Throughout history, we have seen this distinction be a driving force for the United States when confronting its political enemies abroad, and our justification for this force is that we are spreading democracy and peace.
Zachary Antoyan
[follow id = “CPMustangNews”]
Zachary Antoyan is a political science senior and Mustang News liberal columnist. These views do not necessarily reflect the opinion or editorial coverage of Mustang News.
You walk into an ice cream parlor and order a scoop of your favorite flavor, strawberry. A few moments later, some dude walks in and orders what he proclaims out loud to be his favorite flavor, rocky road. Both of you believe your flavor of ice cream is the best flavor.
So naturally, you become instant, mortal and existential enemies. You have a lot of reasons why strawberry is the best and rocky road is not, but ultimately, all you know is that you enjoy strawberry more than you enjoy rocky road. This isn’t something either of you will budge on, and after the dust settles, the cashier is unconscious, a chair has broken the window, tables are overturned and neither of you are really sure why you are fighting.
That’s kind of what the relationship between the United States and al-Qaeda is like. The more you know.
But let’s break this relationship down, because the two entities have been yelling at and fighting against each other for a while. Even though at one point the United States, or more specifically the CIA, helped fund and arm al-Qaeda to fight the Russians, the recent vibes of communication are … strained.
More importantly, no one appears to be curious as to what someone means when they say, “Death to the West!” I doubt they wish destruction upon the western world because they are jealous of our SUVs, healthcare system and Six Flags Magic Mountain (though I can see how people would want that last one).
And truthfully, the rhetoric we send back isn’t exactly the most welcoming either. “The only way to defeat terrorism as a threat to our way of life is to stop it, eliminate it and destroy it where it grows,” President George W. Bush said after the attacks on the Twin Towers in New York.
The friend-enemy distinction, talked about in length by political theorist Carl Schmitt, is one where two opposing sides hold fundamentally different viewpoints about some subject. They are, for all intents and purposes, existential enemies, or enemies to the core. This difference on viewpoints can manifest itself in various different areas, such as how government should be run, how the universe came into existence or which ice cream flavor is the best. Obviously strawberry.
Throughout history, we have seen this distinction be a driving force for the United States when confronting its political enemies abroad, and our justification for this force is that we are spreading democracy and peace. Could it be that these same justifications for war in order to achieve peace are used by other entities? When two bodies who both believe they can spread peace by annihilating the “enemy,” we get both wars in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, the Korean War, the Vietnam War and Congressional gridlock, to name a few.
What is regarded as the driving theoretical force behind al-Qaeda may provide the answer to why it and the United States remain enemies. Milestones, a book written by Sayyid Qutb in 1964, attempts to lay out what the role of Islam in the modern world should be. It is a compelling book, yet one whose claims are not necessarily accepted by all Muslims. It did, however, have a significant influence on al-Qaeda during the late 1980s.
The ultimate goal for Qutb is peace. Cool, glad we agree on something. Unfortunately, the methods through which he believes peace to be brought about are methods that I — and the United States — cannot accept.
Qutb believes “Humanity is devoid of those vital values which are necessary not only for its healthy development but also for its real progress.” Islam, which he states is a way of life as compared to just a religion, is the solution to this issue of a lack of values. His peace requires the destruction of current oppressive structures of culture, society and government in order to make way for a new government where the core tenants of Islam are the basis through which government is run. His belief is God’s law is supreme law, and therefore should be followed in all instances. There is no alternate option.
This is how and why al-Qaeda opposes us. It is not because we had a minor disagreement on how to run government. Our values, basis of government and beliefs about the world stand fundamentally at odds with the values of al-Qaeda. Furthermore, they think the only course of action is the systematic destruction of any society that does not base its laws on God’s law.
Once more, Qutb and al-Qaeda hold that, “Islam asks: “Do you know better, or does God?” and then answers it: “God knows and you do not know.” Do you know better than God about law and government? No, you don’t. So shut up, mortal.
Recently an article entitled “Is The U.S. Powerless to Stop the Spread of al-Qaeda?” attempted to pinpoint how efforts of democratization in the Middle East have failed to prevent the spread of Islamic extremist views such those held by al-Qaeda. I wanted to clearly point out our attempted spread of democracy may in fact be causing the growth and spread of al-Qaeda.
Additionally, do our attempts at spreading democracy appear no different to them than how al-Qaeda appears to us as it spreads its message? We move in with guns, with tanks and with planes, occupy their territory, dismantle their system of government and replace it with our own, because we claim it to be “better.” If they hold fundamentally different beliefs about the world and government, then how can we expect them to embrace democracy in the same way that we do?
This is Zachary Antoyan, trying to live his life by this creed: maximize chill, minimize un-chill. Have a very chill week, everyone.