Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
How Can a President Tell the Truth About Radical Islam?
From a weekly column by Rev. George Rutler:
Exactly 229 years ago this month, when the Barbary pirates were menacing ships of the newborn United States off the coasts of Tunis and Algiers, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams met in London with a Muslim diplomat representing the Bey of Algiers to inquire why his religion made his people so hostile to a new country that posed them no threat. They reported to Congress through a letter to John Jay, then Secretary of Foreign Affairs, the ambassador’s explanation that:
“Islam was founded on the Laws of their prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to paradise.”
….[I]f God is pure will without reason, whose mercy is gratuitous and has nothing to do with any sort of moral covenant with the human race, then irrational force in his name is licit, and conscience has no role in faith. This is not the eccentric interpretation of extremists; it is the logical conclusion of the assertions in the Koran itself.
May we grant that Fr. Rutler is onto something here, namely that: a) “Irrational force,” as he calls it, is indeed consonant with the underlying Islamic worldview; and that, b) Muslims have been visiting violence upon the West for a very long time, as demonstrated by the depredations of the Barbary pirates (not to mention the conquest of Byzantium and Spain and the various attempts to invade Europe proper).
Grant all that, and you still end up with a difficult question about just what American diplomats and high officials — above all, of course, the president — should say. How is President Obama — how is his successor — to tell the truth about radical Islam without inciting civilizational anger on the part of the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims? How?
Image Credit: “EnterpriseTripoli” by William Bainbridge Hoff (died 1903) – http://www.archives.gov/research/military/navy-ships/sailing-ships.html. Licensed under Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons.
Published in General
Tommy,
I stand corrected on the full definition of Fascism. However, this actually tends to prove my point. This is a piece of European secular political ideology. Again you are not realizing that this must be translated to 1.5 billion Muslims who by and large are not European and not as highly immersed in secular politics as the West. It doesn’t narrowly identify the Jihadist element. When we say Islamofascist we know what we are talking about but it doesn’t make that much sense to them. As the Nazi’s were the much more prominent version of Fascism it may even be confusing to us. We must look backwards to a past that we should remember but may not always be as aware as we should. Meanwhile, everyday a new act of Jihadism takes place in the world. If you are looking for Jihadists you won’t need to wait to ask whether the current Secretary of State considers them an Islamofascist group or not. It will be self evident because the Jihadists will come right out and tell you that they are Jihadists.
Regards,
Jim
This is not so. Anyone who has the means, motive and opportunity to do you harm must be dealt with – whether you want their oil or not.
You are spot on. We are unable to formulate a coherent policy because we assume that it is about us, about how we are perceived which perception is our fault etc. instead of a clear understanding of goals and purposes.
I think there can be no clarity in our foreign policy until there is some clarity about who we are and what we expect other nations by way of acknowledging rightful interests that arise from that identity.
I am sick to death of CAIR, Obama et al. lecturing me about accommodating the sensibilities of people who appear to hate me. I should expect declarations from them: Do they accept the notion that it is NEVER acceptable to impose or proscribe religious beliefs by force? If so, know that we will respect them and theirs and always befriend those who are of similar mind.
However, if someone can’t expressly affirm that core principle, we gotta problem. We may coexist but we are not friends. We need to make the whole world choose. Draw a line. Let good-hearted Muslims do whatever they have to do theologically but there needs to be a driving, global compulsion towards that choice rather than vague opinions about whether America is or is not too involved, too weak or too strong, justly motivated or not. It’s not about us. It is about the principles that define (or are supposed to define) who we are. Clarity is our friend.
No one can be a bona fide American citizen without sharing that express belief about religious tolerance.
I thing as Americans we need to make a demand about affirmations of our core
“Jihad” is indeed the term used by European muslims who go to Syria to fight. It does, however, have broader legitimate meanings, so Jihadist is not accurate.
Fascism is not accurate at all, of course, for reasons given elsewhere.
In fact, defending our liberties requires us to invoke OUR faith: if you do not believe that mankind is inherently valuable (in the image of G-d, etc.), then there is no reason that people cannot be slaughtered like animals.
