Part of Greg's wishes when he temporarily handed over the keys to Belgravia Dispatch was that Eric and I do a kind of dialogue similar to what we have done previously here on WoC, commenting on Eric's Swimming Against the Tide seems to me to be as good a place as any to start.
To begin with, let me just say that I agree with your fundamental point, namely "Empirical evidence simply does not support the contention that democracy would eradicate the mentality that gives rise to this virulent strain of Salafism. It is not more freedom that they want, nor would freedom extinguish their cause ... Unless of course, democracy would give legitimate power to the Salafists' ideological kindred spirits."
Indeed, Dr. Gunaratna makes much the same point in Time Magazine's Asia edition in which he writes:
The investigation into the Oct. 1 Bali bombings may lead to arrests and high-profile trials. But that will not stop the terrorism. In fact, Asia's vulnerability is likely to grow. There are several reasons for this. The phenomenon of suicide bombers has become a grim new reality in the region, and it's here to stay. During the Suharto years, Indonesian authorities clamped down on any challenge to the state. Now the country is more open and democratic, but an unwelcome consequence is that militants have a freer run of the place.
I suspect that similar examples could also be offered as far as the increased role that Hezbollah in Lebanon following the Syrian withdrawl. When the Algerian political system opened up in the late 1980s, one of the immediate consequences was that the Islamist Front Islamique du Salut (FIS) became one of the largest political parties in the country. Part of the reason for this probably lies in the fact that because Islamists usually have large overt or clandestine support networks in existence prior to the fall of a dictatorship that they are among the groups best-poised to exploit its immediate aftermath. I suspect that at least part of this uncomfortable reality is one of the main reasons that Reuel Marc Gerecht has adopted the view that he has with respect to his belief that Western nations should support the rise of Islamist parties in nascent democracies on the belief that, once in power, they tend to discredit themselves that he lays out in greater detail in The Islamic Paradox.
One of the things that I think needs to be stressed when countering the threat posed by Salafist terrorism (and as an aside, I really wish that we could call it that, is it would seem to go a long way from differentiating adherents of Islam in general from the enemy and not get into some of the catch-all problems that Islamism poses in that it throws everyone from Osama bin Laden to Prime Minister Erdogan of Turkey all under the same umbrella) is that there isn't a silver bullet on this one, no more than there was when it came to the issue of countering communism during the Cold War.
Dr. Gunaratna, to the best of my knowledge, is one of the few experts on al-Qaeda who has come up with a comprehensive strategy for defeating the terror network that you can find at the conclusion of Inside Al Qaeda. I first summarized his conclusions in the aftermath of the London bombings and they are as follows:
* Military and non-military responses to al-Qaeda on a region and issue-specific basis, with military responses providing the necessary security and political conditions to facilitate far reaching socio-economic, welfare, and political programs that will have a lasting impact.* The destruction of al-Qaeda and allied infrastructure, denying them rear bases, killing their leaders, exhausting their supplies, and disrupting their recruitment.
* Ending Pakistani covert and overt military, political, and diplomatic support to the Kashmiri jihadis while mediating to provide diplomatic solution to the Kashmir issue.
* Strangling terrorist financing, tightening control over the manufacturing and supply of weapons, exchanging personnel and expertise with allies, and building common terrorist databases in the Third World.
* Developing new vaccines, medicines, and diagnostic tests, enhancing medical communication and disease surveillance capabilities, and improving controls on the storage and transfer of pathogens and their equipment so as to address the threat of a catastrophic terrorist attack.
* Enhancing the protection of nuclear facilities while monitoring rogue suspected scientists and technicians.
* Killing Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and Mullah Mohammed Omar in order to diffuse the momentum of the terrorist campaign [to which we can probably add Zarqawi].
* Relying on black ops operations to assassinate terrorist leaders and ideologues.
* Recruiting intelligence agents and agent-handlers within Muslim immigrant communities and sharing existing intelligence with the wider decision and policy-making community.
* Engaging al-Qaeda as an organization militarily while working non-militarily to erode its active and potential supporters by discrediting its ideology through broader action in areas where international neglect has legitimized the use of violence among many Muslims.
* Replacing unilateralism with multilateralism wherever possible and developing far-reaching policies designed to grapple with protracted conflicts and contentious issues currently fueling anti-Western sentiments by answering the real and perceived grievances of many Muslims and frustrating the current wave of open and clandestine support for al-Qaeda.
