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.
Don’t Forget the Strong Horse
When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, they will naturally want to side with the strong horse. When people of the world look upon the confusion and atheism of the West, they see that Islam is the strong horse.
These were the words of Osama bin Laden; they were prescient after 2001 and are still relevant today. In all the discussions about killing General Suleimani of Iran’s Quds Force, the focus has been on challenging Trump’s authority to have him killed and the possible reaction by Iran to the strike. Left out of the discussion is an understanding of the Arab and Islamist mentality and how we should take that into account now and in the future.
The term “strong horse” became better known in a book by Lee Smith published eight years ago called The Strong Horse. Here is how Lee Smith describes Arab hatred toward the US:
The war that Arabs are waging against the United States, some in deed as well as in word, is merely a massive projection of the same pattern of force, with a tribe bound as one to defend against and defeat the outsider. The Arabs hate us not because of what we do or who we are but because of what and who we are not: Arabs.
In a review of Lee Smith’s book, Daniel Pipes commented further on the strong horse:
What Smith calls the strong-horse principle contains two banal elements: Seize power and then maintain it. This principle predominates because Arab public life has ‘no mechanism for peaceful transitions of authority or power sharing, and therefore [it] sees political conflict as a fight to the death between strong horses.’ Violence, Smith observes is ‘central to the politics, society, and culture of the Arabic-speaking Middle East.’ It also, more subtly, implies keeping a wary eye on the next strong horse, triangulating, and hedging bets.
Smith argues that the strong horse principle, not Western imperialism or Zionism, ‘has determined the fundamental character of the Arabic-speaking Middle East.’
The Iran regime is a prime example of adherents to the “strong horse” theory and every belief that follows. They are not afraid to die and, in fact, celebrate death. They have probably been stunned at our response to their latest actions since they see us as a “weak horse.” Our killing of Suleimani was long overdue in one sense, after the years we “cowered” in the eyes of Iran.
Keep in mind that although Iran condemns the US, they also know that our military forces are far superior. In addition, they may not be afraid of death but they can’t take over the world if they are decimated. I’d wager that they are more interested in creating the image of challenging us and constraining us than in destroying us; the former is certainly more realistic than the latter.
Now, people worry about Iran’s response to the attack and I am quite certain they will respond, if for no other reason to maintain their image of a strong horse; they need to remind the other countries in the Middle East that they are still the strong horse in that region. I’d like to suggest that their perceptions of us are shifting, however. The US will no longer tolerate their attacks on us or their violence; we will no longer use only words to discredit them, but rather will take powerful action. We are not afraid.
Only time will tell us who will emerge as a strong horse now.
Published in Foreign Policy
I never served in the M.E. or an Islamist country. The closest was Singapore where Islamic muslims were mostly servants. Their closet neighbor was Muslim Malaysia, where the Chinese ran the private sector and Muslims ran the government, probably, at the time, early 70s, the most successful Islamic country on earth. One thing is fairly obvious as we look across the US and the world we don’t mix well, and it’s not our fault. Most adapt and aren’t a problem as long as they’re a very small minority, but still produce off spring that occasionally go haywire, and as we’ve seen all over the world for centuries they don’t meld. I don’t understand it, nor them, nor do I understand why we would allow large migrations from the Islamic world to the US. Does it help us understand or get along? When we have the entire world to choose from, why? Are we going to change them?
Good questions, @iwalton. Given the ideas to bring in people who can make a strong contribution to the U.S., I don’t really know. Just one of the example of a broken immigration system.
Here is a must read by the per-eminant scholar of the Middle East, Bernard Lewis.
What Went Wrong? : The Clash Between Islam and Modernity in the Middle East
It directly refutes bin Laden’s statement that Islam is the strong horse. The problem is that Islamic societies have long been the weak horse and remain so. Saudi Arabia has long gained vast riches from oil, what have they produced? Nothing. They have sent many thousands to western schools and the result is 0.
Anyway, an excellent read.
Note: Lewis was the very first westerner who was allowed into the Turkish Ottoman archives. He was also one of the first ones that former VP Cheney called days after 9-11.
We certainly have our moments, and, of course our bad actors.
Do you have any posts on this subject, or in this general ballpark, Zafar? I’d be interested to hear more of your thoughts on it. (I’ll add that that I’m seriously asking; I don’t get offended easily, so if I can get you write some more on it, I’d appreciate it.)
I, too, have read the book and it is excellent. But the question remains what did bin Laden mean by “the strong horse.” When your civilization suppresses its the economic abilities of individuals to produce it relies on theft to maintain itself. It emphasize theft, cunning and violence — controlled by an overarching ideology that helps focus those capabilities on selected targets. The intelligence of those societies, even though weak economically, cannot be gainsaid given their application of technologies developed by others to their violent and predatory ends.
So within bin Laden’s context “the strong horse” is the ideology of violence as opposed to the ideology of self-realization. And that “strong horse” must be put down. Bin Laden knew well that it wasn’t a lack of wealth or education that made Islam appealing to his acolytes, it was their own lack of self-esteem pumped up by the promise of power attained through violence. These recruits can only be dissuaded when societies that have self-realization at their cores and the wherewithal to develop and deploy incredible weaponry make clear that they are the “stronger horse” if that is what it comes to.
But the societies are quite backward in the construction based on family, clan and tribe. That creates internal divisions which weaken any common effort.
In Islamic nations, muslims spend a great deal of time and energy killing other muslims. Look at what Isis has done. It has created essentially a new tribe in conflict with all of the other tribes. They all have the same ideology.
