How will Islamism decline?

[BrainGlutton]

From John J. Reilly’s review of Harry Turtledove’s allohistorical (Nazis-triumphant-world) novel In the Presence of Mine Enemies:

The Nazis did not come to power with detailed plans to conquer the world. Hitler did suggest from time to time that the problem for his generation was Russia, and that the problem for the next would be America. This is the framework that Turtledove uses for his novel, and it’s perfectly justifiable for fiction. The problem is that it ascribes to the Nazis a unique ability to shape the future according to their designs. History after the Second World War did not turn out quite how the victorious Soviet Union expected. The same was also true for the United States, even after the end of the Cold War. Technological progress had something to do with it, but the differences between one generation and the next were more important. More important still was the fact that styles of life and philosophy continued to change according to the rhythms of modernity, even in the isolated Soviet Union.

Oswald Spengler, to take my favorite macrohistorian, was often wrong, but about the Nazis he was mostly right. He understood that the movement was in many ways simply incompetent. He saw them as nothing more than an incident in the era of Western modernity, an era which he expected to last through the 21st century. The end of the story for the modern world might, he thought, be a new Roman Empire. If it materialized, the sun would set on the West in a kind of political and spiritual peace. The alternative, as he saw it, was mere collapse and barbarian chaos. In either case, he had a lively sense in the 1930s that the end of history was still many generations away, and that the Nazis were dangerously deluded about their own importance.

That, really, is the problem with most stories based on unbroken Nazi success. The premise takes the Nazis at their word about the importance of the movement, and credits them with the ability to make a peaceful desert of a world that should still have several generations of tumult remaining to it. This is anachronistic both forward and backward. It is unreasonable to expect to see Spengler’s imperium mundi in any timeline much before the 22nd century. It is equally unreasonable to see the mesmerizing power that political ideology held in the 1920s and '30s transposed to the early 21st century. Even Philip Dick, in The Man in the High Castle, probably stretched a point when he put a world of fanatical Nazis in the 1960s. Certainly we know that, long before the Communist regime collapsed, there were few real Marxists in the Soviet Union.

Popular uprisings rarely overthrow ideologies; rather, even the secret police eventually lose interest.

That’s the future of jihadism, I expect. They’re a few steps behind the rest of the world, but (very) eventually the Middle East will be post-Islamic in the sense that Europe is now post-Christian. No one will be able to muster enthusiasm for killing the infidels.

[Der_Trihs]

@monavis

I would add: The radicals do not care about their lives, or the life of the innocent. Our Army won’t fire a weapon if they think a civilian is in the way, that doesn’t matter to the terrorists, apparently their lives have little meaning to them?

That’s ridiculous, our military is quite willing to rack up civilian casualties by the thousands. Our propensity towards the casual murder of civilians is one of the many reasons we are hated in Iraq.

[Ryan_Liam]

@BrainGlutton

From John J. Reilly’s review of Harry Turtledove’s allohistorical (Nazis-triumphant-world) novel In the Presence of Mine Enemies:

That’s the future of jihadism, I expect. They’re a few steps behind the rest of the world, but (very) eventually the Middle East will be post-Islamic in the sense that Europe is now post-Christian. No one will be able to muster enthusiasm for killing the infidels.

If that’s the case then it will be a question of time + damage.

[monavis]

@Der_Trihs

That’s ridiculous, our military is quite willing to rack up civilian casualties by the thousands. Our propensity towards the casual murder of civilians is one of the many reasons we are hated in Iraq.

Not quite true, were that truly the case we would use an atomic bomb and blast the whole country to pieces as what happened to end the war with Japan. There are some soldiers (Maybe) who don’t care, but the policy is to harm as few civilians as possible, we dont go out of our way to kill them as the terrorists do!

The terrorists complain if we accidently kill some civilians by accident, but they think nothing(at least it seems that way to me) about killing their some of own people to get at the coalation forces!

[Der_Trihs]

@monavis

Not quite true, were that truly the case we would use an atomic bomb and blast the whole country to pieces as what happened to end the war with Japan.

Except that using nuclear weapons is a major taboo.

@monavis

There are some soldiers (Maybe) who don’t care, but the policy is to harm as few civilians as possible, we dont go out of our way to kill them as the terrorists do!

Nonsense, we do just that. We use terror tactics and torture. We forced people trying to escape from Fallujah back into the city so we could kill them and claim we were just killing terrorists because if they weren’t terrorists they would have run. We use indiscriminate weapons like cluster bombs on cities like Baghdad. We kill people trying to help the wounded. We kill people just for happening to step out of their homes or a car as an American vehicle passes.

It isn’t just “a few soldiers” who don’t care, it is the great majority of the military and the country in general. On the contrary, most Americans positively gloat over the blood we spill.

[jjimm]

@monavis

Not quite true, were that truly the case we would use an atomic bomb and blast the whole country to pieces as what happened to end the war with Japan.

This is a false dichotomy and a slippery slope fallacy, not to mention reductio ad absurdum. “Shock and Awe” was conducted without regard for innocents; sending a rocket into an apartment building to kill an insurgent without regard to any civilians in the building, as has happened in Iraq, for example, is indeed negligent towards those civilians. It does not, however, follow that a force that would do this sort of thing would also nuke cities.

[Rune]

That’s great. There has for years been groups that believes the military should concentrate more on killing the enemies, giving less regard to possible bystanders and waste less energy on all the nation building nonsense. Since you already believe the military kill innocents willy nilly, you won’t oppose such a reorientation of the effort.

[jjimm]

Er… no. I’m just saying it isn’t as black and white as monavis suggests. I don’t see how me saying that not nuking a country does not indicate total absence of disregard for innocent lives indicates that I “believe the military kill innocents willy nilly”.

