FOREIGN POLICY JULY 14, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
The recent suicide bombing against Pashtun tribal elders in Mohmand, a region not far from Peshawar, the capital city of Pakistan’s North-West Frontier Province, made my mind return to conversations I’d had in Peshawar in 2000. Westerners could then roam the non-restricted areas of the province without much fear. Peshawar, which was a hotbed of Islamic militancy, still offered the full range of Pashtun cosmopolitanism: international hotels where VIP natives and foreigners could get alcohol; lots of Internet shops where locals emailed their relatives abroad and scanned porno sites; and video-and-DVD stores where you could easily get contraband copies of newly-released Hollywood blockbusters or, with a bit more effort, skin flicks. It was a lively, dirty, dilapidated, but relatively well-organized city (the British empire lived on) swamped with Pashtun Afghans who greatly preferred life there to the boredom, poverty, and religious unpleasantness of Taliban rule north of the border.
What I liked best about the place was how easy it was to have conversations about Islam. Westernized businessmen and officials, journalists, imams from neighborhood mosques, the ordinary faithful after prayers, rug merchants, taxi drivers, soldiers, and die-hard Islamic militants pumping iron in god-awful gyms would all proffer their opinions about the faith, America, Christianity, Jews, and Osama bin Laden (most applauded the man). Pakistanis become intellectually serious pretty quickly. And even among the hesitant, it didn't take that long before you could have an energetic conversation about what many Westerners would describe as sensitive issues. After the attack on the USS Cole in Aden in October 2000, everyone there knew that bin Laden and the Taliban’s leader Mullah Omar had found some common ground. By and large, the Peshawaris saw jihad against the United States as understandable and acceptable, and those who agreed, and those who didn’t, weren’t offended when an American asked them about the earthly manifestations of their faith.
I haven’t returned to Peshawar since 2000, but it’s a good guess that the same conversations are to be had, though undoubtedly in greater variation, since jihadist violence has now savaged Pakistan. It’s an odd situation: Throughout the greater Middle East, frank discussions about Islam are easier to have than they are in Washington, D.C.—especially among government officials. Ask someone in the Obama administration about jihad and, unless the official knows the conversation is off the record—and sometimes even if it is off the record—that official likely will become a bit panicked, nonplussed, and try to change the subject.
It’s been 18 months since Mr. Obama became president; thirteen months since he gave his Cairo speech and rolled out his “New Beginning” approach to the Muslim world. Primary result: In the nation’s capital, conversations have become boring, lightweight, and sometimes inane.
Although it’s deeply politically incorrect to say so, intellectually, things were better under the Bush administration. President George W. Bush struggled briefly with the issue of whether it was okay to use the word “Islamofascism.” I’m against its use but it’s not philosophically absurd to use this term in describing some of the modern Islamic movements that sprang from the Egyptian Hassan Al Banna’s Muslim Brotherhood and the subcontinent’s great modern theologian Abul Ala Maududi’s Jamaat-e-Islami (Maududi was quite open in his admiration of fascism’s inspirational capacity). President Bush’s public use of the term one time provoked considerable debate in the West and in the Middle East. Mr. Bush’s more adamant embrace of democracy-exporting rhetoric provoked even more discussion. Such controversy was all for the best. Muslim-versus-Muslim debate is always more robust when the West, especially the United States, is also actively engaged in the discussion. Whether the invidious subject is slavery, female genital mutilation, Sharia’s draconian corporal punishments (hudud laws), women’s rights, corruption, jihadism, “oriental despotism,” or representative government, intra-Muslim ethical deliberations on most of these subjects have been provoked by Westerners and Westernized Muslims taking issue with prevailing practices.
President Obama’s operating philosophy toward the Muslim world appears to be that being “offensive” towards Muslims can’t be good for Muslim–non-Muslim relations. Mr. Obama’s dispensation more or less follows the arguments made by a wide variety of liberal intellectuals while Mr. Bush was president. To wit: The Iraq war (though not the Afghan war), Guantanamo, rendition, waterboarding, and Mr. Bush’s existential presence (his Christian Evangelical essence) accentuated the Muslim–non-Muslim divide, thereby contributing to anti-American anger and the manufacture of holy warriors. We never knew how many holy warriors Mr. Bush produced, but the implication was lots.
And the black Barack Hussein Obama would do wonders to fix all this. In the immortal words of The Atlantic’s Andrew Sullivan, Mr. Obama’s “face” would be “the most effective potential rebranding of the United States since Reagan.” In December 2007, Mr. Sullivan asked us to consider this hypothetical: “It’s November 2008. A young Pakistani Muslim is watching television and sees this man—Barack Hussein Obama—is the new face of America. In one simple image,
America’s soft power has been ratcheted up not a notch, but a logarithm…. If you wanted the crudest but most effective weapon against the demonization of America that fuels Islamist ideology, Obama’s face gets close.” What does one do with this extreme mirror imaging of one’s one biases into the minds of foreigners? Senator John McCain obviously didn’t know how to handle it. (But I have a suggestion: In 2010 Mr. Sullivan and I should travel together through Pakistan, visiting the Pashtun and Punjabi breeding grounds of jihadism and see how President Obama’s “face” is doing.)
The history-annulling quality of this “New Beginning” line of thought (Islamic militancy has a very long history; it attracted many of the Muslim world’s best minds to its standard long before President Bush destroyed Saddam Hussein; being a black Christian son of an African Muslim is much more important and estimable in America than in the Middle East) really should have encountered a bit more resistance from those who knew the Muslim world.
But time is quickly cruel. Although Mr. Obama could make a recovery among devout Muslims, he appears to have become more or less irrelevant to fundamentalist discussions—except on the issue of Israel/Palestine where there is considerable disappointment. (President Obama was supposed to come down hard on the Jewish state; that he has not done so has significantly diminished his “change” appeal among both religious and secular Arabs). Radicalization among
American Muslims seems to have actually increased during Mr. Obama’s presidency and, if this is true, it would be dubious to suggest that anything Mr. Obama has done provoked that increase. The radicalization of Europe’s Muslim community—probably still the greatest jihadist threat to the West—doesn’t seem to have changed course because Barack Obama is in the White House.
The number of die-hard jihadists may have gone down in the Muslim world since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, but if this is so it is undoubtedly because (1) the United States military and allied armed forces have killed and imprisoned jihadists more quickly than they could reproduce and (2) Arabs and Pakistanis—the two big constituencies for Al Qaeda and like-minded organizations—have seen so much Muslim-on-Muslim bloodshed in the Middle East and Central Asia in the last decade that they have begun to recoil from the organizations that once fascinated so many of them. Muslim militants aren’t children. They know a hell of a lot more about their faith than do American presidents who assert that “Islam is a religion of peace.” (What Islam is, as with Christianity and Judaism, is an evolving question, but it’s not just Muslim holy warriors who don’t care for the Prophet Mohammad being depicted as a pre-modern peacenik.)
Since the inauguration of Mr. Obama, the Saudis certainly haven’t reformed their massive, state-financed export of virulently anti-Western Wahhabi ideology, or their own school books, which still depict Jews and Christians as being pretty far down the evolutionary ladder. Mr. Obama’s outreach to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei was certainly used as a rhetorical battering ram by Iran’s pro-democracy dissidents; but these dissidents no longer shout "U ba ma" (“he is with us”) in Persian since it became obvious that the president really only wanted to talk to Mr. Khamenei about his nukes, not about representative government. Needless to say, the supreme leader’s Islam is not the Islam of Barack Obama, who declared in Cairo, “I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.” (Is it possible that President Obama discussed the “negative stereotyping” in his private correspondence to Khamenei?)
