and while there have been too many instances of the use of excessive force, the prohibition of lethal force is not an option if we expect to maintain the law and order that is needed to protect freedom and justice.

           

            The duty of the military to protect U.S. national security interests requires understanding the threat, the operational environment and U.S. military capabilities.  Containment rather than military intervention is the best U.S. strategy to combat Islamist terrorism in Islamic cultures, but elsewhere domestic intelligence and law enforcement operations must identify, apprehend and prosecute terrorists.  These complementary approaches are needed to protect lives and vital U.S. security interests from Islamist terrorism, and they require that the capabilities of U.S. security forces are properly matched with their strategic missions.

            President Obama has continually asserted that there are no U.S. combat forces in Iraq or Syria, but he has acknowledged that U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF) have conducted direct action strikes and raids against ISIS in the past and will continue to do so in the future.  These are combat operations conducted by elite warriors of SOF and represent U.S. “boots on the ground.”  Such direct action SOF operations should not be confused with indirect SOF advisory and training missions, but statements by President Obama and Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter have confused those two fundamentally different military capabilities and their missions.

            The elite SOF warriors of the Army’s Delta Force and Navy’s Seals conduct direct action strikes and raids, such as the take-down of Osama bin Laden and the recent liberation of Kurdish prisoners in Iraq.  By way of contrast, SOF advisors and trainers rely on indirect action to achieve mission success.  They are diplomat-warriors whose legitimacy and effectiveness depend upon keeping a low profile and motivating their Muslim counterparts to do most of the fighting; and they work as closely with State Department officials as with the military chain of command.

           

            The legitimacy of the extended advisory and training missions of SOF diplomat-warriors requires public support both at home and in the operational area, and that public support is jeopardized by conflicting standards of legitimacy.  SOF personnel are expected to respect local laws and moral standards and also report violations of fundamental human rights under the Leahy law.  Such violations are inevitable where apostasy and blasphemy laws deny the freedoms of religion and speech, and women and non-Muslims are denied equal protection of the law.  This can create a mission impossible for SOF diplomat-warriors in Islamic cultures.    

            The fundamental freedoms of religion and speech are anathema to radical Islamism, which is the life-blood of Islamist terrorism.  Those freedoms are necessary for Muslims to challenge the legitimacy of radical Islamism, and U.S. combat operations only increase the legitimacy of radical Islamism among Muslims.  Understanding how libertarian human rights can undermine the legitimacy of Islamist terrorism is critical to achieving U.S. strategic objectives; and SOF diplomat-warriors can support their Muslim counterparts in their battle for legitimacy.   

           

            Jews, Christians and Muslims all share the moral imperative to love God and to love their neighbors as themselves.  In a dangerous world that requires tough love and the duty to protect life and liberty.  In Islamic cultures Muslims should have the freedoms of religion and speech to challenge the legitimacy of the radical Islamism that sustains Islamist terrorism.  Promoting those fundamental freedoms should be a strategic objective of SOF diplomat-warriors who advise and train Muslims on the front lines of the battle for legitimacy. 

           

Notes and References to Resources:           

Previous blogs on related topics are: Faith and Freedom, December 15, 2014; Religion, Violence and Military Legitimacy, December 29, 2014; The Greatest Commandment, January 11, 2015; Jesus Meets Muhammad: Is There a Common Word of Faith for Jews, Christians and Muslims Today? January 25, 2015; Religion and Human Rights, posted February 22, 2015; A Fundamental Problem with Religion, May 3, 2015; Religion, Human Rights and National Security, May 10, 2015; De Oppresso Liber: Where Religion and Politics Intersect, May 24, 2015; Christians Meet Muslims Today, posted June 21, 2015; Freedom and Fundamentalism, August 2, 2015; How Religious Fundamentalism and Secularism Shape Politics and Human Rights, August 16, 2015; Legitimacy as a Context and Paradigm to Resolve Religious Conflict, August 23, 2015; and A Strategy to Defeat Radical Islam: Containment, not Confrontation, November 1, 2015.

On turning the other cheek (Matthew 5:39), see Submission, retribution and giving to all who ask in the J&M Book at page 102.   

Michael Walzer has postulated that life and liberty are human rights that justify the duty to protect in war.  See Michael Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars, Basic Books, 1977, pp xvi, 133-137,

cited in end note 20 to chapter 4 of Barnes, Military Legitimacy: Might and Right in the New Millennium (Frank Cass, 1996), at page 99, which is posted at page 83 at http://www.jesusmeetsmuhammad.com/#!page3/cee5.  The unique nature of SOF diplomat-warriors is compared with conventional combat warriors at pages 89-92 in chapter 5 of Military Legitimacy: Might and Right in the New Millennium, at http://www.jesusmeetsmuhammad.com/#!page3/cee5 and at http://media.wix.com/ugd/a8edf7_f0f4d486bb9b440ea5cfdddfed46517b.pdf.

