Go Back   Small Wars Council > Conflicts -- Current & Future > Global & General > Global Issues & Threats

Global Issues & Threats Trans-national issues and actors. Culture and the Clash of Civilizations.

Closed Thread
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-07-2007   #1
Small Wars Journal
SWJED's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Largo, Florida
Posts: 3,988
Default Islam, The Solution...!?

Iraq the Model - Islam, The Solution...!? By Mohammed.

...The problem with Maliki who's the leader of the Islamic Dawa Party is that he's just like all other Islamists who insist that Islam is the solution and that clerics are the ones who can deliver that solution.

But reality proved that political Islam is in fact the problem, not the solution. And this is true not only in Iraq but in many other countries in the region that are full of political Islamist movements. They build their rhetoric on what they like to call the golden age of Islam and promise that a new golden age could come if people returned to the roots of Islam…but what happened when Islamists ruled? Definitely not a golden age of any sort.

The first problem with their theory is that they can't say which version of Islam represents the solution. With all the sectarian differences we can see, saying that Islam is the solution is an empty slogan that requires a lot of clarification.

But the truth is, every rival party believes that their faith is the only true faith and when this dispute infected the political scene in the most violent way Islam became the most prominent problem. And that's how we ended up in the middle of a Sunni-Shia conflict as well as Sunni-Sunni and Shia-Shia conflicts.

The recent incidents in Karbala are striking evidence on how mixing politics with religion made brothers slaughter one another in a bloody war for power. Even the holy shrines were not spared in the fighting.

It's ironic that when a Muslim kills another Muslim or destroys the sites revered by his own people no one speaks of it here as a major problem but if a non-Muslim does that the uproar would be legendary!

In spite of all that Islamists still insist on their slogan and after all what happened Ahmedinejad wants Shia Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia to "fill the vacuum" when America leaves Iraq…I can only imagine the way in which the vacuum would be filled and levels of violence that would accompany that!...
SWJED is offline  
Old 09-10-2007   #2
Council Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,188
Default AQ Minions V The Green Bay Packers

The other night I heard Nagl on tv being interviewed by an Army Times reporter and a comment he made sticks out in my mind. Nagl said in effect that most likely the conflict with islamic fundamentalists will continue for another 100 years. My first thought was to scoff at that statement but then it dawned on me that the price of a bag of dog food at Wal-Mart is more significant to most Americans than the death toll of muslim-against-muslim violence. The 100+ kill rate of an AQ/terrorist insurgent truck bomb at a muslim religious shrine simply doesn't sink it with the Public and Brett Favre's TDs passes are counted and the number of Iraqi kids by the likes of AQ-minded minions are not. I've been spending most of my time in the islamic sites and chat rooms and there just isn't much condemnation of muslim deaths at the hands of muslims. It's got to be connected to the strategic premise by AQ and fundamentalists in general that the West is on a spiral of devolution away from God(Allah). This apparenctly enables them as well to blame the US in particular for the death toll that continues to rise. They also have mostly ignored our collective history because they are convinced that God is on their side.

That's bad tactical and strategic judgment IMO on their part because it leaves them in a dilemma of either facing total war or to continue with the vitriol from 3rd world hovels and flea infested caves along with the occasional bombs that seem to be killing mostly their fellow muslims. I know alot people think total war against islamic radicals is for all practical purposes impossible nor even practical and morally reprehensible, but from the time perspective of evolution, we are not even an eye-blink away from Dresden and Hiroshima and on the continum of evolution, brief episodes of retrogression are more the norm than not.
goesh is offline  
Old 09-10-2007   #3
Council Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,097

USIP, Sep 07: Engaging Islamists and Promoting Democracy: A Preliminary Assessment

• Parliamentary elections across the Middle East have led to a wave of Islamist victories. Islamist parties typically boast leaders who are young and dynamic, with strong ties to the community; their party organizations brim with energy and ideas, attracting those who seek change.

• The U.S. government has quietly engaged moderate Islamist parties for several years. U.S. engagement has been most successful where democratic reform is already underway and where the government is genuinely committed to political opening. Other factors include the Islamist parties’ political sophistication, popular credibility, and openness to working with U.S. organizations.