Now it’s possible that President Obama’s play-nice approach to the Muslim world won’t leave us in any worse shape than we were in when he arrived in the White House. It is, however, questionable. When Mr. Obama’s attorney general twists himself into knots trying to avoid juxtaposing the word “Islam” with the word “terrorism,” and when the president’s senior counterterrorism advisor gives speeches on Islam that would be more appropriate on “Sesame Street,” you gotta wonder whether the dumbed-down level of public Washington discourse is the visible sign of internal bureaucratic rot. In any case, we would do well to remember the observation that Princeton historian Michael Cook made about Islamic history:
"It was the fusion of … [an] egalitarian and activist tribal ethos with the monotheist tradition that gave Islam its distinctive political character. In no other civilization was rebellion for conscience sake so widespread as it was in the early centuries of Islamic history; no other major religious tradition has lent itself to revival as a political ideology—and not just a political identity—in the modern world."
Osama bin Laden, a rebel if there ever was one, is much older than he appears. We would do well also to remember that the libraries in Iran’s dissident-rich universities and the homes of the country’s increasingly secular intellectuals are full of books that are chapters to the exquisitely invidious but enormously productive dialogue between the West and Islam. And great books, like great statesmen, are almost never nice.
Reuel Marc Gerecht is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a contributing editor at The Weekly Standard.
58 comments
I suppose this essay reveals some progress among the neocons: whereas at one time war was their only approach to Islam and Muslims, now they appear to be satisfied if we say nasty things about Islam and Muslims.
- rayward
July 14, 2010 at 7:44am
Please rayward: Give us something nice to say about Islam. Go ahead, make our day.
- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD
July 14, 2010 at 7:59am
In MP's universe, not saying something nasty about Islam and Muslims is equivalent to hatred of Jews (see his latest post). Such linguistic acrobatics have caught on with some, as to them not saying something nasty about Islam and Muslims is equivalent to saying something nice about Islam and Jews. Or as Gerecht might say, "make words, not war".
- rayward
July 14, 2010 at 8:57am
I'm shocked- SHOCKED!!!- that someone from the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies thinks Obama is being too nice to Muslims. And, shocked-SHOCKED!!!- that TNR published this critique.
- miceelf
July 14, 2010 at 9:38am
Perhaps it was (or is?) easier to discuss radical Islamic questions and issues in Peshawar than in Washington for the same reason that it's easier to discuss a literal interpretation of the bible and the draw of creationism in Kansas than in the East Village in NYC? Familiarity and context. Conversations in DC are among college and grad-school educated folk involved in politics, media, and policy (no matter whether liberal or conservative). Many are secular, many not, but the number likely to have an intimate cultural experience of Islam (let alone Islamism) is very small. Most importantly, DC conversations are guarded as people are invested in particular group/partisan perspectives, and how they play, in a way that I imagine a guy in a gym or taxicab in Peshawar isn't. The administration has decided that it's a more productive approach to play down the theological identification of Al Qaeda and the forces it represents. Tough if you don't like that. If you win, you get to make policy.
- ironyroad
July 14, 2010 at 10:27am
Since when does the long list of Evil things you're talking about have root in the big, scary ISLAM, rather than individual poor, uneducated people around the world? Genital mutilation is not taking place in Malaysia. It doesn't spread through Islam like a virus. Nothing works that way. Seriously, bug off. Glenn Greenwald sez: "Enlightening when the same attacks on Obama's foreign policy - from the same people - are found in TNR & Weekly Standard".
- averym
July 14, 2010 at 12:10pm
These would be warriors have nothing to contribute as to the important question, How to deal with the threat from Islamists? Hence, they try to burnish their moral bona fides by complaining that debate and discussion in the US, particularly those who are not their political allies, are being repressed by Islamists. They don't know what to do about our real enemies, so they try to exploit the fact that we have some to take a poke at their domestic political opponents. These people are completely useless.
- roidubouloi
July 14, 2010 at 1:58pm
"And great books, like great statesmen, are almost never nice." I like that "like", because when I think of a great stateman - a human being with knowledge of the world and of diplomacy, a cosmopolitan leader of men and of minds, a (wo)man of vision both strategic and prosaic, a speaker of truths in all their complexity and nuance and abhorer of banalities and certainties, a (wo)man who engages and is engaged, someone with moral courage and moral fortitude - I immediately think of the best books I have read, written usually by writers with no life experience and little else to their name than immence imagination and wonderful command of the language. The question these idiots never actually answer is, "what is to be done?" So Holder and Obama declare the terrorist activities as Islamist terrorists, and stop reaching out to the Muslim world, and start putting all Arabs and Muslims and Persians on no-fly lists and Gitmos and on Waterboarding tables and so on. What next? Will I feel more secure in my person at home and abroad? Will I have procted my Western "identity" from the depradations of the Islamists? Makeover, in true Peretzian fasion, asks: "Please rayward: Give us something nice to say about Islam. Go ahead, make our day." Is this how we engage with the Other, even the Enemy? Even as 13,000 Soviet warheads were aimed at the US and the US President had called it "the Evil Empire", Gorby and Reagan met in quite civilised circumstances and were not only civil but came close to becoming friends, man and man, nation to nation. Are we less certain of ourselves or more afraid of the Muslim enemy than we were of the 13,000 nuclear warheads? Is this what the West, the idea of the West, Western Civilisation, has come to? Makeover: if you believe in a single Semitic God, so do Muslims; and there is nothing better than could be said about them or you. If you do not, happy to guide you through the passages in the Koran that put a stop to infanticide among the Arabs, that gave women property rights that British women lacked in the 19th century, that speak lovingly about the Virgin Mary and Jesus, that lament the travails of Moses, that ... and I am not even Muslim or have much truck with Islam. jeez.
- icarusr
July 14, 2010 at 2:04pm
*immense
- icarusr
July 14, 2010 at 2:04pm
"The question these idiots never actually answer is, "what is to be done?"" Icarus has joined Roid they can now repeat Lenin's immoratl question "What is to be done," "what is to be done," "what is to be done," "what is to be done," "what is to be done," "what is to be done," "what is to be done," "what is to be done," "what is to be done...."
- jdyer
July 14, 2010 at 6:38pm
makover "Please rayward: Give us something nice to say about Islam. Go ahead, make our day." rayward "In MP's universe, not saying something nasty about Islam and Muslims is equivalent to hatred of Jews (see his latest post)" Speaking of hysterics, my goodness! Can't answer a simpe question, so he blames Jews.
- jdyer
July 14, 2010 at 6:42pm
"What is to be done?" Constant repetition of just that, without more, would still be a lot more penetrating analysis than what Peretz, Gerecht, and you have had to say on the subject, jackson. rayward didn't blame Jews. He blamed Martin Peretz. Although Peretz considers himself The Über-Jew, he and we are not one and the same thing.
- roidubouloi
July 14, 2010 at 8:42pm
"Speaking of hysterics, my goodness! Can't answer a simple question, so he blames Jews." There he goes again! jdyer is always angling for a reason to brand Jew-hatred on anyone he disagrees with.