* The Islamic world as a whole must answer whether al-Qaeda and its actions are Koranic or heretical and credible Muslim communities and religious leaders must stand up and denounce bin Laden and his acolytes as power-hungry murderers rather than men of God.
* Muslim rulers and regimes must compete with Islamism and Wahhabi NGOs, building schools and community centers that both impart a modern education and instill humane, non-sectarian values.
* The international community should prioritize reform Islamic education, fostering an independent media, and establishing criminal justice and prison systems that truly reflect the rule of law rather than the whims of the current ruler.
* Terrorism as a tactic must be rejected and a societal norm built against its deployment similar to that which now exist to varying degrees against slavery, colonialism, fascism, Nazism, sexism, and racism irrespective of the legitimacy of the struggle.
As Eric seems to make quite clear, here agrees with Gunaratna on a lot of this: (emphasis mine)
As Fukuyama and Brooks point out, our goal should not be to appease the actual Salafists such as Zawahiri, Bin Laden, Zarqawi, etc. Nothing we could do would placate them, nor should we reward such behavior to begin with. For them, there are only violent solutions. But it is absolutely crucial that we engage the remainder of the Muslim world in an effort to take away the jihadists' base of support - that which they rely on in order to thrive. The recent bombings in Bali, and the reaction to them, provides an illustration of the two currents laid out above: the fact that democracy itself is neutral to the effort to purge terrorism, and how public opinion impacts our efforts to combat the jihadists.
Eric then contrasts what we need with the actual state of things in Indonesia:
From this reaction in Indonesia, it is easier to see the impact that certain facets of our foreign policy have had on our effort to combat the radical Islamists. The invasion of Iraq, regardless of any ancillary benefits (a conversation for another time), has not aided our effort to win over the moderate hearts and minds from the likes of Bin Laden and his ilk. In fact, it has set us back considerably by lending credence to Bin Laden's outrageous propaganda about US/Anglo/Israeli crusaders seeking to take over Muslim lands and humiliate Muslims - aided by images of civilian deaths and carnage that are the inevitable accompaniment to any military action no matter how carefully planned. Public opinion of America in the region has plunged so low, that many reformers and would be proponents of democracy have complained that the mere fact that their movements are associated with American ideals has made their work more difficult.
But as Dr. Gunaratna documents in Inside Al Qaeda (published in the mid-2002)), this problem goes back quite further than the invasion of Iraq:
... Leaving aside the Muslim elite, ordinary Muslims worldwide view the West through the prism of anti-Americanism. 61% of Muslims polled in nine countries - Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Morocco, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey - denied that Arabs were involved in the September 11 attacks. The corresponding statistics were 89% in Kuwait, 86% in Pakistan, 74% in Indonesia, 59% in Iran, 58% in Lebanon, and 43% in Turkey. Only 18% of those polled in six Islamic countries said they believed Arabs carried out the attacks and just 9% said they thought US military action in Afghanistan was morally justified. In Kuwait, a country liberated by the US from Iraqi aggression in 1991, 36% said that the 9/11 attacks were justifiable. Just 7% said Western nations are fair in their perceptions of Muslim countries ... Clearly the US has no public support from the Muslim world either to fight terrorism or to remain in Afghanistan.
Now generally the usual conclusion reached by these kinds of statistics (which have changed significantly since, though Gunaratna's basic point still carries through) is that a majority of the Muslim world are at least tacit supporters of terrorism. I don't accept that formulation, if for no other reason that you can contrast these figures with the vote totals that Islamist parties receive in those areas where they've been allowed to operate openly - the totals are generally about the same as those that far right or neo-fascist parties pick up in Europe.
However, as one can see from the statistics cited by Dr. Gunaratna, the West in general and the US in particular has a major problem as far as how we are viewed by much of the Muslim world that well predates the invasion of Iraq and unless we make a serious effort to engage the masses as opposed to the governments we are likely to be in that pickle for quite some time. Both the Clinton and Bush administrations have been singularly lacking in this regard even after the full extent of the threat became clear.
As a side note, I should probably point out that ETA, November 17, Baader Meinhof, Aum Shinrikyo, and the Shining Path don't enjoy anything like the kind of popular support that bin Laden and his followers currently do (and have since at least 1998). Aum Shinrikyo was after all a cult while the Shining Path was largely based around the person of Abimael Guzman, which is one of the reasons why it has all but fallen apart following his 1992 capture. I strongly suspect that much of FARC's support, moreover, lies in the fact that there is a great deal of money to be made with regard to its role in the international drug trade, which depending on your figures brings in at least several billion dollars a year.
