I’d like to see someone explain why the the middle east is a better candidate for fulminating democracy than Russia? The russians, unlike Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Saudi Arabia etc. appeared to have everything going for them, and now freedom is in retreat under Putin.
What is it about conquering Iraq that makes people think we’ll soon be exporting (figuratively) miniskirts to Mecca?
I haven’t read the Viorst book, but Sine’s other quoted volume is by Gilles Kepel, a double doctorate in sociology and political science and a professor of Middle East Studies at the Institut d’Études Politiques de Paris. The above volume is an excellent overview of modern Islamism whether you buy his central thesis ( Islamism has peaked and is now declining ) or not. In Belgium you can probably find it under its original title Jihad: Expansion et Déclin de l’islamisme. He is one of the ( if not the ) leading French experts on Islamism ( maybe with Roy ) and also wrote ( among other things ) Le Prophète et Pharaon: Aux sources des mouvements islamistes, an excellent study on Islamism in Egypt. Recommended.
- Tamerlane
I’m not at all defending the proposition that the M.E. is riper for democracy (however you choose to define it) than Russia. But if one wanted to, one might note the far greater degree of ethnic diversity in Russia: more than 100 indigenous languages are spoken in the Russian Federation, belonging to several different major language groups. And given that ethnic tensions were one of the major reasons for the breakup of the USSR and continue to be a divisive force within the RF (not only in Chechnya), I’d say Putin ain’t loosening his grip anytime soon. I don’t think he will allow any real democratic reforms until he’s convinced the country won’t splinter into a zillion pieces, and maybe not even then. And with the current fragmented nature of Russian political movements/parties, I don’t see any viable replacement for Putin anytime soon.
Because as it stands now, there is no working model of pluralistic democracy in the Arab world. Such a government in Iraq would expose Mubarak’s lie that Arabs are not suitable for democracy for what it is, and as Bush has said, serve as an example for other countries such as Egypt and Syria that also have large non-Arab or non-Muslim minorities. By itself, however, it can’t accomplish anything, so (like I’ve said) the US needs to do much more to encourage such reforms elsewhere.
I don’t agree with the premise that it’s grievances with the US that drive militant Islam. Like I said, it’s often a case of autocratic governments shrugging problems of their own creation off on evil America and Israel. I don’t mean to undermine the Palestinian cause, but it certainly makes for a convenient rallying point for governments trying to avoid the wrath of their people. Alternatively, I think it’s because efforts to create the Islamic states called for by Sayyid Qutb and others have been curtailed by the US.
I certainly believe bin Laden when he gives the US troops on Saudi soil as a justification for his actions. I don’t, however, think it’s the root cause of Islamic terrorism.
I think this is particularly insightful, because a very similar thing happened in Saudi Arabia. The migrant workers who grew rich there returned home thinking Wahhabism was responsible for their prosperity, when in fact the legitimacy of the Saudi brand of Islam is directly proportional to the price of a barrel of oil. Such is not the case with democracy.
I agree, for the most part. Let me clarify:
Inasmuch as I am concerned about the safety of my country, I think the US is now faced with terrorist threats coming from within states that were long considered “friendly”, threats that are inextricably linked to the autocracies that run them. It is therefore in our interest to see them reform.
Inasmuch as I am an American in the idealistic sense, my belief in the universal ideals that underpin my country necessarily means I support such ideals abroad.
It’s not often that these two concerns are compatible, much less in agreement. I think it is doubly important for the US to encourage democratic reforms in the Arab world.
That is exactly why I am not advocating the removal of Mubarak and Asad. I have no delusions that an immediate pan-Arab democratic revolution would be in the US’ best interests. What would be favorable for both the US and the Arab world is for the autocracies that we have long supported and propped up to pursue steady and measured reforms. Surely you’re not suggesting that the Arab world’s problems condemn it to its current state.
And for every ignorant person who doesn’t even attempt to learn about the Arab world, there’s another who claims cultural and religious differences preclude it from ever rising above its problems. I’m glad there are no such people here, though!
Just for you, I have posted a lengthy reponse in that thread. A waste of both our time, I think, but at least you will have the satisfaction of a response.
Of course given this kind of juvenilia, I don’t know why I bother. I said that the way you had written your OP was “a bit confusing,” as someone could easily have thought that it was an official institutional paper endorsed by the faculty senate or some such. I didn’t accuse you, I didn’t get pissy, I just clarified the facts at hand for the benefit all who might not know.
And in return for politely pointing out a fact that you yourself admit is true, you come up with “mendacious.” Lovely.
I’m neither neo-con nor even a plain con. And I don’t take it lightly. As I have said, I am not a huge fan of the idea, BECAUSE I know it’s not “a mild social experiment.”
