Why radical Islam - and why now?

Townhall.com ^ | December 21, 2006 | Victor Davis Hanson

[Tom D.]

Why Radical Islam - and Why Now?
By Victor Davis Hanson

Thursday, December 21, 2006

Read any newspaper or turn on any news broadcast and you're bound to encounter stories of Islamic radicals fighting, killing and threatening each other — and just about everyone else.

In Somalia, jihadists, with the support of al-Qaida, have clashed with troops loyal to the country’s internationally recognized interim government and now threaten neighboring Ethiopia with all-out war.

Nearby in Darfur, Muslim militiamen called janjaweed are waging genocide against black Christian and animist villagers — apparently with the consent of the Sudanese government.

Shiite and Sunni militias, each claiming to represent true Islam, keep slaughtering each other in Iraq.

Hezbollah (“Party of God”) seeks to destroy democracy in Lebanon by provoking Israel, which it is sworn to eliminate.

On the West Bank, Hamas and Fatah have taken a timeout from their attacks on Israel to murder each other and innocent bystanders.

The Iranian Shiite theocracy — when not hosting Holocaust deniers or sending terrorists into Iraq — issues serial pledges to finish off Israel.

The shaky Pakistani leadership pleads that it can neither target Osama bin Laden nor stop Taliban jihadists hiding out in the remote regions of Pakistan from streaming back into Afghanistan.

In Europe, opera producers, novelists, cartoonists and filmmakers are increasingly circumspect out of fear of death threats from Islamists.

While each conflict is unique and rooted in its own history, the common thread — radical Islam — is obvious. It's thus worth asking why this violent, intolerant strain of Islam has taken hold in so many unstable places — and at this particular time.

The ascent of radical Islam is, perhaps, the natural culmination of a century's worth of failed political systems in Muslim countries that were driven by morally bankrupt ideologies, led by cruel dictators, or both.

In the 1930s, German-style fascism appealed to Arabs in Palestine and Egypt. Soviet-style communism had sympathetic governments in Afghanistan, Algeria and Yemen. Baathism took hold in Syria and Iraq. The secular Egyptian dictator Gamal Abdel Nasser promised a new pan-Arabism that would do away with colonial borders that divided the “the Arab nation.” Then there is the more pragmatic authoritarianism that survives in Muammar el-Qaddafi's Libya or in the petrol-monarchies in the Gulf.

Radical Islam may be as totalitarian and as morally bankrupt as any of these past or mostly defunct “isms,” but its current appeal isn't hard to figure out. Unlike fascism or communism, radical Islam is locally grown, and not plagued by charges of foreign contamination. Indeed, Islamists claim to wage jihad against the modernism and globlization of the outside, mostly Westernized world. Such a message resonates in stagnant, impoverished Muslim countries.

Of course, while the people of the region may be poor, the Islamist movement isn't. Huge oil profits filter throughout the Muslim world, allowing Islamists to act on their rhetoric. In today's world, militias can easily acquire everything from shoulder-held anti-aircraft missiles to rocket-propelled grenades. With such weapons, and on their own turf, Islamists can nullify billion-dollar Western jets and tanks.

There is still another reason for the rise of Islamists: They sense a new hesitation in the West. We appear to them paralyzed over oil prices and supplies and fears of terrorism. And so they have also waged a brilliant propaganda war, adopting the role of victims of Western colonialism, imperialism and racism. In turn, much of the world seems to tolerate their ruthlessness in stifling freedom, oppressing women and killing nonbelievers. So how, aside from killing jihadist terrorists, can we defend ourselves against the insidious spread of radical Islam? Here are a few starting suggestions:

Bluntly identify radical Islam as fascistic — without worrying whether some Muslims take offense when we will talk honestly about the extremists in their midst.

At the same time, keep encouraging consensual governments in the Middle East and beyond that could offer people security and prosperity, while distancing ourselves from illegitimate dictators, especially in Syria and Iran, that promote terrorists.

Establish that no more autocracies in the Middle East and Asia will be allowed to get the bomb.

Seek energy independence that would collapse the world price of oil, curbing petrodollar subsidies for terrorists and our own appeasement of their benefactors.

Appreciate the history and traditions of a unique Western civilization to remind the world that we have nothing to apologize for but rather much good to offer to others.

Finally, keep confident in a war in which our will and morale are every bit as important as our overwhelming military strength. The jihadists claim that we are weak spiritually, but our past global ideological enemies — Nazism, fascism, militarism and communism — all failed. And so will they.

[Uncle Miltie]

"But he struck out on this piece, at least in terms of his action items."

Here's a prediction with a successful (if bloody) outcome:

Appeasement has temporarily consumed Western Civilization.

Islamists will press their advantage, to the point of using nukes.

At which point, we'll slaughter them by the millions.