- scrubby
July 14, 2010 at 9:56pm
"What is to be done?" This was answered countless times by countless people. The answers however are not acceptable to the so called "progressives". They rather kvetch and moan and claim that there is nothing to done just because they have no balls. "rayward didn't blame Jews. " So who did he bring up? The Norwegians? Just because Islam is backward, reactionary, barbaric misogynistic and violent it must be the fault of the: Three guesses... "Icarus has joined Roid they can now repeat Lenin's immoratl question "What is to be done,"" Lenin's final answer was that it is not important. What is important is "kto kogo" or who to whom.
- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD
July 14, 2010 at 10:14pm
"This was answered countless times by countless people." Since I missed it, what exactly was the answer from those countless people?
- scrubby
July 14, 2010 at 10:38pm
"Since I missed it, what exactly was the answer from those countless people?" So you want me to do the work for you? Are you too lazy to find out on your own? Shall I send you a reading list perhaps?
- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD
July 14, 2010 at 10:50pm
Thank you, scrubby, I was just about to ask that question. But let's make it easy on makover. Just a few of the highlights, please, makover. rayward's comment, which you should re-read makover, was about Peretz's equation of lack of anti-Islamic sentiment with Jew hatred. He was saying something about Peretz's fanaticism; he wasn't saying anything at all about Moslems, Jews, anti-Semitism or anti-Islamism. Follow the ball please so that your comments will make sense.
- roidubouloi
July 14, 2010 at 10:56pm
Ah, we have makover's answer. He has not the foggiest notion what those countless answers are. He was just blowing smoke. "I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you."
- roidubouloi
July 14, 2010 at 10:58pm
With respect to all, I don't see how the questions posed in the lead article are answered by ad hominem attacks, Lenin quotes, accusations that one is a neocon for asking the question, accusations of antisemitism or the assertion that simply by mentioning religion as a motive for violence the Obama administration would be turning its back on the Muslim world. I do think this: it doesn't pay to dumb down discussions at the highest levels of the Federal government. How can people form wise policy if they can't openly discuss matters? Clearly, there's a danger of generating bigoted stereotypes in any discussion about "the other." But not discussing "the other" also reinforces ignorance and bigotry. Without information people often think the worst and tend to lump everybody together, whereas simple knowledge often illuminates variation, individuality and the humanity of communities about which we'd otherwise be ignorant. Obviously the people in Peshawar are unafraid of discussing nuance about their fellow Muslims so why should people in Washington assume that we're all too stupid to learn and understand nuance about "the Islamic world?" And why should we assume that if Washington bureaucrats discuss radicals within the Muslim world all Muslims would be offended? What about the Muslims who are trying to moderate, reform and modernize their communities, or those who fled repressive regimes in order to live in the West? Would THEY be offended by such discussions? I think, rather the opposite in fact. What actually happens, all too often, is this: unlearned people assume the worst about "the other." On the other hand people who study and learn understand that stereotyping, particularly about a huge community like the 1.5 billion Muslims who live all over the world, leads to blind alleys and misunderstandings. Talking about Islamism as a form of government, or various sects that are fundamentalist or extreme, or the MB, or the difference between Sufi, Sunni, Alawite, Shi'a various regional and cultural variations within Islam won't nullify Obama's outreach to the Muslim world. It might increase understanding though and also serve to undermine negative stereotypes of Muslims - people who don't study may think that all Muslims ascribe to Bin Ladinism for example, which is patently false. So, I think the author has a point, and I'm a bit surprised that people reacted as they did in the above thread. There is a religious component to the wars we're engaged in, it was a subtext to the mujeheddins' war against the Soviets - which continues to haunt us and which we apparently helped to fund and arm. There is a huge Muslim/Christian angle to the wars and incitement against Israel. Differences between Christians and other minorities and Muslims and between Muslim sects motivate much of the civil violence in Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Lebanon and also religious strife drives wars in Africa and violence in Asia. So - what good does it to to pretend this doesn't exist? As to whether much of the trouble is simply that caused by poverty and illiteracy - or to national, tribal or ethnic strife - that's a question worth asking. These are certainly important components imo. For example there is a civil war in Pakistan involving the Baluch and I don't think that's religious or ideological so much as ethnic/national and economic although I do think religious practice might be a feature too but I'm not sure; not much is published about this in the MSM although it could be very important considering the strategic value of the natural gas pipelines and also the location of Baluchistan; already there is trouble between Baluch and the Iranian government. Also, there are obviously conflicts between the modern industrialized world and older traditional cultures - but ideology is a primary driver also, isn't it? Sunni and Shi'a have been fighting for a thousand years...did this not play a role in the war between Iran and Iraq? Does religion not play a primary role in the government of Iran? During the Soviet era, Socialist and other leftist historians in particular tended and perhaps still tend to see primarily in economic or nationalist terms and thus religious aspects to local and international strife were/are underestimated. This was/is a mistake I think. In fact religion has been a primary cause of trouble for millenia. It's still important today. Common sense, economics, what we'd call "rational" causes for war (or peace) can all be swept away by religious belief. So I think we are foolish to ignore it.
- Sophia
July 14, 2010 at 11:18pm
Why do you believe, sophia, that the conversation at the highest levels of government has been dumbed down? Becuase Gerecht asserts in one sentence that you cannot discuss "jihad" with government officials unless it is off the record? What is this supposed to mean? Gerecht segues immediately to a series of claims that Obama's policies are not working but, as with Peretz, has nothing whatever to say about what he thinks Obama should be doing instead, other than "not playing nice." Well, there is an increased usage of drone aircraft against terrorists while Obama is trying to avoid provocative rhetoric. There is a still inadequate but stepped up level of sanctions against Iran that met with the approval of the permanent members of the UNSC. Other than the ritual denunciations that Peretz and Gerecht seem to love, and delude themselves into thinking constitute a policy at all, what is being proposed here? Nothing. And in what manner is anyone pretending that Islamism doesn't exist? Because it is regarded as a bad tactic to attribute the terrorism to Islam itself? This is clearly what Gerecht wants when he quotes Cook thusly: "In no other civilization was rebellion for conscience sake so widespread as it was in the early centuries of Islamic history; no other major religious tradition has lent itself to revival as a political ideology—and not just a political identity—in the modern world." But so what if this is true? So what if the ideology of Islamism has a religious component? Is that not obvious? Beyond the obvious, what else is important to understand about that fact? In any case, the Christian world produced not one but two totalitarian ideologies that managed to plunge the world into war and between them account for the deaths of 50 million people or more. Does this tell us something about Christianity, or the relationship of totalitarianism to Christianity? What? Given that history, why should we think that Islamism somehow represents a unique evil by virtue of its rootedness in Moslem society? Is it not sufficient to recognize that, having defeated Fascism and Communism, we are now faced with a third totalitarian movement the most important aspect of which is that, due to technology, non-state actors now have the possibility of causing harm that would have been unimaginable for states a couple of generations ago? And so, what can we do about it? I find it difficult to believe that exploration of the precise relationship of Islam itself to this totalitarian movement is going to illuminate much if anything about that question. I agree that dumbing-down is a luxury we cannot afford at this juncture. But it is Peretz and Gerecht who want to dumb-down the debate by directing our attention to their obsession with "evil" rather than sticking to the business at hand -- effective strategy and tactics.
