A The Belmont Club Richard Fernandez discusses the propaganda of Islamic radicals who, at the moment, are ten steps ahead of the West in terms of spreading its message. The speed at which the message is spreading, the reach that it is attaining, and the sheer quantity cannot hope to be matched by the bureaucratic structures of Western Europe when terrorists operate fast and free-cell.

The unique nature of the enemy poses a great challenge for the United States in its war in Iraq. While it can never be defeated militarily, it can easily be demolished politically if it doesn’t fight back — and soon. Winning the hearts and minds of the Islamic world has been hard enough, but for them it’s been pie in the sky. Propaganda is now crossing borders in many language, feeding on what seems to be a popular sport these days: Anti-Americanism.

Richard writes about the complexities and complications:

One security analyst I heard speak claimed that practically every insurgent operation in Iraq had a video camera unit attached, but until recently practically all Jihadi video was in Arabic. “Arabic is the language of the ÄSunni SalafistÅ Jihad, and Jihadi videos were not even widely distributed in places like Indonesia or even Pakistan because they were in Arabic.” But that has changed, he said, and now the videos were making their appearance in English, sometimes in American Internet forums, and that for the first time Jihadi propaganda was being produced in German. The connection with Germany was momentarily incomprehensible until the history of the 9/11 attackers came to mind. Et in arcadia ego sum. The overarching purpose of those videos was to demonstrate American mortality and the vulnerability of the West. To spread the word that it is fun and easy to hunt Americans. The American officer who had authored the counterinsurgency lessons learned in Anbar, Capt. Travis Patriquin, himself died in combat, but not before warning that the ideas which eventually killed him were leaping over borders into the wider world.

The virulence of this meme is suggested by the circumstance that, in order to charge it, an unending supply of snuff films was required. And the importance of the media, as a sphere of combat was illustrated by Patriquin’s claim that the kinetic impact of insurgent operations themselves was itself subordinate to collecting the video of the operations. Lastly, the lethality of this meme is highlighted by the fact that those infected by it ‘cannot be coerced — only killed or captured”. A movie producer, confronted by the essentials of this narrative might only be able to depict it in terms of an incurable plague whose progress can only be stopped by quarantine and extinguishment. It would need a science fiction-horror movie script to adequately describe the actual reality of virtual Jihad. The grist needed to feed this dark spirit comes from everywhere. Gaza, Chechnya, Palestine all provide their share of footage.

But coldly regarded the virtual Jihad poses a formidable challenge because it uses the very sinews of an open society as a vector to spread, in particular the media and the Internet. And while physical Jihadis can be effectively met by traditional arms — including counterinsurgency — the West is still casting about for a method to meet the dark spirit of the virtual Jihad with a puissant spirit of its own. Five hundred years ago, a simpler world accused to living in the diurnal cycles would have no trouble accepting the notion of a natural truggle between a Demon and some Angel with a Flaming Sword. But in a modern world that can neither conceive of Demons nor invoke the aid of Angels, what notation is left to describe that aspect of warfare which Captain Patriquin posthumously warned us against? In mathematical history, the solution to a problem often awaited the advent of a notation. The machinery to be able to process a problem. The success of military science against the physical Jihad is owed partially to the existence of vocabulary about how to think about kinetic warfare. But for fighting the virtual Jihad we have no words. No name for the threat it represents, not even a name for our enemies.

The entire debate reminds me of a big news story a few years ago. The American Air Force bombs a wedding party near a Syrian border. Videotapes show people dressed up and celebrating before the destruction occurs. International and domestic outrage is hurled. Only… it wasn’t a wedding party. American military forces had been monitoring the convoy for some time. Having crossed the Syrian border with drugs, money, and weapons, the so-called wedding party was doing business with the insurgents. So they got blown up. However, due to military declassification procedure, it was many days before actual video of the events that took place was released to the media. And by that time, it was no longer a new story. Because the media didn’t make as big a deal out of the truth as it did the propaganda video created, people had one more reason to hate America.

It would be impossible for a centralized structure to find enough smart individuals who can engage in quick and effective counter-propaganda. Such an institution could never compete with the decentralized nature, not to mention the sheer number, of Islamic radicals working hard to make the world hate America just a little more each day. It is especially impossible — within a reasonable amount of time — to do so when its already existing institutions are completely in disarray. It has been revealed that less than a dozen of the staffers at the U.S. embassy to Iraq are even fluent in Arabic!

