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.
Our Military Won’t Defeat Islamism
Does anyone think that Donald Trump’s military plans for Afghanistan and Iraq are going to make a significant difference regarding Islamist violence? Do you believe that “destroying ISIS” will have any significant impact on terrorism in the long term?
I don’t. And I’m concerned that we are deluding ourselves by pursuing these military strategies as a major goal. So what should we do?
We must take a more aggressive approach to defeating political Islam. Let me explain my thinking.
Recently M. Zuhdi Jasser, a Muslim and former Lt. Commander in the US Navy, who has been attacking radical Islam for years, wrote an essay including this comment:
It is vital that we pay close and vigilant attention to ISIS: its plans, its whereabouts, and its public statements. We must also pursue it, relentlessly and until it is decimated. Sadly, this is the same tail we chase with the rise of each radical Islamist terror group in what has become a global whack-a-mole program. As we were on the verge of decimating al-Qaeda, the violent jihadist brand shifted to ISIS. Without treating the real root cause of theocratic Islamism, any chance of decimating ISIS will disappear as the global terror movement shifts to the latest “brand” of violent jihad.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali shares similar views on political Islam in her book, The Challenge of Dawa, for which anonymous wrote a fine review. In her book she writes:
President Trump now has the chance to broaden our strategy. Instead of “combating violent extremism,” his administration needs to redefine the threat posed by political Islam by recognizing it as an ideology that is fundamentally incompatible with our freedoms and a movement that is working insidiously but effectively to achieve its stated utopia. I argue that the American public urgently needs to be educated about both the ideology of political Islam and the organizational infrastructure called dawa that Islamists use to inspire, indoctrinate, recruit, finance, and mobilize those Muslims whom they win over to their cause.
She added the following point:
The administration should acknowledge that combating political Islam by military means alone is not working.
How do we go after political Islam? We must go after all forms of political Islam, whether or not they are violent, and do everything we can to prevent the distribution of this virulent, hateful and destructive ideology that plans to dominate the world.
The biggest culprit in the distribution of this hatred: Saudi Arabia. How did the Saudi regime, one of the most decadent and biggest violators of Islamist tenets, become the primary purveyors of Islam?
In 1964, King Faisal decided to collaborate with the Wahhabis and in spite of his modern ideas, funded the spread of Wahhabism all over the world. From that time forward, Saudi Arabia spent billions:
Over the next four decades, in non-Muslim-majority countries alone, Saudi Arabia would build 1,359 mosques, 210 Islamic centers, 202 colleges and 2,000 schools. Saudi money helped finance 16 American mosques; four in Canada; and others in London, Madrid, Brussels and Geneva, according to a report in an official Saudi weekly, Ain al-Yaqeen.
There are a number of problems we face in tackling political Islam, mostly our own political agenda. We don’t want to damage our relationship with Saudi Arabia; after all, they have also helped us to fight terrorism. We are “encouraging” Pakistan to more aggressively attack terrorist groups and refuse to give them safe haven, yet Pakistan has also received significant funds from Saudi Arabia to support Wahhabi education. The Philippines, Malaysia, Thailand, India and parts of Africa are funded by the Wahhabis.
There are other ways to stop the incursion of political Islam:
A new bill introduced by Rep. Dave Brat (R-Va.) aims to take a step toward fixing a monumental imbalance. Brat’s proposed bill, H.R. 5824, the ‘Religious Freedom International Reciprocity Enhancement Act’ makes it unlawful for ‘foreign nationals of a country that limits the free exercise of religion in that country to make any expenditure in the United States to promote a religion in the United States, and for other purposes.’
To ‘promote a religion’ includes funding ‘religious services, religious education, evangelical outreach, and publication and dissemination of religious literature.’ Should funding proceed anyway in defiance of this bill, the U.S. government can seize the monies.
It was noted that the bill still needed work. And it’s no surprise: the bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations in August 2016 and is still there. Whether this bill has a chance of being passed in any form is debatable.
So what else can we do? Ayaan Hirsi Ali makes several recommendations in her book. Some of her most challenging ideas include identifying genuine moderate Muslim communities who have no relationship or history with extreme groups (which eliminates several popular organizations); prohibiting government agencies from working with non-violent Islamist groups such as ISNA and the Muslim Student Affairs Association; screening immigrants for beliefs in Islamist ideologies; screening and rejecting prison chaplains with Islamist views; conducting surveillance of Islamic centers and mosques suspected of association with Islamist groups; revoking tax exempt status for Islamist organizations.
We may always need to fight political Islam; it is an insidious virus that may not have a permanent cure. But once we free ourselves of our fear of being accused of Islamaphobia or being pre-occupied with the reactions of other foreign governments to our actions, we may finally be in the business of providing effective national security for our country.
