It's the Policy, Stupid - Political Islam and US Foreign Policy (Gallup Islam Study)

Harvard International Review ^ | August 19, 2006 | John L. Esposito

[Nicholas Conradin]

US foreign policy and political Islam today are deeply intertwined. Every US president since Jimmy Carter has had to deal with political Islam; none has been so challenged as George W. Bush. Policymakers, particularly since 9/11, have demonstrated an inability and/or unwillingness to distinguish between radical and moderate Islamists. They have largely treated political Islam as a global threat similar to the way that Communism was perceived. However, even in the case of Communism, foreign policymakers eventually moved from an ill-informed, broad-brush, and paranoid approach personified by Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s to more nuanced, pragmatic, and reasonable policies that led to the establishment of relations with China in the 1970s, even as tensions remained between the United States and the Soviet Union.

[Nicholas Conradin]

This article is based on Gallup Study Preliminary Findings on opinions in Islamic countries. I suspect that the Gallup Report may receive considerable attention in the MSM. It contends that anti-Americanism and the opposition to US policy is based on "what we do" rather than "who we are." One finding of particular significance is that both moderate and extremist Muslims "admire" American technology, values and free political systems. However, there is not sufficient distiction drawn in nuances such as the differences betwenn "admire" and "envy" and "resent." I believe it is the latter to which the repondants are actually assenting. The Islamicists may admire Western values as a thief admires the wealth of his victim. What is good for the faithful may not be permitted for the infidel.

[Coldwater Creek]

Islam was giving us problems as far back as Ike, but I guess he had his hands full with other problems, like the Korean war!

[massadvj]

They have largely treated political Islam as a global threat similar to the way that Communism was perceived.

The global threat consists of a global alliance of terrorist-supporting countries:

THE LIST PRIOR TO WOT: Syria, Iraq, North Korea, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Libya, Iran.

THE LIST TODAY: Syria, Iran, North Korea (Lebanon still being fought over).

Clearly, in spite of the MSM and liberal rantings, we are winning. Maybe things haven't moved forward as quickly as we would like, but you can't ignore the map and the fact that their side is shrinking and our side is expanding.

Why the GOP is not making this point is beyond me. Instead, they head for the bunkers every time Pelosi or Reid spew vomit.

[angkor]

"Every US president since Jimmy Carter has had to deal with political Islam;"

Nope. Thomas Jefferson, the "Barbary Pirates". America's first war after the Brits.

[HawaiianGecko]

"paranoid approach personified by Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s"

Just because McCarthy was paranoid doesn't mean that there weren't communists in our government as he proclaimed. Remember, even the Soviets claimed the Rosenberg's were on their payroll.

I disagree with this author. He's claiming there is a political Islam separate from religious Islam, and that's a mistake. He is thinking with his secular westernized brain. Islam is a religion, a political unit, a government and a way of life all rolled into one package. Americans have no problem separating religion from government and freely submitting themselves to the rule of law as the overruling entity.

Our laws are based upon Judeo-Christian philosophy and thank goodness not the Koran. Could you imagine the 1st amendment under the philosophy that non-believers are to be killed and anyone converting from Christianity to Hindu is to be killed! What the author is saying would be sensible if Muslims placed the Koran second to the laws of the land, but they are one in the same.

He argues that Hamas was elected in a democratic fashion. Okay, I have no problem with that, but if the people elect a bunch of mobsters (or maybe I should say, more mobsters)  and their administration writes laws that say it's okay to steal, run prostitution rings, rackets schemes and pump our children full of crack... is that a government that should be respected?

Democracy as Americans define it means much more than the will of 51% of the people. That's why we are a republic not a democracy, and why we shouldn't accept groups as Hamas as a government.

[Zhang Fei]

It contends that anti-Americanism and the opposition to US policy is based on "what we do" rather than "who we are."