Balderdash. You saw oodles of opposition on these boards. There were protests, marches, TV debates and op-eds and on and on. In the end, the American people heard it and decided (by a slim margin, and reluctantly) to go along with W. Call them wrong if you like, but there was no lack of debate.
You misunderstand the OP; the issue is the overall war with Islamic Terrorism, of which Iraq which is only part. The link I posted gives a rough overview of the plan as they see it.
Of course not. He talked it over with his people and this was the plan he came up with. If you have a better idea, let’s hear it.
I said no such thing.
As I have said, I don’t know that it will. I don’t know that it won’t, either.
Let me repeat: I don’t love this plan. I’d like to hear another. But let’s make it clear what situation is: Radical, Militant Islam is a grave and growing threat to America. The goal America seeks is to eliminate that threat. Getting used to it is not an option. Accepting it as penalty for our arrogance is not an option. It is simply not in our national psychology to be resigned to fate about anything, and certainly not about our survival. We’re not going to forget about 9/11. And if we don’t defang Radical Islam they’re going to hit us again, and then we’ll REALLY be pissed. You think the last couple of years have been excessive? What do you think will happen if some terrorist cell gets ahold of a Paki nuke and takes out Houston? The US response would make Iraq look like a Sunday picnic. And then what if they get another and nuke us again, or release bacteria or whatever and kill tens of thousands? They have the desire to do so; all they lack is the ability, and they are working to get it.
Look, believe all the horrible things you want about the US. Bloodthirsty, imperialist, oil, yadda yadda. Fine. It doesn’t change a damn thing. THINK. If the US is so horrible, and we’re so heavily armed, doesn’t it make it all the more scary that there are nutballs out there attacking us and then hiding behind civilians? Because we WILL hit back, and we WILL hit harder, and the longer it goes on, and the more people we lose, the less we’ll care about civilian casualties on the other side.
It is EXACTLY because I know how horribly out of control this can get that I’m eager to hear specific, detailed alternative plans. But the goal of those plans must be for Radical Islam to change into something that can live at peace with America. Any plan that does not end with that is simply a delaying tactic. Simply saying “the UN” or “multilateralism” is meaningless. How specifically, are we going to stop the Middle East from churning out angry, suicidal young men?
I’ve seen Bush’s plan. What’s yours?
Tamerlane,
Thank you for the translation of the titles. Most of the time I encounter some difficulties to make connections between original and English translated booktitles and vice-versa.
“Jihad: Expansion et Déclin de l’islamisme. "
" Le Prophète et Pharaon: Aux sources des mouvements islamistes, an excellent study on Islamism in Egypt.”
I don’t have those, but it is always interesting to read a work from an author who observes issues with a sociological interest/input. That counts especially for these issues since one can’t approach them outside their sociological context.
I looked one and an other up in my database and discovered that from this author I have “Intellectuels et militants de l’islam contemporain” (Giles Kepel and Yann Richard - Le Seuil, 1986)… Which was send to me almost two years ago and ended on a shelf waiting for my eyes to start reading. So probably I’ll order both above and make it into a reading cyclus to get familiar with the author’s views (and style) at one stroke.
Olivier Roy published interesting works and articles (“Esprit” & “Middle East Journal” on the issues Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan etc…)
I just received his latest book " L’islam mondialisé" (du Seuil,Paris 2002) a few days ago. Which is, as he describes in the introduction (let me try to translate this) "an attempt to give a synthesis of the ideas he developped after finishing his book L’échec de l’islam politique ".
It seems to focus mostly on the transfer of Islam to the West by means of immigration, which led to a development by which Islam as religion became detached from Islamic culture.
I briefly checked it on its contenance and I’m a bit disappointed because the issues he touches don’t seem to bring anything that is new or alien to me.
I’m a front row witness of this and although I travel and live in and between both worlds since I was a child, I’m still not able to prevent a sentiment of culture shock when I go back home. (And vice versa).
Of course I need to read it first to see what he is really telling… And it is always interesting to see how others experience and look at the world you live in 
I am a bit intrigued though by the conclusion which he titled “Post-Islamism and the shortcomings of the geostrategy”.
I think I’ll start there. (We all know Arabs read books from back to front.)
By the way: are you interested in Manicheism?
Salaam. A
I have Olivier Roy’s L’echec de l’Islam politique in it’s English translation by Carol Volk as The Failure of Political Islam ( 1994, Harvard University Press ). Haven’t seen the new one you have, though ( it’s possible it hasn’t been translated into English yet and my French is truly wretched - three years in High School, which has long since degraded ).
