The Whack-A-Mole Doctrine

Samuel Huntington’s theory about a clash of civilizations is finally gaining traction.  With the advent of ISIS and its sister organizations, people are becoming aware that we are in a generational conflict with Radical Islam.  The question is: What shall we do about it?

Barack Obama has favored a passive approach.  He believes that if we refrain from an aggressive confrontation, our adversaries will mellow.  They will realize that we do not have hostile intensions and will relent.

Opposed to this was George W. Bush’s strategy.  He proposed to take on the Islamists in armed combat and soundly defeat them.  With this evil excised, it would be possible to implant democracy in the Middle East.  Moreover, because democracies do not like war, the threat to us would be alleviated.

So far neither of these policies has been a resounding success.  Bush’s belligerence did not crush Islamist ideals, while Obama’s docility only projected weakness.  How then are we to proceed?  Do we really believe that a few pinprick bombings will do the job?

I propose a different idea.  Call it the whack-a-mole doctrine.  In this game, whenever a mole pops up, he is knocked down.  Why not do the same with Islamist challenges to our nation?

How would that work?  To begin with, we have the finest military in the world.  In a head-to-head collision with any army or insurgency, it is capable of prevailing.  Lest we forget, our forces took Baghdad in a matter of weeks, while suffering relatively few casualties.

The problem came afterwards in trying to change the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people.  Given their culture and lack of egalitarian traditions, they were not receptive to our efforts to teach them how to be democratic.

So why don’t we forget about the second part of this equation and concentrate on the first.  When a group—or nation—threatens our integrity, why don’t we go in hard and fast to quash their aspirations?  Why don’t we then—in most cases—withdraw with equal speed leaving the indigenous peoples to clean up the mess?

If we developed a kind of flying wedge that had the capacity to strike virtually anywhere on the planet, couldn’t we wield it as a hammer to suppress menaces to our interests?  If we invested in the appropriate planes, tanks, and ships, wouldn’t these, along with a strong national will, intimidate most potential enemies?

 Of course, sooner or later a renewed challenge would likely arise.  We would then need to whack it down…and on, and on.  This would be a generational strategy that in the end rendered adventurism unappealing.

Could this work?  I submit that it already has—right here in the Americas.  The clash between European interlopers and the indigenous Indians lasted for hundreds of years.  There was not one battle, but many, many until it became clear that the native people were not going to prevail.

This, it may be argued, was unfair.   And it was.   The Europeans were clearly the aggressors.  Then again, the natives were not exactly pacifists.   Still, that is not the point.  What is, is that a forward strategy of periodically striking at the Indians in their home territories eventually succeeded.

When it did, the indigenous tribes became demoralized.  They ceased fighting, not because they suddenly found Western civilization attractive.  They did because they realized they could not win.

In time, and we are talking about generations, some of the Indians assimilated into the larger culture.  The Cherokees, for instance, despite having been shabbily treated, established a vigorous presence in Oklahoma.  They were forced to adapt, but they also managed to maintain their dignity and elements of their heritage.

Couldn’t the same be true of Islam?  After centuries of sporadic conflict, might not its Jihadist elements be tamed?  Islam does not have to disappear.  It can remain true to itself—as long as it relinquishes its designs against us.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University