Western Civilization is temporarily unwilling to press its technological advantage. But given and end-of-civilization scenario, which I predict is inevitable, we'll just kill them all.

Sad, that. But it is the consequence of our current unwillingness to take the fight to the centers of Islamist power: Iran and Saudi Arabia.

[Capt. Tom]

Radical Islam??

There is nothing about following Islam as written in the Hadiths and Koran that is radical - it is fundamental Islam.

Infidels and Muslim heretics will be dealt with in the same way. - tom

[samtheman]

I agree with you. And all that blood, which you unhappily predict (though I wonder if the word "blood" is an apt metaphor for a population disappearing in nuclear smoke) will be ON THE HANDS OF THE LIBERALS.

The liberals will enforce their idiotic PC, emboldening the utterly insane Islamics and weaking all our resolve (except, as you point out, the resolve we'll finally discover at the end-times moment), such that your prediction will come to pass.

And it will be the Liberals fault. And they will NOT go unscathed. Many will notice and understand and ask the very relevant question: what is the culpability of the Liberal in all that the world was forced to suffer?

[Gritty]

The end of all this is going to be unprecedentedly bloody and painful, no matter which way it goes.

We had better be on the winning side if we want the lesser of the blood and pain.

[DeweyCA]

Appreciate the history and traditions of a unique Western civilization to remind the world that we have nothing to apologize for but rather much good to offer to others.

Finally, keep confident in a war in which our will and morale are every bit as important as our overwhelming military strength. The jihadists claim that we are weak spiritually, but our past global ideological enemies — Nazism, fascism, militarism and communism — all failed. And so will they.

These ideas cannot or will not happen with the liberals controlling the media and the Congress. And since the Libs now control the Congress, there is no way that we can drill in ANWR or off the coasts. No energy independence in the forseeable future.

[neverdem]

Nearby in Darfur, Muslim militiamen called janjaweed are waging genocide against black Christian and animist villagers — apparently with the consent of the Sudanese government.

VDH blew that call. Maybe there's too much happening, but everything I've read about Darfur has described Arab Muslims, who are nomadic herders, against African Muslims, who are or were subsistence farmers. It seems to be a fight over water and resources.

The genocide against black Christian and animist villagers over the last twenty years was in southern Sudan. Darfur is the part of Sudan next to Chad, about as big as France, in the middle and on the western border.

That being said, the African and Islamic contribution to the Slave Trade is given short shrift wherever I look, probably at least 90 percent of the time.

[GeneralisimoFranciscoFranco]

Gee, would you like a pony too, Vic?

[outofstyle]

"Radical Islam" is a redundant term. All of Islam is radical!

Most is, and most that is not, is tolerant of that that is. It is unlikely that a billion Muslims will convert to another religion. Therefore, I see only one alternative. We must defeat and humiliate the most radical elements of the religion. At the same time, we must support that tiny minority of Muslims who are secular and renounce jihad.

[Man50D]

Most is, and most that is not, is tolerant of that that is.

Most is and most that is not? What does that mean? It is unlikely that a billion Muslims will convert to another religion. Therefore, I see only one alternative. We must defeat and humiliate the most radical elements of the religion.

To Muslims religion is the state and their state is based on Sharia law, not the U.S. Constitution or any other law. Muslims invoke the concept of Taqiyya and kitman. The following passage is from the article at the link provided: "Taqiyya has been used by Muslims since the 7th century to confuse and split 'the enemy’. A favored tactic was ‘deceptive triangulation’; to persuade the enemy that jihad was not aimed at them but at another enemy. Another tactic was to deny that there was jihad at all. The fate for such faulty assessments by the target was death."

At the same time, we must support that tiny minority of Muslims who are secular and renounce jihad.

You can't be a member of any religion and be secular. The definition of secular means nonreligious. I suggest you look up the definition. Your contradictory example illustrates there is no Muslim minority. They all believe Islam is the only religion and there cannot be peace until everyone is subjugated, converted to Islam or destroyed. Islamic Scholar Warns U.S. of 'Two-Faced' Muslims . Islam is tantamount to Nazism. There were no Nazis seeking peace during World War II with the rest of the world.

[outofstyle]

Most Muslims are extremists & the few Muslims that are not extremists, are tolerant of the extremist majority. Is that more clear? I believe that we are in a death struggle with Islamic fascism. This evil must be fought with every resource available.

However, for you to imply that every single individual who calls himself a Muslim is is a murdering jihadist, is ludicrous. There are millions of secular Muslims in nations such as Turkey that practice Islam the way the French practice Catholicism.

You can't be a member of any religion and be secular. The definition of secular means nonreligious. I suggest you look up the definition.