- roidubouloi
July 15, 2010 at 12:07am
what Sophia wrote. Gerecht's bio is a lightening rod for the usual ad hominem attacks in TNR. Sophia, yes, the Baluchi insurgency IS ethnic and economic. Actually, even the recent terror against Ahmadis and the Data Sufi shrine in Lahore are much more about trying to destabilize Pakistan's government than intra-Islamic warfare. The Pakistani gentleman (a Punjabi very upset over the Data sufi shrine attack even though he is from a village between Islamabad and Lahore and not officially a Lahori) who so graciously inspected my car in the Bronx this afternoon added to our mini-dialog that the anti-government attacks in Punjab are because "United States is trying to steal Pakistan's nukes". No chance to ask him if he thinks Kashmir is merely a border dispute because I wanted to know if he had tried the new Brazilian cafe on the corner, and then there was the World Cup to sort through because a limo driver from England who had been rooting for France joined in. I then went out for lunch, and my Palestinian waitress and I agreed 1) Hamas is terrible, and 2) Jerusalem should be an international city. We only touched on religion except to lament how all religious extremists are disruptive. She recently visited family in the West Bank in order to learn Arabic, and reports Ramallah is thriving. Not that anyone who works for Obama would ever think of setting foot in The Bronx and actually talk to muslim immigrants from the Punjab or the West Bank or Bangladesh or Bosnia or Senegal...good crew at the Shoprite in Yonkers from Senegal. That is the Shoprite next door to the cigarette store owned by Sikhs where I met the most interesting Jordanian Christian last year...
- K2K
July 15, 2010 at 12:10am
if Steve Coll had written the exact same words as Gerecht, whatever would roid do? do not bother to respond, we know Gerecht could write "the sky is blue" and you would see it as a neocon plot.
- K2K
July 15, 2010 at 12:14am
Garbage is garbage, no matter who produces it. It stinks. It doesn't matter politically whether the Pakistanis think Kashmir is merely a border dispute. What matters is that the rest of the world treats it that way, Pakistan has no means by which to prevail without world support, and it puts itself at constant risk to the extent that it provokes India with terrorism, nukes or no nukes. As far as I can tell, there is no reference to neo-cons in this thread other than in the first post. And not much that could be described as ad hominem. You just make this up as convenient when you too have nothing too say.
- roidubouloi
July 15, 2010 at 12:35am
Not that anyone who works for Obama would ever think of setting foot in The Bronx and actually talk to muslim immigrants from the Punjab or the West Bank or Bangladesh or Bosnia or Senegal...good crew at the Shoprite in Yonkers from Senegal. That is nonsense, K2K. I've gotten pissed enough at the way this thread has developed to now do something I've almost never done, that's a bit unclassy, but fuck it. I'm going to paste in my earlier comment: "Perhaps it was (or is?) easier to discuss radical Islamic questions and issues in Peshawar than in Washington for the same reason that it's easier to discuss a literal interpretation of the bible and the draw of creationism in Kansas than in the East Village in NYC? Familiarity and context. Conversations in DC are among college and grad-school educated folk involved in politics, media, and policy (no matter whether liberal or conservative). Many are secular, many not, but the number likely to have an intimate cultural experience of Islam (let alone Islamism) is very small. Most importantly, DC conversations are guarded as people are invested in particular group/partisan perspectives, and how they play, in a way that I imagine a guy in a gym or taxicab in Peshawar isn't. The administration has decided that it's a more productive approach to play down the theological identification of Al Qaeda and the forces it represents. Tough if you don't like that. If you win, you get to make policy."
- ironyroad
July 15, 2010 at 2:08am
irony: "Tough if you don't like that. If you win, you get to make policy" rightly so. still does not mean it will be effective policy, concocted by armchair partisans. I was responding solely to Sophia, the only lucid commenter here. I am surprised roid does not know who Gerecht is. CIA and AEI preceded "senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a contributing editor at The Weekly Standard", certainly all code words for 'NEOCON', roid's stated enemy. I shall not be coming back here in order to not have to look at Eric Holder's photo.
- K2K
July 15, 2010 at 2:23am
Gerecht's post is first of all about domestic politics, having nothing to do with his expertise in Middle East affairs. He simply tries to cloak his ignorant observations with his professional expertise by invoking Peshawar. Ironyroad successfully makes the point -- twice because there are indeed some very dim bulbs here -- that Gerecht doesn't know what he is talking about because Washington does not happen to be the same place as Peshawar. This post was sufficiently fatuous that it just wasn't necessary to tie Gerecht to his political roots in order to point out its stupidity. The thing just spoke for itself. That, of course, doesn't prevent K2K from confusing every other thread he has ever read with this one. Neocons are not "my enemy." They are a threat to the safety, security, and well-being of the United States of America and everyone in it. Is your memory so short, K2K, that you need to be reminded of the havoc they have wrought in the world? Would you like to call our attention to any similar disasters attributable to "liberals," the stated enemies of Reuel Marc Gerecht and Martin Peretz? Please.
- roidubouloi
July 15, 2010 at 9:18am
Sophia: Muslims "who are trying to be moderate" (I love that construction - so much condescension packed in to a single verb!) are not afraid of talk, honest talk, about their religion, whether in Peshawar or DC. But, when you have people - I gather, educated people - who have no compunction to describe Islam as a "parasitic civilisation" (in these threads), or whose only mode of discussion of Islam - of Islam, not Islamism - is to refer to the dozen or so passages in the Koran that incite or command or permit the killing of "infidels" and tar all Muslims with backward thinking (and all you need to do in this respect is to read Peretz and his friends for a week here), then you can expect even "moderate" Muslims to tune out. I've lived as a multiple minority in a Muslim society, and in a liberal society; I know where I want to live, which is why I have never returned to my land of birth. But I cannot hope to have an decent conversation about the liberal society in which I live, with other liberals, if I approach the topic with an ideological assertion that "liberal society is decadent and degenerate and about to collapse"; in the same vein, if it is dialogue and understanding you want with the Other - the Other that is as much in our midst as abroad - then conflating Islamism and Islam, as many do, or attacking all Muslims as parasites, as some have done, or attacking Muslim societies as inherently incapable of development, is not the best way to proceed. You will not get a hearing even if some Muslims are "trying" to be moderate; and you will add to your ranks of enemies. This is assuming that you want to contain the hatred and convert the softer Other - much the majority - to your own side. If the starting point is to bomb the billion Muslims to "smithereens", as Marty put it about Iran, then surely, that is a different issue - if the response to "what is to be done" is to annihilate the buggers, the parasites, then I fail to see why anyone is surprised to hear similar words coming out of the mouths of the Other.