What other suggestions do you have for fighting political Islam at its roots?
Published in Islamist Terrorism
Henry:
. . . and the Sunnis and Shia both reject them.
Both of you are right. But not only do the Sunnis and Shia reject them, the Sufi and Achmadaya are deemed Apostate, and as such subject to the penalty of death.
Islam does not kid around if you haven’t noticed. Oh, btw, the Sunnis think the Shia are apostate too, and also subject to the penalty of death. One big happy family. That is also another reason why Iran must be bought to heel, because another ISIS will always spring up to counter Iran’s nukes, which probably are miniaturized sufficiently to be put on missiles by now (with NORK help) , and a enormous and imminent threat to peace in the mideast.
This is the conundrum. Either it’s our responsibility to “motivate the long march through institutions (that) results in deep structural change in a society’s architecture of power wrt the state, the individual and organised religion” or our intervention only feeds the disfunction. You can’t have it both ways.
This is a variation of what Robert Pastor called “the whirlpool effect” (granted, he was concerned mostly with US-Latin American relations). We get sucked into the politics of other countries and regions by our interest in fighting extremism and other transnational problems that affect us and our allies. Our intervention only feeds extremism from below and complacency and dependency from above. Middle Eastern states can’t handle terrorism without our help, but accepting our help delegitimizes these states and makes it harder for them to change the conditions and ideologies that are the source of the extremism. This leaves the US as the eternal fall guy for countries that can’t deal with their own problems.
Fine, there’s little the Great Satan can do about that, but we can seek our own interests. I say we can’t wait for Middle Eastern countries to rebuild their societal architecture, and we obviously can’t do it ourself. Our polity is so divided that consistency is a luxury we can’t afford. Whatever grand plan is thought up and initiated by a president of one party will be summarily discarded by the next president from the other party. The only viable option left to us is to seek US interest in the short term by working with the forces of stability (Mubarak, Al Sisi, et al) while maintaining a military presence in every region to make sure they all know we’re watching and we’re ready, willing, and able to project power in the interest of imposing stability.
Wow, Susan, that’s a rather indelicate analogy, but, let’s go with it for the moment. The difference is, the Church founded by Christ never had as a central tenet to kill the apostates and heretics (which isn’t to say that no apostates and heretics were killed) based on holy scripture or its authoritative Magisterium. The scriptural teaching within Islam (and lack of a Magisterium) makes a similar “reformation” a lot less attractive to any of the more liberal-minded Muslims, and, therefore practically inconceivable. The atheist apostate Hirsi Ali calls for reform while under 24-hour bodyguard. How many like her can be sustained?
Our government was instituted to protect our civil liberties, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (or, freedom of conscience). As such, it seems to me it is incumbent on our government to guard against ideologies which are inimical to those things.
Practically speaking, and in reference to the aforementioned capital punishment for apostasy, I would like to see us become a safe-haven for Muslims who would renounce their faith, and, um, less hospitable to those who wish to practice it. People will scream “First Amendment, First Amendment!” But, freedom of religion is not a suicide pact. We have placed “conscience” restrictions on various groups in the past — Mr. C’s family’s immigration papers included nearly two pages of promises not to practice polygamy, for example.
Which means, yes, I would like to see an immigration policy severely restricting “faithful” Muslims. I want more Ayaan Hirsi Alis and fewer like that couple from San Bernardino. A lot fewer. Basically, none. If your wife wears a veil, you’re uninvited.
I know @zafar would place the blame for radicalization on the West’s political meddling, but I think he is too dismissive of people’s moral agency. Most of the people who suffer from the Islamic toxin are themselves Muslim. When will we require them to grow up and explain themselves?
As for Muslims outside our country? We (and Europe) suffered far fewer terrorist attacks when we fought them over there. Obama squandered our security gains with a precipitous withdrawal. I’m not sure what we should do now, but I’d trust General Mattis to do what’s best for the homeland and for the troops. He loves both.
If I offended, WC, I apologize. There are other major differences between the two religions. But since I can’t argue knowledgeably on Christianity, I’ll let my apology stand.
I think that renouncing one’s faith is different from agreeing to forego certain practices. But then you say we would be less hospitable to those who wish to practice Islam; I assume you mean that they wouldn’t be admitted. I have no problem with denying them admission if they don’t renounce terrorism, but renouncing one’s faith is something else. But then again, if they are terrorists (and even have no former ties to terrorism), they might very well just lie. It’s a dilemma.
I
I read half of the book, They told me to come alone, about a Muslim journalist interviewing terrorist groups. I cannot speak for Zafar but I assumed that nobody that the journalist interviewed was honest. Almost everyone she interviewed said that they were victims of the West and exaggerated or outright made up the bad things that the West and the Jews did to them. My thinking is that Islamists will talk like victims until they can win and then they will boast of their conquest. That impulse didn’t come from the West’s meddling. It is a normal human impulse given sanction by mainstream Islam.
