Rolling Back Radical Islam (Long but GREAT READ)

Parameters ^ | Autumn 2002 | RALPH PETERS

[Valin]

You cannot win a war if you do not fight, and you cannot win a peace through inattention. In peace and war, the American response to the violent extremism that so damages the Islamic world has been as halting and reactive as it has been reluctant. We simply do not want to get involved more deeply than “necessary.” But Muslim extremists are determined to remain involved with us.

We are not at war with Islam. But the most radical elements within the Muslim world are convinced that they are at war with us. Our fight is with the few, but our struggle must be with the many. For decades we have downplayed—or simply ignored—the hate-filled speech directed toward us, the monstrous lessons taught by extremists to children, and the duplicity of so many states we insisted were our friends. But nations do not have friends—at best, they have allies with a confluence of interests. We imagine a will to support our endeavors where there is only a pursuit of advantage. And we deal with cynical, corrupt old men who know which words to say to soothe our diplomats, while the future lies with the discontented young, to whom the poison of blame is always delicious.

Hatred taught to the young seems an ineradicable cancer of the human condition. And the accusations leveled against us by terrified, embittered men fall upon the ears of those anxious for someone to blame for the ruin of their societies, for the local extermination of opportunity, and for the poverty guaranteed by the brute corruption of their compatriots and the selfish choices of their own leaders. Above all, those futureless masses yearn to excuse their profound individual inadequacies and to explain away the prison walls their beliefs have made of their lives.

In late spring 2002, headlines claimed that intelligence leads should have alerted President Bush to impending terrorist attacks prior to 11 September 2001. But a few tips from FBI field offices are easily lost in the colossal noise of government, their value clear only—ruefully so—in retrospect. Though important tactically, those memos were as nothing compared to the countless warnings we had been given as a strategic drama played out openly before us—while we willfully shut our eyes—for the last quarter of a century. Islamic extremists never made a secret of their general intent and often were specific in their threats. The tragedies of 9/11 were not so much the result of an intelligence failure as of a collective failure to face the reality confronting us.

Throughout much of the 1990s, intelligence personnel were not quite forbidden to consider religion as a strategic factor, but the issue was considered soft and nebulous—as well as potentially embarrassing in those years of epidemic political correctness. Now, of course, religion may be discussed in intelligence circles, if bracketed with careful disclaimers noting that all religions have problems and that we are not bigoted toward any one religion. But what if a great world religion is bigoted toward us? Might we, even now, just wish the hatred and prejudice away? (snip)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ralph Peters is a retired US Army officer, a writer, and a frequent contributor to Parameters. His most recent book is Beyond Terror, Strategy in a Changing World, and his early novel, The War In 2020, which has developed a cult following over the years, has just been republished. Recent travels in Indonesia and India inspired the arguments presented in this essay.

[Valin]

Ping

[adam stevens]

BUMP for defeating these scumbags!

[akash]

I dont like this guy. The passengers on that train who were fire bombed were pilgrims, mainly women and children who were returning from Ayodhya.

[tm22721]

American culture threatens the only power that most Arab men have left to wield : over their womenfolk.

BUMP

[fogarty]

"We are not at war with Islam."

This man is hopelessly naive and blind. The truth of the matter is we are at war with the core of Islam. Islam converts and wins by the sword, by war, and by slaughter. Islam is a religion driven by hate and blood-lust. It is a safe assumption to say that Muslims will not rest until they have converted or killed the followers of all other religions.

[akash]

Islam will simply not be Islam if it becomes liberal. There is only one solution. A large group of Muslims break away from orthodox sunni leanings and pronounce that they are a separate sect, say like the ahmediyas. Maybe this will be possible in India/Indonesia. There is no scope for advancement from within Islam unlike Catholicism which has a designated head, the pope and the Papal Council to suggest change.

[JesusIsLord]

This man is hopelessly naive and blind.

BUMP

[js1138]

Islam will simply not be Islam if it becomes liberal.

I agree. But there are many "conservative" religions whose adherents reject much of the glitter of this world without practicing recruitment through violence.

Because Islam has at it's core, a belief that government and religion should be the same, It will have difficulty adapting. It certainly doesn't seem likely to settle into an Amish mode.

The lack of a central authority seems to make it less flexible rather than more.

[Lady Heron]

There is only one solution. A large group of Muslims break away from orthodox sunni leanings and pronounce that they are a separate sect, say

Then the sunni's will deal with them like they do shiite in many areas or shiite deal with sunni's when one or the other comes in to power. They will kill them or subjegate them. The problem is the religion at its core whether shitte or sunni they are to kill infidels. It can not coexist with any other religion or even differing sect of its own religion. Islam is the problem. A moderate muslim is one not following what the religion demands.

[WOSG]

many interesting points, but imho missed the mark.

he sees hopeful signs in most of Islam ... but buddy, that is not the "islam" we are at war with anayway. he is conflating 2 things. Radical Islam - the Wahabbi sect, the Bin ladens, the despots who are building WMD - is actually a political program, and it is the POLITICAL PROGRAM that we oppose, not the faith itself. Heck, Saddam is a secular Ba'ath party leader - a socialist - and he is a threat. Muslims in India, not a threat and not relevent.

We are at war with Islamic radicalism and pan-Arabist adventurism which seeks to destroy 'the West' and put us under 'Sharia', while destroying rights of the citizens who live under it, etc.

Listen more to what Bush is saying and he might 'get it'.

[WOSG]

But there are many "conservative" religions whose adherents reject much of the glitter of this world without practicing recruitment through violence. Bingo! ... Islam can get that way too if it rejects concepts like "Sharia" etc.

Because Islam has at it's core, a belief that government and religion should be the same, It will have difficulty adapting. Right. But not all Moslems think that way. It will take time and work to change that, but on this point the author is right: in many places Moslems have adapted.

The real problem is that Islam has not intellectually faced and dealt with modernity yet ... it is still stuck in the middle ages. Quite sad that the "intellectuals" of the mideast are either Fundamentalist Islamicists or LeftWing Socialist Radicals.

We need to export U.S. modern conservatism to them, and then they too will "get it".

[Valin]

The real problem is that Islam has not intellectually faced and dealt with modernity yet ... it is still stuck in the middle ages.

Very well put.