Loving your enemy in the "War on Terror"

In this past Saturday's NY Times, there was an op-ed from Robert Wright that I found worth reading. I don't really know who Robert Wright is--the by-line says that he is a senior fellow at the New America Foundation--which doesn't tell me anything other than he works at a Washington thinktank. So, I don't know from what perspective he is writing from, but his ideas intrigued me, because if I understand them correctly, I think I agree with them.

He writes about Jesus' teaching to love enemies and argues that from a strategic perspective it is a means of overcoming your opponent, because you reveal yourself to be better than them--you refuse to lower yourself to their level. This is a bit problematic, because I think Jesus' teaching was more about developing a deep love for others--even enemies--rather than trying to overcome an enemy. Nonetheless, I think if we are speaking strictly in a strategic sense--in terms of what enables you to prevail--what enables the ideas you believe in to prevail--it is worth considering whether or not responding to an attack or affront in like manner really will accomplish your goal.

I've read many scholars who consider Jesus' teachings in the Sermon on the Mount to be in some sense a field manual for an oppressed people to respond to the Roman Empire. The question Wright asks if the same tactics and strategy can work from the other end of things. Can the nation that acts like an empire--the United States--respond to its enemies in a manner where we do not sink to their level and instead respond in others in a benefiscent manner. Can the battle of ideas in the war on terror be won with acts of goodwill and humanitarian assistance rather than bombs?

He notes that a Hallmark card to Osama bin Laden probably won't cause fits of remorse, but on the street and in the marketplace where young jihadists are recruited it might.

Here are his concluding thoughts. (I copied them here, because unless you are a NYT subscriber or subscribe to their on-line feature you can't get the op-ed.)

The key distinction is between man and meme. Yes, a great power can always kill and torment enemies, and, yes, there will always be times when that makes sense. Still, when you’re dealing with terrorists, it’s their memes — their ideas, their attitudes — that are Public Enemy No. 1. Jihadists are hosts for the virus of hatred, and the object of the game is to keep the virus from finding new hosts.

The Internet is fertile ground for memes, and jihadists are good at getting the brand out. One of the few things Osama bin Laden has in common with the Jesus of the Gospels is belief in the power of viral marketing.

The ultimate in viral marketing was Jesus’ ultimate sacrifice. Deemed a threat to the social order, he was crucified under Roman auspices. But the Romans forgot one thing: If you face a small but growing movement that threatens the imperial order, you shouldn’t attack the men in ways that help the memes.

Mr. Bush says his favorite philosopher is Jesus. One way to show it would be to spend less time repeat- ing the mistake of the Romans and more time heeding the wisdom of Christ.

Grace and Peace,

Chase