Islamic totalitarianism — VOICES for REASON

In the streets of Cairo, tens of thousands are clamoring to get rid of strongman Hosni Mubarak. Ominously the Muslim Brotherhood—the origin of Hamas, Al Qaeda and other jihadist outfits—is maneuvering to assume leadership of the protests. The Brotherhood is our enemy; its success in Egypt means greater peril for us (to put it mildly). But some protesters evidently despise the Brotherhood’s totalitarian political ideal. Where does that leave well-meaning Egyptians who want neither Mubarak nor the Brotherhood?

Beware of pinning your hopes on so-called political “moderates.” There are at least two related problems here.

1. In the Arab-Muslim world, the slippery term “moderate” encompasses those who are merely anti-Islamist–not necessarily pro-Western. Many Egyptians readily swallow anti-Semitic, anti-Western conspiracy theories (e.g. the Protocols of the Elders of Zion). Moreover, supporting Palestinian “resistance” (read: terrorism) against Israel is a conventional, mainstream, uncontroversial view. Egypt is one of the places where ordinary people matter-of-factly will tell you that America got what it deserved in the 9/11 attacks. Keep all that in mind, when you ponder what it would mean for so-called moderates to be elected into power in Egypt.

2. The other problem stems from the argument that so-called moderates can be a bulwark against the political power of Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood. In that part of the world, the political spectrum is far narrower than you may think: whereas Islamists want religion to be the all-encompassing principle of government, a typical “moderate” still acknowledges that Islam has some, albeit limited, role in government. True secularists are scarce and marginal. So could “moderates” in government prevent the Islamists from taking over? Ultimately, no. I touch on this in my book, and here’s part of the explanation.

The only intelligible meaning of “moderate” advocates of religion are those who try to combine devotion to faith with concessions to reason. They obey the dictates of Islam in some areas and not others, fencing off certain issues or areas of life from the purview of religion. Let us grant the premise that the West can find moderate Muslims and support them in a way that does not discredit them in Muslim eyes as saboteurs conspiring to undermine Islam. Could moderates really steer their culture away from the totalitarian movement?

The holy warriors hold that Islam must shape every last detail of man’s life. The moderates accept the ideal of Islam but shy away from the vision of total state. Moderates might agree to allow sharia to govern schools, say, but not commerce; to dictate marriage laws, but not punishments for blasphemy, apostasy, or adultery. Yet in doing so, moderates ultimately advance the agenda of the totalitarians, since even delimited applications of Islam to government constitute an endorsement of it as the proper source of law.

The tension between moderates and the totalitarians is unsustainable. What happens when the totalitarians push for expanding the scope of sharia a bit more? If sharia can govern banking and trade, for example, why not other aspects of life? Why not also institute Islamic punishments, such as beheading apostates? Having accepted in principle the ideal of sharia, moderates have no grounds to reject further means to that end. They can offer no principled opposition to the slaughter of infidels who refuse to submit, or of apostates who claim the freedom to choose their own convictions. In the face of the incremental or rapid advance of the totalitarian goal, the moderates are in the long run impotent. If Islam is the ideal, why practice it in moderation?

One news report tells us that the ostensibly “moderate” Mohammad ElBaradei has talked about setting up a governing coalition with the Muslim Brotherhood.

The plight of Egypt — like that of much of the region — is intellectual. The protestors who genuinely do want a better future face no good options.

(P.S. What could help Egyptians? To address that fully would take a separate discussion. At minimum, I’d name three things: the embrace of genuinely pro-freedom ideas, secular government and individualism.)

image: flicker/cc

With a new year approaching, we looked back at some of the topics we discussed on VFR since the blog was launched. Here, we highlight a few of our favorite VFR posts that you may enjoy revisiting (or reading for the first time, if you’re a new reader).

Posts by Elan Journo.

• Disconnected Dots
• McChrystal’s other — deadly — scandal
• Draw Mohammad, risk your life?
• Iraq’s Awakening re-awakens pro-jihadist. Shocking.

image: cc/yoshiffles

Over at FoxNews.com, my colleague Alex Epstein has published an important new essay, “The 6 Myths About Oil.” It begins:

Every American consumes an average of three gallons of oil a day. Republicans and Democrats call this reliance on oil an “addiction”—an irrational, self-destructive habit that must be broken as soon as possible. This year’s BP oil spill disaster is only making the chorus to “end our addiction to oil” louder. But if we examine the most common arguments for this idea, we see that they are myths. Oil is a vital, viable, and desirable part of our energy future.

And here are the myths he challenges in the essay:

• Myth #1: America’s reliance on oil is an “addiction”—an irrational, self-destructive habit.
• Myth #2: There are “green” technologies that are just as good, or better, than oil.
• Myth #3: Because oil is finite, it will inevitably run out.
• Myth #4: Because oil is mostly in other countries, they can cut us off at will and create an economic catastrophe.
• Myth #5: Because oil money funds hostile dictatorships (Iran, Saudi Arabia) by using less oil we can make them poorer and make ourselves more secure.
• Myth #6: Because the burning of oil produces CO2, oil is a deadly pollutant that must be severely capped.