I think you’ll find Kepel and Roy roughly complementary, in that they both tend to regard Islamism as ultimately something of a failure and rooted in a modern socio-cultural/political ethos as much as, or more than, traditional religion. Of course Roy does make more of a distinction between the vaguely nationalist, more modernist “Islamists” and supranational, more reactionary “neo-fundamentalists” ( a seperation which I think is sometimes real and useful and sometimes not - for example I’m not sure I agree entirely with Roy’s characterization of the Taliban as supranational in outlook ). I prefer Kepel of the two, though both are worth the effort IMO ( especially since they have somewhat different geographic areas of specialization, with Roy writing more on Central Asia and Afghanistan ).
As for Manicheism, I have some vague interest, yes ( as with many things of that nature ), but I don’t have much in the way of literature on the topic ( unless you count possibly tangentially influenced Christian heresies like Catharism, about which I have a couple of general volumes ).
- Tamerlane
I answer this only because I do not want anyone to think I was making personal attacks:
I did not call anyone dumb. Stop being defensive and read carefully. What I said was that some Arabs think that while democracy works in Turkey it would not work for them because they are not Turks, and that somehow fundamentally different (I know some think this because Arab freinds have told me so). That idea strikes me, and I suggest, most Americans as “dumb.” Nevertheless, as it is they way they think, we shall have to account for it, and realize that Arabs do not think of Turkey in the same way they think of other Arab nations.
[QUOTE]
Next be so kind to explain to this Dumb Arab why it is so dumb that we know that we all live in different nations, that we all have different cultures, that we all have different governments = that we are different and not One Big Soup with the same taste ?
I’m waiting in despair to get educated about the reason why the Great News that I need to look at Turks and Jews as if they are Arabs didn’t reach me until now.
I’m sure I am extremely dumb. Thank you for explaining that to me Great Wise Superior Educated One.
I’m going back now to my poor Black Tent with one skinny goat and criple camel in the background, eat my daily portion of sand and start pondering about your wisdom that is in such imaginable great contrast to my dumbness.
Oh come and liberate me with Jerry Springer and Mc Donalds.
[QUOTE]
See, Alde, this is why you have such a hard time getting along with people. You misunderstood what I said, and from that misunderstanding spin out a whole paranoid spiel in which to impart to me thoughts I did not think and words I did not say. Of course, you can repond that obviously all Americans are the same and you don’t actually have to listen to me to know what I think … but that just leads us back to your soup bowl.
Shalom
This is what scares me. Did the US ever take this into account when making plans? Manipulating the vote through caucuses may help with the first election, but what about the next?
Well, seeing as the IGC has already passed a resolution replacing Iraq’s civil marriage, divorce and inheritence laws with their islamic equivalents, the answer to your question can only be Paul Bremer. The American governor has veto power until June, at which point Furt’s cherished “Bush plan” will reveal itself in all its glory. The revelation may happen sooner than June as Bremer is not expected to veto.
And this just in…
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001841528_cia22.html
**Iraq may be on path to civil war, CIA officials warn **
"CIA officers in Iraq are warning that the country may be on a path to civil war, current and former U.S. officials said yesterday, starkly contradicting the upbeat assessment President Bush gave in his State of the Union address.
The CIA officers’ bleak assessment was delivered orally to Washington this week, said the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the classified information involved.
The warning echoed growing fears that Iraq’s Shiite majority, which until now has accepted the U.S. occupation grudgingly, could turn to violence if its demands for direct elections are spurned.
Meanwhile, Iraq’s Kurdish minority is pressing for autonomy and shares of oil revenue.
“Both the Shiites and the Kurds think that now’s their time,” one intelligence officer said. “They think that if they don’t get what they want now, they’ll probably never get it. Both of them feel they’ve been betrayed by the United States before.”
I have said that:
And yet:
Squink, on what basis did you come up with “cherish”?
Can’t say that I blame them.
I seem to recall reading somewhere that, when the no-fly zones were imposed, Saddam’s helicopter gunships were specifically excluded. It was these gunships that Saddam used against the shia in the south.
So I can see why the shia might feel they were betrayed. Not sure about the kurds though.
Well several dopers and myself have been saying for a while that Iraq could be headed to civil war. Democracy won’t suit the powerful but smaller Sunni community. The US imposed council doesn’t suit the numerous Shi’ite that much. Very little middle ground it seems.
Even if Bremer manages a reasonable balancing of power act... once the US gets out it might turn nasty as factions try to impose their ways and to gain power. With Bush obviously trying to get out of Iraq in time for elections the power vacuum is coming and whoever gets control might be the "leader" of Iraq for half a century.
