Islam, Islamism, Conflict & Terrorism (a collection)

[Jedburgh]

Islam's main political arms differ greatly in both tactics and aims. But that should not reassure America

Ever since the terrorist attacks of September 2001, George Bush has been telling Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda terrorist network they will fail in one of their main aims: to trigger a broad global conflict between America and its allies, and Islam. The president has called Islam a peaceful religion, bringing “hope and comfort” to over a billion people.

To judge by opinion polls, many Muslims around the world are unimpressed. To them, America's actions in the Middle East tell a different story about Mr Bush's attitude to their faith. And the president may not be right when he says that a broad clash of civilisations can be avoided. To anyone skimming the headlines in recent weeks, it seems as though believers in an imminent clash between Islam and the West have plenty of new evidence to support their case.

Iran—the country whose 1979 revolution put political Islam on the modern map—is cocking a snook at its western critics. Its president vows to destroy Israel and its nuclear researchers have defied the world by going back to work. In its present mood, Iran shows little interest in seeking “rehabilitation” by addressing the long list of western complaints, which include sponsoring terror.

Meanwhile, the leaders of al-Qaeda appear on videotapes to tell their supporters that the war against “crusaders” and Jews is very much alive. Mr bin Laden warns that deadly attacks on America are still being planned. His deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, appeared on the screen this week to declare that he has survived an American attempt on his life and that Allah, not Uncle Sam, would set the hour of his death.

At the same time, an Islamist movement that many western governments regard as terrorist and untouchable is savouring its stunning victory in the Palestinian elections. The Hamas triumph has brought delight to all its fellow members of the international fraternity known as the Muslim Brotherhood—from the refugee camps of Amman in Jordan, where sweets were eagerly handed out by local Brotherhood leaders, to their well-organised counterparts in the Islamic diaspora in Europe. Whatever Hamas now does, its success may be remembered as the biggest victory for political Islam since Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini brought to the modern world the idea that Islam might be a formula for governance, law and spreading revolution.

For all these reasons, outside observers might be forgiven for thinking that political Islam, in various violent forms, was on the march against the West. In fact, the Islamist movement, though it may look monolithic from afar, is highly quarrelsome and diverse, and in many ways its internal divisions are deepening...

[Stratiotes]

Why is it, do you think, we have not done very well at exploiting their internal divisions and squabbles? Is it that we have not acknowledged they exist like the article implies or is it something else?

[Jedburgh]

Why is it, do you think, we have not done very well at exploiting their internal divisions and squabbles? Is it that we have not acknowledged they exist like the article implies or is it something else?

I don't believe the article implies that we "don't acknowledge they exist", rather it attempts to describe how little policy-makers and pundits tend to really understand the internal divisions within and among the various elements of Islam.

But as far as exploiting such divisions goes, if you read to the end of the article you saw:

...woe betide any western strategist who thinks the problems of the Muslim world can be addressed by a policy of “divide and rule”. The most likely result of that is that western countries will be blamed for divisions that have already existed, in one form or another, since the founding of Islam.

We don't do very well at leveraging the particular characteristics of any one group of Muslims in the direction of our policy goals because it requires too great a subtlety in action. Can you imagine a national level policy based upon in-depth understanding of the specific fusion of religious belief, cultural upbringing and socio-economic factors that drives the manner in which a multitude of factions participates in politics and or violence? A policy geared, not towards setting one faction against another, but towards developing real cooperation between and among factions and isolation of extremist factions with the ultimate goal of creating democratic self-sustaining states.

In a manner of speaking, that last sentence describes what we are trying to do now. But at this time we're more like the two year old with his set of blocks than we are like the master watch-maker.