Even realist think tanks opposed the clash of civilizations narrative because al-Qaeda weaponized it.
Evidence
The essentialism involved in painting all Muslims with the brush of violent jihad fits neatly into the Orientalist “clash of civilizations” rhetoric. This presented something of a problem for the Obama administration, which at the time was making a concerted effort to eschew that argument in favor of a “counterinsurgency” strategy, as discussed in chapter 7. The realist think tank CSIS released a report outlining Zazi’s and Headley’s cases and argued that while the United States needs to clamp down on “Internet radicalization,” it must balance this with efforts to “puncture” the “clash of civilizations” narrative—not because it is inherently objectionable but because al-Qaeda uses the same argument in its recruitment efforts! — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 509
Categorization
- QUESTION: Why does al-Qaeda using the clash narrative make it objectionable to CSIS on strategic grounds alone — worth tracing the rhetorical coup.
- XREF: connects to: The War on Terror was ideologically framed as a civilizational clash; Clash-of-civilizations rhetoric ideologically legitimized both foreign wars and domestic attacks — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 421
Broader Connections
- The War on Terror was ideologically framed as a civilizational clash
#qualifies(0.75) - Clash-of-civilizations rhetoric ideologically legitimized both foreign wars and domestic attacks
#corroborates(0.60) — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 421