A War of Public Relations

Submitted by Jaisingh Thakur (India), Jul 29, 2007 at 08:47

Dr.Pipes is spot on when he calls our attention to the fact that terrorism has forced us to review the age-old wisdom of warfare and examine how far the axioms of conventional war are applicable to modern warfare, which some students of war, prefer to term as "asymmetric warfare." That ideological -whether politico-economic or religious- are a force to reckon with, was never in doubt.

The Cambridge Ring of the 1930s should have driven home this point more forcefully than ever to the Western policy-makers and proper heed should have been paid to understanding this process and to counter it. Intellectual vigour and alertness, which today's non muslim countries seem never to be short of, will beyond doubt, prevail over obscurantist, medieval, intellectually bankrupt ideologicies and will ultimately reveal to the world at large that mere knowledge of the internet and downloading the destructive information that it provides, will never will win world domination for the terrorists.

Iran may succeed, today or tomorrow in stealing nuclear know how (thanks largely to the rogue scientist Dr. A.Q.Khan), but this alone, will prove hopelessly inadequate unless it also imbibes certain Western cultural concepts and practices. We, on our part, will do well to remember the point so evocatively made by Dr.Daniel Pipes of strengthening our PR skills! OP-eds are merely a metaphor for the overall intellectual awareness that is called for in the present war against terror !

Presently, at least, our enemies, aided and abetted by the treacherous leftists, seem to be gaining an upper hand over us, what with the U.S. forces coming under fire for their war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan !

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".