[Der_Trihs]

@Rune

That’s great. There has for years been groups that believes the military should concentrate more on killing the enemies, giving less regard to possible bystanders and waste less energy on all the nation building nonsense. Since you already believe the military kill innocents willy nilly, you won’t oppose such a reorientation of the effort.

That argument makes no sense. “You think the military kills people indiscriminately, therefore you surely agree it should kill them* even more* indiscriminately”? That doesn’t follow at all.

[ITR_champion]

@ralph124c

I tend to agree with the optimists-what we are seeing is the last dying gasp of muslim fundamentalism. Take the Iranian students-they are fed up with their government-and when they begin to ascend the rungs of power, the mullahs wil be history.

The situation in Iran is almost unique in the Middle East. In Iran you have a government that is completely and irrevocably tied to the religious leadership. Hence the dislike for the government also gets channeled against the religious leadership, and you see students protesting in the streets (sometimes) and you can get a warm, fuzzy feeling about how the young people are rising up and demanding their rights and a more free and open society.

In most other Arab and North African countries, the situation is exactly the opposite. The government is secular and is often propped up, directly or indirectly, by the United States and other western nations or by the WTO and other world organizations. Hence the public anger is channeled against the secular government and often works in favor of Islam, especially if the local religious leaders know how to manipulate it. In countries like Egypt and Yemen, if the youth are protesting in the streets, they’re protesting for more religious authority, not less.

In America, we’re kind of addicted to the idea of the populace rising up, demanding their rights, and throwing out the oppressors, which is not surprising because our country was founded that way. But we should guard against the temptation to believe that such a thing is necessarily happening in every country.

It is like the USA in the 1960’s-the grip of fundamentalist christianity was broken then.

Huh?

[Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party]

Relevant. Saudi’s king Abdullah is in the process of breaking the power of the clerics, somewhat, bringing women into the workplace and reducing some of the restrictions on Saudi life, in an attempt to modernise the country.

[Ryan_Liam]

A more interesting thesis is what main bones of contention will reduce the attraction of Islamism?

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

@Markxxx

You can win a war like this, and it’s been done before. In fact the British did it long ago and it was called the Boer War. Read about it. It was a very cruel way to defeat them but it works.

Basically you have to break the will of the people. We could do this in Afghanistan, but the cost is high. When WWII ended we didn’t go to the Emperor of Japan and say “Pretty please, say you’re not devine.” We said, “Do it or you’re out.”

Not a good example. Yes the boers were defeated, but before long they regained control of the country politically and instituted social controls contrary to any British sense of right and wrong.

Eventually, the Taliban will take over in Afghanistan. Safe harbour in Pakistan will spill over the entire country and we will be back to square one.

Islamism, like poverty and disease is here to stay.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party

Relevant. Saudi’s king Abdullah is in the process of breaking the power of the clerics, somewhat, bringing women into the workplace and reducing some of the restrictions on Saudi life, in an attempt to modernise the country.

Jordan has been very progressive as well.

[Norse]

@monavis

Our Army won’t fire a weapon if they think a civilian is in the way

You know, I’ve got this wonderful bridge to sell you. And, while we’re at it, I’d like some of what you’re smoking

[Tom_Scud]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Jordan has been very progressive as well.

King Abdullah (of Jordan) looks cute on Jon Stewart’s show and fills out a Starfleet uniform nicely and all, but Jordan doesn’t really have a very good human rights record.

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

@Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party

Relevant. Saudi’s king Abdullah is in the process of breaking the power of the clerics, somewhat, bringing women into the workplace and reducing some of the restrictions on Saudi life, in an attempt to modernise the country.

Both Saddam Husein and the Shah of Iran were even more progressive .

Look what happened in their countries.

Top down control of Islamism does not work in the long run.

[Ryan_Liam]

I don’t see why they not just placate the masses and have a very burdensome amount of religion in their lives, just as they wanted, in order to make sure in a generation or two the population, entirely sick of all the amount of intrusion religion makes in their lives, become increasingly secular and post religious, just like what we’re seeing in Iran.

[monavis]

@Norse

You know, I’ve got this wonderful bridge to sell you. And, while we’re at it, I’d like some of what you’re smoking

I can agree that those things happen. but our policy is supposed to be different. I do not think war settles anything in the long run, it just stirs up more trouble somewhere else. I don’t believe we should have gone into Iraq; I believe it was unnecessay. Sr. Bush didn’t go into Baghdad for the reason that it would stir up the radicals all over the area(as it has since we invaded Iraq).

I also realize that we have only the information the press etc. gives us, but the Policy of the US is to cause as few deaths of the innocent as possible, and I can also agree that the policy is not always followed. The bad and sad thing about using force to solve a problem is the fact that war kills more innocent than it oes the guilty.There were many innocent people killed in the WW2 probably more innocent than the guilty.

In my opinion it just shows that the human race has a way to go before it can be called civilized! Even in 2010, we need more locks, security systems than ever before. Do I have the answers…no. I wish someone did!

[monavis]

@jjimm

This is a false dichotomy and a slippery slope fallacy, not to mention reductio ad absurdum. “Shock and Awe” was conducted without regard for innocents; sending a rocket into an apartment building to kill an insurgent without regard to any civilians in the building, as has happened in Iraq, for example, is indeed negligent towards those civilians. It does not, however, follow that a force that would do this sort of thing would also nuke cities.

This is one good reason why we shouldn’t have gone into Iraq in the first place. At that time Iraq was not a threat to us, and Bush JR. should have listened to his biological father, instead of thinking he had an okay from what he called his higher father, God!!