U.S. Special Forces advisors have ignored human rights violations in Afghanistan involving the sexual abuse of boys.  See http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/world/asia/us-soldiers-told-to-ignore-afghan-allies-abuse-of-boys.html?_r=0.  On the need for U.S. Special Operations trainers and advisors to promote compliance with fundamental human rights and the different skill sets required of SOF warriors who conduct direct action combat operations and the SOF diplomat-warriors who conduct advisory and training operations, see Barnes, Back to the Future: Human Rights and Legitimacy in the Training and Advisory Mission, Special Warfare, January-March 2013, posted at http://media.wix.com/ugd/a8edf7_3ceb977e13df46129e7fe22b9dae6789.pdf.

On the strategic dilemma facing President Obama in sending additional SOF forces to Iraq and Syria, see http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-to-send-special-forces-to-syria-1446216062 and https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/after-promising-to-end-two-wars-obama-may-leave-three-behind/2015/10/31/01f3f70a-7fe3-11e5-beba-927fd8634498_story.html?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_headlines. On the dangers of incrementalism to a coherent strategy, see https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-dangers-of-incrementalism/2015/11/05/22aad1de-83f9-11e5-9afb-0c971f713d0c_story.html?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_opinions.

A Containment Strategy to Defeat Islamist Terrorism

 By Rudy Barnes, Jr.

            U.S. military strategy to combat the terrorism of radical Islam, or Islamism, in the Middle East and Africa is sorely in need of clarification.  Critics have long complained that the U.S. lacks a clear and coherent strategy in the region, and since Russia intervened in Syria to support the Assad regime the lack of a U.S. strategy to confront radical Islamism in Syria and Iraq has become painfully obvious.  Plans to train and equip indigenous forces to fight Assad’s regime and ISIS have failed, and there is a real danger of an unintended confrontation between U.S. and Russian military forces in the region. 

            Things are little better in Afghanistan, where there has been a resurgence of the Taliban and ISIS has asserted itself.  A U.S. AC-130U gunship supporting Afghan forces destroyed a hospital run by Doctors Without Borders leaving 22 civilian casualties; and U.S. Special Forces have continued to ignore flagrant human rights abuses by the Afghan forces they advise.  By sacrificing its legal and moral standards to political and military expediency the U.S. has undermined its legitimacy in Islamic cultures, where apostasy and blasphemy laws, honor killings and traditional practices that abuse children and women are sanctified by Islamic law (shari’a), and political corruption remains endemic.    

            The U.S. military interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq were based on the premise that regime change would enable those nations to embrace the principles of democracy, human rights and the secular rule of law.  That has not happened.  A clear and coherent U.S. national security strategy is now needed to address Islamist terrorism in the Middle East and Africa, and that strategy should be based on containment rather than confrontation.

            Containment was the U.S. strategy that addressed the threat of communism during the Cold War.  Direct confrontation with the USSR as a nuclear power was ruled out by the danger of mutually assured destruction, or MAD.  Low intensity proxy conflicts became the norm for the Cold War, and the Vietnam War was the exception that proved the rule.

            A strategy of containment rather than military confrontation is necessary to avoid extended U.S. combat operations in Islamic cultures.  The U.S. has expended billions of dollars and spilled precious blood to little effect in Afghanistan and Iraq, recalling the painful U.S. experience in Vietnam.  But unlike Vietnam, Islamist terrorism continues to be a very real threat to the U.S. and its allies, and that necessitates a long-term containment strategy like that of the Cold War that can minimize U.S. military confrontations in hostile Islamic cultures.

            Conservative politicians continue to urge the deployment of more U.S. combat troops to the Middle East to defeat radical Islamist terrorism there before it can get to the U.S.  But experience in Iraq and Afghanistan has taught that large deployments of U.S. forces in Islamic cultures do more harm than good, with U.S. forces seen as infidels who exacerbate the religious polarization sought by al-Qaeda and ISIS.  No matter how effective they are militarily, U.S. military forces in Islamic cultures undermine strategic U.S. political objectives.  They not only jeopardize the legitimacy of the supported government, but they also make the U.S. the common enemy of sectarian Islamic factions that would otherwise be fighting each other.

            Sectarian conflict reflects an Islam in transition, and it will take time to determine whether mainstream Islam is compatible with democracy, human rights and the secular rule of law or becomes what al-Qaeda and ISIS claim it to be—a religion that uses violence to dominate Islam and oppress the rest of the world.  The defeat of radical Islamism depends upon moderate Muslims undermining the legitimacy of radical Islamism with libertarian values that begin with the freedoms of religion and speech.  That would convince the world that Islam is a religion of peace and justice rather than one of violence and oppression.