Another thing that needs to be kept in mind (as I'm sure Eric would agree) is that we need to define what democracy is before we set about spreading it. As Eric correctly noted when discussing recent developments in Iraq:
... the issue remains whether even the most well intentioned Iraqis really grasp what "democracy entails." Yes, the concept of majoritarianism seems easy enough to get a hold of (especially for the Shiites who can now reap the benefits of their majority status), but democracy, at least a healthy functioning version, is so much more than the edict that the majority rules. There needs to be respect for minority rights and interests, respect for institutional integrity along horizontal and lateral lines, respect for the rule of law and the rules of the game, etc. In terms of an institutional framework, democracies require several loci of power and influence - an elaborate web of checks and balances capable of withstanding strains and eccentricities pushing and pulling in certain directions. These include, but are not limited to, a powerful and independent judiciary, a robust and free press, an open and free economic system relatively unfettered by corruption enabling a middle class to emerge, a civic minded populace, quality educational systems and a free flow of ideas, etc. Absent this matrix, power tends to be concentrated at the top, with the ruling faction's influence constricting the mechanisms of democracy that lead to liberal rule.
If all democracy means is simply the idea of popular majority rule, then promoting it is reasonably easy, but there are also a whole multitude of reasons why this is Not A Good Thing. Indeed, if one goes back and reads many of the critiques against the idea of a democratic state, one of the primary arguments that is often encountered is the fear that democracy will lead to exactly that kind of crude majoritarian rule. How such a system would serve to prevent terrorism as beyond me, if nothing else it seems as though it would hasten it as minority groups became increasingly chafed under the yoke of the majority.
One thing that I think that the United States needs to be exceedingly careful of as it goes about the whole business of democracy promotion is making sure that the first definition is not over-stressed at the expense of the second. Countries like Nigeria or pre-Musharraf Pakistan appeared to understand the whole idea of voting and elections, but neither were all that keen towards any of the other aspects of democracy that Eric mentions above. Both countries suffered as a result and I certainly don't think that you can make the argument that either had a reduced level of terrorism or political violence as a result.
Then there is the issue of the European Muslim population. As praktike notes, it's cool to be a jihadi in far too many European Muslim circles these days. The problem here is not in my mind the absence of democracy but rather than absence of assimilation, with the predictable enough results being that the political culture of the Middle East is now being imported in its entirety to much of Europe with predictable results. Then, on the somewhat reverse side of the coin, is that those portions of Europe (with the UK being particularly notorious in this regard) that have opted not to adequately act against the extremist elements on their own soil, in my view doing a gross disservice to the Muslim community by essentially putting the wolf in charge of the hen house.
Finally, there is the issue of state sponsorship to consider. Here in my view is where the democratization argument makes the most sense, as an authoritarian state pursues terrorism as a matter of policy and then undergoes democratization is not likely to revive the practice. Iraq, for instance, is not going to reviving its support for the Mujahideen-e-Khalq, Hamas, or the Abu Nidal Organization at any point in the near future as a matter of state policy.
So in summary:
1. Democracy is not a panacea for dealing with terrorism.
2. Extremists often fare quite well in emerging democracies by virtue of being the best-organized.
3. There is no silver bullet in dealing with the threat of Salafist terrorism and an in-depth plan is instead needed - Dr. Gunaratna provides one.
4. The US has little if any real support among the general populace of the Muslim world for reasons that well pre-date the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Our public diplomacy efforts for dealing with the general public rather than the governments of the Muslim world have been grossly ineffective and mostly non-existent.
5. This is a problem because al-Qaeda currently enjoys far more popular support than any earlier terrorist groups.
6. Setting up merely a democracy in the sense of voting and majority rule is pointless as far as preventing terrorism or political violence if the institutions needed for such a society to function or flourish do not exist or are not being respected.
7. The European Muslim population is attracted towards jihadi groups through a combination of the Middle Eastern political culture being imported to Europe and/or European governments being unwilling to deal with known Islamic radicals in their midst.
8. Democratization is effective with regard to dealing with state sponsors of terrorism since the issue there is one of state policy rather than popular support.
'Democracy is not a panacea for terrorism'. Noted columnist, Fareed Zakaria of the Newsweek, who was born in India to Muslim parents, General Perwez Musharraf of Pakistan, who attempts to pretend the most steadfast supporter of the US, and other distinguished commentators and academicians continue to parrot the same argument. They are apprensive that terrorists (which they prefer to call militants) and religious zealots will ride to power by using the lofty platform of Democracy.