According to Merriam-Webster:

religion: "a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices"

secular: "1) a : of or relating to the worldly or temporal b : not overtly or specifically religious" I suggest you relax and have a Merry Christmas. And please partake in the religious aspects of the holiday such, as attending services, as well as the secular customs such as gift giving. PEACE

[Man50D]

However, for you to imply that every single individual who calls himself a Muslim is is a murdering jihadist, is ludicrous.

I'm not implying anything. A Muslim is stating the goal of Islam is to rule the world as Nazis intended from the 1920's to the end of WWII. You obviously did not read the article in the link I provided to you in post #29. The article was based on a Syrian born Islamic Scholar named Bassam Tibi. In the article he stated the following: "According to Tibi, the quest of converting the entire world to Islam is an immutable fixture of the Muslim worldview." I'm not implying anything.



According to Merriam-Webster: religion: "a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices"

That definition of religion is anathema to the definition of Secular per The Merriram Webster Dictionary . not bound by monastic vows or rules; specifically : of, relating to, or forming clergy not belonging to a religious order or congregation" The Communist Soviet Union was a secularist country specifically because it did not permit the practicing of any religion. In January of 2004 The Workers Communist party We must stop the Islamists' assault on secularism vowed to fight Islamists from preventing the banning of religious symbols in schools and workplaces throughout Europe. I suggest you read these articles.

It is unfortunate many Americans refuse to accept Islam is a danger as was Nazism during WWII. Those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it.

Despite this harsh reality, I still hope you enjoy your Christmas.

[Tolik]

    Victor Davis Hanson Ping ! 

       Let me know if you want in or out.

Links:    FR Index of his articles:  http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=victordavishanson  
            His website: http://victorhanson.com/    
                NRO archive: http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson-archive.asp
New Link!    http://victordavishanson.pajamasmedia.com/

[VOA]

Indeed, Islamists claim to wage jihad against the modernism and
globlization of the outside, mostly Westernized world.

And to spread their message, they use Modern-World video-tape, telecommunications,
rifles, rocket-propelled grenades, the Internet, satellite phones,
civilian airliners, etc.

Radical Islam would be just scattered groups of angry eccentrics
in the hills of Afghannistan/Pakistan, but for the rocket fuel of
Infidel Technology.

[VOA]

We appear to them paralyzed over oil prices and supplies and fears of terrorism.

I'm no VDH, but I think "appear to them" should just be replaced
with "are".

[GSlob]

By its very nature, islam is baboonery. And "non-radical" islam is merely a baboonery which is not taken seriously, be it done genuinely or as a sham.

[ProtectOurFreedom]

...extolling the virtues of the West has been, and is, ongoing since WW2.

Pardon me, but are you living in the same world as me? Far from extolling the virtues of Western Civilization, the "elites," intelligentsia, academy, media, Democrats, and other assorted leftists absolutely HATE Western ideals and all they stand for. They are actively working to destroy Western Civilization and are complicit with Islam in this goal.

[Rudder]

That's just the leftists, and they weren't so vociferous or numerous until the late 1960's. On the other hand, we have had massive and ongoing foreign aid programs, the VOA, our culture has been imported to most of the planet (e.g., France has the second highest numbers of McDondalds' outlets), we are, by far, the biggest world magnet for immigration since at least the 19th century....it goes on. The world's public opinion, on a large scale, has only turned against us since the recent fall of communism.

[Eagles6]

"Finally, keep confident in a war in which our will and morale are every bit as important as our overwhelming military strength. The jihadists claim that we are weak spiritually, but our past global ideological enemies — Nazism, fascism, militarism and communism — all failed. And so will they."

[grey_whiskers]

With such weapons, and on their own turf, Islamists can nullify billion-dollar Western jets and tanks.

Apologies to VDH and to the late Keith Laumer, but I've never heard of a billion-dollar jet. The only tank I'd pay a billion dollars for would be a Bolo Mark IV with a half-megaton per second firepower (Continential Siege Unit).

And I think your average boomer (nuclear missle sub) costs a billion sans ICBMs.

The Moose-limbs have not neutralized any of those yet.

Full Disclosure:IIRC, in Laumer's stories, Bolo was a division of General Motors. Given the performance of the real-life company of late, I'm not sure they really could pull off such an accomplishment.

Cheers!

...oh, and Merry Christmas.

[oldbrowser]

Bluntly identify radical Islam as fascistic — without worrying whether some Muslims take offense when we will talk honestly about the extremists in their midst.

Radical Islam would be easy to handle, if they did not have the cover of the other muslims.

They merge into the crowd and strike when the time is right, and then merge back into the muslim crowd.

The non radical muslims are enablers. Without their assistance radical islam is easy to root out.

It would be easier to defeat all of the muslims rather than try to find the radical in the crowd.

It's like a game of three card monte and we are the mark.

The non radical muslims must assist us because if they declare themselves to be "neutral", they are actually working against us. And we must start treating them that way.