A War Of Ideas

The War of Ideas is being fought both within Islamic societies and between some Muslim voices and the West. The War of Ideas is a struggle between moral claims, political philosophies, and historical interpretations that compete for assent within a society and across borders. Like the ideological component of the Cold War, the War of Ideas is about the fundamental principles of human society, from the basis for law and structures of governance to gender relations and the nexus of religion and politics. It is a global War: the foes have resorted to arms to protect and promote their worldview. This book brings together some of the most important voices from different partisan, theoretical and religious perspectives to argue and forecast the next phase in the War of Ideas.

Many references to "the war of ideas" have appeared in defense literature recently. However, few of them actually shed any light on what wars of ideas are. This monograph, by Dr. Antulio J. Echevarria II, begins by classifying several types of wars of ideas. It is important to note, as the author points out, that physical events, whether intended or incidental, can play determining roles in the ways these kinds of conflicts unfold, and how (or whether) they are resolved. In other words, because ideas are interpreted subjectively, it is not likely that opposing parties will "win" each other over by means of an ideational campaign alone. Moreover, third parties may consider the actions of the belligerents as much more important than the collective merits of their ideas.

The Trump administration brought major changes in how the United States relates to the Muslim World, and a growing awareness of the need to compete with radical Islamic forces in the domain of their theocratically-based ideology. This work explores the current state of the “wars of ideas” against radical Islam and identifies America’s potential partners in this fight.

How philosophical differences between Eurozone nations led to the Euro crisis—and where to go from here Why is Europe's great monetary endeavor, the Euro, in trouble? A string of economic difficulties in Greece, Ireland, Spain, Italy, and other Eurozone nations has left observers wondering whether the currency union can survive. In this book, Markus Brunnermeier, Harold James, and Jean-Pierre Landau argue that the core problem with the Euro lies in the philosophical differences between the founding countries of the Eurozone, particularly Germany and France. But the authors also show how these seemingly incompatible differences can be reconciled to ensure Europe’s survival. As the authors demonstrate, Germany, a federal state with strong regional governments, saw the Maastricht Treaty, the framework for the Euro, as a set of rules. France, on the other hand, with a more centralized system of government, saw the framework as flexible, to be overseen by governments. The authors discuss how the troubles faced by the Euro have led its member states to focus on national, as opposed to collective, responses, a reaction explained by the resurgence of the battle of economic ideas: rules vs. discretion, liability vs. solidarity, solvency vs. liquidity, austerity vs. stimulus. Weaving together economic analysis and historical reflection, The Euro and the Battle of Ideas provides a forensic investigation and a road map for Europe’s future.

This book describes and appraises American use of propaganda in Vietnam (l965-l972) as an instrument of foreign policy. In an effort to point out pitfalls to be avoided and successful techniques worthy of emulation in future psychological operations, the case study shows how some proven and time-honored prescriptions for effective propaganda were observed in Vietnam and how many others were ignored. Accordingly, strengths and weaknesses and successes and failures are highlighted. Ninety-five illustrations and numerous quotations of American leaflets and posters are included. These were selected to provide the reader a "feeling" or "flavor" of the propaganda campaign.

Despite widespread emphasis on the importance of winning the war of ideas in recent strategic literature, we find few analytical studies of wars of ideas as such. With that in mind, this monograph offers a brief examination of four common types of wars of ideas, and uses that as a basis for analyzing how the United States and its allies and strategic partners might proceed in the current war of ideas. Scoping the Problem. Simply put, a war of ideas is a clash of visions, concepts, and images, and- especially-the interpretation of them. They are, indeed, genuine wars, even though the physical violence might be minimal, because they serve a political, socio-cultural, or economic purpose, and they involve hostile intentions or hostile acts. Wars of ideas can assume many forms, but they tend to fall into four general categories (though these are not necessarily exhaustive): (a) intellectual debates, (b) ideological wars, (c) wars over religious dogma, and (d) advertising campaigns. All of them are essentially about power and influence, just as with wars over territory and material resources, and their stakes, can run very high indeed. Intellectual Debates are disputes in which opposing sides advance their arguments, support them with evidence, and endeavor to refute the reasoning and conclusions of the other. Examples include the ongoing debate between Pro-Choice and Pro-Life advocates, and therecent dispute between the theories of "intelligent design" and evolution. Ideological Wars are a clash of broad visions usually organized around a doctrine, whether secular or non-secular. The most popular example of an ideological conflict is the Cold War, which involved political, economic, and military competition between the United States and the Soviet Union and their respective allies. Disputes over Religious Dogma are a form of intellectual debate, but they center on conflicting interpretations of sacred tenets or texts, the access to which can be, and often is, deliberately restricted or otherwise limited. Examples include the Sunni-Shiite split within Islam and Catholicism's East-West schism. Advertising Campaigns are contests between competing producers or vendors for "market share." The objective of such campaigns is to persuade audiences to take desired actions, such as voting for a particular candidate, visiting a certain place, or buying a specific product. A classic example is the "Cola Wars" between Coca Cola and Pepsi-Cola. Inconclusive outcomes are not unusual in wars of ideas. Opposing sides seldom change their positions based on the introduction of new evidence, or new ways of evaluating existing evidence. Thus, wars of ideas are rarely settled on the merits of the ideas themselves. Instead, they tend to drag on, unless an event occurs that causes the belligerents to focus their attention elsewhere. When conclusive outcomes do occur, they tend to follow the physical elimination or marginalization of one side's key proponents. In other cases, a major event, such as the collapse of the Soviet Union, might occur that renders one side incapable of continuing the conflict or campaign. Thus, physical events, whether designed or incidental, are in some respects more important to the course and outcome of a war of ideas than the ideas themselves.

From Afghanistan and Iraq to Europe and the United States we are engaged in one of the most heated wars of all time. In this incisive new book, the man that has been called--the only one to understand the mind of the jihadist--shows that the most important battle is actually taking place in the hearts and minds of the world's population. This is the war of ideas, where ideology is the most powerful weapon of all. Phares explores the beliefs of two opposing camps, one standing for democracy and human rights, and the other rejecting the idea of an international community and calling for jihad against the West. He reveals the strategies of both sides, explaining that new technologies and the growing media savvy of the jihadists have raised the stakes in the conflict. And most urgently, he warns that the West is in danger of losing the war, for whereas debate and theorizing rarely translate into action here, ideas and deeds are inextricably linked for the forces of jihad.

The responses of British people to the French Revolution has recently received considerable attention from historians. British commentators often expressed a sense of the novelty and scale of European wars which followed, yet their views on this conflict have not yet attracted such thorough examination. This book offers a wide-ranging exploration of the attitudes of various groups of British people to the conflict during the 1790’s: the Government, their supporters and their opponents inside and outside Parliament, women, churchmen, and the broad mass of British public opinion. It presents the debate in England and Scotland provoked by the war both as the sequel to the French Revolution and as a distinct debate in itself. Emma Vincent Macleod argues that contemporaries saw this conflict as one of the first since the wars of religion to be significantly shaped by ideological hostility rather than solely by a struggle over strategic interests.