The whole thing.

This poll, if accurate, is truly damning — not only of U.S. policy in Afghanistan, but also of Afghans’ ideas. Last year, some 8 percent of Afghans said that insurgent attacks on US/Nato forces can be justified. This year, twenty-seven percent of Afghans polled said the attacks can be justified.

What makes this three-fold increase so astounding is that it comes after continual ratcheting up of restrictions on when U.S. troops in Afghanistan are permitted to use deadly force. Our soldiers are far, far more limited in when they can call in air support, for example, than just a couple of years ago (when their hands were still fairly tied). Yet for years, the premise of our strategy has been that, the more we tiptoe, appease the locals, and pull our punches, the more likely we are to win the love of the population. But in fact, pursuing this self-crippled policy (as I note in my book) leads our enemies and their sympathizers to feel contempt, if not greater enmity, for us.

Notice, moreover, that there’s been 31 percent increase in civilian deaths in the first six months of the year — “largely caused by Taliban attacks, according to the United Nations” (casualties attributed to Western forces have declined). And yet, 73 percent favor a “negotiated settlement” with the totalitarian Taliban/Islamist groups.

What does that say about the ideological sympathies of Afghans? What does it say about the assumptions behind U.S. policy in the region?

Iran’s attempts to turn post-war Iraq into an Islamist vassal is a way under-reported story. For a long time, that narrative was downplayed, minimized, denied. No more, perhaps.

What comes into sharp focus in this New York Times report is a horrifying picture of Iran’s considerable efforts to dominate in Iraq. The NYT summary is long, but well worth reading. Despite our supposed “success” in Iraq, Iran’s power-grab persists. Just how many Americans have died in Iraq because of Iran’s backing of insurgent groups (both Sunni and Shiite) is hard to calculate; but Iran’s culpability and militant ambitions should no longer be in question.

Now Afghanistan’s president, Hamid Karzai, has conceded that his administration has received payouts from the militant theocracy in Iran. To what end is Iran backing him? My assessment: To solidify Iranian influence and power over Afghanistan. (There was already evidence that Iran was backing certain Islamist forces in the country.)

Add these two data points to the Iranian regime’s decades-long rap sheet. This is a regime with which our current (and our former) president has sought a rapprochement? A more healthy relationship based on “mutual respect and mutual interests”? This is a regime ambitious to expand its Islamist dominion far and wide, by force. It has continually shown itself to be an aggressive enemy of America and our interests.

Much has certainly changed in Iraq since the nadir of the brutal civil war, but with increasing insurgent attacks, it’s fascinating to see the actual consequences of the U.S. policies that were widely credited with delivering us a “success” (defined on a progressively debased standard of what counts as success). Take the widely celebrated “Awakening” of U.S.-backed Iraqis who turned against some jihadist groups. In my book I assess that policy and critique it harshly. One problem: it is predicated on appeasement (the bribing of Iraqis to switch sides, so they turn against the jihadsts); another problem: it papers over the nature of conflicts among Iraqi factions and the deep-seated tribal/sectarian enmities. Here’s a flavor.

What happens when the torrent of cash [paid to members of the Awakening, "Sons of Iraq"] dries up? That future problem will sort itself out, we are told, because once stability is achieved, there will be a reconciliation among Iraq’s warring ethnic and sectarian factions. The deadly gangland-style shoot-outs in the streets and ugly wrangling in parliament will cease, or so we have been promised. Washington believed that by arming and empowering the Sunni tribes, who constitute the bulk of the Sons of Iraq, it would pave the road for them to feel included in the nation’s politics—which the majority Shiites now hold in a vise-grip. Ultimately, the idea is to fold these gangs of former (and current) criminals, supposedly former jihadists, and ordinary Iraqis into the nation’s Shiite-dominated police force. Some of that has happened, but the deep-seated, bitter resentment between Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq cannot be wished away. Many Sons of Iraq believe that their real enemy is the Shiite-run government in Baghdad, and with their American-provided arms, they await the day of reckoning.

What did that money buy? Allies who pledge their sacred honor to defeat Islamists? Consider this NYT report from Oct. 16

Sunnis in Iraq Allied With U.S. Quitting to Rejoin Rebels.

BAQUBA, Iraq — Members of United States-allied Awakening Councils have quit or been dismissed from their positions in significant numbers in recent months, prey to an intensive recruitment campaign by the Sunni insurgency, according to government officials, current and former members of the Awakening and insurgents.

Although there are no firm figures, security and political officials say hundreds of the well-disciplined fighters — many of whom have gained extensive knowledge about the American military — appear to have rejoined Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. Beyond that, officials say that even many of the Awakening fighters still on the Iraqi government payroll, possibly thousands of them, covertly aid the insurgency.

