You are here:   9/11 > How to Reverse the West's Decline
 

It was that event that set in motion the rapid collapse of one of the world's two superpowers. It was achieved not by the United States and its military might, but by a small group of religiously inspired fighters, the mujahideen and their helpers. Ibn Khaldun's theory was that every urban civilisation becomes vulnerable when it grows decadent from within. People live in towns and get used to luxuries. The rich grow indolent, the poor resentful. There is a loss of asabiyah, a keyword for Khaldun. Nowadays we would probably translate it as "social cohesion". People no longer think in terms of the common good. They are no longer willing to make sacrifices for one another. Essentially they lose the will to defend themselves. They then become easy prey for the desert dwellers, the people used to fighting to stay alive.

That, so it seemed to those who read history that way, is what happened in Afghanistan. It was never possible for a small group to defeat a superpower by conventional means. But it could go on endlessly inflicting casualty after casualty until eventually the superpower — more like a lumbering elephant than a wounded lion — withdrew. The desert dwellers are hungrier, tougher and more ruthless than the city dwellers who long more than anything for a quiet life.

That was the calculation. The odd thing is, it worked. And those who had fought the Soviet Union looked on in wonder at the effect of their victory. For not only did the Russians withdraw. Within an extraordinarily short time their whole empire collapsed. Ibn Khaldun was right. The society had grown rotten from within. It had lost its asabiyah, its cohesion. It had lost the will to fight.

If that is what a small group of highly motivated religious fighters could do to one superpower, why not the other, America and the West? America could not be defeated on its own ground. But what if it could be tempted, provoked, into occupying the very same ground that had seen the humiliating withdrawal of the Soviet army, namely Afghanistan itself? To do so would require a truly massive provocation, one so shocking that it would make the Americans forget what everyone knew, that Afghanistan is a death trap that ultimately defeats all invading armies. That is when 9/11 was born.

The theory was that the Americans and the Russians might be unalike in every other respect, but this they shared: that they were advanced urban civilisations in which the social bond, asabiyah, had grown weak. They were no longer lean and hungry. They were overweight and lacked the capacity for sustained sacrifice. If America could be provoked into occupying Afghanistan, it could be defeated exactly as the Soviets had been, not by any decisive battle but by sustained asymmetric warfare. The proof was that American troops had withdrawn from Lebanon in 1984 and Somalia in 1994 under just such circumstances. They had no more staying power than the Russians. Like the Russians, within a decade they would be looking for an exit strategy. 9/11 was the attempt to lure the United States into Afghanistan, and it worked.

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
Sai
November 29th, 2011
6:11 PM
Extremely thought provoking... while most tend to accept the dominant narrative about American exceptionalism, he challenges that entirely offering an alternative narrative, one that is fresh and nuanced about the suicidal tendencies of great empires. He was also not afraid, amid the Islamaphobic zeitgeist spreading allover the world, to draw from an Islamic luminary. Anyway, whether you agree with him or not, this is a compelling essay.

DWMF
November 23rd, 2011
9:11 PM
The debt and decline of the West originates more with the likes of Barney Frank than with Ibn Khaldun; giveaway politics and borrowed money, which we are only now beginning to pay back.

Hugo Estrada
November 21st, 2011
1:11 PM
Wrong. Empires die when they run out of money. USSR wasn't decadent; it barely produced enough grain to feed itself. USSR bankrupted itself on a conquest war because it was so paranoid about how it was going to be destroyed by the West. Bin Laden did provoke an attack, but the goal was to induce the U.S. to engage in wars of conquest to bleed it financially. Where the argument is correct is in saying that lack of social cohesion has been a big contributor for this. But in the case of the U.S., this lack of social cohesion is expressed in an unwillingness for paying taxes, especially of the richest people.

Nokios
October 5th, 2011
11:10 AM
DANNY wrote:"America won the fight against the soviets, because RIGHT was on our side." I totally disagree...The loss of the whole Middle east to the conquering Arab armies at the 7th c. with the spread of Islam, the Islamic invasion of Spain,the loss of "Asia minor" followed by the fall of Constantinople to the Turcs all these contradict the idea of right & wrong ! They are clear proofs that you do not need to be right to win..You must be hungry, cruel fanatical and have the WILL to "DOMINATE"

Anonymous
October 5th, 2011
11:10 AM
The author forgot to mention a number of facts 1) The withdrawal from Vietnam 2) The shameful interaction with the Teheran Embassy hostage crisis by Carter and the "Democrats" 3) The author also seems to disregard all the old historians' accounts that attribute the fall of the Roman Empire to decadence and the loss of identity (from Cicero,Seneca,Plinus the Eldest to Montesquieu through Gibbons..)Most of the preceded Ibn Khaldoon Concerning the withdrawals from Vietnam,Lebanon & Somalia, it can be argued that victory in these wars was achieved by more "peaceful and less costly" means, nevertheless it was the leftist and "pacifist" media and pseudo-philosophers that were behind these shameful acts of "cowardice"

e2
September 26th, 2011
5:09 AM
But the Brit-ish Empire also dissolved ~ Empires come and go Like Disco Inferno.

christian
September 21st, 2011
1:09 PM
"The question is not radical Islam but, does the West believe in itself any more?" Regardless of whether one agrees fully or partially with Jonathan Sacks' proposed solution, he is to be commended for having insight to ask the right question. Excellent article.

Ladyingreen
September 19th, 2011
11:09 PM
Francis Fukuyama has reversed his stance. That said, the big fight today in Europe and America is the view of governance. Conservatives under the banner of personal responsibility and self reliance, want to limit the actions of the state to security and military affairs. People do not want to pay taxes to suuport the state, so the power of the state is declining. Read the recent Harpers article "Pennies from Heaven; How Mormon Economics guides the GOP". I wonder if most people will accept this as a good approach to governance and revival of the west.

Marvin
September 18th, 2011
9:09 PM
Every American needs to read this. No, every Westerner needs to read this.

Cecil
September 15th, 2011
10:09 PM
Please copy this link into your browser for my comments: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/40163412/How_to_reverse_the_moral_decay.pdf

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.