I remember half a decade ago I was talking to my Professor.
Henry: Professor. I notice that Christians feel bad about the Crusades but the Crusades were a response to Muslims taking over Christian lands. Why don’t Muslims feel bad about conquering the Christian lands like Christians feel bad for the Crusades and the inquisition and such.
Professor: I cannot answer your question because I have the same question.
After much contemplation, I think I figured it out. The West is unique in its capacity for guilt. Most conquerors are fine with conquering.
According to the Anti-Defamation League’s 2014 data, 48% of Indonesians harbor anti-semitic views. Malaysia is even worse at 61%.
Excellent, Susan.
I would have added the word “Alone”, i.e., “Our Military Alone Won’t Defeat Islamism”.
Have you considered the connections between Pakistan and Islamism and the connections between Pakistan and China?
I just see China as the one playing a strategic game and Islamism while certainly being a problem being a diversion from the strategic game being played.
All of the rah-rah over General Mattis saying “Hold that Line” is telling. Contrast that with Regan’s “We win. They lose.” Sad state of the so-called “conservative movement.”
To be fair, he was talking to a force that has been severely reduced in offensive power by the last 8 years of Obama’s policies and draw downs. It’s not realistic to expect them to go on the offensive and win anything.
The West generally has decided not to win. Wouldn’t be prudent… er, somethin’.
This is what Islam has in common with the Left: victim mongering for the purpose of acquiring power. Self-pity and blame-shifting, in addition to being bad for one’s society, is soul-killing. Dante’s Inferno envisions Satan trapped in the ice of his own tears.
The Islamic world will never improve until it quits with the pity-party. The only thing we can do from the outside is to stop the damn apologizing for the actions engendered by their ideology (not just the terrorism, but the treatment of their own women and minorities), and continually ask them to explain themselves. Trump’s speech to the Arabs was as close as anyone from the West has come to doing this.
Sorry. I must be missing the connection. Could you elaborate, HO?
And we don’t help in this issue, either. They’ve got to stop acting like we’re the bad guys and take responsibility. And I don’t see that happening.
That’s not necessary. I don’t offend easily, it’s just a poor analogy for the reasons stated, among others. No worries.
It’s not a dilemma if there’s a blanket ban. Again, it is our government’s job to secure our liberties, not to risk them on securing those liberties for people who might oppose them now or in the future based on their toxic religion (show me a healthy Muslim-majority society with respect for the equality of women and minorities before the law…). For what purpose would we take such a risk? What is the constitutional rationale, let alone the moral one? If we keep up this self-congratulatory idea that “we’re better than that” we’ll end up like the Europeans — suicidal-by-jihad.
Not only ignored, but marginalized and ridiculed. They treat the islamic reformers like anyone whom they view as a natural member of their coalition, but is non-conformist. Ayaan Hirsi Ali springs to mind, she lives under constant threat from islamic thugs, and harassment from progressive morons.
@westernchauvinist – I agree with you about moral agency. Nobody forced Mubarak or Sisi (or the Sauds, or….) to become deceitful or corrupt – they are responsible for that themselves. By the same token nobody forced the West to empower these individuals/groups by selecting them as allies. That was also a choice, made with some moral agency.
Two things to keep in mind:
Who the West selects as an ally in societies like this is immensely influential on who rules that society.
It is worth asking why the only people in such societies who – let’s put a practical cast on it – are willing to prosecute an agenda acceptable to the West are corrupt and deceitful. Is everybody else just opposed to democracy and human rights, or does the agenda contain things that patriots find difficult to accept for their societies and nations?
I think you are posing a false dichotomy here. Just because they are corrupt doesn’t mean their political opponents are not more corrupt.
If they were more corrupt surely we could corrupt and co-opt them. It would be easier.
Islamists are probably much less corrupt than the Mubarak type leaders. Islamists are probably less corrupt because they actually believe stuff. But they are still much more evil than the alternative. As C.S. Lewis put it.
That being said, I don’t think that the West chose to support Mubarak out of the decency of their hearts. But to me, the Arab Spring showed that there isn’t much liberalism (of the noble and classical variety) in the Muslim world.
I find that really surprising.
I can understand your believing that their opinions were wrong, or misinformed, but why assume that everybody (everybody) who she interviewed was lying about their motivations?
Why do you think that is? Has it always been that way?
Take Iran as an example.
After WWII there were many political opinions in Iran – including Centre Leftists like Mossadegh, far leftists like Tudeh, Hezbollahis (yes, they invented the word), you name it.