And the West hopes to win on the information front?…

Richard discusses the impact that blogs make, but even he knows that this is certainly not enough. If anything, they can only help stave the onslaught, as the terrorists find a willing participant in liberal democracy’s birth child, free media, to spread misinfornation and propaganda without batting eyelash or a hardball question. In essence, they are able to use liberal democracy’s best features as a mode for civilizational self-suicide. They are infecting Western society with a virus, much like HIV, that lowers its ability — no, desire — to defend itself from within, at which point it will disintegrate from a crisis of its own making.

There is one way to fight it, however. Radical Islam’s legitimacy is rested on two main principles: firstly the illegitimacy and immorality of the West, and secondly its own superiority. Groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah have bolstered themselves well by applying these two points by constantly propagandizing against the West (but America and Israel in particular), and opening various social services such as schools and clinics where they operate.

The first principle is almost irrelevant. It can only be staved off and hopefully immunized within Western civilization itself, but it is unlikely that such efforts will be successful in the Islamic world at any point in the near future. Giving up as a civilization, therefore living in a way that is suitable to the Islamic radicals, is the only way until they themselves somehow become delegitimized by whatever new ideology arises.

Commenter at the Belmont Club hyperborealis writes:

In her essay on the Nazi propagandist Reifenstahl, Sontag noted that the Nuremberg rallies were staged for the sake of Riefenstahl’s documentary. Likewise, she argued that in some sense Hitler staged the world war for the sake of the films from the front which apparently he would watch obsessively. Wretchard, you are making Lee Harris’ point about Islamic fascism being a fantasy ideology: it is only in the movies, the terrorists’ little videos, that their lives can seem glorious and their beliefs seem real.

This is exactly right, so it is the second point that must be met head on.

I contend that, contrary to many realists and even many advocates who have abandoned their positions in recent months, that democracy is and will always be the answer to the problem of Islamic radicalism. These groups breed in constant opposition; whether to the United States or their country’s own regime. They can do and say whatever they want because their actions and words have no consequences for them politically except to only boost their popularity. However, many of these groups have never been put in the position to lead an entire country. Putting them in the position to do so through free and fair democratic elections is exactly what’s needed.

Of course, the natural argument against this is that it is pointless to hold democratic elections if an undemocratic force comes to power, simply to reverse the process. This is exactly what happened in Palestine, where Hamas has come to power through free elections. In the long-run, this is precisely what needs to happen. Secular Arab-nationalism’s various dictatorships all across the Middle East have discredited themselves through failed policies over the past couple generations, preparing the breeding ground in their wake the alternative ideology of pan-Islamism that is currently taking hold. If an Islamic party such as Hamas is in power through elections, decides to hijack the electoral process recently won by the Palestinian people, and holds power while accomplishing little for them, the same process will unfold. Thus radical Islam, instead of being a virus for the West, will be a virus for itself. Just look at Iran, where generations born following the Islamic Revolution are ready for a secular, democratic republic.

That is the miracle effect that democracy can have on the region. Radical Islam will either die from illegitimacy or reform to the point where they are no different from other moderate political Islamist groups such as those in Kuwait or the Gulf states. Those authoritarian regimes who begin reform now increase the chance that they will maintain participation in any future government without being completely overthrown. Those who do not, will be. Yet either way, when Islamists gain power, they do so at the risk of following the path of their predecessors if they continue their strong-arm tactics.

The process will be long and hard, but worth it. Just as it took nearly a half-century of the Cold War for communism to discredit itself as an alternative to liberal democracy, so too will it take generations for the same to happen to radical Islam. Have hope — in this day of information and technology, I am betting that it will be sooner rather than later.

This is why it is important to continue pushing for democracy in the Middle East. Many gains have been made in the past few years. It would be ridiculous to give up now just because Hamas wins an election and the Muslim Brotherhood score 1/4 of the seats in Egypt’s parliament. This seemingly disastrous result is actually desirable. There is little the West can do directly to fight the ideology on its own turf. Radical Islam must discredit itself. That so many previous advocates of democracy in the Middle East have given up because of this is regrettable. I just hope that they haven’t gained any clout in the Bush administration.