More on comedy and the war on terror, and on moving beyond it

It seems as if my post on the role of comedy in this War on Terror was timely. The New York Times published an article on Friday on Saudis rethinking of the taboo of letting women drive. (H/T Tom Barnett).

Barnett notes the different reasons for the Saudis' move with regard to this long held taboo; economics and connectivity. However, he also notes the role of Saudi Arabia's popular sitcoms,“Tash Ma Tash” (“No Big Deal” and “Amsha Bint Amash” (“Amsha, Daughter of Amash”), in preparing Saudi society for allowing women to drive. The use of comedy, or entertainment to acculturate a society to coming change is not something new, and is something we need to take note of as we look for better ways to fight this war on terror.

In his latest piece, Tom Friedman (H/T Tom Barnett) calls for this very rethinking on 9/11 and its after effects while also endorsing what he refers to as the 9/12 candidate or the candidate who moves beyond the anger, and fear, "a president who will unite us around a common purpose, not a common enemy."

He's right. The War on Terror needs to be reshaped, beginning with its name. We need to move away from promoting fear of terrorism, extremism, invasion, etc. In short, away from the largely kinetic mode we've been in during the last six years, and toward employing every aspect of our power, particularly the largely underutilized soft-power of diplomacy, and the universal appeal of our culture, both with regard to entertainment, as well as our values.

Does this mean that we just pretend that we no longer have any enemies? Of course not. As Friedman states,

"It is not that I thought we had new enemies that day and now I don’t. Yes, in the wake of 9/11, we need new precautions, new barriers. But we also need our old habits and sense of openness. For me, the candidate of 9/12 is the one who will not only understand who our enemies are, but who we are."

"Before 9/11, the world thought America’s slogan was: “Where anything is possible for anybody.” But that is not our global brand anymore. Our government has been exporting fear, not hope: 'Give me your tired, your poor and your fingerprints.'"

Barnett calls this the natural realignment we need. I agree. It is not that we don't continue fighting our enemies, but rather that we do it more intelligently. That means moving away from the rhetoric of Iraq as the pivot on which this GWOT will turn, toward a better understanding of the type of war we are actually fighting. It means recognizing that in Iraq we are engaging many different enemies, few of which actually have anything to do with Al Qaeda, hence we end up in a situation where we are spending too much blood, and treasure for too little gain.

Al Qaeda, as the president and others like to quote so much, says that Iraq is the most important battlefield for them, and yet, al Qaeda makes up less than 10 percent of the Iraqi Sunni insurgency, which itself is only 15 percent of the population. Al Qaeda touts Iraq as the main front in the GWOT, because it knows how much money and blood we are spending there everyday, they know that our population is growing weary. The reason is plain, in Iraq we are fighting not only Sunni insurgents, including al Qaeda, but also Shiite militias and to a lesser extent Kurdish militias seeking to destabilize Turkey, Iran and Syria. Yet, while we fight in Iraq against these myriad 'enemies,' al Qaeda re-groups in safety in Pakistan and the Taliban gains strength in Afghanistan. No matter how you look at it, that is not the best way to fight this GWOT, whose focus has become so myopic that we fail to see anything but Iraq.

It is time to step back and reassess where we are, and were we are going, and to come up with a better means of getting there. Seeing Iraq as the end all of this GWOT, is reminiscent of the arguments about Vietnam with regard to the Cold War. Yet, once we withdrew from Vietnam, we moved to not only contain the carnage, but also to reengage more creatively with the world, including Communist China. No longer being consumed by Vietnam, we moved to craft a new strategy that exploited the vast differences between the Soviets and the Chinese, while also promoting a market economy abroad, particularly in East Asia where through our security umbrella we allowed Japan and the Asian Tigers to focus on economic growth and not on military build-ups. We need a similar over-arching strategy again, one that looks beyond the immediate battle and focuses on the larger board; in short, we need real leadership.