Here is a problem that has no Radical Centrist solution. This is our dilemma. Not all problems have RC solutions. Or to put things differently, Radical Centrism needs to be defined in such a way that a Teddy Roosevelt solution to a problem like Pakistan, which today would be called neo-Conservative, can be interpreted as Radical Centrist if it is balanced, assuming balance makes good sense in particular cases. In the case of the article that follows, about Pakistan and its intractable problems, what has been called a "soft power" might be a solution elsewhere that is relevant to Pakistan and Islam --for example, diplomacy to secure freedom of religion in nations like Qatar or Kuwait. But as for Pakistan, you may agree, when you read Tucker's article, that the entire nation is a madhouse. We all know this kind of generalization is over the top. But we also all know that the problems discussed will not go away through a process of wringing our hands really hard, or a process of mild rebuke based on the premise that no-one should ever say anything that offends Muslims. In this case, as in any number of other cases, it is about time we offended Muslims as a matter of policy, strongly and unequivocally, emphasizing all the barbarisms intrinsic to Islam as practiced by multitudes in Pakistan and any number of other Muslim nations. Such Islam is institutionalized bigotry, and it is commonplace within Dar al-Islam. Sometimes we need Teddy Roosevelt ; it is rare when we get him. He was no-where in evidence under William Clinton, he is nowhere in sight under Barrack Hussein Obama, or to think back to an earlier time, under Jimmy Carter. There at least were glimmers of TR under each of the Bushes and Reagan, but with the caveat that , unlike Teddy Roosevelt, none of these three Republican presidents had any clue about follow up, how to make military intervention successful in terms of the post-intervention world. RR's withdrawal from Lebanon after the bombing of the Marine barracks, left America weakened in the Mid East. Bush 41, by not forcing regime change on Iraq, left the door wide open to much worse problems in the years ahead. W's reliance on the bad advice of Donald Rumsfeld led him
to throw away just about all of the sound recommendations of the Iraq Future project and appoint William Brenner to run the country in the war's aftermath, doing everything possible to make damned sure there would be an insurgency to oppose American occupation with all resources at its disposal. In all of this you can make the case : There was a time in each instance when a Radical Centrist solution to fundamental problems was possible. To think only of Iraq, that time was during the first DAYS of the occupation, at exactly the time that mass looting began and order was breaking down. Rapid response to end the chaos was called for and instituting a policy of no tolerance for social anarchy and, at the same time, instituting a regime of American law and freedoms --to opening up the country to democracy, free and open discussion, and free enterprise Which was actually done at the local level in some places, as it was under General Petraeus' command in his part of Iraq. The local administration he established was, in at least some ways, RC in character. But overall national policy was very different and Iraq fell apart in about one year. The RC moment had passed. The thesis here is that RC is necessarily "time sensitive." We cannot take the view that RC, as usually understood, will always, in all circumstances, provide optimal solutions to problems. Which is to say that when a RC moment does arise the objective should be to seize the opportunity and act decisively to make the most of the situation. A lesson from year # 1 of the BHO administration. The opportunity for the new regime to remake the finance / banking system, to fix the mess structurally, existed for maybe 3 or 4 months following inauguration. But instead of seeking radical reforms, BHO staffed his admin with Goldman-Sachs types, many of whom were Clinton-era retreads, shut out participation from the business community, and did everything possible to make sure that the remake of the movie, "Wall Street," would be exactly the same as the original. That, too, could have been a Radical Centrist moment, and that, too, was an opportunity squandered. If any of us every get the chance for our own RC moments, let's not make the same mistakes. My humble opinion Billy ========================================================= American Spectator _Thank God These People Are on the Other Side of the World_ (http://spectator.org/archives/2011/01/07/thank-god-these-people-live-on) By _William Tucker_ (http://spectator.org/people/william-tucker) on 1.7.11 @ 6:09AM Just curious, but is anybody paying attention to what just happened in Pakistan? It's dribbled out in bits and pieces, but I don't recall anyone putting the whole picture in perspective. Here's what's happened. More than a year ago, Asia Bibi, a 45-year-old mother of five, was working in the fields in the Punjab province when some of the Muslim women working alongside her asked her to fetch water. When she returned, several women said they would not accept it because she was a Christian and therefore "unclean." Insults were exchanged and in the process Bibi made some insulting remarks about the Koran and Islam. The incident blew over at first, but word spread through the town and a few days later Bibi was being pursued by a Muslim mob. The police intervened and rescued her but felt obliged to satisfy the mob's bloodlust so they charged Bibi with blasphemy. This is a capital offense under a law dating back to British colonialism. Bibi was held in solitary confinement for more a year until she was finally put on trial in October. She was convicted in the provincial court and sentenced to die on November 9. By now the case was drawing international attention. Christian groups began to protest and Pope Benedict XVI _appealed_ (http://www.catholic-sf.org/news_select.php?newsid=3&id=57878) for clemency, complaining that Christians in Pakistan are "often victims of violence and discrimination." Other minority groups in Pakistan began calling for the repeal of the blasphemy law, saying it was used to persecute all minorities. The execution was postponed. Then in mid-November, Salman Taseer, the governor of Punjab and apparently a decent man, called for issuing a pardon and said that blasphemy should not be punishable by death. In late November, an aide to President Asif Ali Zardari put out word that a pardon would be forthcoming. All the while, Bibi remained in jail. So on last Tuesday, Governor Taseer, the man who had spoken up for softening the law, was assassinated by one of his own guards. The killer, one Malik Mumtaz Hussain Qadri, said that Taseer had committed blasphemy by siding with Bibi. Qadri was known for his extreme views and acted alone, but none of the governor's other guards seemed to make any attempt to stop him. Yesterday when Qadri appeared in court, he was mobbed by a throng of admirers who garlanded him with flowers. Meanwhile, Taseer's family couldn't find a Muslim cleric to preside over his funeral. SO THERE YOU have it. An incident that might take place on a playground in this country becomes an international incident in Pakistan with one of the highest public officials in the land assassinated while the crowds cheer. Press coverage has been typically boring and mealy-mouthed. The Voice of America _found_ (http://www.voanews.com/english/news/asia/Pakistan-Governors-Assassination-Underscores-Societal-Chasm-113018109.html) the whole thing emblematic of class conflict: Political power in Pakistan has usually rested with an educated, liberal, and often wealthy elite -- at least when the country was not under military rule. With his push to roll back the country's blasphemy laws, Punjab Governor Salman Taseer epitomized what radicals view as an alarming secular drift in Pakistan. Lisa Curtis, of the Heritage Foundation, of all places, _ascribed_ (http://www.51voa.com/VOA_Standard_English/Pakistan-Governors-Assassination-Underscor es-Societal-Chasm-40364.html) the incident to a kind of post-traumatic stress syndrome: "It's been events over the past 30 years, like the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan, the Islamization policies of General Zia ul-Haq during the 1980s, which has really strengthened the Islamist forces and the more puritanical sects in Pakistan over the more traditional and moderate Sunni sects." Ravi Agrawal, _reporting_ (http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/01/06/pakistan.killing/index.html) for CNN, explains it all as a reaction to colonialism. [Taseer's] political thoughts were forged at his English-style high school in posh Lahore, and then furthered in his time studying accounting in England. Taseer lived and died a Muslim. But he was also modern, with western views on law and democracy. And it was those views that clashed with a country that has increasingly identified itself as Islamic, shedding the anglicized traditions of its colonized past. Sounds like he deserved to die to me. Here's an alternative explanation to the story. These people are crazy. They live in a world that most Europeans left behind when Hieronymus Bosch hung up his paintbrushes -- a world that most contemporary American leave behind somewhere around first grade. I remember well the panic we all felt that year trying to escape some particularly unpopular girl's "cooties." After another year, however, the terror subsided. We began to lead rational lives. Not so in the great Islamic Republic. The phobias, irrational fears, superstitions, and delusions that most cultures would ascribe to madness are part of daily life. The place is a lunatic asylum. Thank god they live on the other side of the world. But of course, as 9/11 showed, that's not really true anymore. And they do have a nuclear weapon, too -- think of that. We are not to blame for Pakistan. As Iraqis have gone on killing each other for the last five years, it was always possible to say that we set the ball rolling by invading in the first place. But Pakistan is sui generis. These people are not rejecting colonialism, they are rejecting civilization. Sunnis kill Shi'ia, Shi'ia kill Sunnis, and Sunnis and Shi'ia combine to kill Suffi. Then they all get together and murder Christians or someone who can speak English or whoever else happens to be at hand. Me and my cousin against the world. I think we should finish whatever the hell it is we are doing in Afghanistan but then get the hell out. Forget about this "nation-building." These people are incapable of holding a wedding or a funeral without somebody blowing himself up and taking half the crowd with him. Maybe in some other century we can sit down and talk about a peaceful future. For now, I say let them broil in their own inferno -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