- icarusr
July 15, 2010 at 9:39am
Makover: "The answers however are not acceptable to the so called "progressives". They rather kvetch and moan and claim that there is nothing to done just because they have no balls." Hmmm. The scarequotes. The attacks on masculinity and courage. The imputation of listlessness and helplessness. Hallmarks of a neocon attack on intellectual opponents. When you write like this, don't complain about insults and ad hominems. Be that as it may, the answers Peretz and Gerecht give are "unacceptable" because they are not answers to the question what is to be *done* - not in the ordinary sense of "do" (because talking is also doing the talking), but in the contextually relevant sense of actual action. If Obama tomorrow starts *talking* about Ismalist terrorism each time there is a terrorist attack, it would do nothing to make me feel safer. Of a politician and a policy-maker, I ask only two things: understanding at all times, and action where necessary (and not action for the sake of action). Talk is cheap, and potentially dangerous. There is no greater demonstration of the futility - nay, the danger - of cheap talk than the eight years we suffered under W. "Mission accomplished"; "stuff happens"; "dead or alive", "for us or against us"; "a crusade for Western civilisation"; "old Europe"; ... the list goes on. The US pissed on the world and still fucked up two invasions for lack of planning. Does Obama understand the nature of the problem? His drones are pounding Pakistan, a sovereign nation and an ally of the US, in fact. I'd say he does. Is he taking action against terrorism? I think he is. If you don't think so, that's fine, but say what he ought to *do*, rather than what he ought to *say*. Peretz and Gerecht and many of the neocons are hung up on what Obama is saying or not saying; they prescribe "actions" that are merely talk. This is what is unacceptable, because demonstrably unworkable.
- icarusr
July 15, 2010 at 9:43am
Icarus, you write beautifully, pungently, trenchantly, and insightfully, almost always, not just today. I am very impressed.
- roidubouloi
July 15, 2010 at 10:33am
Roid - thanks, and risking the formation of a mutual admiration society or "epistemic closure", right back at you on all counts.
- icarusr
July 15, 2010 at 10:49am
Sophia, again I have to say I appreciate your general approach, even if you are far more charitable to Peretz and others than I am. K2K, your experience with your waitress mirrors my conversations with Palestinian friends and colleagues, except that religion does come up because they are devout Muslims (no idea about your waitress). It largely comes up in terms of how they feel that the hardline version of Islam is an imposition of culture on religion. And, to be clear, my initial post wasn't focused on content at all, merely on how predictable TNR posts on the subject have become. I stand by that observation. I am also more inclined to grant roid and Ic- namely that the assumption that obama's public speeches are a completely transparent window into his thinking- if he doesn't use a certain word, it's because he doesn't believe the concept exists- is oddly naive. what he's doing is stepping military action against Islamists, whatever he calls them. my deeply felt suspicion is simply that peretz longs for a simpler happier time (taht as far as I knew never existed) when it was simply enough to insult Islam and conflate it with Islamism. And he is simply cherrypicking voices to echo that sentiment.
- miceelf
July 15, 2010 at 11:00am
Oh jeezus gents. You do risk..... and love..... Ain't it grand? Yusta yoshin.... man.... yusta yoshin...
- jacko
July 15, 2010 at 11:03am
Icarus, if we can't say "Islamic Fascism" or "Islamism", why are we sending drones against targets in Pakistan? Are we at war with Pakistan? I hope not. Are we at war with a transnational Islamic fundamentalist movement? More likely. If we are to determine our goals in this expensive, bloody war and clarify strategy and tactics, shouldn't we clearly name the enemy (targets)? And if Afghans and Pakistanis don't agree with our narrative, actions or professed objectives, then we have some thinking and explaining to do. And by the way, just where are these terrorist attacks on infidels and non-conforming Muslims coming from?
- amidut
July 15, 2010 at 11:19am
"Hmmm. The scarequotes. The attacks on masculinity and courage. The imputation of listlessness and helplessness. Hallmarks of a neocon attack on intellectual opponents. When you write like this, don't complain about insults and ad hominems." No, no scare quotes. Just a statements that those who call themselves progressives are actually regressive. They are progressive only in Pravda's style. Yes, absolutely attack on courage. No stomach for a fight. Any fight longer than 3 minutes TV commercial is too long. No insult here and no adhominem just a simple truth. Regarding However, since you want specifics, the first thing "to do" is to stop pretending that Islamic terror does not exist. That is a prerequisite. And the second thing "to do" is to realize that those large, unnamed masses of Moderate Muslims exist only on OpEds pages of New York Times. That would be a good start.
- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD
July 15, 2010 at 12:47pm
Amidut: "why are we sending drones against targets in Pakistan?" If we were at war with a philosophy, we would be bombing Riyadh and Cairo, not Pakistan. We are bombing Pakistan because of the actively violent and threatening manifestations of that particularly noxious philosophy. That violent and physical manifestation has managed to isolate itself in the mountains and tribes of Pakistan and Afghanistan. It occasionally strikes out, but it is largely kept to a narrow area that could have been managed easily with 800 additional Special Ops personnel, but that was lost because of rank incompetence, misguided strategy and ideology. It is a strategic, political and moral failure of the first order to fail to make a distinction between the philosophy (and how it should be addressed), the perpetrators of the violence, and the Muslim community or Islam at large. "... And by the way, just where are these terrorist attacks on infidels and non-conforming Muslims coming from?" Terrorist attacks, fuelled by nihilistic ideology, against infidels and apostates have been with us for a long time; Islamist violence is only the latest. Your use of the word "non-conforming" is, of course, interesting. According to Salafist and Wahhabi ideology, about 98% of the Muslim population of the world is "non-conforming"; in this sense, the appellation loses all its sense. That Muslims are killed by other Muslims for ideological reasons is not terribly illuminating as to the nature of the Muslim society, Muslim identity, the contents of Islam or the objects of Islamism, or for that matter how we should address it. It makes for unhinged rants by some, and revealing asides by others ("Islamic Civilization is parasitic."), but strategically, it is unhelpful. I mean, Saddam was a secular Arab dictator, strongly supported by the West and the East against a "rogue" Iran, and yet he was the genocial madman who actually lobbed missiles on Israel and killed more of his countrymen, and more Shiites, than Al-Qaeda in Iraq has. Does that mean there is something inherently wrong with secularism? Is there something inherently evil about Cambodian culture that could give rise to the worst (proportionately) mass killer in human history?
- icarusr
July 15, 2010 at 12:56pm
Makover: "Regarding However, since you want specifics, the first thing "to do" is to stop pretending that Islamic terror does not exist. That is a prerequisite. And the second thing "to do" is to realize that those large, unnamed masses of Moderate Muslims exist only on OpEds pages of New York Times. That would be a good start." I see what you mean by courage to fight. All those fucking NYTimes Op-Ed writers .... Dear God, man, American soldiers are dying in Afghanistan, thousands of civilians have already been killed by American drones in Pakistan, various fleets are parked off the coast of Pakistan and Iran for a possible attack, and you propose, as *action*, changing the editorial culture of a New York newspaper? Don't your neocon friends laugh at you when you propose such meaty, courageous, *actions*?
- icarusr
July 15, 2010 at 1:09pm
K2K: " . . . the only lucid commenter here." I'm stung, but ok, lucid. I can do lucid. Here: As mentioned by others here, alongside (a) not mentioning Islam, Obama has stepped up (b) the active prosecution of the war against Al Qaeda and the Taliban leadership in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And significantly, if we're talking drone strikes. A question, then: Is it just possible, do you think, that those two elements (a) and (b) are intended to go together, under the rubric of something called "policy"?