The defections have been driven in part by frustration with the Shiite-led government, which Awakening members say is intent on destroying them, as well as by pressure from Al Qaeda. The exodus has accelerated since Iraq’s inconclusive parliamentary elections in March, which have left Sunnis uncertain of retaining what little political influence they have and which appear to have provided Al Qaeda new opportunities to lure back fighters.[emphasis added]

For my fuller critique of what was (and is) so wrong with America’s “successful” policy in Iraq – and, broadly, what went wrong in Washington’s post-9/11 policy — I encourage you to check out the book.

The headlines can be macabre — “Make a Bomb in the Kitchen of Your Mom” — and the stories (giving advice on how to pack when you leave for jihad) are in colloquial English. “Inspire” magazine is the work of Al Qaeda’s affiliate in Yemen. But the editor behind this publication — which has encouraged would-be jihadists to open fire on lunch crowds in D.C., to take out some U.S. government employees — is a Pakistani-American. NPR has a long, unsettling report on that 24-year-old man, Samir Khan.

One point that caught my eye: While still living in his parents’ basement, here in the U.S., Khan published a pro-Al Qaeda website — but took pains, even hiring a lawyer to advise him, so as not to run afoul of the law. Someone who knew him tells NPR that that step defied Khan’s Islamist creed. “For him to take shade under the Constitution or to go to a disbelieving lawyer and ask for his help contradicts the entire ideological worldview that he has decided to live by.”

Really? Islamic totalitarian groups like Hamas have stooped to taking part in representative elections for government power — as a means of advancing their dictatorial agenda. Ditto for Hezbollah. Islamists have shown in the past that they’re quite happy to work “within the system” in order to subvert it. In Europe, there are Islamist activists who use lawful means — lobbying, special pleading, lawsuits — to impose their ideology on others. I touch on this topic in my book. The point here: it’s a myth that Islamists use only the tactic of terrorism in pursuit of their ideological goal — far from it.

image:sxu/lusi

Molly Norris was a cartoonist for the Seattle Weekly, and although she’s still alive, she’s gone “ghost”: leaving her job, moving, changing her name, and essentially erasing any traces of her identity. For fear of her life.

Exercising her right to free speech — and encouraging others to do the same — she promoted “Everybody Draw Mohammad Day.” In July, the Islamist cleric Anwar al-Awlaki (who’s linked to the Times Square bomber) announced that Norris “should be taken as a prime target of assassination.”(!) Now, at the insistence of the FBI, Norris has gone into the equivalent of a witness protection program — on her own dime.

This scandal has been unfolding for a while. . . so where are the outraged, fire-breathing editorials in our leading newspapers? Where are the impassioned speeches from politicians upholding the inalienable right of Americans to freedom of speech — and specifically, our right to criticize and ridicule ideologies of every stripe? The muted response to Norris’s fate, the lack of outrage — particularly from the news media — is horrifying. That our political leaders have pointedly shied away from taking a stand on this is all the more ominous. Government’s crucial job is to protect our rights.

Have we sunk so low that drawing Mohammad means risking your life? Is America willing to surrender the fundamental right to freedom of speech in obedience to the dictates of some Islamist cleric?

image: cc/yoshiffles

There’s so much wrong with this picture, it’s hard to know where to begin: Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmedinijad is in New York City to gloat and pontificate, and, incidentally, attend the U.N. assembly. Outraged yet?  Recall that this is the head of the regime that — by the acknowledgement of our own government — is responsible for at least one-quarter of the deaths of American soldiers in Iraq (and probably much more, as I explain in my book). The same regime that has been financing, encouraging, training, equipping Islamist fighters to carry out attacks against U.S. and Western targets across the world. The same regime that is responsible for the murder of Americans across three-plus decades. The same regime that gunned down in the streets peaceful protestors objecting to its theocratic rule. And (yet again) we play host to the leader of a corrupt and violently anti-American regime? Seriously — our leadership lacks the moral confidence to take a stand even against that?

No, I don’t buy the notion that because he’s attending the U.N. meeting, we must let him onto U.S. soil. More than anything, that’s a reason to question our involvement in (and enormous funding of) an organization that has Iran as a member and obliges us to unroll a red carpet for Ahmedinijad.

Dispelling misconceptions about the Arab/Israeli conflict is a focus of Efraim Karsh’s writings, and in his oped in today’s NYT, he brings to a wider audience key facts about the character of self-professed Arab champions of the Palestinian cause. He lays out a historical case that Arab states — who routinely jockey to be seen as advancing Palestinian goals — have in reality exploited that cause for their own power-seeking ends.

Agreeing with the thrust of Karsh’s article, I’d add this point: even if these backers had been genuine in their motivations and truly sought to serve the cause, that too would be deplorable. From my reading of the issue, the Palestinian movement has at its root an antipathy to Western political values, such individual freedom, and it has pioneered in the vile tactic of terrorism. Regimes that back that movement, for whatever reason, are complicit in its aggression.

(I explore the Palestinian movement and its goals in a course on the Arab-Israeli conflict. In chapter seven of Winning the Unwinnable War, I touch on a prevailing dynamic in Mideast politics that sheds light on what motivates contemporary backers of the Palestinians (e.g., Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia).)