Sunday, April 09, 2006
Making enemies of our enemy
3 Comments:
By 
Jason Pappas, at
Sun Apr 09, 09:53:00 PM:
Count me skeptical. The jihadists in Algeria were (and are) vicious as they slaughtered 10,000s in a decade of violence (during the 1990s) that continues to this day. They have widespread support. The Taliban in Afghanistan wasn’t losing its grip prior to 2001 and they are still popular in Pakistan. Hamas kills fellow Palestinians but still gets elected.
Yes, Al Qaeda has overplayed its hand by doing evil deeds such as bombing Jordanian hotels. And they are losing the hearts and minds of the majority of Iraqis, for the moment, as their desperate tactics have alienated most. But support for fundamentalism and, more importantly, fundamentalist intimidation of moderates is growing in the Islamic world beyond the Iraqi theatre. And this is driven by internal cultural forces that have nothing to do with us.
I’m hopeful for Iraq but skeptical that this (the nations-building) helps us in the long run. It may buy us time but I think it is orthogonal to the long-term problem: the rise of jihadist Islam. The problem strikes me as far deeper than just one variant of jihadism: Al Qaeda. And Saudi Arabia plays a key role in spreading the Sunni version of this ideology while Iran plays the lead role in the Shiite sphere. I just don’t think we are addressing the root cause as both of the regimes continue to spread the hate.
By Dawnfire82, at
Mon Apr 10, 09:34:00 PM:
Almost, but not quite.
"It may buy us time but I think it is orthogonal to the long-term problem: the rise of jihadist Islam."
There is no rise. The sentiment is there, and has been there for decades. The central political text of Islamic terrorism (Ma'alim fi-l-Tariq; "Milestones Along the Road") was written in 1964. It's simply being tapped now. It's perhaps analogous to a peacetime army mobilizing for war.
"And Saudi Arabia plays a key role in spreading the Sunni version of this ideology..."
Meh, quasi-true. The Saudis have never taken an active role in promoting terrorism, (that would be foreign relation suicide, esp. with the US) though they have supported mujihadin in key conflicts (just as we have) for political reasons. Recall that Al-Qaeda intends to overthrow the Saudi monarchy and has targeted Saudi installations and personnel. The Saudi government does sponsor Salafist/Wahabbi schools, pamphlets, et cetera, and Wahabbism is a root ideology of Islamism, but they have also silenced especially violent imams domestically and have contributed to the capture and deaths of dozens of Islamist terrorists.
By Jason Pappas, at
Mon Apr 10, 09:59:00 PM:
There's something to what you say, dawnfire, but still it doesn't convey the big picture.
Islamists controlled Afghanistan prior to our liberation and still control Iran. They would have won the election in Algeria if the military hadn’t stopped it. They rule in the PA controlled areas and they may very well win in Egypt if free and open elections are allowed to continue. They are gaining in Pakistan not only via the Madrassas but also through the government schools.
Saudi Arabia is Islamist and they preach jihadist principles. Sure they disagree with a dissident faction over whether now is the time to attack. And, of course, they realize they can gain control of governments without violence via the election process (“the silent jihad”). Europe will be particularly vulnerable to this method.
Actual military and covert mobilization is the exception at time point in time. That shouldn't fool us to the threat. But it should hint at part of the solution to managing the problem: containment. The key question is how do we make it undesirable to attack us? But the answer to that question awaits a broad education on their culture and their religion. Our intellectual leaders have failed to study and face the nature of the threat. They can't answer this question. Indeed, they haven't even raised it.