You don’t even have to go overseas to find the ‘strong horse’ analogy — people with the inclination to do bad things will do bad things anywhere, if they think the risk/reward options are on their side. It’s the whole story of New York City over the past 55 years; when the city’s had ‘weak horse’ progressive mayors who turn a blind eye to the crime rate creeping up, the perps see that and get bolder, and others who didn’t think the risk was worth it start turning to crime.
Same deal with bin Laden 20 years ago and with the mullahs today. The failures of American to react to smaller attacks emboldened al Qaida and Iran to try bigger attacks, which countinue until there’s major retaliation.
I haven’t read that particular book, but have read The Crisis of Islam. Your comment makes sense to me, @rodin. Lewis says this:
“Their task [al Qaeda’s] might have seemed daunting to anyone else, but they did not see it that way. In their view, they had already driven the Russians out of Afghanistan, in a defeat so overwhelming that it led directly to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Having overcome the superpower that they had always regarded as more formidable, they felt ready to take on the other; in this they were encouraged by the opinion, often expressed by bin Ladin among others, that America was a paper tiger.”
And it also tells us about mob mentality. Majority doesn’t necessarily make the right or courageous decision.
Interesting point. Ordinarily I’m a big believer in the importance of respect, but with the Arabs/Muslims, not so much. The fact is that they will probably never respect us, unless you mean respect only our power. Respect suggests that we could deal with each other as equals; I have a hard time imagining that, too. Unfortunately. Fear may be a better plan.
Well, at least you respect that which you fear. Reminds me of a dialogue in the movie Grand Canyon:
Works for me!
This, unfortunately, is true.
Islam regards westerners as heathens, pagans, to be tolerated until we can be subdued and given a choice: Islam (the world of peace) or not Islam (the world of war). These were the two views that Islam had, and still has, of the west. Early Hadithes teach a tolerance for others, but that was when Muhammad lived in Mecca where Muslims were a minority. Later in the Koran, when Muhammad was in Medina and ruled much of Arabia, you find little tolerance. And that is the practical experience of non-Muslims in Muslim majority countries.
Here is some interesting information on how Muslims have integrated into the US.
The story in European nations will be much different.
Some say that the tolerance disappeared because Muhammad believe that the non-believers and the Jews would jump on board to Islam. When he finally realized that wasn’t going to happen, tolerance went out the door. Thanks for the info!
You have to remember that Muhammad as a military leader first, then a political leader. Spiritual leadership was a part time thing.
The Koran is organized mostly, not strictly, based on size of the verses (surah). They are not chronological. And as the Koran is the very word of God, it cannot be wrong, so when 2 surah disagree, abrogation is applied and the later surah replaces the older surah. So the later surah tend to be much more warlike. Islamic apologists will focus on the earlier (Mecca time frame) surah as they are just nicer and easier to explain.
@billnelson‘s link in comment #43 was for a Pew Research Report. I found it intriguing. This paragraph grabbed my attention:
We might think that the immigrants would be more cynical about America and Trump, but the U.S.-born citizens are the ones who are much less happy. I suspect that the immigrants realize the huge benefits of living in the U.S. and that the U.S.-born citizens have been brainwashed by the anti-Muslim propaganda of the Left.
What do all of you think?
That sounds accurate. I heard Mark Steyn make that point before. I’ve always thought that the internal conflict that plays out within most children of immigrants would probably be especially difficult if one comes from a culture that puts a high premium on honor – which is likely still a high virtue in the home – and then with very little appreciation for honor.
I think this is confounded by the point I tried to make earlier: when very few people are even willing to root for their own team, I could see a confused young person feeling the need to make a more definitive choice.
Not clear. Who is showing little appreciation for honor? Do you mean the U.S. born Muslims, Samuel?
Apologies, I mean Americans themselves – young ones in particular. Especially the ones who would be inclined to go out of their way to make a say the things they think Muslims want to hear, or to say: “Gee, my posse is lacking in diversity, I need to make a Muslim friend.”
Except they won’t say “gee,” they would say something that I’d have to redact.
The native born expect equality, migrants don’t. Or to put it another way, the native born really care about being defined in some ways as irreconcilably different, migrants define themselves that way already so it doesn’t upset them.
Neither does the strong horse or its supporters. But who is that and these? Depends on whom you ask, right?
Charity begins at home, so I’ll just say that India and Pakistan have been doing this to each other (with complete sincerity, I assure you) since 1947.
I’m sorry. I don’t follow. Did you mean to link something?
Sorry Samuel – I don’t think I have any posts on this.
It’s okay. Just know that there is at least one member – I’d bet more than one, but I’ll just speak for myself – who’d love to hear your thoughts on this. But I can appreciate that you’re a little more than outnumbered and it might not be the most tempting offer you’ve ever heard. 😉
:-)
My love of my own voice compensates for that. (This wretched ego.)
But I wouldn’t want to go off OP topic.
When’s the last time you started a convo? I’d bet you could start a good ole fashioned 100+ comment brawl! Methinks it could be pretty entertaining.
(Good point on trying not to derail Suzie Q’s conversation. You’re a better man than I. But, taking posts off topic is kinda my thing around here.)
For decades it seems Iran was to us Americans the one country in the Middle East that we could not confront with any chance of success; it is like we had a nervosa about being confronted by Iran. I think President Donald Trump by his recent actions has cured us of Iran-nervosa. We are still wary, but we do not have the old irrational phobia that Iran cannot be effectively dealt with.