• A successful Islamist engagement strategy both empowers individuals and strengthens institutions to yield greater transparency, more accountability, and shifts toward greater moderation.

• Of the three cases addressed in this paper—Morocco, Jordan, and Yemen—Morocco appears to hold the greatest promise for U.S. engagement with moderate Islamists. Meanwhile, Jordan and Yemen offer important though limited instances of success.

• U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East affects the ability of U.S. organizations to promote democracy there. At times, Islamist parties have cut off contact with U.S. democracy promoters to protest specific aspects of U.S. foreign policy, such as the war in Iraq.

• Ultimately, U.S. engagement of moderate Islamists must be understood within the broader political context of the ideological battle in the Muslim world over the place of Islam in public life. Moderate Islamist parties that reject violence and practice democratic ideals are an important counterweight to Islamist extremism, and their work should be encouraged.
Full 16 page brief at the link.
Jedburgh is offline  
Old 09-10-2007   #4
Council Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,188

AQ minions truly expected a rash of retaliation on the American streets after 9/11 and elements of the Liberal establishment started up with the hand-wringing and false cries of alarm, when in truth, muslims were not attacked and mosques not burned. The actual incidents were rare and CAIR and others had considerable digging to do to come up with 'incidents'. This is what enables our Government to engage moderates, that is our "base and center", We The People, in stark opposition to the tenets of AQ and their base and center. The dilemma AQ minions face which I alluded to in my previous post is the only thing that is keeping AQ from directly hitting us again here at home IMO. They haven't resolved it yet and I believe serious debate rages in their camp over it but not surprisingly, significant numbers of average Americans expect another direct hit.

Last edited by goesh; 09-10-2007 at 06:40 PM. Reason: spelling
goesh is offline  
Old 09-10-2007   #5
Rex Brynen
Council Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 1,598

The USIP report that Ted posted is interesting as far as it goes, but it doesn't really address the core issue of whether it is better for US policy to 1) support democratization even when it benefits critics/opponents (such as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, or the MB/Islamic Action Front in Jordan), in the hopes that it contributes to greater stability (and Islamist moderation) in the long term, or 2) it is better to support authoritarian regimes instead, since they are known allies.

In the early part of the Bush Administration "Freedom Agenda" the former seemed to be the case. Now, the latter seems to be the case (as most dramatically evidenced by Washington's acquiesence in Mubarak's crackdowns against both secular and Islamist political opponents in Egypt).

One can make foreign policy arguments for both approaches. However, oscillating between the two is really the worst of all possible worlds: it first raises local democratic expectations, then dashes them in what is widely seen as a confirmation of US perfidy and ulterior motives.

As I've argued elsewhere:

Combined with other severe irritants in American relations with the MENA and its peoples—intervention in Iraq, the unresolved Palestinian issue, the excesses of the “global war on terror”—the effect has been to delegitimate the Washington as a credible bearer of democratic values. Indeed, in a 2006 Zogby poll of political attitudes in six Arab countries, 87% of Moroccans reported an “unfavourable” or “very unfavourable,” attitude towards the US, and none reported a “very favourable” attitude. As elsewhere in the region, Moroccans—and, one can safely assume, most others in North Africa— attribute this to differences with US policies, rather than US values. Strikingly, some 84% of Moroccans (along with 74% of Jordanians, 68% of Saudis, 61% of Lebanese, 55% of Egyptians, and 35% of Emiratis) believed that democracy is not a real American objective in the region.
Full (short) piece here.
Rex Brynen is offline  
Old 09-10-2007   #6
Tom Odom
Council Member
Tom Odom's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: DeRidder LA
Posts: 3,949

One can make foreign policy arguments for both approaches. However, oscillating between the two is really the worst of all possible worlds: it first raises local democratic expectations, then dashes them in what is widely seen as a confirmation of US perfidy and ulterior motives.
Agreed. It also makes us look at once naive, arrogant, and stupid, greatly complicating any effort intended to broaden support.

Tom Odom is offline  
Closed Thread


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 12:57 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9. ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Registered Users are solely responsible for their messages.
Operated by, and site design © 2005-2009, Small Wars Foundation