Islam is a problem for us when it attacks liberties. In the stronger death-cult forms Islam is most evil, but even run-of-the-mill oppression is a problem. Indeed, while very few muslims will actually strap on a bomb, the vast majority are not in favor of Western liberties like a free press or freedom of religion.
So I might try something more like:
This covers Democrats. I’m with you in spirit but it’s too broad. We need to confront the acute problem of Islamofascists.
To start from the bottom, neo-Nazi’s aren’t much of a problem because they’re largely losers or criminals romanticizing a philosophy that lost big-time, and is now universally reviled. A tough sell for the marketing department, and I think that has more to do with it than a march in Skokie.
A better comparison would be to the Socialists, I think. Nazis never really got a foothold in the US, but the Socialists sure did. For a while we attempted to fight them, then gave up, and now they’re quite literally running the show. The argument that we should give them the free run of the place was their agitprop, and it was very successful.
There’s one other principle that you didn’t mention: it’s that Americans value our freedom, and are willing to fight for it.
Giving people the freedom to take your freedom away is not an American principle.
But in effect you are being crass about it, because most of the Islamic world isn’t a war zone. The strategies you’d apply in a war zone are obviously different than those you’d apply in a majority-Muslim country (or a minority-Muslim one) that is not a war zone. The goal, obviously, is to ensure that the parts of that world that aren’t a war zone stay that way, and ideally, that they pitch in to the best of their limited abilities to help us win the actual wars in the real war zones–while firmly discouraging their local psychopaths from rushing off to fight on the enemy’s side in the literal war zones.
For that, we want and need help from their governments and their security services–and we want to make sure those governments and security services stay on our side and behave in such a way as to make it less likely the population will generally loathe them, and by extension, us–especially because if it reaches a point such that they seek to overthrow them–which as we surely now know is a possibility–it can lead to total state failure. This is what Islamic fundamentalists consider a “rolled-out welcome mat.”
The Nazis aspired to create a thousand-year Reich, and failed. Fundamental Islamists succeeded.
Nazis are a spent and feeble force now. Fundamental Islamists are strong and growing, and control or are free to operate over considerable swaths of land.
The Nazis had a fairly small base from which to recruit, and, since they only had earthly rewards to offer, had a smaller appeal. Fundamental Muslims have a base of hundreds of millions of well-schooled candidates, and offer Paradise.
It’s perfectly reasonable to be more worried about the Islamists, they’ve been far more successful than the Nazis were.
You mean “dealt with” as in “make deals with?” Because we have definitely been doing that and, as far as I can tell, thereby providing the means and thus the opportunity and at least part of the motivation for the problem we are struggling to name let alone fix.
No, according to them, it’s the rest of the world that’s the war zone. ;)
But to your point:
“8 Out of 10 Most Dangerous Countries in the World are Muslim“
Tom Meyer: #1 “The problem isn’t precisely Islam itself — there are benign forms of it — but that type of Islam that sees a moral duty in preying on the United States, its citizens, and its allies.”
There may be benign Muslims but so far it appears that Muslims of competing strands of Islam will unite to fight against others outside of Islam. I don’t believe that there are any benign forms of Islam.
Ah, but that’s the dilemma, isn’t it?
When it comes to Islam, what you’re suggesting is that we have to make a special effort to persuade muslims to act like civilized men. All we’re asking them to do is to stop protecting, and encouraging, terrorists. If they’re civilized, why do we have to persuade them?
Instead, what we find are polls that suggest that when bad things happen to Americans, muslim majorities celebrate it. Or when Charlie Hebdo says something against Mohammed, significant numbers of muslims agree that it’s OK to kill the staff of Charlie Hebdo.
That’s the equation that we have to address. That won’t be changed by presenting Americans in a more sympathetic light. That’s a cultural belief that has little to do with Americans. There are other cultural conflicts as well.
What I dislike is that, given such a conflict, Americans are the ones expected to reform and change and keep an open mind, etc. Nothing is expected or demanded in return; we merely hope that we can persuade them to act civilized.
Of course not. I meant it in the English sense.
