It’s Here to Stay
Indian-American commentator and Newsweek editor/writer Fareed Zakaria wrote a poignant and sobering piece in a recent issue: http://www.newsweek.com/id/187093
Sadly, inevitably, he concedes that liberals (and capitalists) of all stripes in the West must face the reality that Islamic extremism is not going away any time soon; it’s growing actually, and non-Muslim countries (particularly their governments) can’t really do much about it. But he makes a distinction that, at first blush, seems like needless hair-splitting, but is actually quite clarifying. Extreme Islam (as a nativist phenomenon) must be separated from global jihadism, which represents Al Qaeda’s transnational use of violence to destroy and topple governments in Muslim and non-Muslim countries alike. The latter’s danger is obvious enough, particularly with the prospect of loose biological and nuclear material in the hands of bloodthirsty fanatics bent on mass destruction. He concludes, optimistically, that if Bin Laden’s ideology dies, and his cadres are shutdown, then the lesser threat posed by native Islamic extremism will die down on its own, as its political program will later prove itself inadequate to its current supporters and subjects. As he says – they [political Islamists] can’t meet the needs of people in the modern world, but we [free countries] can.
He’s probably right. But how long will that take? How long can we sit back, be patient, and watch it happen? How many innocent women, minorities, and non-Muslims must suffer in the process? And how will it change, exactly? Revolutions against authoritarian regimes are rarely smooth or peaceful, and the more authoritarian the regime, generally, the bloodier the conflict. These are not easy matters, but my reservations aside, I don’t see any realistic or alternative compelling vision to Zakaria’s insights.
I tried to put my own comments on the NW site, but you have to be a subscriber. I saved my comments and decided to post them here:
” Groups like the ones in Pakistan who attack others (non-Muslims) like the recent Sri Lankan cricket team, whether for religious or socio-political reasons, indeed ARE the same type of global jihadists we need to overcome! But merely implementing sharia-law in their own country, as disgusting as it is, itself is not enough to justify military action. And groups like the Taliban often use the same terrorist methods (i.e. suicide bombings, kidnappings and be-headings, attacks on foreigners, destroying buildings, etc.) as global jidhadists. The article doesn’t say we should do absolutely nothing about it. There are other, if “weaker,” ways we can help victims/refugees of extreme Islam in terms of said countries’ internal despotism. And even if we just do nothing more than wait for women and minorities to rise up against their oppressors, we must consider this as a triage situation, with Al Qaedism as the biggest pathology facing America and global stability.
Military action against outright aggression toward other nations is clearly justified internationally (hence the large support for Iraq War I). Genocide confined within a state’s own borders is a murkier area, but there is general recognition that such a phenomenon is severe enough to warrant armed action by foreign bodies if the population under attack is totally defenseless. But simply for bad regimes, theocratic authoritarianism, and lack of democracy alone, war is clearly not the right tool. War (as it is an invasion by an outside, occupying force) can even work against such humanitarian efforts (think Iraq II).
Still, when all is said and done, I don’t know if extreme Muslims, such as the Pakistani Taliban, can be trusted not to use WMD’s if they hold power in state governments. Is there not a close connection between their internal tyranny and their external violence/hegemony? This is especially true for those whose worldview does not recognize: the modern nation-state system, the UN and Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or the inherent right of non-Muslims to believe in/practice their religions, follow non-Arabic cultural practices, and implement religiously neutral governments (not to mention the inherent irrationality of those with fundamentalist-literalistic, supernatural, and apocalyptic beliefs).”
