Entry details

Curzon
Author

Curzon

Date

October 2nd, 2006

Tags

,

Comments

19 Comments so far.
Add yours.

One Size Does Not Fit All

Eddie has a sobering take on Western-Islamic relations and says, in an indirect way, that the war on terror cannot be won if we cannot distinguish between Islam and Al Qaeda.

We lack a coherent understanding of the Muslim world. Not all Islamists are our enemies (yet) and they’re not all of the same idealogical stripe. Realizing the different motivations and goals of the many strands of Islamists should constitute not a harried fear or overreaction on our part (like treating them all with the same tactics and judgment of intentions) but a serious estimation of “divide and conquer”Â? possibilities, engagement/alliance opportunities and weaknesses for us to exploit through information operations and public diplomacy.

Eddie takes on all angles and provides a solid conclusion: those who say Islam is a religion of violence cannot fight the war on terror. And he’s correct. There are 1.2 billion Muslims out there, and they are popping out babies like gangbusters. The people at JihadWatch and LGF who are unable to separate the words ‘Islamic’ and ‘Fascists’ offer no solution to the problems we face in the Middle East, only an unending war with no winners.

Comments to this entry

alec
October 2, 2006
6:22 pm
One of the most intelligent lines I have heard came from the president of my organization who said 'generalizations are a willful display of ignorance'. This reiterates what you post here -- 1.2 billion people cannot be summed up by the actions of say 5000 angry at the Pope. In my world, it's discouraging to hear otherwise intelligent people cackle to themselves about the 'religion of peace'. The people who run JihadWatch and LGF are also unable to separate 'United States' and 'Israel'.
von Kaufman-Turkestansky
October 2, 2006
6:28 pm
Indeed what we would all hope for is a way to avoid perpetual war. I found it interesting that the 7th fleet sailor's poll of Afghan and Iraq vets found that they were not impressed by those who seek conflict without resolution. Guys (and gals like the helicopter pilot running for congress) have to know what they are fighting for. What bugs me the most is that the most vicious voices in North America now tend - at least to all appearances - to be those who never fought, who will never fight, and whose children will never fight. I would love to pass a law requiring all yellow journalists, hawkish editorialists and chick-hawk politicians (sorry for the name-calling, but this is an unabashed emotional appeal) to go to boot camp! Of course a nation needs to be able to defend itself, but it must not attack based on lies. And despite what I just said about hawkish editorialists, we do have to be nuanced. One way that we can do that is by having a press and an opposition that do their jobs, and criticize! We seem to have forgotten how to think critically in the last 6 sound-bite years.
GI Korea
October 2, 2006
8:25 pm
Of course a very small percentage of Muslims are extremists and the vast majority just want to live a happy normal life like anyone else. All I ask from the world's 1.2 billion Muslims is to condemn the violent behavior of Islamic extremists, which is very rarily done. How many Muslim leaders have come out and defended the pope against calls to assassinate him? When Pat Robertson makes claims that the CIA should assassinate Hugo Chavez there was a quick and immediate response from across America to condemn him which instantly marginalized him and he apologized for his comments. IMHO the global Islamic community particularly the Muslim media outlets can do more to marginalize Islamic extremists instead of making excuses for them.
Elizabeth
October 2, 2006
10:09 pm
I agree fully. And I would remind those like GI Korea that there might be more condemnation among normal Muslims than we hear about in the normal media. In a number of majority-Muslim countries, the government is very anti-extremist and the state media already is presenting the anti-violent side of things. This is why you get the private cable stations presenting another point of view.

Afghanistan state television ALWAYS presents the pro-peace, anti-violent point of view. Karzai is constantly condemning violence in Afghanistan and Iraq and everywhere else, and is backed up by thousands of mullahs across his country. I've heard them, I've seen it, with my own eyes, rooms full of Muslims nodding enthusiastically in agreement with condemnations of the terrorists.

Tolo TV is a reformist television station that is just crazy about peace. They are constantly attacked by extremists in the country for showing Indian Hindi movies. They regularly interview Afghan people-on-the-street and politicians speaking against war, terror, and violence. It's one of the most popular TV stations in Afghanistan.

Do you think any of this is ever presented on CNN for you to see?