Well, the Assassins have mellowed out and are now quite a pleasant bunch of people.
You can learn more about them here:
New Target for Pakistan’s militants
The Aga Khan, there leader, lives in Switzerland. Nice, safe place…
And the majority of the world’s Muslims are not in those countries.
Pakistan: Pop. 174 million
Sudan: Pop. 38 million (give or take)
Lebanon (by no means all Muslim, by the way: Pop. 3 million
Syria (soon to be all Muslim, and population decreasing): Pop. 20 million
Yemen: Pop: 23 million
Uzbekistan: Pop: 26 million
Iran: 74 million
Algeria: Pop. 34 million
Total: 358 million.
Say the estimates are ballpark accurate: 1.57 billion self-identified Muslims in the world.
Looks like 1.21 billion Muslims in countries that aren’t on that list to me. Give or take a few hundred million, because these figures just aren’t so reliable. (If you start looking at the way population statistics are gathered, you’ll realize quickly that this is not as rigorous a business as you’ve been told.)
Now, you’re telling me that you don’t see much of a difference between a “war zone” comprised of 358 million people and one of 1.57 billion people.
I get it that this is how we now think about our national debt–what’s a few more zeros, after all–but I just don’t see how we improve things but extending that idea to our national security.
And of course, a more rigorous definition of “dangerous” might help. There’s “dangerous for tourists who are reading Travel & Leisure and trying to decide where to find the best deals on hotels with a really unque infinity pool and a light-filled spa with elaborate latticework,” “dangerous for the people who live there,” and “dangerous to Americans.” As “dangerous to Americans” go, I’d focus on countries with nuclear weapons and ICBMs, particularly if they’re under the control of regimes that get excitable when they talk about turning the US into a lake of fire, myself. Particularly if they’re under the control of regimes that might not have such good control over their own populations–because you never know what might happen if things really fall apart in places like that. But you know me. The practical one.
I don’t think what we “like” or “don’t like” has much to do with things here. If the plan is to head out there and have a stern talk with the world about how things should be more fair, well, let’s just say that if you were my oncologist, I’d find this an unreassuring treatment plan. Life’s not fair.
Claire, that would be a good point to make if I’d claimed that was a complete list of all the Muslim countries that were at war internally or externally. It’s not.
It’s just an observation… So your point that most Muslims aren’t on that list is besides the point. I’m sure it would be easy enough to make that list bigger…
The same way GWB did…which is what Obama is doing. Verbatim, following GWB’s approach.
People forget (or don’t know) one important thing about the Barbary Wars etc:
The majority of the people fighting on the US side were…Muslims.
The US expedition was led by a handful of US soldiers, and a large group of mercenaries hired in the region, who were Muslim berbers mostly.
The intent of the expedition was to overthrow the current ruler of the Barbary state, and replace him with…another Muslim ruler with whom the US had made agreements (I think it was the ruler’s brother, but I can’t recall exactly).
So this was not a “West vs. East” or “Christianity vs Islam” and whatever sort of modern nonsense we attribute to it.
1) The Barbary pirates weren’t “Muslim extremists”. They were pirates, practicing a trade which was common at the time. They pillaged Muslims just as they pillaged others.
2) We mainly fought alongside other Muslims, to install another Muslim leader, for our economic interests.
No, my point is the one I made above. That you can surely find many examples of Muslims with whom we cannot do business. But you can also find many examples–more, I’d say–of Muslims with whom we can–and ones who, I suspect, would be entirely willing to do business with us–if we put a bit of work into thinking about them as a bit more complex than “a massive, ravening Muslim horde.”
If you’re proposing to fight a global war (with a population of 318-odd million people, the majority of whom want nothing to do with war of any kind and wouldn’t have the first clue which end of an XM2010 Enhanced Sniper Rifle to shoot from); military assets of roughly this size; and a combined total public debt of $18.15 trillion–or about 103% of Q4 2014 GDP–it really doesn’t make sense to make your life so much more difficult than it needs to be. In fact, that’s traditionally how you lose a war.
