My Weblog

September 23, 2006

The core of the dispute is: Do the extremists play by the normal rules of geostrategy, or are their minds off in some mystical sphere that is utterly alien to our categories?

Filed under: Global Jihad, Islam, Terror, USA — limewoody @ 5:17 am

David brooks is losing his patience. That is major news. He is as gentle a centrist as they come. If he bemoans the perception disconnect between the elite and the rest of the population, and all but takes sides against the elite, matters are getting serious. They are also serious because as he points out the gap in the perception also translates into the difference in understanding the threat we face and subsequently, the difference between action and fateful inaction. You can read the entire op-ed bellow.

It is within this context that the Pope’s provocative comments are so important. Brooks is right:

The core of the dispute is: Do the extremists play by the normal rules of geostrategy, or are their minds off in some mystical sphere that is utterly alien to our categories?

The transnatinal elites strenuously argue that the reactionary Islamists are normal; the average Joe is unsure. This is the point where opinion makers matter. On Tuesday night, I participated in a show on Iran called “It’s Your Call with Lynn Doyle.” The poll question was: We asked you, “Is Iran A Threat To The U.S.?” The people were asked to choose between yes, no and potentially. Initial poll results posted after the first minutes of the show were as follows: 29% believed Iran was a threat. 51% said no and 20% chose potentially.

Our argument focused on the right of Iran to continue to enrich uranium. Hafeez Malik, a political science professor from Villanova University and Faeze Woodville, the president of Dialogue International argued that Iran was within its rights under IAEA regulations and efforts to stop her were inherently unfair. Joe Corsi, the author, “Atomic Iran” and I argued that Iran was different and, hence, should be subjected to different rules. Joe emphasized that it was a terrorists state which exported its weapons to terrorist groups as it has been demonstrated in the recent Lebanon War. I focused on the mystical aspects of the regime and, especially, that of Ahmadinejad, demonstrated that not only Jews and the Jewish state (to which Professor Malik immediately tried to redirect the attention) feared an Iranian nuclear weapon but so did Gulf state and Turkey.

I also pointed out that Iran has demonstrated its untrustworthiness by lying for 18 years to the IAEA about its nuclear development. Indeed, just as the American right to bear arms does not preclude denying a license to carry weapons to individuals who fail the background check, the UN should not be precluded from denying nuclear weapons to countries proven untrustworthy.

By the time the show ended the numbers changed significantly. Those believing it a threat went up to 52 %. Those who did not went declined to 32% and those who chose potentially to 16%. In other words, the arguments forwarded mattered.

As the Kremlin learned, the Pope does have plenty of divisions. Hs comments reached an entirely new audience and as demonstrated by this letter to the editor which responds to a NYT editorial which called on the Pope to act in a concilliatory manner by curtailing his demand that Muslims act reasonably and demonstrate his contrition by reinstituting Michael Fitzerald:

Re your Sept. 20 editorial: I, too, am offended, but not by the pope’s remarks.

I am offended that Muslims went on a murderous rampage over a cartoon, but expressed no anger when a Dutch filmmaker was murdered in the name of Islam.

I am offended that moderate Muslims believed that an Afghan should be executed for converting to Christianity. I am offended that many Muslims refuse to believe that Muslims perpetrated the 9/11 massacres.

Most of all, I am offended that when Islamic terrorists strike, Muslims offer no expressions of outrage.

At most, there is polite regret mixed with equivocations, rationalizations and qualifications from Muslim leaders and a deafening silence from the Muslim street.

Yet you would have us believe that the problem stems from the pope’s absence from an interfaith conference.

Joseph Borini, Las Vegas, Sept. 20, 2006

Lessons From U.N. Week
By DAVID BROOKS
One of the lessons of this past week is that the international system is broken. The world community might make declarations — on preventing Iranian and North Korean nukes, disarming Hezbollah, or preventing genocide in Darfur — but when it comes to actually uniting to take action, words and resolutions lead nowhere. Thanks to a combination of American errors, European escapism, and Russian and Chinese greed, the worst people in the world now drive events while the best people do nothing.

The second big lesson of the past week is that five years after 9/11 we are farther from reaching a consensus on the nature of the threat than ever before. Instead of clarity, there is a cacophony of theories that attempt to explain the extremists — emphasizing religion or ideology or feelings of historic humiliation or some combination of all three.

The core of the dispute is: Do the extremists play by the normal rules of geostrategy, or are their minds off in some mystical sphere that is utterly alien to our categories?

Do they respond to incentives and follow the dictates of what we call self-interest? Can they be deterred by normal threats to their security? Or, alternatively, are they playing an entirely different game? Are the men who occupy the black hole that is the Iranian power elite engaged in a religious enterprise based on an eschatological time frame and driven by supernatural longings we can’t begin to fathom?

The definition of the threat determines the remedies we select to combat it, and yet what we have now is a clash of incongruous definitions and an enemy that is chaos theory in human form — an ever-shifting array of state and nonstate actors who cooperate, coagulate, divide, feud and feed on one another without end.

The third lesson is that a huge gap is emerging between the way ordinary Americans see the Arab world and the way members of the political, media and intellectual elites see it.

Elite debate is restrained by a series of enlightened attitudes that amount to a code of political correctness: be tolerant of cultural differences, seek to understand the responses of people who feel oppressed, don’t judge groups, never criticize somebody else’s religion.

As anybody who has traveled around the country or listened to talk radio of left, right and center knows, these genteel manners do not inhibit the masses. Millions of Americans think the pope asked exactly the right questions: Does the Muslim God accord with the categories of reason? Are Muslims trying to spread their religion with the sword?

These millions of Americans believe the pope has nothing to apologize for. They regard the vicious overreaction to his speech, like the vicious overreaction to the Danish cartoons, as another sign that some sort of intellectual disease is sweeping through the Arab world.

What these Americans see is fanatical violence, a rampant culture of victimology and grievance, a tendency by many Arabs to blame anyone other than themselves for the problems they create. These Americans don’t believe they should lower their standards of tolerable behavior merely for the sake of multicultural politeness, and they are growing ever more disgusted with commentators and leaders who are totally divorced from the reality they see on TV every night.

The fourth lesson is that we are drifting toward a policy that does not match the threat we face. Extremism is not an isolated cult in the Muslim world. It is a diverse and vibrant movement, which inspires the smartest of the young and treats the psychological wounds of those who are trapped between tradition and modernity.

The Muslim millenarians possess a habit of mind that causes them to escalate conflicts. They seem confident they can prevail, owing to their willingness to die for their truth. They don’t seem to feel marginalized, but look down on us as weak, and doubt our ability to strike back.

With America exhausted by Iraq, with the threat of Iranian sanctions dissolving before our eyes, Western policy is drifting toward the option that most resembles passivity. That is containment — accepting Iranian nukes and trying to deter their use with our arsenal.

In other words, a policy that was designed to confront a secular, bureaucratic foe — the Soviets — will now be used to confront a surging, jihadist one. The survival of Tel Aviv, and maybe New York and Washington, will depend on the Clausewitzian rationalism of the Iranian mullahs, or the angry younger brothers who will replace them.
Via HNN

Advertisements

Leave a Comment »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: