I think political Islam is a necessary waystation on the road to a more liberal social structure there.  Those people are inherently conservative, inherently religious.  Luigi Vampa

Luigi!  When has religion -- and especially, that Old Time Religion -- ever led to a "liberal social structure"?

.  .  .  if we don't allow the PLO to "deliver" what the Palestinians clearly deserve, namely, a viable state  .  .  .  .  Bob Dreyfuss

I don't think the PLO could deliver a pizza. 

Seems to me the Arabs have had close to 1500 years to pass through "that stage of development."  But I suppose giving them another 1500 years to see if they can get it the next time isn't too much to ask.

To undertake, or support, political reform in another country, without undertaking economic development at the same time is simply creating the conditions for another version of the Weimar Republic. Ideology, nationalist or religious, may be what is most clearly manifested at the surface of things, but scratch that surface and you will see economic forces at work. Remember that it wasnt just Hitler the man that gained public support after the Great Depression struck Germany, his ideology did as well. Economic chaos creates a need in ordinary people for some form of ideological stability, for something that promises simple answers to problems they themselves feel too powerless to resist. In many ways, globalization is playing a similar role in under-developed muslim nations now that the Depression did in Europe in the 1930's.

Yet to support economic development in other nations is a tremendously challenging political problem for us, because our companies and economic interest groups generally benefit from the effects of globalization. It's not a case of straitforward imperialistic exploitation as the anti-globalist agitators would have you believe, but the simple fact is that the rise of small locallt-owned businesses in foreign countries compete for market share with our companies who export there. That is the whole crux of the "Clash of Civilizations". People with well-paying jobs and secure property rights do not need to join terrorist movements (or fascist ones either for that matter).

This creates a conundrum for us Americans. Are we willing to create our own competition? Do we have the political will to risk a repeat of what happened with Japan (we beat them in war, then they took the auto industry away from us). Are we willing to see "muslum owned companies" import products into the United States, taking at least some jobs away? If not, then the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood and "Political Islam" is probably inevitable. And when that happens, then the nationalization of those markets cannot be far behind. Or the militarization of those societies for violent struggle against us. Osama bin Laden is not the only political figure who explicity wants to start WWIII. The parallels to Weimar should be frightening.

We can invest in the economic future of underdeveloped countries at a short term loss in hope of a long term gain. Or we can try building dikes against history. Which way will we go?

Actually, there was a period between Rome and the Ottomans in which the Arabs had several great empires that were in many ways the peak of civilization at the time. The Ottomans also were not a terrible empire in their day--but one of the most progressive in existence until Europe (and its satellites) emerged from the dark ages.

We make a big deal about how backwards the Arab world is, but remember we had slavery in America just 150 years ago and my own grandmother had no more right to vote in this country when she was a young woman than she would have today in Saudi Arabia. As far as treatment of religious minorities, Europe has a pretty checkered history--certainly worse than that of the Islamic world--at least prior to the 1940s.

The real problem with the Middle East, in my opinion, has nothing to do with Islamic culture or religion--it's an economic problem. Once the world's economic powerhouse, the Middle East (like most regions of the world) was increasingly unable to compete once Europe became a mercantile and industrial power in the 1700s and 1800s.  The Middle East (according to some, at least) also suffered a decline in its agricultural output at the same time thanks to increasing dessication. Eventually it was colonized and exploited for oil, completely warping its indigenous economy. These factors left the Middle East--like so many other ex-colonies of Europe--in a deep economic hole out of which they are still struggling to climb. Compared with other post-colonial nations, those of the Middle East have done modestly--not as poorly as many nations in sub-Saharan Africa, but about equally to many Latin American and Asian nations.  

In a globe as small as it is how do we leave them alone?  They sell oil to Europe, Japan and America.  That alone gets them and us involved with each other.  

The presumption is there are elections in any Arab country the victors will be Islamic extremists.  This is not clear because secular opposition leaders have been supressed.  

Perhaps we can figure out how to treat the Middle East like we do Africa.  With enormous indifference.  One why to accomplish that goal would be for the developed world to stop using oil.  

Then the only question will be how the non-Arab Turks, Persians, Jews and Indians deal with their Arab neighbors and the reverse.

Lastly the key change in Europe was Martin Luther.  He, and the changes he spurred, broker the tolitarian grip of the Catholic Church on Europe.  Who is Islams Martin Luther?

Look at what's going on in China and India. These countries appear to know better than we do about what it takes to modernize their economies. After all, look at all the advice on privatization that we gave Russia on shock therapy, and it didn't work very well.

As with Japan years ago, these new emerging economies have managed impressive growth by providing the higest tech manufacturing that they can pull off, at the lowest prices, targeted at the export market.

We don't have to create our own competition; companies in China are to a great degree *partners* with us. The last two computer companies I worked for use offshore manufacturing companies in China to build computer systems.

What these countries need is an open enough market here that we can work together on these partnerships.

But it takes more than an open market here, it requires an educated workforce on the other side of the ocean. That's obviously happened with India and China. With Iraq, or really most of the Middle East, governments are more use to "free money" flowing in from oil revenues, and so haven't developed the talents of their work force. As a matter of fact, places like Kuwait *import* workers so that their citizens don't have to do anything.

In other words, we can provide the open market, but that's at best half the story. But we're clearly willing to do it, and frankly, the threat to the US job market from the Middle East is trivial as compared with the threat from 1.1 billion Indians and 1.5 billion Chinese.

I wouldn't worry about making sure this economy is open enough. I'd worry about figuring out how to get people in the Middle East to manufacture something someone else wants.

Lastly the key change in Europe was Martin Luther.  He, and the changes he spurred, broker the tolitarian grip of the Catholic Church on Europe.  Who is Islams Martin Luther?

The Islamic world doesn't need a Martin Luther - it needs a John Locke.   It doesn't need a Reformation - it needs an Enlightenment.

One of the great misconceptions of European history is how the Reformation led to religious toleration.  In many ways, early Protestant Christianity had much in common with Wahhabism - it was a puritanical movement which rejected the corruption of the established Church.  Religious freedom didn't exactly spring forth once Luther appeared.  Rather, a century of violent, sectarian warfare that ravaged the continent was the immediate result.  It was only after both sides had exhausted themselves that ideas began to percolate regarding the need to seperate religion and government.

What is needed is for Islamic thinkers viewing the carnage that militant Islam has caused to develop the insight that the struggle over the proper meaning of Islam has to be taken out of the realm of government, force and party politics and waged in a non-violent fashion, in the private and civic arena.

 

In many ways, early Protestant Christianity had much in common with Wahhabism - it was a puritanical movement which rejected the corruption of the established Church. 

And of course, Martin Luther, in common with many of the extremist Imams was a raving anti-Semite.

I'm by no means advocating leaving the Middle East alone. All I'm saying is we shouldn't meddle too much in deciding who will govern Middle Eastern countries--we should leave that up to the people in those countries. This is not to say we can't provide support and aid to popular political movements if their interests and ours correspond. But I think we run into danger whenever we try to stop a popular political movement to support an unpopular government that we like.

As popular governments emerge, we should then formulate our policy toward them based on the following factors:

Are they friendly to us--i.e., not fighting against us or our allies or supporting our enemies?

Are they open to us--i.e., willing to trade with us and to allow relatively free exchanges of ideas and people?

Do they have a tolerable (even if not perfect) human rights record? I don't think we should be overly judgmental here, but we shouldn't be too friendly with, for instance, genocidal regimes.

We should use mostly carrots to move countries into our sphere of friends. Sticks should be reserved only for extreme problems, because they tend only to build hatred and resistance.

I disagree that we are creating more terrorists than we kill.  For one, the reformation of the Middle East will essentially marginalize the areas where terrorists may form and train.  Admittedly there is little we can do to deter the actual recruitment of possible fundamentalists, but it will become easier to decipher where they are training. 

 The dice that Bush rolled with Chalabi was most likely just that--a gamble.  That it failed is not particularly surprising.  The administration knew at the outset of the war that the odds were that the new Iraq would be led by moderate shiites.  Chalabi was a "flash in the pan" that offered at least a small chance of winning the minds of Iraq's secular population.  As long as Bush works with Ali Al-Sistani, I don't see anything radically going wrong.  Sistani is against terrorism, and has, in fact, renounced the phony jihad being waged by the extremists. 

 As for Iran and Syria, Bush will not pursue regime change.  Rather, he will most likely try and impose a blanket effect which will castrate the powers of Assad and Ahmadinejad.  At this point it appears as if doing so under the auspices of the United Nations might actually work.  Britain and France are even tiring of the rhetoric coming out of Tehran.  Bottom line: there will be no war in either country.

In common with much of the Europe of his time.  It was not until Luther and the reading of the Bible by average Europeans that they  realized that Jesus and his followers were all Jews.