Of course it's related to what we do. The Nazis opposed Uncle Sam because we supported the British and Soviet war efforts, not with words alone, but with huge amounts of food, gasoline, trucks and war material. The Japanese opposed the US because we shored up Chinese resistance against Japanese occupation, again with food, trucks and weaponry. This wasn't about who we were - it was about getting us to bend to their will, and hopefully, in time, acquiring our lands for themselves. The difference between the Axis powers and the Islamic world is that Muslims don't have any hope of conquering us, so they're hoping to terrorize us into submission via their proxies - terrorist groups that supposedly subsist upon the kindness of strangers.

One finding of particular significance is that both moderate and extremist Muslims "admire" American technology, values and free political systems.

Actually, what they really admire is our wealth, which most think is derived from stealing from poor countries. The average Muslim thinks of the West's values as decadent and its free political systems as a mirage, which is why so many are turning to Islamists or fascists as their saviors. This view of Western political systems as one big con job is why many, perhaps a majority, think that 9/11 was carried out by Jews, while simultaneously viewing it as a warning to the West not push Muslims too far.

[rawcatslyentist]

>"Thomas Jefferson, the "Barbary Pirates". America's first war after the Brits.

And their political ideology, and strategy haven't changed since, oh say the early 7th century.

The one big thing that has changed is, we now have the ability to remove satans latrine, aka mecca from the face of the earth. This will effectively end his-slime.

The question is why haven't we yet???

[pacpam]

The author thinks he can nuance a religious belief. Not going to happen.

[TomGuy]

Islam was giving us problems as far back as Ike

Check again. It goes back to Thomas Jefferson in the US, and even further -- 700 AD -- in Europe.

Islam has been a problem most Western nations have had to deal with thoughout modern history.

[Coldwater Creek]

That is true. I was just referring to modern times.

[TomGuy]

we now have the ability to remove satans latrine, aka mecca from the face of the earth. This will effectively end his-slime.

Therein lies the conundrum: we have the ability, true; but so far, our political leaders (in all of Western civilization) don't have the will.

We have seen that in every war the US has been engaged in since WW2. We have piles of materials and means, but our leaders still lack the will to use them massively. The same with Israel and their recent backing down from their conflict with Hizbulla. Our Western leadership fears they will be accused of being too powerful; the UN demands proportional response.

Look at the restriction the UN has on Israel: Cease fire and don't fire back if Hizbulla does happen to fire at you.

Piles of materials don't mean much, if the leadership refrains from using them.

[Obie Wan]

The article is full of crap.Western democracies along with the nation of Israel have tried hard to make a distinction between radical and peaceful Islam.Considering that "peaceful" Islam has had very little condemnation for the atrocities of the radicals,I would say they are getting the benefit of the doubt !!!

[TomGuy]

Considering that "peaceful" Islam has had very little condemnation for the atrocities of the radicals

That is the crux of the problem: Is there really a distinction? If so, then the "peaceful" Islamics should take responsibility for policing their religion and exorcise those who taint and bastardize the true Islamic religion.

However, since the "peaceful" Islamics remain relatively silent in regard to their fellow 'radical Islamic' brethren, I go with at quote from Robert Bolt attributed to Sir Thomas More in A Man for All Seasons:

Sir Thomas More: ... The maxim is "Qui tacet consentiret": the maxim of the law is "Silence gives consent". If therefore you wish to construe what my silence betokened, you must construe that I consented, not that I denied.

[samtheman]

Islam has been making wars ever since the time it's peadophile founder started drooling out his deranged ideas to his brain-damaged desert brethern.

[grey_whiskers]

*Snerk*.

It's only Harvard. You know, the place with the Kennedy School of Government.

They are influential but irretrievably *wrong*.

Cheers!

[Taxman]

Moslems have been causing major problems throughout the world since 624 AD!

In excess of 270,000,000 people have died at the hands of those who profess to believe in the "religion of peace."

See "The Study of Political Islam" at

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1779961/posts