But what is the alternative to Democracy? Do you want us to embrace Fascism or the totalitarianism under the cover of the dictatorship of the proletariate? Yes, the democracy faces grave challenge in the wake of the rising tide of terrorism. The scholars should ponder over the impending threat. The governments, in particular in the western countries should clear their hands off the dirty deals in the name of political expediency.
First of all, there are a lot of reasons to support democracy other than just not wanting terrorism. One of the reasons there are low levels of political violence in Western societies has a lot to do with the fact that we solve our problems at the ballot box rather than with guns and machetes.
Moreover, notice how I contrasted democracy in the sense of elections and majority rule versus all the other things that make up what we consider a democratic society. I don't think there's anything wrong with saying that the former doesn't eliminate terrorism while the latter, in coordination with other steps outlined above, helps to put us at a position where we can do just that. That's a far cry from giving up on the whole democratization project and going home.
Eric Martin: "Given the lack of correlation between democracy and terrorism, however, we should be wary to assess various strategies for supporting democracy and how they might impact our more crucial endeavor of 'isolating' moderate Muslims from the jihadists."
I don't buy this "lack of correlation" at all. As Dan points out, famous Western terrorist groups like Baader-Meinhof were absurdly small organizations with short life spans and no popular support. Nearly all of them were insignificant phenomenon compared to organized crime, and the most successful of them operated more as criminal organizations than political ones.
Eric also cites 17th of November, which continues to exist only because the "no enemies to the left" governments in Greece have simply refused to arrest any of their members. Coddled as they are, they're not exactly holding the country hostage. Besides, they were founded when Greece was not a democracy. Likewise, the ETA was born in Franco's (non-democratic) Spain.
Modern terrorism was born in autocratic Russia, while the rest of Europe was moving toward liberalization.
It's particularly useless to assert that there is no correlation between democracy and Arab/Muslim terrorism. Where's the historical basis for that conclusion? There is not one Arab democracy on the face of the earth; Iraq will be the first, no thanks to some of you so-called friends of democracy. For non-Arab Muslim democracies, we have Indonesia, where democracy is not even old enough to be a toddler. In fact, for decades the only Muslim-majority nation with a truly open society has been Turkey, with its militarily-enforced secularism.
Besides, why is chasing after the proverbial moderate Muslims more crucial than fostering democracy? Since World War II terrorists have been operating behind the opaque screen of terror-sponsoring states like Syria (and like Iraq, no matter what some people want to believe). They could not have survived as autonomous forces without this support. And their propaganda drumbeat comes from closed societies and anti-democratic states with controlled medias.
Democratic Muslim states will exist in the future. Iraq and Afghanistan are leading the way. Even troubled democracy is the utter death-knell of jihadist terrorism, and the terrorists damn well know it.
JEB in the comments: "... democracy is a highly demanding political system that I doubt can be sustained by most of the peoples we are encouraging to adopt it."
I can only hope that this malaise-ridden opinion, which is increasingly common, is only a temporary symptom of anti-Bush spleen and not the New Idealism of the future.
Dan,
I think youve placed an excellent response to Eric's post and really placed in context the notion of promoting democracy, as way to "drain the swamps" - so to speak.
I have a quick question, however, on your opinion on radicalized Muslims in Europe.
I think the varibles you listed on the extremism in Muslim Europeans were 1) Alienation/Lack of Assimilation leading towards 2) Import of Middle East Political Culture compounded with 3) Lack of decisive action by European governments against known radicals in their midst.
How about the portrayal (true or not) of the oppression of Muslims in places like Chechnya, Kosovo etc? Are they a factor in radicalizing Muslim Europeans - or just a tool (a brochure, so to speak) to motivate them to join the radicals, proving their point that the Ummah is under attack?
Is this sense of being under seige imported by the radicals or already inherent part Muslim European culture?
Look forward to your input.
The reason republican democracy is the answer is because it gives the little guy a stake in government.
Of course it will not change fanatics.
What it will do is empower the non-fanatics. It may have to be done a number of times before it "takes". English history is instructive.
Simon is hitting this dead-on. This article mixed it's metaphors and counted it's bridges before they are hatched.
Typically the discussion begins with one party asking if we are going to invade half the world in the GWOT. The other party responds that spreading democracy can and should be our highest priority, using both military and non-military means.
Why? Certainly not as a panacea -- far from it. There will always be crazy people, Salafists or not. This larger problem will never be solved, and to engage in long debates about the exact order of action required to interdict all terrorism is reminiscent of the "war on poverty", which the GWOT is in danger of becoming if left in the hands of some.
What we can do is give the little guy some skin in the game. In a peaceful country where there is an orderly process for the voters can change the way the government operates (my working definition) support for crazy people building terrorist camps does not exist. Likewise, while most may believe the U.S. is in need of some "attitutude adjustment" it is another thing entirely to vote your ballot for some possible future nuking of your own country.
You can have your complex, 27-point strategies if you must, but this is starting to sound like social engineering on a world scale, and as such is both impractical and doomed to failure. My opinion only.
The gist of your argument seems to be this:
is absolutely crucial that we engage the remainder of the Muslim world in an effort to take away the jihadists' base of support - that which they rely on in order to thrive.
From what I've read and learned from speaking to Muslims & Arabs, he Jihadists 'base of support' is not the remainder of the Muslim world. Muslims are the primary victims of terrorist violence, and most loathe the terrorist groups who threaten their families and their nations' economies. Many thousands of Iraqis have protested terrorist violence. Afghans spat on the dead bodies of the Taliban and left them to rot in the sun.
Other than the wealthy/goverment employed Iranians, Saudis, Syrians, etc. who support terrorist groups, the jihadists strongest and most influential base of support appears to be the Western Left. Jihadists could not operate without the publicity and favorable press they get from outlets like the BBC, Reuters, the Guardian, the Mirror and the New York Times. In general, the British and European press offers more favorable coverage of Jihadi attacks than the Arab press. The UN is basically bought and paid for by the Arab League. The Western Left is the base that allows them to thrive.
Of course, a non-military solution to this problem is probably best, but democracy has never won the Western Left's hearts and minds. It's the only form of government that they currently seem to oppose.
M. Simon (#5)
The reason republican democracy is the answer is because it gives the little guy a stake in government. Of course it will not change fanatics. [...] English history is instructive.
I agree.
Dan,
Democracy is not a panacea for dealing with terrorism. Extremists often fare quite well in emerging democracies by virtue of being the best-organized.
I don't think so. The mistake here lies, in my opinion, that you tend to think that any democracy is as good organized as the American. That is not true.
The problem with emerging democracies is that there is no democratic tradition at all in those countries. Usually oligarchic groups and others hold the government and found some kind of light dictatorship, such as the PRI did in Mexico for 70 years, based on corruption and propaganda. Of course, the political leaders there don't want to teach the people that a Democracy is not just a political system where periodic elections are held, but the Rule of Law, a Law before which we are all equals, being elections (to choose a government among equals) rather a consequence of this than a cause.
This is far more frustrating that an actual dictatorship, where the enemy is clearly on sight, thus terrorist groups (or extremists) grow in importance.
I see it everyday in Spain; an unfair real state law had to be appealed before the EU by English and German residents, since very few Spaniards dared to tackle land speculators and the politicians (of any party) they paid. As a German wrote "Spaniards don't know how to defend their Civil Rights". That is the problem in emerging democracies: Democratic Tradition, Rule of Law...
Is it a racial matter? I don't think so. In my opinion it is a matter of the existing tradition and the barrier that sets a different language. Thus countries with a tradition (among other things, religion) and a language closer to the English have an advantage to get all the ingredients they need to become an actual Democracy.
On the other hand, I agree with Dan in the fact that terrorism won't be defeated, at least in many years to come. The world has evolved into nations so interrelated and with so sofisticated weaponry that a total war is unlikely. Terrorism is the new way of fighting as, for instance, it is happening in Lebanon: the Syrian army is gone but their agents are still there (also Kashmir)
FWIW, I have a friend who has spent a number of years in Indonesia and learned to read the language. He tells me that the newspapers frequently print stories about text-messages they've gotten from readers in response to previous articles. Comments in the wake of the second Bali bombing are, if he is reporting correctly, close to 100% in favor of killing all terrorists everywhere.
Does that mean they like America or approve of Iraq? Not at all. But we don't have to win every fight -- just the one, big fight.
First of all, it is inherent within Islam to envelop the entire world under Islamic law. This is not negotiable. Changing this would require a complete turnover of muslim clerics around the world and a complete overhaul of the training of muslim clerics. It will not happen.
