Neocontainment

A friend pointed me at this recent article in the Boston Globe, The best global strategy to contain radical Islam may be the one that won the Cold War.

"Yet what we face today is not wholly novel: It is a war of ideas, mirroring the Cold War. Like the Communists, violent Islamic extremists are trying to spread a worldview that denigrates personal liberty and demands submission to a narrow ideology. And, as with the Cold War, it must be our goal to stop them. The United States should therefore adopt a new version of the policy that served us so well during that last long war: containment."

What they describe as "neocontainment" isn't all that different from the old containment policy, I think the neo part is just for a new (decentralized) enemy. They argue that the Iraq War has hurt our standing in the world and done nothing to increase our security. I agree. They agree with our invasion of Afghanistan.

"In Lebanon's complex political landscape, Iran and Syria support the Islamist Hezbollah party-cum-militia, while the United States backs the secular Lebanese government. Another Islamist movement, Fatah al Islam, enjoys a nebulous connection to Al Qaeda. We should be using our country's massive financial resources to allow the Lebanese government to outspend its competitors by a factor of 10, showering much-needed aid on the Lebanese people, and thus de-legitimizing their opponents and debunking their ideology. Instead, the government cannot meet its basic responsibilities, and extremist movements are increasingly seen as the only institutions capable of bettering lives."

As for Pakistan they say our $5.5 billion in military aid isn't helping as much and that "In the long run, 5,000 secular teachers for Pakistan's middle schools will do more for America's national security than will 50,000 AK-47s for the country's army." I agree, but I'm not sure how we put secular teachers in Pakistan. Bringing in Americans won't work and giving them funds doesn't guarantee the secular part. And I'm not sure how you get them to the tribal lands effectively. Still the sentiment is correct. They also say "Only after a comprehensive Indo/Pakistani border settlement will Pakistan shift its military energy from south to north.", well yeah but good luck with that.

I do agree with this:

"On occasion, extremist governments hostile to the existence of the United States (Hamas in the Gaza Strip) will enjoy broad popular support, but preemptive wars must become a thing of the past. We cannot say that we value freedom and then seek political change through force when the choice of the people produces regimes not to our liking. However, the military can, and must, be used to target individuals bent on terror aimed at American interests. Furthermore, if a nation enables attacks on our homeland, as Afghanistan did under the Taliban, then we must use all necessary means to defend ourselves. On rare occasions, this will require full-out war and post-invasion reconstruction."

Seems like a new name for a common sense policy. Maybe that is a necessary step. I'm not sure if the name "neocontainment" is too much like "neoconservative" to be viewed as different or close enough to be viewed as acceptable.