> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Richard Baker > Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 4:30 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: "Someone Must Tell Them" > > Dan said: > > > I really don't see this. For example, with AQ, the evidence is that > > they see > > the lifestyle of the West as decadent and evil, and the dominance > > of the > > West to be anathema to the proper order of things. > > My take is that the radical fringe of Islam is a sort of cargo cult. > > I think that fundamentally most people everywhere want prosperity and > security for themselves and their families, and a sense that they're > respected.
That's a reasonable starting point. People who run countries or are interested in running countries are also interested in power, though. And, from understanding the sociology of family systems (via lotsa listening to my spouse) I see the desire for control as a fairly widespread human tendency. So, I think that, if I generalized, I'd say people on the whole want security, prestige, wealth, and power. There are some, I agree, who don't seen to want power, but even among those that seem passive, I've known quite a few passive aggressive manipulators. > The Islamic world once had all of those things. For the > period from, say, AD800 to AD1400, Islam was one of the world's two > most powerful civilizations No argument there. > > The reason for the explosive expansion of the Arab armies was > partially the unity given them by Islam, but was mostly the weakness > of the Roman and Persian empires in the aftermath of their final > apocalyptic war. >From the Roman side, I'm not sure why the final war was that devastating. I haven't read as much as you have about that era, but the decline and fall of the Byzantine empire was more tied to the Byzantine bureaucracy and the internal squabbling (to the point of killing) over fine points of theology. >Following that expansion, the reason for the > prosperity of the Islamic states in the AD800 to AD1400 period wasn't > their adherence to strict Islamic laws - in fact most of them were > pretty lax about applying such things - but their position straddling > the trade routes crossing Asia. I have no problem with that. > Unfortunately, the radical Islamists don't see it that way. One of > the characteristics of Islam is that the success of Islam-the- > religion and the success of Islam-the-states are closely tied > together in the minds of many Muslims (certainly more so than the two > kinds of success are in the minds of Christians). Attacks on the dar > al-Islam are easily seen as attacks on Islam itself, and failures of > the dar al-Islam are easily considered the effects of moral failings > on the parts of the people. In my opinion, the radical Islamists have > built a cargo cult on this basis: they see the recapitulation of the > forms of Muslim behaviour from the great days of Islam as the key to > regaining prosperity, security and respect. But the shallow aping of > forms misses the deep reasons for the success of Islam. > > This is seen most clearly in the case of the Taliban, whose viewpoint > seems to be that the relative poverty and impotence of Afghanistan > isn't due to the withering of trade through the region (which once > supported some of the most magnificent and rich cities in the world) > or other more recent but secondary historical factors but is caused > by the people not being strict enough or literal enough in their > interpretations of the Koran and application of the Sharia. It's also > apparent in the web of international Islamic terrorism, which seeks > to regain the greatness of the Islamic world through fantasies of > recapitulating the heroic military actions of the first armies of > Islam against the infidels. Unfortunately, although these attitudes > are clearly idiocy of the first order to most of us, they are pretty > seductive to certain groups of people both inside and outside the > Islamic world. Equally unfortunately, they are doomed to failure and > generally deleterious to the well-being both of Islam and the dar al- > Islam. >From folks I know who've been in the Mid East, from my limited travels there, and from second hand information (people I know discussing what they've been taught in class and what they've learned at places like the JFK school of government, I've gotten a different picture than you do. The difference has some significant effects on how we view the potential strength of the movement. I think the most critical part of this is understanding the Arab culture as an honor/shame based culture. One's place in society, and, more important, one's family's place in society is critical. There are several examples of this that we can easily see. The first one that comes to mind is honor killing: killing a female family member for bring shame to the family when she is raped. The second is the critical nature of manners and hospitality in Arab cultures. Both my experience, and the experience related by friends indicated the great importance placed in these values. The third is the lengths people would go to in order to maintain a semblance of family honor. One of the best examples that I can think of was the family of an Iraqi who was caught drinking and looting a liquor store. His family insisted he wasn't drinking at all, and he was only there to guard it as a favor to the owner. One of the things that hit me when you mentioned trade is that Arab countries, now, are gaining, through trade, a large cash profit that is distributed as those in power see fit. The sale of oil isn't that staggering in terms of world trade, roughly 400 billion a year, but the profits that are made from that sale are staggering: over 300 billion per year. Thus, they are in a very favorable trade position to grow their economies exponentially. Unfortunately, the concentrated nature of the wealth makes its proper exploitation difficult. Tom Freedman had a great article that illustrated that those countries that grew through wealth generated by many businesses (e.g. Taiwan, South Korea or India) do much better than those who's income comes from selling a state controlled commodity. But, back to the main point...I think that this leads to something that's not quite as wacky, but far more dangerous than the cargo cult. I tend to think of Hitler's speeches, when he denied the real reason for Germany losing WWI...when he talked about the proper place of the German people, and the need for them to have the proper "elbow room" ...or the Marxist ideas of the Historical Dialectic, and the dictatorship of the proletariat. These countries dismissed the United states as mongrel and or decadent, and thus likely to be ineffective in a real fight. I see the arguments of AQ, Hammas, and Hezbollah as similar. The West is inherently decadent and undisciplined. They are trying to overwhelm us with this culture, but it is wrong. Although we are down now, if we just stay true to principals and show the resolve that only folks with a strong foundation like ours then we shall prevail in the end. We will be willing to take casualties for decades, the decadent Jews will finally grow tired of war and surrender. Christians are losing their faith, becoming self centered, and are unwilling to sacrifice for noble causes. They are fading, while Muslims are on the ascendancy. All we must do is unite and we can prevail over this decadent decaying culture. The problem that I see with this is that, while it isn't an accurate viewpoint, there are enough correlation with facts that it's very persuasive. Denial is involved, but it's more like the denial of reality by the Nazis and the Communists than the magical thinking of the cargo cults. > Quite how we can convince people in the regions where the failure of > the Islamic states is most total that the things they ought to be > emulating from the glorious past of Islamic are openness to trade, > toleration, meritocracy, egality, respect and encouragement for > science and scholarship and so forth, I just don't know. I think that's a problem that has to be sorted out internally. I agree again, with Tom Freedman when he says what we can best do is stop subsidizing their dysfunctional system through massive payments for oil. I also think the next best thing we can do is dissuade them from the idea that they will win what they want through force of arms. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
