The Arab News Daily concluded from the report issued by the congressional commission investigating 9/11: "Unfortunately the fact that they [Americans] have now shared in the terror that has long afflicted the rest of the world has not yet helped them understand the basic injustices on which terrorism feeds and thrives such as the atrocity of Palestine. No committee is needed to tell us who is behind the terrorism Palestinians are suffering every day."
As Armies of Liberation succinctly put it, "What a load of trash coming from the official English language newspaper of Saudi Arabia." Americans understand, commission report or not, that terrorism feeds on the doctrines of Islamism and that Saudi Arabia, the world's dominant exporter of the hateful Wahabbist strain of Islamism, is very much responsible for the rise of international Islamist terror. We also understand that most of the murderers on 9/11 were Saudi Arabians.
Much more than a congressional report, however, will be necessary to end the hatred that so blinds Saudi Arabia. Nothing short of a reformation in Islam will open the eyes of the Arab world to simple facts: Yasser Arafat, Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and Saudi Arabia stand between Palestinians and peaceful coexistence with Israel. Islamism will not abide by a two state solution between Israel and Palestine and the Arab world cares not a whit for the Palestinians as human beings, finding them much more useful as an excuse for anti-Semitism.
Posted by publius at July 26, 2004 05:56 PMCan Islam be reformed in time? What if Iran gets a nuclear weapon, or if Saudi Arabia already has one through the Pakistan funding connection? What if the House of Saud falls to even more radical Islamists? What if one of those countries gets 'provoked' into dropping The Bomb on Israel - or if a terrorist group detonates one in a major Western population centre? How long will Islam have?
If Washington were to get levelled, I fear the Americans would turn Tehran and/or Riyadh into a sheet of radioactive glass. If Tel Aviv were to be destroyed, I KNOW the Israelis would.
Read today's Bleat at Lileks (http://www.lileks.com/bleats/index.html) - Clash of Civilizations indeed.
Posted by: Damian at July 27, 2004 10:25 AMWhile I completely agree that a reformation in Islam is needed, that's not something that is going to be (a) quick, or (b) easy (and perhaps not even entirely possible). As was discussed at dinner last night, we need to simultaneously pursue other diplomatic policies.
Posted by: Gabrielle at July 27, 2004 11:46 AMI agree with you, it will not be quick or easy. I think we are in for a multi-decade conflict that will require many types of confrontation and containment. As well, it will require the intellectual dismantling of Islamism. If that means that Islam proper takes a hit, too bad.
Posted by: Publius at July 27, 2004 02:26 PMThe scenarios that Damian outlines make clear the imperative that we do take a proactive stance in the conflict. To argue otherwise is to play into the assumptions of the enemy.
Posted by: Publius at July 27, 2004 02:28 PMDaniel Pipes also has a good article on this in today's Globe & Mail (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040727/COPIPES27/TPComment/TopStories).
But my question still stands: will the terrorists give the moderates time to reform Islam, or will the world lose its patience and destroy the bastions of the Muslim world first?
Posted by: Damian at July 27, 2004 04:35 PMA difficult question.
Islamists will not deliberately give moderates time to reform Islam- if reform of Islam is even possible. Islamists will march to their own drumbeat, picking and choosing battles they believe they can successfully fight. Islamist considerations for engaging the West in battle will certainly include calculations as to the willingness of the West to fight back. I think the Islamists are interested in a long war that slowly demoralizes the West, populates it with immigrants, and progressively validates the Islamic doctrine that Muslim victories mean God is in agreement with Muslim objectives. I think this strategy assumes the West will fight with the handicap of moral and intellectual handcuffs.
I think the Western strategy envisions a long war that slowly demoralizes Islamists while building an environment where middle class prosperity and representative government can take root in Islamic lands. This strategy assumes theological moderation is possible in Islam and leaves the task of moderating Islam to Muslims - largely because the secular West is not fully enough engaged in the war to feel comfortable confronting a religion. The Pipes article that you cited provides the proper reality check- Islamism is not new or unique in Islamic history. The Western strategy fails to grapple with Islamic immigration and integration into the West, including the predominance of Islamism in Western mosques. Finally, the Western strategy does not really address human rights abuses in Islamic lands, which construed to their logical end include the inability of Christians and Jews born in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to build churches or synagogues in that country.
The wild card in all of this is an act of terror perpetrated on a massive scale. Should the unthinkable occur, Americans might wake up, remove the handcuffs (and blinders), fight Islamism without military restraint, and press the intellectual aspect of the war until it becomes commonly understood by Muslims throughout the world that the Koran is apocryphal, the Hadiths are fabricated, and Sharia is incompatible with human rights.
Posted by: Publius at July 30, 2004 04:58 PM