Book review: Faith, Reason, and the War against Jihadism, by George Weigel
I distinctly remember watching American news channels in the days following the September 11 attacks, in which journalist after journalist asked their invited guests: “Why do they hate us so much?” Americans knew they were now at war, but with whom, and why? “Faith, Reason, and the War against Jihadism” is George Weigel’s significant attempt to answer that question, though 15 “lessons” on the nature of this struggle for civilization.
The major merit of this book is in key elements of its analysis that most modern secularists seem unable to grasp. For example, the simple notion that “ideas have consequences” should be itself self-evident, and yet to many in our modern world it just isn’t: for many, it seems, human culture is driven by economics, rather than by ideas. While not completely untrue, this is a myth that leads to certain untenable conclusions about the nature of civilizational conflict, such as the idea that people are driven to terrorist jihad because of anger over poverty or lack of opportunity. Um, no: Osama bin Laden, for example, was himself a multi-millionaire, and the London bombers were all British born and raised. Ideas *do* have consequences, and theological ideas are the most consequential of all. Weigel reminds his readers of this fact, in order to help them be able to “think like the enemy”. It may be a hard lesson to learn, but a necessary one.
There are two major ways in which this book is weak, however. First of all, there is no real introspective analysis of Western (particularly American) culture and history and they way it has led to certain grievances and resentments on the part of others. Weigel does take his usual shots at the Europeans for having lost “the will to live” as a civilization (and in this he may be right), but he still seems unable to see the ways in which America (as represented by certain Americans) has also been “the bad guy” at times. I am not saying that Weigel needs to transform himself into some sort of self-hating American: he is proud of his country as a whole, and rightly so. Still, love can blind us, and the curious tendency for that great nation to forgive itself for its sins and then not understand why others do not forget them will not help people to live in the realism Weigel proclaims is so necessary.
The second major way in which this book is weak is in its treatment of the war in Iraq. Weigel argued strongly in favour of the invasion prior to it actually taking place, and even tried to advance the development of Catholic just war theory to justify the invasion. It seems to me to be inarguable that post-September-11 emotions were manipulated to generate public support for the invasion, even though it had nothing to do with the struggle against jihadist terrorism. And, as it turns out, nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction either. Of course, the war has *become* a struggle against jihadist terrorism (as well as all sorts of other elements), with resentment against American adventurism increased as well, but the only mentions of Iraq in this book comes across as a rear-guard apologia for the war. Mr. Weigel, you were wrong. Just say it, and we can all move on.
In the end, I think this book is a very valuable contribution to a conversation that needs to take place. I don’t think that Mr. Weigel has all the answers necessarily, but he sure does ask some good questions and make some good points. If I had the time I’d write a book in reply (as I think others more learned than me should), just to see the conversation continue and contribute to a “road-map” to something even more important than victory: to peace. If you are interested in really *thinking* about the nature of this global conflict, read this book. My rating: B-
“It seems to me to be inarguable that post-September-11 emotions were manipulated to generate public support for the invasion, even though it had nothing to do with the struggle against jihadist terrorism. And, as it turns out, nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction either.”
You seem to be stating a position that manipulating emotions to generate support for a war is wrong; but isn’t this what government does in any war? And Point Two, could any American government really manipulate emotions?
Shouldn’t you really be calling this a successful attempt to manipulate emotions rather than looking at it as some dark plot to hijack America by the Bush Administration? Have you ever noticed that Bush is either some dark genius or an idiot, depending on whether he has outmaneuvered his opposition or not?
The event of 2007 is the idiot making the surge which now appears to be working. If we ever get a democratic Iraq with Sunnis, Shias and Kurds living in some peaceful approximation to each other, then the sacrifice of American blood and treasure will be seen to have been more than justified and Mr Bush, horror of horrors to the American Left, will have cemented in a legacy as the most transformational President in the past 60 years.
Iraq had “nothing to do with” the struggle against jihadist terrorism? Do you forget that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of Al-Qaeda of Mesopotamia, was working in northern Iraq trying to kill the Kurdish leadership prior to the invasion? How do you get to wander around Sadam’s Iraq doing that?
There is so much dust and confusion over the origins of the Iraq war that only the most politically extreme would embrace any opinion about it. You cannot blithely assume ANYTHING or deem any of it INARGUABLE.
