Fire across the Middle East
Bookworm on Jan 27 2011 at 9:43 pm | Filed under: Muslim violence
Assuming that this is the 1848 of the Middle East, with Tunisia having lit the spark that causes revolution throughout Muslim countries, do you believe that (a) the revolutions will result in greater freedom in the Middle East or (b) the revolutions will advance the rise of even more radical, oppressive Islam controlling countries in that region?
I incline towards (b).
Email This Post To A Friend
53 Responses to “Fire across the Middle East”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I tend to ‘b’ also. Although the words being used are those of liberty and freedom, the belief system is Islam in which freedom is submission to the will of Allah and men of power.
Lets see. 1917 Russia, Democracy vs Bolshevism, b won. 1978 Iran, Democracy vs Fundamental Islam, b wins again. Guess we should stick with b.
That’s a very complex question. Islam does not have an innate tendancy to radicalism. The silence of the greater Islam in the face of terrorism is not the agreement or approval that some see it as. It has different causes in different places but proceeds mainly from the facts that Muslims have a different relationship to authority than we do, different ideas on handling conflict, and their modes of public expression are not the same as ours. To expect a non-Westernized Muslin to speak out against terrorism is generally unreasonable, and to assume he supports terrorism because he fails to speak out is equally unreasonable.
Of course, Muslims are not the same everywhere, and perhaps paradoxically for some, the most radical often seem to be the most westernized. Bin Laden is the scion of a rich Saudi family with extensive western contacts. The mullahs of Iran are educated, wealthy men; most were educated in the Shah’s westernized universities. Islamic radicalism I think is one the rise faster in Europe than in the Middle East or Asia. In fact, I tend to think that Islamic radicalism is not Islamic in origin at all, but a toxic reaction between Islamic culture, petro-dollars, and the West’s Nihilistic post-modern protest-oriented sub-culture.
Whether or not this is the case, Islamic societies are open to competition of ideas, especially to the extent it will increase prosperity. Islam is no stranger to this and Islamic societies have the capacity for spirited debate. I might also point out the Indonesia, the most populous Muslim state, is a stable democracy, does not export terrorism, and a few years ago elected a president who strongly supported the GWOT. This I think makes a strong statement against those who would argue Islam is inherently radical and opposed to democracy.
So I guess I think the answer is neither. If there was to be a wave of revolutions (which I’m dubious about), I think the results would depend in the particulars of each society and not have that much to do with the prevailing religion.
BTW: There is a good little book out there called “Islam and Democracy” written by a female Algerian scholar whose name escapes me. I think it was written in the mid-90s.
Another very good book is “The Taliban” written by a Pakistani journalist. It was published in 2000 (I think) this is the best source on the emergence and rise of the Taliban I know of.
I think about the best short history of the Middle East is Bernard Lewis’s “The Middle East” — good for getting a basic context for better understanding the other two books and news of the Mid-East in general.
Anyone interested in understanding the rise of Islamic radicalizm and its likely future trajectory should check those books out.
Owen: Just to add, any book by Bernard Lewis on the Middle East is well worth reading. I particularly learned much from reading From Babel to Dragomans, The Crisis of Islam, and What Went Wrong? The Clash Between Islam and Modernity.
In 2005, Bush was pushing democracy throughout the Middle East and Sec. of State Rice made her famous appeal for more democracy in Egypt during a speech in Cairo. Four years later in Cairo, Obama completely backed away from this push, stating that he would not “presume to know” what form of government was best for any particular nation. He also drastically cut back on the budget for pushing democracy throughout the Middle East, particularly those budget items relating to Iran and Egypt.
What we have seen in the Middle East is, in the absence of any outlets for secular opposition against dictatorships, the largest and most organized opposition inevitably arises from militant Islam. Thus the answer will always be (b) in the Middle East.
At any rate, knowing that truth, it was insane for Obama to take the acts that he did as regards to furthering Democracy in the Middle East. Thus it is no surpise today that the largest and most organized oppostion group in Egyp is the Muslim Brotherhood – the progenitor of virtually every Islamic terrorist organization in the world.
It seems clear that the riots in Egypt are, like in Tunisia, wholly secular, grass roots movements aimed squarely at bread and butter issues. Nonetheless, it is the Brotherhood that is in the best position to exploit the nascent revolution in Egypt – and if Obama does nothing, or if he is ineffectual, Egypt will become another Iran. Have no doubt that the people of Egypt are not rioting for Sharia and a theocracy. But if nothing changes to turn around the likely outcome, that is what they may well end up with.
Wolf: Yes, Obama’s actions have been foolish and dangerous, and should be the cause of much concern. I hope there is a grown-up or two around.
And you I think quite correct that people of Egypt are not rioting for Sharia and a theocracy. For that matter, the people of Iran were not rioting for Sharia and a theocracy when they deposed the Shah. The Iranian revolutiuon would have gotten nowhere (and for years did get nowhere) until the middle class and students and professors joined in. They thought they were getting a voice and instead, they got shot.
But Eqypt is not Iran and while you are right about the Brotherhood’s position in Eqypt, I’m not sure that I see them as being able to exploit Egyptian society the way Khomeni did. Maybe they can — perhaps there is nostalgia for Nasser too (though I kind of doubt that) or maybe for Saddat (which was once the case in some circles). But Eqypt has it’s own traditions and the Brotherhood has a complex history and I’m not sure what effect Obama’s bumbling will have – it is not impossible that it could work in our favor, depending on what really going on (which is not clear to me yet).
Anyway, back in 2006 I wrote a rather long essay at the request of another blog on our GWOT strategy. I’ve reposted it here and while it doesn’t directly address the current situation, it does touch on elements of it and provide some useful context (you might want to skip to the end for that): http://cowenjohnson.blogspot.com/2011/01/on-strategy-reposted.html
Terrorism is not crazy or senseless. It works as it’s intended to work. Obama’s policy is only foolish to us. It is working just fine, for him.
Wolf Howling: Four years later in Cairo, Obama completely backed away from this push, stating that he would not “presume to know” what form of government was best for any particular nation.
So why would we suspect that your quote is out of context? Lucky guess?
Obama: ”America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn’t steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. These are not just American ideas; they are human rights. And that is why we will support them everywhere… You must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.”
Bookworm: Assuming that this is the 1848 of the Middle East, with Tunisia having lit the spark that causes revolution throughout Muslim countries, do you believe that (a) the revolutions will result in greater freedom in the Middle East or (b) the revolutions will advance the rise of even more radical, oppressive Islam controlling countries in that region? I incline towards (b).
Declaration of Independence: “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”
Certainly, radical elements will attempt to coopt any revolution. That’s why evolutionary progress is usually preferred. “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations occur”, then it can lead to a sudden transformation, and with it, the chaos that ensues.
A slight detour. When the American colonies revolted, they already had well-established colonial governments with legislatures. It was simply a matter of a change in sovereignty. When the French revolted, nearly every civil institution was beholden to the King or corrupted by association, so when the monarchy fell, it took the entirety of civil society with it. Each nation in the Middle East is in a different stage of social development. Egypt has strong institutions that may see them through the turmoil. But there is always uncertainty as to outcomes.
I have to laugh. A government that doesn’t steal from its people. What does he think taxation, especially progressive taxation, is? The freedom to live as you choose. Sure, as long as you follow the tens of thousands of pages of government regulations controlling and limiting that freedom. Respect the rights of minorities, but apparently not of the majority. Even when he tries to mouth platitudes all he really does is show how far the left’s push for (and the rights’ complicity in) ever more government power has taken us from our ideals.
They thought they were getting a voice and instead, they got shot.
Useful idiots are only useful as cannon fodder. After the Revolution comes, it’s best to shoot them lest they turn their eyes toward the Revolution.
Don Quixote: I have to laugh. A government that doesn’t steal from its people. What does he think taxation, especially progressive taxation, is?
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes”
All democratic societies have taxes, and there is no accepted theory of government that doesn’t include taxation.
I tend to think history supports (b); but I hope for (a).
Spiff
Fox News this AM said that El Baradei had returned to Egypt with an expectation of … I’m not sure exactly what. He’s now under house arrest.
But…why would he expect to have any major role in the government? Has anyone any idea??? Why would he think that in an unsettled Egypt, he would be the one to bring order? What don’t I know? Does he have long family connections? Huge family wealth? Is he simply a dreamer? It was sort of a major “WHAT?” for me…
Hmmm, in the past I would have jumped on the bandwagon to say the answer is without-a-doubt B.
However, nothing happens in a vacuum; folks in the Middle East, in fact, the whole world, have watched “The Bush Doctrine” take place in Iraq and Afghanistan; proving that democracy and all its “baggage” is NOT just a Western value, something alien to the Muslim way of life. Seeing that fellow Arabs/Muslims can “enjoy” democracy and its freedoms can/does instill hope in others.
With that I believe (or maybe it is just wishful thinking) that the scales are tilting in favour of an answers of A – more freedoms.
P.S. Didn’t a group of Muslims in Egypt recently act as “human shields” around Christian churches? Isn’t that something that would have been unheard of just 10 years ago? Isn’t that a hopeful sign that Middle Eastern cultures CAN be changed for the better?
Charles: Didn’t a group of Muslims in Egypt recently act as “human shields” around Christian churches? Isn’t that something that would have been unheard of just 10 years ago?
No. Righteous Muslims, people motivated by faith and love, have always existed. A good example is the Albanians, who saved thousands of Jews from the Nazis.
http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2008/10/25/albanian-righteous-muslims-who-saved-jews-during-holocaust/
Charles: Isn’t that a hopeful sign that Middle Eastern cultures CAN be changed for the better?
Yes.
The take away snip below
Many knowledgeable Egypt-watchers argued this week that the protesters have no chance of bringing down the Mubarak regime. Unlike this month’s overthrow of Tunisia’s despot Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, they say there is little chance that the Egyptian military will abandon Mubarak.
But the same observers are quick to note that whoever Mubarak selects to succeed him will not be the beneficiary of such strong support from Egypt’s security state. And as the plight of Egypt’s overwhelmingly impoverished citizenry becomes ever more acute, the regime will become increasingly unstable. Indeed, its overthrow is as close to a certainty as you can get in international affairs.
http://www.carolineglick.com/e/2011/01/the-pragmatic-fantasy.php
I add the following: Every political vacuum in the M.E. has been filled by extremists. What is and will happen in Lebanon will be a strong indicator (Najib Makit is slated to dismiss the Harari indictment). Another looming problem – will Obama withhold a veto to condemn Israel and allow the UN another condemnation.
Hey Zach, thanks for accusing me of failing to give context in my single sentence characterization, and thanks for giving a PART of Obama’s speech. If you are going to give context, Zach, it starts in 2005 with the Rice: For 60 years, . . . the United States, pursued stability at the expense of democracy in the [Middle East]. And we achieved neither. Now we are taking a different course. We are supporting the democratic aspirations of the people. That is clear, is it not, that our nation would no longer just support dictatorships. Along with that speech came a significant investment by the Bush regime in pushing democratic changes in the Middle East. Now, lets go to the portion of Obama’s speech that you saw fit to leave out
President Barack Obama, Cairo Address, June 4, 2009 Was that a walkback from pushing the democracy agenda in the Middle East? YES, it was. Any clarification needed was provided by Obama’s actions. He ended funding for democracy programs throughout the Middle East. Let me give you a hint, pal, if you want to interpret anything Obama says, you have to look at context, word and deed. Now, if you think that I interpreted that incorrectly, show me with something akin to inellectual honesty if you can manage it. Attacking me with b.s. snark is not cutting it. Actually, the one thing I was unclear on in my comment above is an explanation of why the organized opposition in the Middle East is invariably Islamist. Dictators in the Middle East crush opposition, but the one place that hold is loosed is in the mosques.
Wolf, he’s got nothing but BS.
Zach needs to stop thinking that his progressive income taxes are the end all and be all of “taxation”. There are many different methods for a government to gather money from the people.
Most of Zach’s comments here make Zero sense. The longer it is, the more nonsensical it gets. I would have thought that the longer it was, the more of Zach’s thinking could be seen, but that’s actually not the case.
A lot of what you see as Muslim culture is in fact Arab culture. The Shia in Iran are Persian, not Arabs, so there’s as much cultural warfare going on as religious.