- ironyroad
July 15, 2010 at 1:11pm
"Does that mean there is something inherently wrong with secularism?" Calling Saddam Hussein a secularist is highly misleading. He was a secularist in the way Stalin and Hitler were secularists. Secularism was not their defining commitment or project. Being secularist, in term of these three leaders, meant that they did not need religion to enforce their terror and unite their peoples behind them. It was one means to totalitarian domination. Secularism wedded to fascist ideology is not longer secularism, but something else, because it had never been the secularist principle that mattered. When we read "secularism" we understand tolerance, freedom of opinion, separation of state and religion. "Secularism" does not immediately spring to my mind when I recall that Saddam Hussein went to the trouble of establishing for himself a lineage that relates directly to Mohammad, or that he had his blood drawn out of him in order to serve as ink to write Quranic verses. Icarusr wants to create a certain functional equivalence between "secularism" and "Islamism". As if secularism is an ideology or a religion that can be subverted towards fascism the same way Islam can be subverted to violent extremism. But secularism is secularism exactly because it is not an ideology or religion. It is a way of life. It does not have a scripture or a responsa. There are no secular clerics and no mandatory weekly congregation. There are no rituals one has to attend in order to be secular. One can be very religious and live well and comfortably in a secular society.
- noga1
July 15, 2010 at 1:31pm
"...do you think, that those two elements (a) and (b) are intended to go together, under the rubric of something called "policy"?" icarusr inadvertantly said something lucid: " If we were at war with a philosophy, we would be bombing Riyadh and Cairo, not Pakistan. " He recognizes that the ideological underpinnings of the Islamic violence in Afghanistan is rooted in Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Just as the Islamic violence in Lebanon is rooted in Iran. So there is a real war taking place against the foot soldiers of ideologies manufactured in Arab and Muslim capitals. Does it not make sense to wage an intensive war of ideas against these ideologies, then? How do you propose to do that if you a-priori handicap the scope and effectiveness of your arsenal of ideas, if you refuse to name the ideologies for fear of offending their believers? If you jeer at people who want to see a robust counter response to the insane mullahs' preaching from Cairo and Riad? It is exactly the kind of absurdity Yeats envisioned when he wrote: "The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity."
- noga1
July 15, 2010 at 1:45pm
The problem with the right is that it is all stomach and no brains. Completely empty heads. Fight whom, where, how, at what cost, at what risk, with what objective and what chance of success? They don't know and the don't care. This notion that everyone but wackos is unaware that most terrorism in our time emerges from the Moslem world merely proves that they are wacko. When you add to that there belief in a liberal campaign to suppress this erstwhile secret, time to break out the tinfoil hats.
- roidubouloi
July 15, 2010 at 1:58pm
icarusr, with respect you are projecting. I intend no "condescension" - let alone packing same into a single verb. I'm going to post my response and clarification in two parts. One: I do assert that moderation, modernization, whatever you want to call it - comes with a price for individuals who strive within let alone against their own culture. That's true here too of course. Civil rights activists, feminists, artists - gay rights activists - animal rights activists - philosophers - we've all paid a price. Artists in particular are always struggling against our own preconceptions, not just those of our culture(s). And, we pay a price for that. So yes - "trying" is an accurate verb, it reflects a struggle experienced by all people who actively challenge the status quo or who seek greater knowledge and wisdom and I admire that - I don't "condescend" to it. Indeed - forgive me for this digression - if you look at the Hindu and tantric Buddhist icons many incorporate the idea of creativity as death or destruction - there's an understanding implicit in those paintings that creativity and destruction, life and death, are two sides to the same coin or part of the same great cycle - similarly wrath in the service of compassion - in the west this latter could be expressed as the concept of "righteous war" or "purity of arms." So - there's an attempt to fuse opposites into an understanding of a dynamic universe. Plus, there's the sense that knowledge as we have it isn't perfect and that we can - must - strive for more, for a better understanding, for greater wisdom. Thus, political and artistic struggle, especially if its accompanied by awareness, exacts a toll does it not? Similarly, "creativity" and scientific inquiry both assert that there are answers, more perfect knowledge to be discovered - better ways to be found if only we can summon the courage and energy to change. Religious dogma on the other hand, especially if encapsulated into political law, seems to me to have an opposite effect. Similarly - don't certain very conservative cultures and/or political systems seem to argue against "trying"? Don't they argue in fact for submission to the status quo, to the powers that be? Regardless - specifically within the Islamic sphere - there are fatwas out against Muslim intellectuals. Apostasy is still punishable by death according to Islamic law. A journalist in Egypt has been punished for talking to an Israeli. What do you call the repression of dissidents in Syria and Iran? In Syria it is more political than religious but in Iran the state derives power from the church - so? What about implementation of sharia as written? Do you think it's ok to stone women for adultery or do you think it's better for Muslims to struggle for modernization of their system as Christianity and Judaism have struggled with archaic, medieval interpretations of ancient texts and as various political systems - in Europe, America, Russia, China - have been overthrown in the search for a better way? And - what about women in the West who are simply trying - YES TRYING - to be more Western (ie moderate their parents' culture if you will) and who in some cases have paid for that with their lives? What do you call the punishment of women in KSA who simply want to drive? Are they not TRYING to moderate the system to be more inclusive, modern and empowering of the human beings known as "women"? If they were succeeding and/or if a struggle wasn't involved we wouldn't need the verb "trying". Obviously that's true in the West of people who as an example are struggling for environmental awareness - we are TRYING to get "the establishment" and the government, individual people and big business to see that wholesale destruction of the environment will eventually destroy us all. It isn't condescending to remark upon that struggle, unless you believe that the original belief systems (religious, belief that business trumps environment; patriarchal or fascist or oligarchic systems) are correct and perfect as they stand. What do you think? Also - vis a vis the topic at hand - what do you call the argument, advanced in the UN, that would outlaw "blasphemy?" To me that represents a direct challenge to freedom of expression, individual human rights, artistic rights, and freedom from somebody else's religion. It represents a challenge to everything the West has been fighting for since the days of ancient Greece: the primacy of individual rights, respect for philosophy, the right to challenge ideas - Enlightenment values - and we're still struggling here for that "more perfect union" are we not? Are we not "trying" also? So what is wrong with using that verb? Also - when I argue that we need more, not less knowledge, and in favor of seeing more not less humanity and variation in other people, other cultures, I don't think that is "condescending" to them in any way. So I don't see how read this into my comments. In fact I am arguing for more knowledge, not more hard and fast stereotypes about others.