            Islamist terrorism will not be defeated by U.S. military forces in Islamic cultures, but only when it is denied legitimacy among Muslims.  A U.S. strategy of containment can allow that to happen in Islamic cultures, but it must be complemented by a strategy of confrontation in the U.S. to identify and eliminate terrorist threats.  Domestic U.S. counterterrorism capabilities coupled with limited special operations capabilities overseas can contain the threat of Islamist terrorism to Islamic cultures and allow Muslims to deny its legitimacy, so long as the U.S. does not provide it with undeserved legitimacy with a large deployment of combat forces.

           

Notes and References to Resources:           

Previous blogs on related topics are: Religion and Reason, December 8, 2014; Faith and Freedom, December 15, 2014; Religion, Violence and Military Legitimacy, December 29, 2014; Religion and New Beginnings: Salvation and Reconciliation into the Family of God, January 4, 2015; The Greatest Commandment, January 11, 2015; Love over Law: A Principle at the Heart of Legitimacy, January 18, 2015; Jesus Meets Muhammad: Is There a Common Word of Faith for Jews, Christians and Muslims Today? January 25, 2015; A Fundamental Problem with Religion, May 3, 2015; Religion, Human Rights and National Security, May 10, 2015; De Oppresso Liber: Where Religion and Politics Intersect, May 24, 2015; The Future of Religion: In Decline and Growing, June 7, 2015; Christians Meet Muslims Today, June 14, 2015; Fear and Fundamentalism, July 26, 2015; Freedom and Fundamentalism, August 2, 2015; How Religious Fundamentalism and Secularism Shape Politics and Human Rights, August 16, 2015; Legitimacy as a Context and Paradigm to Resolve Religious Conflict, August 23, 2015; What Is Truth? August 23, 2015; The European Refugee Crisis and Radical Islam, September 6, 2015; and Politics and Religious Polarization, September 20, 2015.

President Obama revised his commitment to withdraw all U.S. forces from Afghanistan by the end of 2016 following the recent surge by the Taliban in Kunduz that resulted in the destruction of the Doctors Without Borders hospital.  See https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-expected-to-announce-new-plan-to-keep-5500-troops-in-afghanistan/2015/10/14/d98f06fa-71d3-11e5-8d93-0af317ed58c9_story.html?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_evening.

U.S. Special Forces soldiers have been advised to ignore the sexual abuse of boys by Afghan allies.  See http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/world/asia/us-soldiers-told-to-ignore-afghan-allies-abuse-of-boys.html?_r=0.  On the need for U.S. Special Operations trainers and advisors to promote compliance with fundamental human rights, see Barnes, Back to the Future: Human Rights and Legitimacy in the Training and Advisory Mission, Special Warfare, January-March 2013, posted at http://media.wix.com/ugd/a8edf7_3ceb977e13df46129e7fe22b9dae6789.pdf.

The failure of U.S. policy to train, arm and equip a rebel force in Syria resulted in a shift of policy that initially appeared to be more compatible with a strategy of containment than confrontation.  See https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/pentagon-plans-sharp-scaledown-in-efforts-to-train-syrian-rebels/2015/10/09/78a2553c-6e80-11e5-9bfe-e59f5e244f92_story.html?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_headlines.  But the announcement that the U.S. will be sending Special Forces to Syria has raised new questions about U.S. military strategy in the region.  See http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-to-send-special-forces-to-syria-1446216062.

Michael Gerson has criticized President Obama’s celebration of counterfeit war victories in the Middle East.  See https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-united-states-counterfeit-victories-abroad/2015/10/29/fde592b2-7e76-11e5-b575-d8dcfedb4ea1_story.html?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_headlines. 

Thomas L. Friedman sees only two ways for coherent self-government to emerge in the Arab world: Through the total occupation of an outside power (the ultimate intervention and confrontation policy used by the U.S. in Afghanistan and Iraq), or by allowing the sectarian fires to burn themselves out without U.S. military intervention—and Friedman considers the latter more likely than the former.  See http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/27/opinion/thomas-friedman-contain-and-amplify.html?emc=eta1&_r=0. 

Walter Pincus favors containment over confrontation citing the painful lessons of Vietnam. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/in-iraq-lessons-of-vietnam-still-resonate/2015/05/25/86a20a82-00bd-11e5-805c-c3f407e5a9e9_story.html?wpisrc=nl_headlines&wpmm=1.

Andrew Bacevich suggested a containment strategy for Islamic extremism in The Limits of Power (2008, Metropolitan Books, Henry Holt & Co.) at pp 176.177.