Sadie: You make a good point about the military’s loyalties today and post-Mubarak. Mubarak is 83 if I recall correctly. His health has appeared weak at times and his hold on power, in a nation where the majority of people are under 30, is tenuous at best. Bottom line, we will see Egypt blow up, if not today, then when Mubarak passes. I wrote the following last night on my blog:
Unfortunately, Obama seems confused and out of his depth. His message of support for Mubarak and a message to the rioters that “violence isn’t the answer” must seem craven and unrealistic advice indeed to people who have suffered under an iron-fisted dictatorship for decades. If the riots fail displace Mubarak, it won’t be because of Obama’s intercession on behalf of non-violence.
This is a critical challenge for the Obama administration. The moral highground here is clearly with the rioters. If Obama continues to side with Mubarak while mouthing meaningless suggestions that Mubarak institute democratic changes, whatever good will we have in Egypt may be squandered. That said, if he outright abandons Mubarak, he would be repeating the fatal mistakes of Jimmy Carter vis-a-vis Iran. Carter refused to back the Shah at a critical point in the 1979 revolution, thus opening up the country for takeover by Ayatollah Khomeini and the imposition of his repressive theocracy. Obama must also consider that Mubarak, given his age, ill health and tenuous hold on power, will not long retain power in Egypt in any event.
What Obama could do is act decisively. Obama should very publicly demand that Mubarak take specific steps to institute real democracy – freedom of speech, fair elections, a war on corruption – over a specific time frame or that he step down and turn over the government to a caretaker who will see to the reforms. At the same time, Obama should be using our contacts with Egypt’s military to assist them in stepping in to take control of the country and institute a caretaker government should it become necessary. At all costs, Obama should be focused on buying the time and space to allow a secular opposition movement to coalesce in Egypt that can act as a counter-weight to the Brotherhood.
So now its 3:01 A.M. What will Obama do?
So now its 3:01 A.M. What will Obama do?
It’s winter, so holiday at the tropical beaches.
Wolf Howling: Four years later in Cairo, Obama completely backed away from this push, stating that he would not “presume to know” what form of government was best for any particular nation.
Your rephrasing did not properly represent Obama’s remarks.
Wolf Howling: thanks
You’re welcome. Your original comment indicated that Obama doesn’t support democratic governance, which is clearly not what he said. He outlined what he considered necessary, including consent of the governed.
Wolf Howling: if you want to interpret anything Obama says, you have to look at context, word and deed.
That’s fine, but your original statement inadvertently misrepresented Obama’s remarks.
Wolf Howling: He ended funding for democracy programs throughout the Middle East.
Do you have a citation for this?
Obama has cut some USAID in Egypt and Jordan in order to put more emphasis on Pakistan and Afghanistan. Meanwhile, Republicans have proposed cutting most USAID funding.
http://globalhealth.kff.org/Daily-Reports/2011/January/24/GH-012411-USAID-Funding.aspx
Wolf Howlilng
Can’t take credit for Caroline Glick’s words.
America’s support financially and militarily to Egypt should be used as a club (no need to wonder why I never became a diplomat). I did read that a top general from the Egyptian Army was in the US to ask for support. Gamal Mubarak (son of Hosni) left Egypt several days ago. My best guess on his exit is to wait in the wings ala Khameni did in France. Obama is going to learn (?) that foreign policy requires more than a speech and a sh*t eating grin.
As an aside, Zachriel and the Z-team arrived several days ago to proselytize. Fine and dandy if anyone wants to engage in debate. Me, when the LDS came knocking on my door some years ago, I politely thanked them and closed the door – I have no intention of opening a door for the ‘book of morons’.
Zach does not discuss – he quotes. He quotes from “approved” sources only, and does not accept any cites or sites that are not on his approved list.
Attempts at discussion are futile.
Zach – Let’s see, in my original comment, I mentioned the Rice speech, the Bush policy of pushing democracy, Obama’s speech and his cut of funding for democracy programs. What happened is not that I said anything out of context, but rather you saw an opportunity for a bit of “got-cha” snark while ignoring the totality of my remarks. My subsequent response to you was not a rephrasing, it was setting forth the full quote of Obama’s remarks – something which you elected not to do - which put in even more stark relief Obama’s retreat from pushing the democracy agenda. What you did was intellectually dishonest at best.