Good Lord. I post this, do my morning’s work, return–and see almost 80 replies, including, to my immense relief and admiration, quite a string from the inimitable Claire, who is making just the arguments I’d have made (but making them better).
If I may, an effort to sum up the discussion to date–while restating my original question:
With a view to summoning this nation to the intense and prolonged effort to fight the war where it must be fought, while at the same time keeping the peace with the roughly 1.2 billion Muslims, give or take one or two hundred million, who are not at war with us, what should this president–what should any president–say?
Claire, this repays discussion.
Life isn’t fair. That’s right. But if that’s going to be an axiom of the analysis, then let’s understand that the lack of fairness goes both ways.
It isn’t a question of the unfairness of the diplomatic burden. It’s a question of honest evaluation. Neither Bush’s approach nor Obama’s approach has worked. It’s time to re-evaluate the assumption that a light footprint really works. We aren’t required to proceed with a “light footprint” and diplomatic restraint. I’d say that the cost of the last ten years, trillion dollars, and thousands of American lives hasn’t produced sufficient results.
Neither ISIS nor Iran are open to persuasion, and there’s no chance that anyone else in the region is likely to change that. Persuasion won’t work.
Ok, not only that but that’s probably the single dumbest travel article ever written.
Georgia, Uzbekistan and Algeria are dangerous places to visit? Wow.
I’d be more worried about getting kidnapped and having my kidneys removed in Venezuela, or Ecuador, than about “car bombings” in Algeria.
I’d certainly not be worried about anything of the sort happening in Iran (which has over 3 million tourists a year). Of course, maybe not if you’re American. But otherwise, dangerous?
Clearly the author has never gotten out of his/her house.
Okay, this is how it looks to me (perhaps wrongly, you tell me):
I’ve only been to one of the countries listed – Uzbekistan – and while it’s a police state and some parts of the country are dangerous, I can vouch that a lot of it is pretty safe. (Or was, three years ago.)
It’s always worth digging a little into these kind of claims – how many tourists per annum, for example – or better yet, talking to people who’ve gone.
It defined Bush’s statements.
Obama, well, let’s just say that if he was actively trying to undermine the United States and our allies, it would be tough to distinguish those actions from what he’s doing now.
Ask the Syrian moderates, or the Kurdistani moderates, how helpful Obama’s been.
I think Bush had it right. See his 2006 speech on Islam and Terrorism.
Wait, he never mentions Islam. But he does say this:
Pick a side. He said something like that, too…
Right, because the one thing Bush left undone was assuring Iran that they’d get the bomb. And assuring al Qaeda that there’d be no boots on the ground.
Who proposed fighting a global war?
Seeing people for who they are is a far different thing from “proposing a global war”…
Although, to answer the question above, the answer would, of course, be “the Muslims”. Did you miss this part of Peter’s post?
“…that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found…”
Or perhaps you’re not familiar with this:
“Views of al Qaeda are complex. Majorities agree with nearly all of al Qaeda’s goals to change US behavior in the Muslim world, to promote Islamist governance, and to preserve and affirm Islamic identity. However, consistent with the general rejection of attacks on civilians, only minorities say they approve of al Qaeda’s attacks on Americans as well as its goals, suggesting that many may feel ambivalence. Consistent with this possible ambivalence, views of Osama bin Laden are mixed. The tension between support for al Qaeda’s goals and discomfort with attacks on civilians may contribute to the widespread denial that al Qaeda was behind the 9/11 attacks (something that increasing numbers see as having been negative for the Muslim world)”
“Public Opinion in the Islamic World on Terrorism, al Qaeda, and US Policies”
One of President Clinton’s biggest mistakes was not taking al Qaeda at their word when they declared war on the West, and then commenced killing people.
Must we continue with that course?
Right, because that’s exactly what Obama is doing.
Thinking rationally like you just did here, doesn’t make for good bombastic headlines at Drudge or Breitbart or Newsmax.
The world is falling apart and Muslims are about to para-drop on a Colorado HS where Patrick Swayze goes to school, on the other hand, does.
You’re assuming that people are interested in what is the rational best choice for the US. For a lot of people, that’s not the issue. It’s about winning the next election by exciting the “base”.