I found Jeffrey Planchard’s argument calling for the use of military force to prevent the rise of Islamist governments false and unconvincing (“New Somalia Helps Islamist Goals,” THE HOYA, Sept. 26, 2006, A3).
Planchard begins by criticizing a New York Times article about the new government in Mogadishu, which reported that “Islamists seem to be trying to increase public support by softening their views.” He then asks, “Do we. really think it is in the best interest of the United States to have an Islamist government in charge of a nation that once was the site of al-Qaeda attacks and operations?”
Here, Planchard misses the point. Political Islam is not something to be feared. What should be feared is the rejection of pluralism, which is manifest most profoundly in totalitarianism. Totalitarianism can exist with or without Islam. Islam is not the issue here, and we would do well to exercise caution before leaping to judgments about the Somali government or any government that is only beginning to get its bearings. After all, it took us quite a long time in the United States to determine what kind of a republic we wished to have for ourselves.
Planchard’s concerns do deserve some thought, however. I had a conversation with an Iraqi who thought what was happening in his country was a poor display of democracy, but failed to see that his own actions and those of his comrades showed Islam in a negative light. This helps explain why these two entities are in conflict, even though they are not intrinsically incompatible.
Islam and democracy are very demanding institutions: Democracy demands that we accept the responsibilities of self-government and the duty of respecting the rights of all our fellow citizens, even those whom we don’t like. I am not a Muslim, but I suspect a religion that requires total submission to the will of a God who does not always make his will clear must pose some serious problems for those who take it seriously.
The effort to live as a true democrat or Muslim (not to mention the even more difficult task of simultaneously adhering to the requirements of democracy and Islam) can be terribly exhausting. One convenient way to avoid the difficulty of this task is to concentrate not on how I live my life but on how others live theirs. Not only is it more pleasant to think about others’ failings rather than my own, concentrating solely on the actions of others also justifies action that is easier than trying to bring my conduct into conformity with my ideals.
For those who consider themselves advocates of democracy, this can mean conducting a “war for democracy;” For Muslims, it can mean a jihad to convert or destroy those one disagrees with. It’s only when we concentrate on making others live as democrats or Muslims that we get into disputes.
Switching his focus to Iran, Planchard laments that “conventional wisdom has been the greatest enemy of… decisive action by our government.” If he is referring to the conventional wisdom of most senior officers in the United States Army, he is correct: Army Chief of Staff General Peter Shoomaker recently refused to present the Secretary of Defense with a budget because he was concerned that the Army would not receive enough money to fund its current commitments.
This fact, and the fact that Iran possesses strong defense capabilities, run contrary to Planchard’s claim that a war with Iran is “probably not logistically” impossible. A full-scale invasion is out of the question without major restructuring of the Armed Forces. Also, considering the vulnerability of our troops in Iraq, even a small military action against Iran would carry the risk of a much wider war.
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan do not only cause logistical problems for the Army. They cause manpower issues as well. Planchard says, “I know we are all tired of being at war.” Tell that to the Marines! My year in Iraq felt like an eternity, yet many men and women are preparing for (or have already begun) their third tours of duty.
I know many soldiers who are choosing not to reenlist due to the physical, mental and emotional strain caused by multiple deployments to combat zones. We have a wonderfully powerful all-volunteer military. But like anything else, it can be overused and worn out.
Finally, Planchard asks us to consider why our military exists. It is true that the military’s purpose is to defend the people and promote the interests of the United States, but the military is just one of our country’s many tools. We must ensure that other means are exhausted before the military is called into the fray. A country that goes looking for wars is not one that respects pluralism. The world is not ours.
The global war on terrorism is going to take a long time. We must keep our focus on the enemy and not become sidetracked by misplaced fears of political Islam or misplaced confidence in the capabilities of our military.
William J. Quinn is a freshman in the School of Foreign Service and was a staff sergeant in the United States Army from 2001 to 2006.