Muslim Brotherhood

[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.

[J.C.]

Sorry I should have been more clear. It is true democratic reforms due not always follow economic liberalization, but democracies do not stand long with out it. IF any thing i belive we should push economic liberalization before political reforms. After such time we may start to push for changes or look to make in-roads with reform movements.

However, the M.B. is a bad choice. They are diametrically oppossed to the US and belive or state publically that 9/11 was a CIA/Zionist conspiracy. Further, they have many shady contacts with terrorist organizations throughout the region and probably funnel funds for many of these groups. They have toned done their retoric, but this has been becuase of substantial pressure from the current Egyptian Regime. Further, it is true they are gaining ground in the country and may one day take power if elections occur.

As far as other groups go. If we can find some that have a base and want positions that are in our intrest and are not to radical then we may be able to work with them. However, keep in mind our track record at this has not been stellar in this region and those we have supported have cost us allot to clean up.

Also, the total lack of an effective I.O. campian in this region has hurt our efforts. The inclusion of an I.O. campain with economic reforms, and then possible support of reformist groups is probably our best bet. It will be intresting to say the least. IN all Oil Regimes and resource based economies are just too unstable. We have to change this before we can work at greater stabilization.

[Stu-6]

Generically speaking I think it is a good idea to being fringe groups, whether they are violent or not, into government. Obviously this is not always practical; but when it is I think it benefits society to have these groups forced to deal with day to day governance. This forces them to be more responsive to the society and gives them a stake in the government, theoretically making them less interested in its destruction. Of course you have to remember there are some people you just can’t reason with.

[Strickland]

However, the M.B. is a bad choice. They are diametrically oppossed to the US and belive or state publically that 9/11 was a CIA/Zionist conspiracy. Further, they have many shady contacts with terrorist organizations throughout the region and probably funnel funds for many of these groups. They have toned done their retoric, but this has been becuase of substantial pressure from the current Egyptian Regime. Further, it is true they are gaining ground in the country and may one day take power if elections occur.

Do you have a group or example in mind? Given the choices, if not the MB, then whom? Hizbollah? Al Qaida?

I think I is good to review the Palestinian scenario. Yes, Hamas comes with serious baggage; however, they were democratically elected. Furthermore, given what happened to Shayhk Ahmed Yassin or Dr. Rantissi, I think most of us understand the hatred and desire to respond with violence. While there are many who believe Dr. Mahmoud Abbas is the answer, he received his PhD for a dissertation discussing how the Holocaust was a myth, and was a member of Black September in the 1970s. If we can deal with him, then we can surely deal with the others.

[Steve Blair]

It's also important to remember that the MB is not exactly a united front. There are many sub-factions of this organization, as pointed out in the wiki article I linked to in an earlier post. It's always important to remember that terrorist groups, as well as their political offspring and offshoots, are typically NOT under a "central command" in the sense that we understand it. Their ties are often hazy, united more by a common (or semi-common) idology. This can make them vulnerable to isolation, and also makes them easier to work with once you find a faction that is more compatible with what you want to accomplish.

With regard to Hamas, I do think that we mishandled that one to a degree. They were elected, so if we are the champions of democracy we claim to be then we have a certain obligation to at least make a good faith attempt to deal with them. I don't think it's in our best interest to see the Palestinian situation fall apart, which seems to be happening right now.

[Jones_RE]

I think the value in dealing with the Muslim Brotherhood is the possibility of establishing personal relationships between our foreign service professionals and its influential members. Those ties will make dealing with the MB a lot easier should they come to power - and will provide us with some fair warning of their intentions should they think about committing to a course of violent actions. We can safely ignore their rhetoric, although pointing out that it is painful and embarassing to us. Trying to censor the discussion outright, on rationalist Western terms, won't have any effect.

However, I don't believe that providing financial or material assistance to Hamas (or a Hamas lead Palestinian Authority) is a wise course of action. Hamas is involved in active violence against a long standing US ally. Every dollar we give to them, even if it isn't spent on weapons, frees up another dollar for them *to* spend on weapons. The whole point of money is that it's fungible, after all. Similar logic applies to humanitarian relief - if we're shipping over antibiotics, that's money they're free to spend on high explosives.

We support elections, and a representative Palestinian government. However, that government has decided to make statements and take actions overtly hostile to the United States of America. While declaring war on them isn't in our interests, neither is it in our interests to *give* them weapons with which to clobber us. The Palestinians had a choice between a Fatah lead government that would placate the United States and Israel, and a Hamas lead government that would clear up the endemic corruption in the Palestinian state. That's a crappy choice, but they made it. Continuing to fork over money and aid to Hamas is basically paying them not to hurt us - a strategy that will not succeed. Cutting them off, on the other hand, is treating them as a peer - a fellow nation - and not some helpless bunch of refugees whose words and actions have no meaning for us.

[Stu-6]

With regard to Hamas, I do think that we mishandled that one to a degree. They were elected, so if we are the champions of democracy we claim to be then we have a certain obligation to at least make a good faith attempt to deal with them. I don't think it's in our best interest to see the Palestinian situation fall apart, which seems to be happening right now.

Agreed we do more damage to ourselves by appearing as hypocrites who do not truly support democracy than we would by dealing, cautiously, with Hamas.