No. But that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
Yago
October 3, 2006
12:15 am
There's no "divide and conquer" with muslims. Whatever happens, as much as we stress their differences, they are never going to side with infidels against their brothers. That is not going to happen.
Branding the billion muslims as being allies of Al Qaeda and esentially agreeing with their objectives may be counterproductive, and maybe all muslims aren't fundamentalists. But if they have to choose sides, they will always prefer a Bin Laden than a liberal infidel. Always. And there's no changing that. Trying to ignore it won't help the war effort.
Elizabeth
October 3, 2006
12:27 am
"as much as we stress their differences, they are never going to side with infidels against their brothers"

That may be true for fundamentalist (and I don't mean violent, fascist, or political) Muslims, but it's not true for:

-Secular "Muslims" (i.e. totally secular or nominal Muslims in Islamic, Muslim, or secular states)
-Mystical Muslims (e.g. those such as Sufis, who are more likely to "side" with mystical Christians than with violent fundamentalists)
- Muslim women who have children, most of whom would sooner side with another mother- Christian, Bahai, Hindu, or WHATEVER- than with some ass who wants her baby to blow himself up. Believe me.

I can think of hundreds of Muslims whom I know personally, off the top of my head. Of them, only one would prefer a Bin Laden to a so-called "liberal infidel". I am certain of this. The rest are all actively engaged in causes that most American liberals and conservatives agree on: economic development, peace, and individual freedom.

(I can also think of a number of secretly athiest Muslims who only don't "come out" because athiesm isn't worth dying for.)

I don't know where you get your information, but from India, Pakistan, Iran, and the former USSR, millions of Muslims just don't fit your stereotype.
Curzon
October 3, 2006
12:49 am
They are never going to side with infidels against their brothers... they will always prefer a Bin Laden than a liberal infidel.


I couldn't disagree more. Bin Laden is the equivalent of the KKK, the Nazi Party, the Bolsheviks, take your pick. They can appear to offer solutions when the people are disenchanted, but they are extremists, through and through. The choice doesn't have to be between OBL and "liberal infidels" -- give them a liberal Muslim, a moderate, whatever. Asserting otherwise as you do provides no solution whatsoever.
alec
October 3, 2006
3:02 am
Agreed Curzon. A couple hundred thousand people in Tehran marched in support of the us after 9/11. The Iranians offered to help the US in the war against Afghanistan. The Middle East is a complex place as any, and you do a disservice to yourself (and frankly waste the time of others) if you think you can sum it up in a few quips with neocon cliches.

FORMULA FOR PERVASIVE IGNORANCE: FEAR + FOX NEWS + FREEDOM = SEXY XXX DONALD RUMSELFD DELIRIUM
Curzon
October 3, 2006
3:36 am
Alec: you were doing great until the last inexpicable sentence:

*Fear, even irrational fear, is often a healthy motivator.
*Fox news is bad, but so is CNN and the BBC.
*Freedom promotes pervasive ignorance? Are you proposing an authoritarian lockdown to educate the people otherwise?
*"Sexy" Don Rumsfeld has been very good about fighting this ignorance, keeping military relations as good as they can be with places like Yemen, Pakistan, and Algeria.
sun bin
October 3, 2006
5:55 am
since the discussion has been on for a few days, and my off-topic comment is not likely to be a distraction. let me extend the logic here:

this applies to the chinese/korean who oppose the militarism/revisionism in japan, the DPRK or Iran govt, and also to those who oppose the Bush govt, or the CCP government in China.
Sun Bin
October 3, 2006
6:30 am
A good strategy is a feasible task, and more...

What is a good strategy? First of all, any plan that is not feasible is not a strategy. Pyrrhic victory is a result of very bad strategy. In addition
sun bin
October 3, 2006
6:36 am
Curzon,

Don Rumsfeld has been very good about fighting "this ignorance"? by creating more enemies out of Iraq, Iran? and allienating those Iranians who sympathized with Americans in 9/2001?
Eddie
October 3, 2006
9:05 am
Everyone, I'm honored by your discussion, contribution (i.e. improvement of) and criticism of my post. Thank you Curzon for your generous link to my post and your prescient conclusion.

Barring a self-destructive future tendency to fight a regressive holy war, we have no choice but to find ways to work together with the great majority of Muslims who share an appreciation for human norms; i.e. rule of law, economic development and opportunity, basic human rights and advanced education.

Everyday tens of millions of Muslims work towards these goals in countries from India to Senegal to Indonesia, even in the Arab world in Iraq and Lebanon, amid conflict and terrorism.

That they choose to march and protest for economic opportunity, political and religious integrity and the rule of law versus protesting against terrorism en masse says little about their committment to a better future and far more about their priorities; jobs, security and a fair chance for their children to succeed.

