Muslim Brotherhood

[Jedburgh]

MB or not, "solution" or not, the key point to keep in mind is that many of the opposition groups to the less-than-democratic regimes in the region are Islamist in nature. If we truly support the emergence of democracy in the region, we are going to end up with more Islamist-tinged governments rather than less. It is in our best interests to learn how to work with these groups as they emerge - if we refuse to, we end up tarred as democracy-hypocrites.

As far as Islamists in government, the relatively mild version in the Turkish ruling AK party is probably a best-case example - the current difficulties with HAMAS are close to being a worst case. Hizbollah in Lebanon, although far from being the ruling party, do have a voice in Parliament and an influence in policy. Given electoral trends and the current operational environment, we can't afford to completely cut off communications with any of them.

[Tom Odom]

I am impressed.....

First an interesting thread on a subject few know much about

Second all respondees looked at the issue through analytical eyes

My own take on MB and others are they are indeed the targets we need most to influence, dialogue, and accomodate/compromise with.

I say that because they are there and they are gaining ground. Extremists groups of any ilk ususally have a more centrist core that they themselves spun off of at some stage. And the reverse is equaly true, extremist movements overtime either explode/implode or move back toward a central axis.

The issue is one of targeting/effects: we seek a moderate Islam. Do we target the extremists with IO? I submit that is largely a waste of time and effort. Do we target the Muslim majority? Yes and then no. Yes we do but the group is so large and diverse, messages have to be generalized. My answer is we target the groups like the MB who have stepped into the extremist camp and stepped back from time to time. They are already politicized; they have been (and still have the capacity) militarized; they are the bridge between the extremists and the majority.

Best
Tom

[Jedburgh]

In the context of the current discussion, this older (Jul 05) paper from CEIP is still a good read:

The Key to Arab Reform: Moderate Islamists

...U.S. and European officials understandably worry that Islamists might jettison democratic transition if and when they gain significant power. While understandable, these fears ignore the diversity of the Islamist spectrum. More importantly, policy makers must recognize the more immediate point that democracy cannot come to Arab societies without the participation of movements that command huge popular support. Rather than resisting Islamists, Western governments should develop policies to positively engage the moderates among them...

[J.C.]

It's my opinion that the Muslim Brotherhood is just using Mao's precepts to gain further ground in Egypt. Mao stated that he believed in a three phase war: first organization and subversion ops, second terrorism and guerrilla warfare, and finally the progression to a conventional army. While this may not perfectly descride the brotherhood, they have been moving between phase one and two as Mao said may be nesscary, depending on the situation. Thus, more pressure they have inverted and worked on portraying them selves as a political alternative, less pressure they have tried to destabilize the Egyptian regimes. Therefore, i don't belive we can work with such groups, as try to take away their base of support by trying to effect substatial political reforms that get to the heart of the problems in the Middle East. One of the biggest factors is econmic liberalization. Oil Regimes and dictatorships around the region have no economic progress to put forth to the poeple allowing them to look on religion and ponder on the corruption in their regions. If we can open their economies and then apply some political reforms, i think we can look past supporting quazi fundimentalist groups.

[Jedburgh]

Therefore, i don't belive we can work with such groups, as try to take away their base of support by trying to effect substatial political reforms that get to the heart of the problems in the Middle East.

We can't afford not to work with the Islamist opposition. As the "substantial political reforms" take place, which will include free elections, these groups will either end up in power or, at a minimum, with a significant presence in the country's parliament.

One of the biggest factors is econmic liberalization. Oil Regimes and dictatorships around the region have no economic progress to put forth to the poeple allowing them to look on religion and ponder on the corruption in their regions. If we can open their economies and then apply some political reforms, i think we can look past supporting quazi fundimentalist groups.

Your point here isn't quite clear. The continuing corruption in most of those countries is a huge factor in the support for the Islamist movements. Also, economic liberalization isn't always linked with political reform and enjoying the benefits of free trade won't necessarily result in the people dropping support to Islamist political movements. As previously stated, in the current environment, political openings will most likely result in their being filled with Islamist representatives of varying shades.

[Strickland]

We can't afford not to work with the Islamist opposition.

I completely agree. It is not like we have not dealt we these types of folks in the past. We should not forget our past relationship with both the Pakistani ISI and Afghani Mujahideen.

After WWII, we found a way to deal with former Nazis to include General Heinrich Muller, Head of the Gestapo, to name but one, thus I think we can find some Islamists to deal with that are palatable. BTW, how long did we deal with Saddam before deciding to put him into "time-out?"

[Steve Blair]

The trick, in my opinion, for dealing with them is to go into the process with both eyes wide open and understanding that there may not be a perfect solution overnight. We shouldn't expect them to suddenly alter their beliefs any more than we would alter ours to deal with them.

That said, the MB does not as a whole seem to prefer violence to achieve its goals. That alone makes them attractive from a "let's make a deal" standpoint. It's also better to get in now when it's still possible to have an influence on at least a small part of their programs. Maybe then we'll be in a better position to influence some democratic reforms once they are elected to positions of power (since given the trend of autocratic Middle East governments it's only a matter of time before they do reach office).

It's also important to keep in mind that working with a group doesn't mean you support ALL of their goals, aims, and programs. But also remember that these groups are often the only ORGANIZED opposition in many areas of the Middle East. We can't create little political parties in our own image and expect them to gain any sort of popular support. Sometimes you just have to play the hand you're dealt.