London Letter: The defining conflict of this century has come

When the Berlin Wall was torn down – one of the most iconic moments of last Century – the eminent political scientist Francis Fukuyama wrote that this was ‘the end of history’.

He argued that with the collapse of communism, the great debates and political idealism had now been settled. The world would move on as a free planet. Vibrant free markets had trumped sclerotic dogmatism. There would be no more wars, he said.

However, the Cold War was never a physical battlefield between America and the USSR, just a series of punch-ups by proxy, the most significant being Vietnam for the Americans and Afghanistan for the Soviets.

South Africa was sucked into the imbroglio in Angola, with the battle of Cuando Cubango being one of the many straws that broke the back of the apartheid camel.

But Fukuyama failed miserably in predicting the next seismic shift.

To be fair, few saw the rise of religious radicalism. And these wars, as Afghanistan (again), Iraq and Syria have shown, are certainly not being fought by proxy. The Jihadis are taking the fight straight to America. The battlefield is brutally defined.

Despite the fact that the Middle East is going up in flames, few seem to grasp that the fight against religious fanaticism is the seminal conflict of our times. The reason is simple; because America and her allies win relatively easily on the battlefield, the consensus is that the Jihadis are a ragtag bunch.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The Jihadis, mainly those fighting for Isil in Iraq and Syria, are true warriors. They have to be – they fight against the finest in the world, the American Special Forces and the Israelis.

If you speak to any soldier who has seen these fanatics in combat, there is much respect for them as adversaries. They have learnt from the best.

That is why few other armies in the world can stand up to the Jihadis. The Iraq National Army was routed with ease. The Kurds, no mean fighters themselves, are on the run and being squeezed against the Iraqi-Turkish border.

No happy ending

As there is also no love lost between the Kurds and the Turks, there is going to be no happy ending there.

And make no mistake, once America pulls out of Afghanistan, the Taliban will re-take the country.

So why has the West, up till now, kept winning? Okay, it is better armed, but the true answer is to be found in what can be called the ‘productive flank’.

For the past century, Western armies have won almost every major battle they have fought – be it a hot or cold war – because it gives ordinary people ordinary things to do. Today Israel and the United States not only have modern militaries, but people working day jobs. They have individuals who also design micro-technology, build rocket engines or invent computer games to keep us entertained.

The Jihadis, on the other hand, may be hot for martyrdom, but little else.

In short, it is the boring day jobs that are the secret weapons of the West. Ronald Reagan understood this implicitly when he beat the Soviets.

Even though the Cold War was militarily stalemated, the stagnant Soviet economy was an open goal. As the novelist of many Cold War thrillers John le Carre wrote: ‘The American strategists can sleep in peace. The Soviet knight is dying inside his armour. He can start a war but cannot continue one and cannot win one.’

It is the same story with Jihad.

Productive family-people is what I believe the Bible meant when it said the meek shall inherit the earth. Joe and Jane Blogs on the No 11 bus travelling to work are ultimately more formidable than any Hitler, Stalin or Osama bin Laden.

That doesn’t mean Western politicians don’t fritter away these victories. In fact, from Vietnam onwards, the American ruling elites have squandered almost every hard-won gain their armies have got for them.

The defining conflict of this century has come. The means to emerge triumphant are in the West’s hands – if only the effete leaders don’t blow it.