that actions speak much, much louder than words - and that Zadari's rhetoric may well show a politician in a weak position.
As to Graham E. Fuller, bio is here. He was the political officer at Kabul (dip cover, I presume) from 1975 to 1978.
In 2002, he wrote an article for Foreign Affairs, "The Future of Political Islam" (also his later book) (# in [] by JMM):
Strictly, my opinions.Summary -- The mantra that the war on terrorism is not a war on Islam ignores one crucial fact: [1] Islam and politics are inextricably linked throughout the Muslim world. [2] Islamism includes Osama bin Laden and the Taliban but also moderates and liberals. [3] In fact, it can be whatever Muslims want it to be. [4] Rather than push secularism, the West should help empower the silent Muslim majority that rejects radicalism and violence. [5]The result could be political systems both truly Islamist and truly democratic.
1. Correct - starts and ends with the Koran and interpretive texts.
2. True, but there are many more conservatives (not necessarily bad).
3. True - but within the limits set by #1.
4. If the "majority" is "silent", how can one infer that it "rejects radicalism and violence" ? Secularism seems a dead letter in many Islamic countries, but that could change, I suppose.[*]
5. Probable as to "truly Islamist" (or close to it); doubtful as to "truly democratic", especially in Arab countries.
As to Pstan-Astan (at your link), I can find some points where agree, some disagree - and most that I'd really have to think about. E.g., this sounds good, but is it not as Utopian as the dreams of some US nation builders, etc. ?
-------------------------What can be done must be consonant with the political culture. Let non-military and neutral international organizations, free of geopolitical taint, take over the binding of Afghan wounds and the building of state structures.
[*] Western academia has a fixation on Muslim moderates and liberals. They exist and also write good rhetoric. I'd deal with the conservatives.
Bookmarks