Thursday, December 08, 2005
Quick notes on Islam's civil war
I have long subscribed to the view that "our" war against al Qaeda is really a sideshow in a broader struggle within Islam. This is hardly an original insight, but it is easy to forget sitting, as most of us are, in the warm commercial embrace of America in December, thinking about our own soldiers in that fight.
In any case, there are several big stories today, each of which calls us to consider the progress, or lack thereof, in that war.
In Bangladesh, Islamist suicide bombers have struck again, killing at least six and injurying at least 50. This is just the latest in a series of attacks that have received virtually no coverage in the West (you can pluck the stories out of the wire services, of course, but they are never elevated to the "top stories" pages). The war has clearly spread, Islamists looking to "vex and exhaust" another "apostate" regime. Check out most excellent Deshi blogger Rezwan for more links.
Meanwhile, the always links-crazy Gateway Pundit has a huge round-up asking the basic question, are the clown kingdoms and tinpot fascists of the Arab Muslim world finally getting a clue? Actually, he asked the same question more respectfully, but perhaps less accurately: "Are Islamic leaders changing their tune on terror?" The featured story is King Abdullah's recent suggestion "that there is a problem within Islam." Do ya think? The clown kings and tinpot fascists have always understood the threat of Islamist terror, and have done everything they can to avoid it within their own countries (including, in some cases, paying the terrorists to do their business elsewhere). They are, however, perhaps finally understanding that shifting the problem elsewhere will not save them in the long run. Is this more evidence for my argument that we should worry less about blowback against American foreign policy, and more about creating blowback against al Qaeda? Check out Gateway's post for lots of interesting links.
Also from Gateway Pundit, consider this evidence that Egyptians, like Iraqis, are willing to fight for the ballot. In yet another example of trading away stability to get freedom, the Egyptian people, at least, are seriously believing Condoleezza Rice:
Nobody can understand what is happening in Egypt without remembering those three sentences. This is not mere neo-Wilsonian or dressed up Carterism gibberish, either. It is a realist strategy that is creating enemies of al Qaeda every day.
Finally, check out Iraq the Model's coverage of the electioneering in Iraq at Pajamas Media. A sample:
In this regard, anyway, it sounds like any American election campaign. The party-by-party and province-by-province coverage is very interesting, too. As Wretchard wrote:
Islam's civil war is spreading, and Bangladesh represents a scary new battleground. But two other forces are converging. First, al Qaeda's decision to bring their war against the United States to Iraq has generated massive blowback against their cause in the heart of the Middle East. Second, Arab civil society, as stunted and strange as it remains, is growing up quickly. It will be a long time before Arab democracy resembles British or American democracy, but it is rapidly emerging as a competing vision that people are willing to die to defend. That is a first essential step in destroying the heart of al Qaeda's deeply-rooted and profoundly poisonous ideology. Since the war will continue until the credibility of al Qaeda's ideology is exhausted, this is progress.
Faster, please.
In any case, there are several big stories today, each of which calls us to consider the progress, or lack thereof, in that war.
In Bangladesh, Islamist suicide bombers have struck again, killing at least six and injurying at least 50. This is just the latest in a series of attacks that have received virtually no coverage in the West (you can pluck the stories out of the wire services, of course, but they are never elevated to the "top stories" pages). The war has clearly spread, Islamists looking to "vex and exhaust" another "apostate" regime. Check out most excellent Deshi blogger Rezwan for more links.
Meanwhile, the always links-crazy Gateway Pundit has a huge round-up asking the basic question, are the clown kingdoms and tinpot fascists of the Arab Muslim world finally getting a clue? Actually, he asked the same question more respectfully, but perhaps less accurately: "Are Islamic leaders changing their tune on terror?" The featured story is King Abdullah's recent suggestion "that there is a problem within Islam." Do ya think? The clown kings and tinpot fascists have always understood the threat of Islamist terror, and have done everything they can to avoid it within their own countries (including, in some cases, paying the terrorists to do their business elsewhere). They are, however, perhaps finally understanding that shifting the problem elsewhere will not save them in the long run. Is this more evidence for my argument that we should worry less about blowback against American foreign policy, and more about creating blowback against al Qaeda? Check out Gateway's post for lots of interesting links.
Also from Gateway Pundit, consider this evidence that Egyptians, like Iraqis, are willing to fight for the ballot. In yet another example of trading away stability to get freedom, the Egyptian people, at least, are seriously believing Condoleezza Rice:
For 60 years, the United States pursued stability at the expense of democracy in the Middle East — and we achieved neither.
Now, we are taking a different course. We are supporting the democratic aspirations of all people.
Nobody can understand what is happening in Egypt without remembering those three sentences. This is not mere neo-Wilsonian or dressed up Carterism gibberish, either. It is a realist strategy that is creating enemies of al Qaeda every day.
Finally, check out Iraq the Model's coverage of the electioneering in Iraq at Pajamas Media. A sample:
In spite of the wide variety of political bodies competing in the December elections, making speculations and estimations is not difficult at all when one realizes that most Iraqis will follow their emotions, rather than minds, when they vote.
In this regard, anyway, it sounds like any American election campaign. The party-by-party and province-by-province coverage is very interesting, too. As Wretchard wrote:
Victory when it came, was both greater and less; more partial and more complete than expected. It did not take the European form of parades down the Champs Elysee, followed by a return to old and establish ways of governance. What the destruction of the Ba'athist regime did was reanimate long suppressed local and ethnic interests and channel them into competition through the ballot box -- with the occasional recourse to violence. Tremendous forces have been unleashed which critics of the war will point to as signs of an incipient civil war, but which supporters of OIF will describe as a newly liberated society feeling its way forward.
Islam's civil war is spreading, and Bangladesh represents a scary new battleground. But two other forces are converging. First, al Qaeda's decision to bring their war against the United States to Iraq has generated massive blowback against their cause in the heart of the Middle East. Second, Arab civil society, as stunted and strange as it remains, is growing up quickly. It will be a long time before Arab democracy resembles British or American democracy, but it is rapidly emerging as a competing vision that people are willing to die to defend. That is a first essential step in destroying the heart of al Qaeda's deeply-rooted and profoundly poisonous ideology. Since the war will continue until the credibility of al Qaeda's ideology is exhausted, this is progress.
Faster, please.
2 Comments:
By 
Cassandra, at
Thu Dec 08, 09:16:00 AM:
Dude...do you ever sleep? :)
Welcome back.
By cakreiz, at
Thu Dec 08, 10:33:00 AM:
Dude, are you ever wrong? I hope the optimism of your analysis is justified. It would be wonderful if the Middle East morphs into something akin to civil modernity. My preferences are for separation of church & state and full rights for women. But for now, I'd settle for nonviolence.