That we have a deadly and ruthless minority among Muslims who wish us harm (and remember these terrorists and insurgents have slaughtered far more Muslims than non-Muslims in the past few decades) should make us even more committed to working together with Muslims in the law enforcement, intelligence and judicial (even Islamic law in places like Afghanistan and Somalia) to help bring these enemies to justice and/or to a swift end. Look at the intel/police work that led to the death of the worst terrorist in Iraq and the breaking up of countless terror cells across the world.
alec
October 3, 2006
2:23 pm
Well, the joke was within the joke. The idea is a) irrational fear maintained by a majority of the population for terrorism (how many Americans live outside NYC and Washington DC?) + b) Fox News as a perpetuator of 'Islamo-Fascism' stereotypes (and the MSM in general) + c) freedom, as a buzz word for the 'freedom fry' individiuals who are patriotic but somehow not referred to as 'dangerously nationalistic' = d) Sexy time Donald Rumsfeld; while he may be a pragmatistic with necessary relations (I know of his trips to Uzbek & Kazik. recently, and of course, the famous handshake with Saddam in the 80's), I also believe he is a liar and a fear-monger. I think he symbolizes everything that disgusts me about the Bush administration: when the truth wouldn't suffice for war, he pushed for lies, when the lies were exposed, he pushed for fear, and when fear was criticized, he labeled others unpatriotic.
alec
October 3, 2006
2:31 pm
Eddie: I appreciate your comments. Whenever I enter into conversations and face the us vs them, all of them are extremists, it is difficult for me not to just want to say 'god damnit', and immediately spew out my displeasure for these views. People are smart but somehow refuse to be smart on this issue. I work in DC for a Middle East think tank, and it is amazing even the people I meet can't differentiate between the 50+ Muslim-majority countries and 1.2 billion Islamic people. How many times do I have to point out the examples of Turkey, the UAE, Lebanon, or Kuwait? How many times do I have to say 'well, a lot of grassroots liberal efforts in Iraq, Iran, and Egypt were crushed under the Soviet/US proxy wars in favor of authoritarian rulers that would play favorites'? The answer is too many for me, because all it takes is five minutes of knowledge to realize 'oh, moderation exists on all fronts, from America to Europe to Israel to the Middle East, and being of a specific religion, ethnicity, or nationality doesn't preclude one from being a rational, sensicial human being'. Bah.
Rommel
October 3, 2006
5:10 pm
Alec,

As someone "not from DC and New York" I wholly resent your characterization of the "majority" of Americans as cowering in fear of an omnipresent terrorist threat. It is simply not true. A good percentage of Americans do indeed appreciate the threat the country/world faces by Islamic extremists but at least here in north Texas the vast majority are not reactionary morons but reasonable, rational Americans capable of understanding that not all Muslims are terrorists. Perhaps I misunderstand you, and although I agree with you to a point about this issue, your tired polemics are just that - tired.
To the point though, it appears most of us are in agreement on this issue which is a good thing. With the constant media bombardment of "Muslim anger" (all networks guilty), I am afraid that mainstream American sentiment will turn sour with regard to the entire 1 billion person Muslim world. As is often the case, a few bad apples can spoil the whole damn batch.
alec
October 3, 2006
6:01 pm
Yah, sorry, I guess I was being vague leading to an easy misinterpretation of my words. My point was outside of Washington DC and NYC, how many Americans have been victims of terrorism (at least 'foreign' or 'Islamic' terrorism, if one wants to not lump Waco or Oklahoma City). The idea isn't 'cowering in fear', but that terrorism is one of the biggest issues in the coming midterm elections, as well it should be.
Rommel
October 4, 2006
3:14 am
alec,

my apologies! I see your point and concur. Having recently spent a politics (conversation, that is) filled week in Seattle/Vancouver I heard plenty of vitriol of the type I wrongly accused you of - so sorry for the misinterpretation! On the flipside, those of the other political persuasion that I chatted with in the Pacific NW were some of the most bitter political conservatives I've ever met (however few and far between). Seige mentality, and all that...
ComingAnarchy.com » Blog Archive » US opposes “Islamic Bomb”?
November 13, 2006
4:32 am
[...] I think what Cohen means is that the US opposes an Islamist bomb, not an Islamic bomb. Or at least I hope that’s the way the US thinks about it. As discussed previously, this is an important distinction. Were, say, Malaysia or Turkey to develop nuclear weapons for objectively correct reasons of national security, the US and the rest of the world would probably accept it, just as the world has adjusted to the spread of the bomb to the USSR, Britain, France, China, and India. Speaking of China and India: [...]