It is ALL arguable and should have nothing to do with your site, unless you want to start feeding nitwits. And PLEASE before anyone jumps to any conclusions on my politics, I only confess to being a Catholic Christian who prays for peace and who will wait for others to settle the arguments here. They both have excellent points of view. I am only advocating the fog of war here and poor intelligence.
I have never understood the concept of “just war”, Catholic or otherwise. Scripture is not clear about the social and political solution to war; but Scripture is very clear about the spiritual solution: The solution is spiritual warfare, a war against all war and all other evils. “Overcome evil with good.” [Romans 12:21]. If we see that incarnated evil (bullies) has no power over us, we will not fear, and we will not fight fire with fire, evil with evil, but will fight evil with good, aware of the true identity of our enemies: not flesh and blood but “principalities and powers” [Ephesians 6:12].
Advocating that policy and showing how it could be implemented is the job of all good Christians.
Jayd,
When you type “poor intelligence” do you mean on the part of people who dislike the Bush administration, or do you mean, like “Military Intelligence”?
No, not the ones who dislike the Bush Administration amongst whom I would place myself, but military intelligence and the American lack of preparedness to deal with that area of the world — which is beyond Bush/Clinton.
This is the stuff of years of State Department, NSA and CIA, Harvard University and other training grounds for career analysts. Much like Vietnam we will need to wait 10 to 20 years for the criticism. What we have now are talking heads and Fox experts.
I still think we are dealing with a tremendous lack of knowledge and I simply caution anyone mouthing (as Father Dowd did) the talking points for one American political party or another. They simply don’t hold up to some of the facts that we DO know, such as our knowledge of the wherebouts of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi prior to the war.
On hindsight, Colin Powell’s speech to the UN is remarkable for its lack of knowledge deriving from intelligence failures. If that’s the best data we can equip our decision makers with, no wonder we wind up the wrong creek with no paddles.
I’m simply saying that no one knows yet what the hell they are talking about and the idea of holding anyone “responsible” is somewhat of a joke.
Jayd,
I don’t think you will have to wait 10 or 20 years for criticism of the Iraq war – at least not from church
leaders. Pope John Paul II stated before the invasion of Iraq in 2003 that “this war would be a defeat for humanity and cannot be morally or legally justified.”
The Pope spoke out almost every day against the war and in support of dipomatic efforts for peace. He even sent his personal representative and friend of George W., Pio Laghi, to plead with the President not to invade Iraq. Laghi told Bush that the war would be illegal and unjust.
Of course, most media outlets, especially in the US, did not report any of these stories. Indeed, most Americans were unaware that the Pope publicly spoke out against the first gulf war at least 56 times.
Now we have Catholic neoconservatives such as George Weigel attempting to develop a new philosophy of “preventive war”. And there has been sharp criticism of that idea as well. When Pope Benedict was prefect of the CDF, he he stated, ” The concept of a ‘preventive war’ does not appear in the Catechism of the Catholic Faith” Again in 2003, Cardinal Ratzinger restated the position of the Holy Father on the Iraq War II. “There is not sufficient reason to unleash a war agaist Iraq…today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a just war.”
Criticism of the war, Heidi, in the context of my response, meant criticism of the conduct of the war and the decision to initiate hostilities. Neither of which, I am sure, the Vatican has ever spoken to. It’s very different from the morality of conducting such a war.
This is what Wiegel has written on the Catholic Church and war: “The catechism of the Catholic Church, in the section on the just war tradition, after listing the traditional criteria says quite explicitly the moral judgment on these matters is left to the prudence of statesmen. It’s not the business of Church leaders to make the call. It’s the business of Church leaders to clarify the principles, to teach the principles, to make sure that those principles are present in the public debate. But Catholic teaching says that this is a tradition for statesmen and they have to make the call, because they are the only ones with the full information necessary to make the call and they are the ones who have assumed the burden of moral choice here.”
That doesn’t sound like someone who is developing a new philosophy but simply explaining what the Catholic position is. “Neoconservative” is a kind of a loaded phrase when it comes to the Iraq war. Once again, I think before painting the broad brush strokes, people need to think about the level and quality of intelligence that was so obviously lacking.
One thing that can be said is that the world is a safer and better place without Sadam and his two murderous sons. Given the more time the Americans probably had, war was not the correct choice. That has nothing to do with the moral choice or what the Pope has addressed.