- Sophia
July 15, 2010 at 2:35pm
Two: But - I agree that I do find Western culture more progressive particularly in the areas I have mentioned: freedom of expression, freedom from religion, presumed equality under the law. Therefore, I do think that there are issues on which we disagree with certain cultures and these include for starters freedom of expression, women's rights and freedom FROM religion. If we do not agree that there are certain baseline characteristics of Western culture, which we don't want to sacrifice, and IF a majority of Muslims don't want to abandon their belief system and/or cultural conditioning as expressed by conservative or fundamentalist elements within that world, then we do indeed have a real, long-term situation on our hands. Note I said "if." I have already asserted that I do not believe that all or most Muslims ascribe to fundamentalist let alone violent belief systems. But - I do think there are some points at which our political system and our culture stands in opposition to certain religious and/or cultural institutions. We can handle this in a number of ways. Variously we can pretend an essential rift or rifts in world views doesn't exist, to the point of not even discussing this; we can abandon our own principles and our own culture, we can, or order to "get along," start wearing burkas and keeping our own artists from being free, Or we can try to induce others to think as we do. This I guess we would call "moderation." Is that wrong? Alternatively: we can just bomb the s*** out of everybody, we could stop interacting with other cultures, we could forbid forbid immigration from other cultures. Or to take still another tack: we can on principle assume that All Cultures Are Created Equal; we could (to make an extreme point) argue that it is fine to make women wear black robes even here in the West and stay in the house because heaven forbid we or others should aspire to moderation, since even discussing moderation in regard to other belief systems is "condescending." I am sure this isn't what you intended to say, icarusr. Right? Surely you don't regard women's rights and artistic and religious freedom including the right not to be religious as something on which we should have some wiggle room? There are people here in the US who think the Civil Rights Act is something on which we should have some wiggle room, who regard the invasion of women's bodies as a right of the state in order to discourage abortion. To me, these are issues on which we DON'T have wiggle room and we need to draw a line in the sand within our own culture: the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights and the Constitution are pretty clear although interpretation has evolved. Evolution or not - there are bedrock principles of our culture - is it wrong to admire them above other belief systems? The fact is, I am getting the sense that some of us don't really believe in our own "progressive" values, and believe it would be more progressive for us to become less progressive rather than trying to uphold our own (Western, secular, democratic) belief system. Isn't that so?
- Sophia
July 15, 2010 at 2:43pm
"Does it not make sense to wage an intensive war of ideas against these ideologies, then? How do you propose to do that if you a-priori handicap the scope and effectiveness of your arsenal of ideas, if you refuse to name the ideologies for fear of offending their believers? If you jeer at people who want to see a robust counter response to the insane mullahs' preaching from Cairo and Riad?" It could indeed make sense to wage such a war -- but the question as to how is not always answered by the obvious. For example, one might wage war by showing the political or military ineffectiveness of the forces that propound such ideologies. One might attempt to reveal the gap between their claims and their actions. One might aim at denying them the legitimacy of certain titles or descriptors. One might be cautious, too. For example, if the language of the enemy overlaps with a highly charged and indeed sacred language in which the religious beliefs of a much larger group of people are embodied, one might want to avoid giving the impression that we are waging a war of ideas against that larger group, thereby not only compromising our relationship to that group but strategically assisting the enemy into the bargain. To put it another way, one might perhaps forego the pleasures of terminological combat while investing more in the actual struggle on the ground (intelligence, special ops, strikes by Predator drones etc). This involves no jeering or declamatory provocation that can be misunderstood, but very much taking out dangerous opponents in a highly targeted manner. Yes, there are ideological fonts from which the opponents' worldview streams -- it's not just a problem lurking in caves in Afghanistan. However, in the real world it is difficult to impossible for us to engage in any kind of ideological war against Islamist centers in Cairo or Riyadh, as we don't speak the same language. We are living in rationality, they in theological conviction. If they are to be confronted, it will have to be by progressive Muslims who share their language but challenge that theology and worldview.
- ironyroad
July 15, 2010 at 3:05pm
Sophia: point taken on condescension. I might have read too much into that one word, "trying"; or not enough. Agree with irony on the war of ideas, and the language, or means, chosen to wage that war.
- icarusr
July 15, 2010 at 4:38pm
"... in the real world it is difficult to impossible for us to engage in any kind of ideological war against Islamist centers in Cairo or Riyadh, as we don't speak the same language. We are living in rationality, they in theological conviction. If they are to be confronted, it will have to be by progressive Muslims who share their language but challenge that theology and worldview." How are "progressive Muslims" to be encouraged to face up to their crazies? Hasn't Obama's Cairo speech been an attempt to galvanize this sliver of the Muslim population into some sort of assertiveness? He used every trick in the book, including flattering their great tradition, their version of history about Israel's establishment, about the equivalence between Jewish and Palestinian suffering. Has he gained any inroads into Muslim societies? Has the Arab street budged from its rejectionism of modernity, Israel, peace, extremism? He compromised historical truth in order to sway them into some sort of enlightenment and nothing doing. At the same time it looks like Islamists and Arab extremists are having quite a bit of success in swaying the minds and hearts of European leftists and maybe even American ones (see Tariq Ramadan's academic popularity). It's back to Berman and his courageous attempts to crack open the voluntary self-imposed censorship in academia and the media when it comes to Islamic aspirations and practices.
- noga1
July 15, 2010 at 5:23pm
Noga: "Has he gained any inroads into Muslim societies?" Well, given that Islam has been around for 1300 years, major conflict between Islam and the West for about 1,000 years on and off, modern radical Islamism for around 50 years, and given that the Christian Reformation took about 150 years to play through, and given that the journey from the Renaissance to the Enlightenment to Modernity took about 450 years, and given that the tensions between the U.S. and the Arab/Muslim world have been around for about 40 years, I'd say time will tell.
- ironyroad
July 15, 2010 at 7:09pm
You always complain when I isolate one question to answer from your comments but you tend to do the same. You did not try to answer this question which is more important: "How are "progressive Muslims" to be encouraged to face up to their crazies? " Is this a profitable way to go about it? http://blog.z-word.com/2010/07/german-broadcasters-romance-press-tv/
- noga1
July 15, 2010 at 7:19pm
BTW, ironyroad, I would have been terribly surprised if you had responded in any different manner. It was a question that simply called for prevarication and you did not disappoint :)
- noga1
July 15, 2010 at 7:20pm
Moderate Muslims in Egypt do not stone people for apostasy or kill them. They have other punishments, anchored in the law of the land: "Nabil concluded by saying that Nagla and her two young children are trapped indoors — their entire Muslim family having turned their backs on them — and besieged by the mob, which bangs on the doors and windows and has cut off (no doubt, thanks to the government) all electricity to the house, leaving Nagla and her children in the dark (see here for a video where a battered Nagla sings a psalm with her children). Finally, a top Muslim cleric, Salim Abdul Galil, appeared on an Al Azhar affiliated station proclaiming Nagla an “infidel,” adding she must either return to Islam or spend the remainder of her life indoors." http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-strange-%E2%80%94-and-tragic-%E2%80%94-case-of-nagla-imam/2/
- noga1
July 15, 2010 at 8:24pm
"I see what you mean by courage to fight. All those fucking NYTimes Op-Ed writers ...." Are you really that clueless or do you just pretend? I know that English is not my first language but I thought that my comment was pretty clear. But since you seem to perplexed, than in the Maimondean manner let me offer you a guide to the perplexed: My comment had to do with the "progressives" delusions with regard to the "moderate Muslim". I pointed out that despite their believes in this rare species of humans, those species, just like the unicorns, exist mostly on the fantasy Op Ed pages of NY Times, The Guardian, The Nation , Haaretz and other such publications. This mythical being, the "moderate Muslim" is the progressive invention, equaling in its mystery, uniqueness and rarity to Yeti, the famous snow man. "Dear God, man, American soldiers are dying in Afghanistan, thousands of civilians have already been killed by American drones in Pakistan, various fleets are parked off the coast of Pakistan and Iran for a possible attack, and you propose, as *action*, changing the editorial culture of a New York newspaper? Don't your neocon friends laugh at you when you propose such meaty, courageous, *actions*?" First, I don't know any neocons but I am sure you do. I am not even sure what that terms mean. I guess it is anybody that the "progressive" dissagree with. Second, that's the progressive way to wage a war. Let somebody else's children do it for you. That way you can castigate and disparage them and nail them to the cross when they actually dare to fight and offend your delicate sensibilities. But the best thing about it, you can always say- "it's them and not me. I had nothing to do with it. I was against the war." By the way, which fleets are you talking about? Surely not the US. It is there to guard against the Israeli assault? Is that clear enough for you yingaleh?
- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD
July 15, 2010 at 9:02pm
"I see what you mean by courage to fight. All those fucking NYTimes Op-Ed writers ...." Are you really that clueless or do you just pretend? I know that English is not my first language but I thought that my comment was pretty clear. But since you seem to perplexed, than in the Maimondean manner let me offer you a guide to the perplexed: My comment had to do with the "progressives" delusions with regard to the "moderate Muslim". I pointed out that despite their believes in this rare species of humans, those species, just like the unicorns, exist mostly on the fantasy Op Ed pages of NY Times, The Guardian, The Nation , Haaretz and other such publications. This mythical being, the "moderate Muslim" is the progressive invention, equaling in its mystery, uniqueness and rarity to Yeti, the famous snow man. "Dear God, man, American soldiers are dying in Afghanistan, thousands of civilians have already been killed by American drones in Pakistan, various fleets are parked off the coast of Pakistan and Iran for a possible attack, and you propose, as *action*, changing the editorial culture of a New York newspaper? Don't your neocon friends laugh at you when you propose such meaty, courageous, *actions*?" First, I don't know any neocons but I am sure you do. I am not even sure what that terms mean. I guess it is anybody that the "progressive" dissagree with. Second, that's the progressive way to wage a war. Let somebody else's children do it for you. That way you can castigate and disparage them and nail them to the cross when they actually dare to fight and offend your delicate sensibilities. But the best thing about it, you can always say- "it's them and not me. I had nothing to do with it. I was against the war." By the way, which fleets are you talking about? Surely not the US. It is there to guard against the Israeli assault? Is that clear enough for you yingaleh?
- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD
July 15, 2010 at 9:02pm
Sorry for the prevarication Noga, but I wasn't sure if you were being quite serious. Paul Berman is an intellectual, an academic now and then, and a writer with a considerable reputation and similar access to publication. He can say and write what he wants, pretty much, and has carved out a distinctive minority position on Islam/Islamism that has gotten him much hostility but also a lot of attention and indeed admiration. I don't get the impression he's unhappy with his influence, so far. Barack Obama is president of the United States, the world's major superpower. As was the case with every president in modern times, practically each word he speaks is weighed in different contexts and perspectives across the world, and with consequences. People listen to him and assume that he's not speaking in a personal capacity. He's ultimately responsible for the complex and sometimes contradictory foreign policy the U.S. maintains and he is in no way free to engage publicly in provocation, speculation, and posturing when the security of the United States is involved. I think that Obama did what he could in Cairo and I think if you take the speech as a whole, it's not bad at all. It was early days, and not everything seems so smart or on target in retrospect. But it was an attempt to create a different framework for dialogue between the U.S. and the Arab/Muslim world and Obama made clear that it wasn't just a one-way street.
- ironyroad
July 15, 2010 at 9:50pm
makeover, I would appreciate anything you could add to your earlier comment about Lenin's final conclusion that "kto kogo" was more important than "what is to be done". In what sense was that meant? By the way, I remember trying to plod through Chernyshevsky's novel, and I finally gave up about half-way through--even though I had made it to the finish line with the Brothers Karamazov, Anna Karenina and several other tomes that could easily break your foot if you accidentally dropped them. The fact that this dreadful novel was such a runaway success in 19th century Russia suggests that it made its mark mainly because of the importance of asking and attempting to answer the question, What is to be done?
- willjames77
July 16, 2010 at 6:24am
Noga, thanks for the link to the story about Nagla and her children on Pajama's media. Heart-wrenching. It makes it clear how difficult it is for reformers to make any headway when the mere accusation of apostasy is enough to ruin someone's life. It helps one understand why we don't hear more from moderate voices. Also, a belated thank you for those photos you posted a few days ago of Palestinian misery and deprivation in Nablus and various other cities. Their resemblance to scenes of normal life elsewhere was no doubt due to fatamorganas caused by the summer heat.
- willjames77
July 16, 2010 at 6:40am
http://static.blogstorage.hi-pi.com/photos/lemondedesgifs.blogspace.fr/images/gd/1233310142/You-re-Welcome.gif
- noga1
July 16, 2010 at 7:09am
hmmm, a thread gone cold. and so very stimulating since I was last here on Wednesday. one backlash from Obama's stepped-up drone attacks in Af-Pak is increased anti-Americanism in both countries because 1) too many mistakes with tragic civilian casualties, 2) increased terror attacks inside both countries with the intention, in Pakistan, of de-stabilizing the government for cooperating with the Americans, and 3) probably considered a 'coward's way of war' by the Pashtuns who value (rightly or wrongly) personal courage in battle. All the vacuumed language from Washington will never offset the real impact of these drone attacks. As to Paul Berman? One never knows when a small book tips the consciousness of a generation. Some examples: Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring", Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel", and, yes, Malcolm Gladwell's "The Tipping Point". Actually, I am counting on Jane Austen's "Pride and Prejudice" to moderate the behaviour of the current generation of teenage girls who can read, and the teenage boys they may marry. Very happy to know it has been translated into Arabic and Dari, and Turkish. BTW, totally off-topic, but I loved "Epic India: Scenes from the Ramayana" at the Metropolitan Museum of Art through September 27. Choice. Plus, the Monkey and Bear Armies are totally cool, fighting alongside Rama to rescue Sita from the demon king Ravana. The advantage of having one doctor down the street from the Met is to make the post-medical experience absolutely delightful, marred only by the young English lass who stopped our conversation cold when she mentioned Palestine. I had not realized that the word Israel has been erased from more than the maps in Damascus, but perhaps also from the textbooks in English classrooms?
- K2K
July 16, 2010 at 10:09pm
"I had not realized that the word Israel has been erased from more than the maps in Damascus, but perhaps also from the textbooks in English classrooms?" http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2010/07/table-talk-by-eve-garrard.html "'Bloody Jews,' he said. 'Bloody Jews, bugger the Jews, I've no sympathy for them.' I gazed at him, aghast. Where had this suddenly come from? The encounter I'm here describing took place very recently, in the course of a large academic dinner at a University in another city, not my own one. It was a pleasant occasion, and the people at my table were innocuously and comfortably talking about sociological issues connected with the economic crisis, all completely harmless and (relatively) uncontentious. And then I heard the academic on my right hand side say to the person opposite him, 'Bloody Jews.' When he saw my appalled stare, he said impatiently, 'Oh well, I'm sorry, but really...!' 'I'm glad you're sorry,' I replied politely, collecting myself together for a fight. But then he asked, 'Are you Jewish?' When I nodded, this academic - whom I'd met for the first time that day - put his arm around me and said, 'I'm sorry, but really Israel is terrible, the massacres, Plan Dalet, the ethnic cleansing, they're like the Nazis, they're the same as the Nazis...'"
- noga1
July 17, 2010 at 12:08am
Is the implication in the last graf that Osama bin Laden is a great statesman intentional, or simply sloppy writing - matching the quality of the underlying thinking?
- floydsm8
October 17, 2010 at 5:47pm