As to the citations, you can go to my blog and check the citations or google them as to Iran and others. As to Egypt in particular, http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/04/18/aid-cuts-hit-egypts-democracy-groups/
You’re point about Republicans cutting back USAID does have validity, though USAID is not coextensive with funding programs to pursh a democracy agenda. What we are seeing with the election of tea party candidates in 2010 is some seeking a return to the old Repulican platforms of near a century ago that advocated for a withdraw from foreign lands and entanglements. That is an argument that I think the right has to have in the upcoming years. Are we the world’s policeman or should we take our chips and go home. I think, to a certain extent, we must be the former for a myriad of reasons, but since that is off topic, I won’t expound here.
Owen: Very good post. As to Indonesia, however, the influx of Wahhabits into that country is having a significant impact. Indeed, I view Wahhabism as the lynch-pin of triumphalist Islam. If we are ever to end the threat from Islam, we need to engage Wahhabism in the war of ideas, something neither Bush nor Obama has even considered doing.
Bernard Lewis described Wahhabism with a thought experiment – think of the most virulent racism and violence of the KKK supported by all the petro-dollars of Texas. Now add in triumphalism and evangelism and you start to get some picture of the threat Wahhabism presents to the world. Indeed, I have no doubt that the influence of Wahhabism on Khomeini was significant indeed. His veleyat-e-faqi form of theocracy has no analog in Shia Islam, but it has close parallels to Wahhabi doctrine.
Come on guys – he’s so easy to ignore.
And Owen – “Islamic societies are open to a competition of ideas.?” For your penance, go to Riyadh and conduct a census of Jews and Catholics; then list, in alphabetical order, all the synagogues and cathedrals in the city. All of them. In their hundreds. Then find 20 girls under the age of 25 who can drive themselves by themselves in their own cars while wearing miniskirts and heels.
Wolf Howling: Let’s see, in my original comment, I mentioned the Rice speech, the Bush policy of pushing democracy, Obama’s speech and his cut of funding for democracy programs.
Yes, and in the process left the impression that in his speech Obama “would not ‘presume to know’ what form of government was best for any particular nation,” which mispresents his position. He was quite clear that governments must, among other democratic prerequisites, “maintain {} power through consent, not coercion”.
Wolf Howling: What happened is not that I said anything out of context,
But it was out of context, and it did misrepresent his stated position.
Wolf Howling: My subsequent response to you was not a rephrasing, it was setting forth the full quote of Obama’s remarks – something which you elected not to do -
We provided a link to the entirety of Obama’s remarks.
Wolf Howling: which put in even more stark relief Obama’s retreat from pushing the democracy agenda.
In fact, the section you quoted shows exactly how his position was taken out of context.
“No system of government can or should be imposed by one nation by any other. That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people.”
In other words, his repeats his commitment to the democratic ideal. You might say these words are empty, but those are his words.
Wolf Howling: As to the citations, you can go to my blog and check the citations or google them as to Iran and others.
Yes, we’re aware of the Google. Thought you meant something specific.
Wolf Howling: As to Egypt in particular, http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/04/18/aid-cuts-hit-egypts-democracy-groups/
As we said, “The policy in part reflects a change in focus, with more development and economic aid to Afghanistan and Pakistan.”
>>Come on guys – he’s so easy to ignore.>>
You’re right, of course. But then, there are some days when it just feels good to beat your head against the wall…
Lolll . . . you really are intellectually dishonest if you maintain that I misrepresented Obama’s pull back from promoting democracy throughout the Middle East. As to Obama “presuming not to know” what is the best from of government for any country, those were Obama’s own words, backed up by his pulling of money from the promotion of democracy.
At any rate, we can allow the few who slog through this comment section to make their own decisions as to the merits, accuracy and intellectual honesty to be found in our respective posts. For my part, it is appearing not worth the time and effort to engage with you. And as to “we’re aware of Google,” is that the royal “we.” just out of curiosity.
Dissociative Identity Disorder combined with paranoid delusions that Utopia will arrive in his lifetime.
The royal “we” has been discussed on earlier threads (Zach first showed up about a week to 10 days ago). _WE_ haven’t decided if it’s the royal we or simply a statement of fact, indicating a multiplicity of physical entities using the same online ID…
Zach thinks Obama is clear, because Zach’s about as clear as Obama is.
If you like Obama, things get really predictable as to what else you like.
Come on guys – he’s so easy to ignore.
Easier for some than others. If you have noticed and I am sure you have, he/they chime in after 5 or 6 posts to confront. The absence of an original post, thought, stance, position (did I miss anything) is rather like the kid, who keeps tracking in mud into the house and is convinced it looks ‘cool’.
He quotes from “approved” sources only
Drinking from the kool aid well of knowledge gives the drunk the urge to behave like a verbal hijacker.
Hey Mike Dev, you asked Zach before why he was trying to control the narrative here and he denied it.
The truth is, Zach is at conservative blogs, like this, in order to block what he calls “right wing” viewpoints from gaining legitimacy.
He does so through a number of tricks, including the use of “we”, as well as time input invested here commenting, as well as fragmented, unoriginal, writing.
Trying to find a “quote” where he claims he is controlling the narrative on his blog is pointless. You have to look at the context of his actions. Read between the lines and you’ll get the real reason he is here.
Of course, you all here understand that “right wing” viewpoints applies to almost all of the views of Book’s commenters and most of its readers right?
I finally remembered the phrase I’ve been wanting to apply to a Certain Someone’s writing: morte main (“dead hand”), the French description for an arid, soulless, soliloquy-like style.
I’m with SADIE on Certain Someone’s inability to post any original writing, let alone speak with any sort of voice that doesn’t sound like it came from one of those writing machines the Party was so fond of in “1984.”
I am with Charles Martel. I was thinking in French today, mon dieu ; The phrase sang froid (cold blooded) crossed my lips along with ‘detachment disorder’.
Wolf Howling: you really are intellectually dishonest if you maintain that I misrepresented Obama’s pull back from promoting democracy throughout the Middle East.
What you misrepresented was Obama’s remarks, by leaving the impression he didn’t care one way or another about what form of government a country had. We had assumed you did this inadvertently, and would simply correct it, rather than defend it.
Wolf Howling: As to Obama “presuming not to know” what is the best from of government for any country, those were Obama’s own words, backed up by his pulling of money from the promotion of democracy.
That is simply incorrect. Those are not Obama’s words, but only three words attached to your words. Obama said exactly the opposite of what you claim he did. He laid out principles that must be supported everywhere, including that the Egyptian government “must maintain your power through consent, not coercion”.
Ymarsakar: The truth is, Zach{riel} is at conservative blogs, like this, in order to block what he calls “right wing” viewpoints from gaining legitimacy.
We would be satisfied if simple things that can be easily verified are acknowledged.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-cairo-university-6-04-09
Wolf: “Indeed, I view Wahhabism as the lynch-pin of triumphalist Islam. If we are ever to end the threat from Islam, we need to engage Wahhabism in the war of ideas, something neither Bush nor Obama has even considered doing.”
I agree with the lynch-pin assessment, but I do think that Bush did indeed engage the Wahhabis in a war of ideas (over the objections of those who thoiught they were smarter and more sophisticated). The argument is made over at my blog (link in the previous comment).
Obama disavowwed that war of ideas. And here we are…
JJ: I assume you are being snarky. If you seriously want to know the basis for that statement, I can provide it more fully and/or point you to info for further education on the subject.
But if you just want to be snarky, that’s fine too.
We would be satisfied if simple things that can be easily verified are acknowledged
You and whose government army is going to make that happen? *chuckles*
Obama said exactly the opposite of what you claim he did.
That’s partially because Obama contradicts himself half of the time. That’s nothing special.
Obama often claims the exact opposite of what he actually does. So Wolf making the claim that Obama did something opposite to what you said Obama said, is actually normal, not extraordinary.