After decades of the Shah, the only ones left standing were the Hezbollahis – which was not a good thing, imho, for Iran or for the rest of the Middle East.
So why did the West so resolutely support the Shah? (Okay, I know why : -) But with the wisdom of hindsight, do you think it was a wise decision?
And if not – I’m going to go with ‘not’ – why repeat the pattern and expect anything different?
Exactly, if the people of the Middle East vote for Hamas and the Islamic brotherhood, I prefer that they not get what they want. Give me the dictators. I care most about America, not people from the Middle East.
If you want them to have a choice, stop knocking down all the real alternatives.
It might be helpful to remember the meaning of “Islam” is surrender. Individual agency is not high on the list of goals.
Seems to me this is more blame-shifting. Muslim societies are not their leaders. I’m talking about the moral agency of individuals who make up a society in which Muslim women are (legally) valued at half that of Muslim men, and minorities at way less than that. I believe God has written the truth on their hearts, too. Which begs the question, why aren’t more of them apostatizing? Which is obviously answered by capital punishment for apostasy being built into the faith. They’re trapped (which is why we should offer a safe-haven to apostates. We can shelter Muslim apostates or Muslim fundamentalists, but not both). Acting in good conscience could cost them their lives (see Hirsi Ali, bodyguards).
The problem isn’t with Western meddling or Muslim leaders. The problem is Islam itself.
There’s a lot of that about. I guess it’s a universal human tendency.
Wrt Muslim societies – I actually agree with most of your points, but think you underestimate the impact that the West actually has on them. I understand what drives your position, I think, but don’t believe that argument based on ego can lead to a better understanding of truth. Perhaps no argument can?
Wrt apostates – I think it would be good if people in the Muslim world had true freedom of conscience – but I suspect that the result would be more like the currently Godless West than turning to any other religion. That would be good for Islam(dom) just like the waning of religious belief has been good for Christendom. (And Christians.)
I guess I just don’t believe that religions (Islam or Christianity or anything) are so prescriptively determinative of culture – my feeling is that culture is probably more determinative of religion. Hence diversity in Islamdom and Christendom and the Hindu world.
I’m not by any means proposing to throw up our hands…I’m identifying what I believe to be a common and very fallacious line of argument so that we can develop good counterattacks to it.
Great! I’m glad you clarified. ;-)
I don’t get it. Why has the waning of religious belief been good for Christendom? To seems to be killing off Europe.
I have been thinking about guilt recently and Western guilt seems to be derived from Christianity. Most countries feel guilt like how the Chinese feel guilt. They were weak and they were conquered and that guilt defines them. Western countries because of Christianity are the only countries that feel remorse after conquering somebody. On Netflix there is a documentary called, The Redemption of General Buck Naked. In it a black warlord who has committed horrible atrocities feels guilty for what he’s done after he has converted to Christianity.
Japan is a fully modern state and part of the free world but it doesn’t have any guilt for its previous warmongering and the USSR which replaced Christianity with Communism also seems resistant to guilt for their past violence. Christianity leads to guilt and guilt defines the modern West about as much as anything else.
I suppose that lack of guilt in non-Christian cultures is why I disbelieved in the interviews of jihadis by Soud. In a similar way, I disbelieve the proclamations of Democrats or leftists about compromise or the importance of the constitution.
When a Republican is elected, democrats believe at that particular time that the checks and balances built into the constitution and that it is decent for the majority party to compromise. Yet deep within their hearts, they do not believe this. The principles that they currently espouse are held only because they are the weaker party at this time. I am sure that they even superficially believe many of the arguments that they make at that time but they change immediately once they are in a position of power.
Isn’t it historically accurate to say that whenever Islam could conquer someplace it did?
@henrycastaigne – I’ve never lived in Japan, so I can’t really comment on their culture’s sense of guilt. (Though the Japanese girl I was in school with seemed to get guilty just like everybody else.) Just from personal experience I don’t think Westerners, or Christians in particular, ‘do’ guilt differently from other people – and I’m basing this on having grown up in Hindu majority India and having many many Muslim relatives. But of course there are many places I haven’t lived, so I can’t claim that my experience is definitive.
I will say that defining other groups as so basically different (and worse) in terms that goes to the heart of who they are as human beings (they don’t love like we do, they don’t feel guilt like we do, they don’t tell the truth like we do) makes me uneasy.
If equality of worth underpins equal rights, what does such asserted difference in intrinsic worth imply about rights? Dehumanising (or downsizing their humanity in comparison to the one’s own group’s) seems to lead to that.
Wrt conquest – most cultures conquer as and when they can. (Latin America didn’t end up Spanish speaking and Catholic of its own free will, did it?) Even today, though our tools are often economic, we do it. And tribute, rather than being paid to emperors, goes to shareholders in our corporations.