Second, a modern society includes democracy as one of many supporting pillars. Democracy alone is good enough to get you killed. Modern society requires much more than mere democracy. The problem is that most third world populations are primitive because their people have a low intelligence level. This becomes more and more true as time goes on. It was not true of the Koreans, because the Koreans had not had long periods of peace recently. Under the americans, the Koreans were allowed to develop and use their intelligence under outside guidance and investment to develop a modern society. It is pax americana that has allowed the asian tigers to grow out of third world status, because the human capital was there.
This is not true of many other parts of the third world. You can kill them with democracy and foreign aid and investment and training, and they will still end up looking like Zimbabwe.
I some of this all misses the point. You guys remeber Oklahoma city? That was terrorism. Remember the clinic bombings and assassinations of the 80's and 90's? Terrorism. Remeber the Klan? Terrorists. Remeber Waco? Religious militants. All violent extremeism, and all born and bred right here in the cradle of democracy, the US of A. Democracy doesn't end extremism. There's ALWAYS going to be extremeism.
What Democracy does is keeps extremism among the extremeists, and rejected by the mainstream.
And it does this by offering the mainstream a credible alternative to joining up with the extremeists if their needs aren't being met. It provides the option of ballots as an alternative to bullets, and a silly looking paper machet Bush Devil Head protest signs as an alternative to an explosive vest.
The problem with tyrranies is they don't give options. With them, it's bullets or nothing, and without options to blow off steam the pressure builds and it's the extremeists who harness that power. That's what makes autocracies so unstable and messy, and why democracies are the safer system for everyone.
Seth -- Islamic terrorism is world-wide, long-standing, and in the authentic tradition of Islam. When the Prophet himself took prisoners, put them in a ditch, and cut off their heads, taking their widows and daughters as concubines in the Koran, there is a problem. Nothing Al Qaeda does is different than the nearly 1400 year old tradition of North Africans raiding Europe (as far north as Iceland) for slaves to be sold in North Africa. Only ended by President James Madison and the US Navy; Europeans preferred to pay them off to not attack ships and abandoned the English, French, Spanish, Italian, etc people taken as slaves as late as the 1820's.
Islam is not like other religions; it is a complete and powerful social, political, and spiritual system with powerful bonds of brotherhood that entranced Westerners from Sir Richard Francis Burton to Malcolm X with universal brotherhood. It's very strength though is it's weakness, in that Islamic Societies cannot exist with the Modern World and the demands of the Modern World. Which is EXACTLY why terrorism and widespread support for terrorism is so deep and broad in all Islamic societies. Indonesia knows terrorism will destroy it's economy yet the Government cannot act against it. Same with Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia, all afflicted by bin Laden and broad/deep support for him in their security services and military.
Western terrorists like McVeigh are isolated folks who practically all Americans loathe and would happily see dead. You could not find a single politician in America who would admit to publicly supporting the Klan. By contrast Osama is a hugely popular name in Muslim society and Mein Kampf a best-seller in Turkey.
Traditionally, Islam has throughout it's history been successful in using terror tactics and the sword to conquer new lands and through slavery and rule of the conquered improve the economy. The Industrial revolution changed all that; and today the land of coffee depends on Starbucks for a good cup of Java.
The only solution is for the Modern World (US, Europe, China, Japan, South Korea, the Asian "tigers," Oceana, India etc) to forcibly change Islamic society and culture to adopt Modern principles, such as rough equality of women, religion in the private sphere not public, toleration of minorities, emphasis on technical education, some form of capitalism, etc.
Because Islam is so strong in it's spiritual brotherhood, this means a massive and undeniable political, military, and cultural defeat so shattering that the methods of evasion of reality currently practiced are destroyed in a Meggido (Kemal Ataturk witnessing Allenby's Army destroy completely the Sultan's Army) or Perry (the Samurai seeing their total impotence against Perry's Black Fleet in Tokyo Bay) moment. As with Perry it need not be violent but the complete and systemic failure of Islamic Society in the modern world HAS to be shown so that Muslims world-wide understand absolutely the need to change against a culture that prevents change. Or we will simply slouch to escalating terror culminating in a strategic response (and not necessarily from the US, China also faces this issue in Xianxing) which is too horrible to contemplate.
The global marketplace doesn't care much about anything but world-class products and sorts out cultures that produce winners from those who produce losers. Sony, Nokia, Erricson, Volvo, Samsung, Honda, Toyota, Harley-Davidson, Apple Computer, and Ikea all offer strong evidence that Modernism produces winners. Islamic nations have ... well oil and that's it.