No, I’m actually not being snarky, I’m being quite serious. I no longer need to listen to crap about how swell Islam is. As for the Muslim Brotherhood, here’s their motto – just in case you didn’t know it:
Allah is our objective
The prophet is our leader
Qu’ran is our law
Jihad is our way
Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope
Sound like fine, reasonable, international businessmen, don’t they. Statesmen, one and all.
jj: If the MB were Islam, you would have a point. The point is they are not Islam. This has nothing to do with whether Islam is swell or a religion of peace or anything else along those lines. This has to do with the MB and the radical Islamic groups are actually trying to do — not what people here perceive they are trying to do.
My observation is that very few people actually have a good understanding of what radical Islam is about (including I’m afraid the current adminstration) and how it relates to the rest of Islam.
Now if you don’t want to listen, fine with me. Unless you occupy a high position in the State Dept, little harm with done. If on the other hand, you’d like to know more, my thoughts on the subject are explained in some detail here: http://cowenjohnson.blogspot.com/2011/01/on-strategy-reposted.html
If you want to read that and take issue with it, I’ll will be overjoyed to entertain your arguments. Of course, if you don’t, that’s fine too.
jj: You might also want to read this: http://pajamasmedia.com/michaelledeen/2011/01/28/revolution-by-whom-for-what/?singlepage=true
I will jump in here and go with B.
The problem is usually – in my mind – with authoritarian governments. When generations have lived under authoritarian governments, the people lose the ability to be free. In other words, they want freedom, but they don’t know how to reach for it. It has to be built up very slowly over time – as it was in the American colonies.
We saw in Russia how the collapse did not lead to freedom. You will see the same thing across the Middle East and Africa. They have no idea how to become free. They are too far from it to be able to make that step. So they will remain authoritarian.
The best you can hope for is something that looks like “crony capitalism”. To the extent that we conservatives believe in capitalism, we believe in free-market capitalism. For me, free-market capitalism and crony capitalism has little in common. The first encourages competition. The second discourages it, and in fact, under crony capitalism, those with connections into the Big Government receive such favoritism that competition is actively stifled and harmed. The problem is authoritarianism and government control. Crony capitalism births only increased corruption, and like all authoritarian systems, destroys any middle class, and ensures power, influence and money remains in the hands of the few at the top, and increases the numbers of the struggling poor. It ensures corruption.
(And of course, socialism is even worse than crony capitalism in these effects. A digression on socialism here: If you wish to point to Sweden, you have a limited point: A nation of homogenoous people, with a very strong work ethic can remain bonded enough to make socialism work… for a while. Give them a few generations under socialism, however, and it too begins to fall apart. Sweden shows only how socialism can work for just a few generations under extremely rare sociological circumstances.)
(I would add that under Obama, if there is any capitalism to be encouraged by his administration even in our own country, it will always take the form of crony capitalism.)
So in sum, even after a People’s Revolution in a country in the Middle East or Africa, even if the people yearn to be free, they don’t know how to be free. They’ve developed no “cultural infrastructure” of freedom. They’ve lived too long under the thumb of authoritarian government. There will be either dictatorship or another strongly authoritarian socialist government, or crony capitalism of the sort Russia saw that led to extraordinarily rapid descent into criminality and immediate massive corruption. I’m not hopeful at all.
Egypt in particular has no oil. It’s GDP is laughably small for its population. Most of its people are horribly poor and desperate. They do not have what I called the “cultural infrastructure” of freedom. They will not be able to make the leap.
Although I agree fully with the thrust of your argument, Mike Devx, I would disagree and/or add to a couple of your points as follows:
I believe that democracy can grow in cultures that have not known freedom but it is hard and, often needs to be imposed from the top (colonial powers, the U.S. and post-WWII Japan). South Korea and Eastern Europe are examples.
You also say, “To the extent that we conservatives believe in capitalism, we believe in free-market capitalism. For me, free-market capitalism and crony capitalism has little in common. The first encourages competition. The second discourages it, and in fact, under crony capitalism, those with connections into the Big Government receive such favoritism that competition is actively stifled and harmed.
I fully agree: the U.S. ceased being a free-market capitalist society long ago and we have been steadily sliding into crony capitalism (as measured by our steady decline in the Index of Economic Freedom). Where free-market capitalism has been allowed to flourish, it has been an astounding success. The best examples thereof are Hong Kong and Singapore.