Well--I meant the question rhetorically! Of course I don't think political Islam is good for the United States. And it is terrible for the people who have to live with it. Still, there is a big difference between "Islam" and "political Islam," just as there is a difference between "Christian" and "the Christian right."

Islamism - what you're calling "political islam"- does have many parallels to the official cultural ideology of the Bush administration:
1. They hate liberals and religious moderates.2. True power comes from God backed with a gun, and nukes if they can get them.3. They are obsessed with controlling sexual behavior.4. They detest compromise.5. They term the conflict a "clash of civilizations," or use similarly apocalyptic language, ie. "jihad" for "crusade."6.  They are contemptuous of reason, but masters at modern communications technology.7.  Their most prominent leader is a tight-assed religious fanatic from a fabulously wealthy and influential family.8. They have no respect for democratic process: Power is force, period.
Now, if those are your values and mindset, and you think those are genuine American values, then in a very real sense, the spread of Islamism is in America's interest. I'm only half-joking.
I also think that we who cherish reality tend to underestimate the Rapture gang and their influence. I remind you: Jerry Boykin was never fired or pushed aside. He was just told to keep his trap shut. 
Sparking a holy war, which the Bush administration seems to be hellbent on doing, is necessary to get Christ down off his heavenly throne and kick off the Second Coming. 

Deaths in the West (on Western soil) from Islamic terrorism probably amount to 5,000 or so over the past decade.




That is, I believe, a pretty myopic way of looking at it. The issue is not what has happened so far, it's what the potential for catastrophe is in the future. There haven't been that many deaths from natural disasters in the West either. Does that mean we should just ignore the risks? Of course not.

I don't think we should ignore the risks, but I also don't think we should exaggerate them. Most problematic in my opinion is that the exaggeration of the risk of terrorism has caused us to significantly back pedal on civil liberties, expand our use of extrajudicial detentions and interrogations, and embroil ourselves in a highly costly war in Iraq. It also has caused us to under-invest in other threats (like hurricanes, for instance, or various health and environmental threats). I think there's a lot of hysteria involved in discussions of the threat from Islamism. And I think that's bad for the country in the long term. It warps our priorities.

This is not to say that we should completely ignore Islamic terror or dismiss it as not a threat at all. That's absurd too--there is some threat there. But we should simply keep it in perspective.  

Well--I meant the question rhetorically! Of course I don't think political Islam is good for the United States. And it is terrible for the people who have to live with it. Still, there is a big difference between "Islam" and "political Islam," just as there is a difference between "Christian" and "the Christian right."




No they are completely different. In its many manifestations, Christianity runs the gamut from liberal to conservative. There are versions of Christianity that are institutionally moderate, such as the mainline Protestant denominations and, in some ways, the Catholic church. Most importantly, nowhere in the Christian world are there voices calling for the slaughter of Muslims. President Bush, everyone's caricature of an intolerant Christian fanatic, goes out of his way to talk about Islam as a "Religion of Peace".




The contrast with Islam is stark. As many others have noted, there is no such thing as an official "moderate Islam". There are moderate Muslims to be sure. But institutionally, Islamic authorities are conservative and generally hostile to other religions. Almost any ecumenical dialogue between Christians and Muslims or between Jews and Muslims comes at the behest of the non-Muslim party. In England you have the Anglican clergy actually apologizing to the Muslim community for the Iraq War. Has anything even remotely like an apology ever been uttered by any Muslim anywhere for suicide bombings? On the contrary, they usually talk about how its everyone else's fault.




I would even go further. The central message of Christianity is one of peace and love and spititual salvation through faith. Now as a Jew, I am well aware of how seldom this message has been followed over the last 2,000 years. Nonetheless, it is possible to argue that Christianity now is closer to its founding tenets than it has been since the time of Jesus. By contrast, the message of Islam is one of submission. Muslims should submit to God and non-Muslim should submit to Muslims. Islam at its very core sees itself as in conflict with other religions, superior to them and deserving to rule them. In that sense, Islam is intrinsically political and so the difference between Islam and "political" Islam is not that great.




The real distinction is between "pragmatic" Islam and "fundamentalist" Islam. There are plenty of Muslims who are willing to be peaceful and get on with people from other faiths. This is in contrast to those who seek out conflict. But this shouldn't be confused with "moderation" or tolerance. As the bombings in Amman recently pointed out, many Muslims, even those who are peaceful, have the most appallingly ambivalent attitudes towards terrorism, as long as that terrorism is being committed against Christians or (especially) Jews. Can we really call these people moderate, even if they themselves are not likely to take up arms?