I would argue that Democracy is the wrong indicator. It's Modernism that is the solution and the failure to adopt it that is the problem. China is hardly democratic but certainly does win in the global marketplace, because it is mostly modern.
Bah, all that 'Isalm is different than other religions' stuff is hooey. Spanish inquisition, the English civil war, the polgrams against the jews. Christainity has been used to justify all the kinds of stuff Al-Quida does and more. The difference isn't religion, it's social development. The west has been working out the kinks of replacing Monarchy with Democracy for over two hundred years, but the middle east is still ruled by Kings. Once their politics catches up to ours, Islam will look back on the suicide bomber just like Christians look at buring witches at the stake, or crosses on a lawn.
Interesting. Muslims started out barbarians and after 1300 years the barbarian strain is still ascendant. No sign of progress so far. What do you say? Give them another 1300 years and hope they haven't destroyed all life on earth? Why not? It's just a religion like every other religion. Nothing new. Move along.
That's a bit of an oversimplification, Bill Funt. Islam isn't a monolith. There are different traditions and strains of thought and opinion. Just as in Christianity. Or Buddhism.
You might like to take a look at a long quote from a book by Ernest Gellner I included in this post. A largely urban high theology has basically been overwhelmed by a rurally-based fundamentalist theology.
"A largely urban high theology has basically been overwhelmed by a rurally-based fundamentalist theology."
haha Not according to Spengler's analysis.
"Revolt against usurpation, the revenge of the pure life of traditional society against the corrupt mores of the metropole, is the heart of Islam."
"A largely urban high theology has basically been overwhelmed by a rurally-based fundamentalist theology."
haha Not according to Spengler's analysis.
"Revolt against usurpation, the revenge of the pure life of traditional society against the corrupt mores of the metropole, is the heart of Islam."
Actually it is impossible to oversimplify the message of Islam, from beginning to the present: kill the infidel. There is no purer message. It is its purity that attracts the young men.
Jim Rockford (#12)
I would argue that Democracy is the wrong indicator. It's Modernism that is the solution and the failure to adopt it that is the problem. China is hardly democratic but certainly does win in the global marketplace, because it is mostly modern.
I disagree.
The point is that most of the people are confused about what Democracy is. Democracy is not about holding elections but about the Rule of Law, a Law before which we all are equals: a Constitution based on Civil Rights where all persons are equally treated, an independent judiciary, a free and varied mass media, a restless public opinion... those are the indicators.
Some countries with governments that don't hold elections (China, Pakistan) perform better than others that do (Venezuela) because their leaders assure in a better way the Rule of Law. The problem for the first is that the governing structure usually is less adaptable to face change, but this arises only in the long term.
Bill Funt (#18)
Actually it is impossible to oversimplify the message of Islam, from beginning to the present: kill the infidel. There is no purer message. It is its purity that attracts the young men.
Not exactly, in my humble opinion.
The message is: "if you are desperate, Jihad will give you either wealth in conquered lands and loot plundered or a happy existence in heaven. Hence join us because either way you win."
That explains Islam's rapid expansion and bursts, and why traditionally extremist movements (Almohads, Almoravids, Benimirs...) have decayed rapidly once tackled and defeated: no loot.
Moreover, moderate muslims themselves soon get fed up of extremists and their fascist ways.
Both mechanisms, that worked well in Spain during the late centuries of Muslim invasion, are now being put in practice again, in a far improved version, in Irak.
And that's * modern day radical extremist* Islam Bill. Not Islam. Even in the middle ages Islam was more tolerant of Jews and Christians within it's borders than the Roman Catholics were. Calling what radicals like Bin Laden and the extremeist wahabbis preach 'Islam' is like calling David Koresh's or the KKK's take on the bible "Christianity"... and before you say 'but look at all those muslems who like Bin Laden' realize the Klan had over 2 million members not all that long ago.
And no, we don't give them another 1300 years to figure it out, we help them build democracy right now.
Seth: ... the Klan had over 2 million members not all that long ago.
Well, sort of.
During its during incarnations and reincarnations, the KKK operated as a genuine terrorist organization. Terrorizing people was precisely their business - whites and blacks both. During WWI, Jews fled Atlanta en masse for fear of the Klan.
So the Klan had a fearsome reputation, but they never had anything like 2 million active members. Klansmen twice operated major recruiting scams, where members set themselves up as Grand Kolossal Whatsits and recruited people (like Harry Truman and Hugo Black) mostly by newspaper advertisements, keeping the dues for themselves.