A digression on socialism here: If you wish to point to Sweden, you have a limited point: A nation of homogenoous people, with a very strong work ethic can remain bonded enough to make socialism work… for a while. Give them a few generations under socialism, however, and it too begins to fall apart. Sweden shows only how socialism can work for just a few generations under extremely rare sociological circumstances.)
Socialism never worked in Sweden. An apt metaphor would be, “communism” is a beheading, socialism is the death of a thousand cuts”. In 1970, Sweden was one of the richest countries in the world. Under the socialists, they declined steadily as they squandered their accumulated capital on social welfare programs (Margaret Thatcher, “eventually you run out of other peoples’ money”).
Today, as the TIMBRO study to which I have linked previously quantifies, the Swedish middle class would be defined as “poor” in the U.S. and Sweden, as a nation, is poorer than the poorest U.S. state. Now, President Obama and the other socialist Democrats are laboring mightily to bring us down to Sweden’s level. The Swedes, meanwhile, have recognized the problem and have been working to reverse their national trend.
Whoops, I misspoke. What I meant to say is that in terms of disposable income and material wealth, Sweden is poorer than the poorest U.S. state. The population and GDP of Sweden are equivalent to North Carolina. However, North Carolina has much less overhead than Sweden.
What Islam – radical or otherwise – is about, at least according to the fellow who founded it, (whom you may not recognize as an authority), is converting the world to their way of looking at things. They will do this by whatever means seems to them to be necessary. I suspect all the people who’ve been killed in this endeavor over the years have a pretty good idea what they’re trying to do.
Read the Qu’ran some time. It’s interesting. Every practicing – according to themselves - Muslim believes it, and believes it quite literally. In it’s blood-soaked pages there is not much differentiation between groups within Islam, there is only Islam. The MB’s business plan, stated by me in #43 begins to look pretty standard.
I assume that you are among those who hold to the belief that there are many Muslims who do not in fact believe in their holy book. (In which case, they are by definition not Muslims.) I further assume you are among those who believe that the problem is only with a small percentage of “radical” Muslims. It would be lovely to think you are right. I regret that, on the evidence, I find that I don’t happen to think so.
Danny L #47:
> Socialism never worked in Sweden. [...] In 1970, Sweden was one of the richest countries in the world. Under the socialists, they declined steadily as they squandered their accumulated capital on social welfare programs (Margaret Thatcher, “eventually you run out of other peoples’ money”).
> Today, as the TIMBRO study to which I have linked previously quantifies, the Swedish middle class would be defined as “poor” in the U.S. and Sweden, as a nation, is poorer than the poorest U.S. state. Now, President Obama and the other socialist Democrats are laboring mightily to bring us down to Sweden’s level. The Swedes, meanwhile, have recognized the problem and have been working to reverse their national trend.
Thank you, Danny. I believed the lies, that if *any* Western country in Europe had *any* success at all under socialism, it was Sweden. The Big Lie. They do that to us all the time. Sweden, it turns out, has declined under socialism to the point where it matches the poorest of our 50 States! That is what you can expect from the authoritarianism and centralized planning that some visitor(s) here advocate. That Obama advocates. Misery and decline. There is no success story for Karl Marx. Not even one. Not even a partial success story! Misery and decline for all who choose that devastating path, no matter how good their intentions.
As to the middle east and Africa, I haven’t even touched on the effect that Islam has on any analysis. Islam equates theocracy, and you don’t get more authoritarian than theocracy. Yet another reason there is little hope for countries under the domination of Islam.
jj: I assume that you are among those who hold to the belief that there are many Muslims who do not in fact believe in their holy book. (In which case, they are by definition not Muslims.) I further assume you are among those who believe that the problem is only with a small percentage of “radical” Muslims.
Why assume? I pointed you to the arguments — if you’d read them, no assumptions are necessary. It’s silly (not to say lazy) to make assumptions about what someone thinks when you can just go read what they think.
Don’t mind JJ. He sometimes lets his biases distort his perspective.
While all of us have biases, it’s always a choice how much leeway it is given.
Ymarsakar: Indeed. Like my passions, my biases are my own but my opinions are my profession; I try to allow comingling only when useful.
BTW: I ran across this: http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/004227.html. Useful to keep in mind when reading news stories on the current situation.