A sure sign of this is the fact that the bigger number of Iraqi being killed in bomb attacks...Well take a look at this statement:
You certainly appear to be claiming that the details of the Bush plan have enough merit that any alternates plans must be laid out in exquisite detail before anyone should even consider dumping whatever it is we’re doing now. I’ve heard Bush say that he has plans to democratize the ME and tame radical Islam. I’ve never seen the details of this plan. Your requiring a higher standard of proof for any alternate plans than most of us are able to apply to the president’s scheme itself suggests that you may have a certain fondness for, perhaps even cherish, the current course of action.
-I didn’t intend to bang on you with my previous post, rather I needed to point someone out as a strong proponent of the “Bush plan.”
How do you think Bremer and Bush should handle this marriage law thing in order to keep the wheels of democratization turning in a fruitful direction? It’s not obvious to me that there’s any way for America to win on this issue.
I seem to remember reading at the time that we basically promised the Kurds that if they rose up against the government, we’d back them up. Can’t remember the details. I’ll see if I can poke around for them.
How in the hell do you get “Exquisite detail?” I specifically said I’m open to anything provided it actually promises to solve the problem. When you’re talking about something this massive, there’s no point in planning every last thing because the situation will change.
What I’m NOT interested in hearing is bumpersticker material, such as “Let the UN handle it” or “Solve the Palestinian problem” unless they’re accompanied by a concrete explanation of what the UN is going to do and what the solution in Palestine is.
No one’s voiced ANY alternative plans, so how do you know what standard I’m looking for? I already posted a link to a massive outline of the WOT strategy. It’s not White-House approved, but it’s derived from the statements of the admin and analysts. I’ll take anything 1/10th that big.
How’s this:
**The Neo-cons’ plan in <400 words
Situation:**
Radical Islam is a looming mortal threat to the United States. Fundamentalism is growing in size and strength, and the destruction of the United States as we know it is a stated goal of many adherants. It’s ability to harm the United States is currently limited, but will only increase with time, and may increase exponentially if extremist groups acquire WMD and/or the ability to control the global economy via the worldwide dependance on Middle Eastern oil.
The root cause of Radical Islam the frustration, shame and anger many Arabs and Muslims feel about their social/political/economic situations. Changing the political landscape of the Middle east is essential to improving the lives of Arabs. (cf. the UN ) However, the autocratic regimes in the Middle East are not open to reform; indeed they generally foster anti-American sentiment in an effort to divert internal pressure away from themselves, staying in power by fostering the belief that Arab problems are solely attributable to outsiders (primarily the US and Israel, though often “the West” or “infidels” in general), and that their problems can only be addressed by attacking those outsiders.
Solution:
Therefore, these regimes must either be forced to reform themselves or be replaced with reformist regimes that will begin the long, slow process of bringing the Arab world into the 21st century. It is unlikely that economic or social pressure would be effective in bringing about a change in the Arab political landscape. Economic sanctions would likely harden anti-American sentiment. Increased economic aid would increase the sense of shame many Arabs feel about their situation; besides which, it would be going to the very regimes that are already the problem. Targeted, limited, use of American military power is the quickest way change the social and political landscape of the Middle East.
Replacing the Iraqi regime creates the possibility for successful, modernized, liberal democratic Arab state. If the Iraqis can create for themselves (with US help) a social/political/economic situation that is obviously superior to that in other Arab nations, it will act as a dramatic spur to reformist sentiments in those nations, disproving notions that Arabs cannot govern themselves, that Islam is incompatible with democracy, or that all of the Arabs world’s problems are attributable to outsiders (America and/or Israel). Internal pressure will mount for reform in Arab nations; hopefully this will come peacefully, though violent revoltions cannot be ruled out.
As Arab nations improve their situations, the anger and frustration that fuels terrorism will lessen, and as nations modernize, less-militant and restrictive brands of Islam will grow at the expense of extremism. Eventually, cut off at the roots, Radical Islam will disappear as a major social force and cease to be a threat to the US.
There, that’s a broad summary that I think Paul Wolfowitz could live with.
This is NOT “my” plan. Nobody bother pointing out the flaws in this theory: I’ve already done so earlier. I do not like it, let alone cherish it.
Here’s the challenge: Write a better one. It must be realistic and it must have a substantively similar ending: the threat is eliminated. I sincerely am open to hearing any submissions, though I will likely play devil’s advocate and offer constructive criticism.
Me, either. I’ve no idea what the best way to balance State and Religion in Iraq is. Hell, 200 years on we’re still debating it here. So long as the principle is understood and embraced, the details are something the Iraqis will have to decide; ultimately the success or failure of their state – and by extension the whole enterprise – rests on them.
What a great idea for a thread.
A seperate thread.
Really a good idea for a thread.