The Klan also operated as a pyramid scheme. New members were told they could get rich by recruiting more members at so many cents a head. That's how Robert Byrd (the economic genius of the US Senate) joined the KKK. And that's how they got "2 million" members - with more members in New York than in Georgia.
So far as I know, the KKK never provided spiritual advisors to the house of Saud, and never took over the religious apparatus of entire countries.
Hmmmm. Didn't the Klan take over the political apparatus of Indiana in the 1920s, including the governorship, based largely upon a reform agenda that targeted bootleggers, crime and corruption. The Klan fell from power after the public learned about the extremely violent rape of Madge Oberholtzer by a Grand Dragon. Indiana Klan membership almost immediately dropped from 178,000 to 4,000. Similar declines were experienced in other states as a result of the political scandal.
This would provide some evidence that a reform terrorist organization cannot retain power in a democracy. Or at least it cannot do so and remain a terrorist organization.
"As a side note, I should probably point out that ETA ... don't enjoy anything like the kind of popular support that bin Laden and his followers currently do"
EHAK-PCTV, which is the polical wing of the ETA, got 12.5% of the vote in regional elections. That to me sounds like popular support
#17 mariana,
It looks to me like two congruent ways of stating the same principle with a differing emphasis.
In Islam strict adherence falls away - Omar Kayham drinking wine - in the cities. Periodically the desert people take notice and "purify" Islam only to repeat the cycle.
If you are refering to the origins of Islam I'd have to say Spengler was correct.
If on the other hand you are looking at the cyclic history since its founding then Dave is correct.
Now it may in fact be correct that Mohammed came out of the desert to purify the cities and cleanse them of the cosmopolitan Jews. i.e. get rid of world culture. And make tribal culture the new world culture.
The difficulty is that the world is too beig and complicated to be run as a tribe where every one is in contact with other tribe members. It is a problem of the span of control. Once intamacy is lost different rules become useful. Trust across family boundaries for instance. If you play by the rules of the game you need not be a member of the tribe.
This is much more powerful than having to trust your incompetent and thieving brother in law Ahamed with grain distribution because the better qualified person belongs to the wrong tribe.
Which brings me to the Miers nomination. Bush is promoting her as a member of his most loyal tribe. This is America. It ain't going to work.
Seth (#21)
Even in the middle ages Islam was more tolerant of Jews and Christians within it's borders than the Roman Catholics were.
That is the reason why Sefardic Jews fled from southern Spain, controlled by Muslims, to northern Spain, controlled by Christians, during the invasion of the (Extremists) Almohads, circa 1100. They like to suffer, don't they?
Seth, Roman Catholics were more intolerant to other religions because the countries where they lived: Portugal, Spain, Italy, Austria... faced Islam and they understood that a religious uniform Europe was safer for all. They defended the western civilization during one thousand years. Where were the tolerant protestans those days? Where were they when Charles the German Emperor was preparing his expedition against Tunisia, to defend the commercial routes from the Gibraltar Strait to Italy? Who died in that expedition? German, Italian and Spanish Catholics.
If the American soldiers in Iraq deserve all the gratitude of the free world, so deserve it those intolerant Catholics.
a (#24)
EHAK-PCTV, which is the polical wing of the ETA, got 12.5% of the vote in regional elections. That to me sounds like popular support
That is 150,000 votes, in a country where the last national elections 23 million votes were cast, out of a population of 45 million.
ETA exists because it is very profitable for some very powerful people in the moderate nationalist world, who gave them subsidies, and foreign countries, on whose soil their bases are established.
Aguilar,
The point isn't that Catholoics are intolerant, the point is any religion can have fanatics and have atrocities committed in it's name, it's not an Islamic monopoly. And it's usually because of political and social issues. Your argument in defense of Catholic purges and inquisition as a response to a foreign threat expresses exactly my point. Jihadis aren't simply because 'Isam is a bad religion', any religion can spawn 'jihadis'. They're a product of social and political factors. Jihadis use Islam, the same way the Klan uses the cross, the same way any number of petty cult leaders use the Bible. The benefit of democracy over autocracy is democracies tend to have a smaller pool of less discontent people limiting the potential followers such false prophets need to raise themselves from a Manson Family, or a Jonestown, to an Al Quida.
What has the rest of Spain to do with the ETA to see if they are popular. You look at their level of support under people who see themself as Basque and in that case you get quite a high number (my guess is 20% or so)