| Submit your comments on this article |
| Terror Networks & Islam |
| Fukuyama: A Year of Living Dangerously |
| 2005-11-02 |
| WSJ Op Ed Reg Req EFL There is good reason for thinking, however, that a critical source of contemporary radical Islamism lies not in the Middle East, but in Western Europe. The identity problem is particularly severe for second- and third-generation children of immigrants. They grow up outside the traditional culture of their parents, but unlike most newcomers to the United States, few feel truly accepted by the surrounding society. Osama bin Laden appears, offering young converts a universalistic, pure version of Islam that has been stripped of its local saints, customs and traditions. Radical Islamism tells them exactly who they are--respected members of a global Muslim umma to which they can belong despite their lives in lands of unbelief. If this is in fact an accurate description of an important source of radicalism, several conclusions follow. First, the challenge that Islamism represents is not a strange and unfamiliar one. Rapid transition to modernity has long spawned radicalization; we have seen the exact same forms of alienation among those young people who in earlier generations became anarchists, Bolsheviks, fascists or members of the Bader-Meinhof gang. The ideology changes but the underlying psychology does not. Further, radical Islamism is as much a product of modernization and globalization as it is a religious phenomenon; it would not be nearly as intense if Muslims could not travel, surf the Web, or become otherwise disconnected from their culture. This means that "fixing" the Middle East by bringing modernization and democracy to countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia will not solve the terrorism problem, but may in the short run make the problem worse. Democracy and modernization in the Muslim world are desirable for their own sake, but we will continue to have a big problem with terrorism in Europe regardless of what happens there. The real challenge for democracy lies in Europe, where the problem is an internal one of integrating large numbers of angry young Muslims and doing so in a way that does not provoke an even angrier backlash from right-wing populists. Two things need to happen: First, countries like Holland and Britain need to reverse the counterproductive multiculturalist policies that sheltered radicalism, and crack down on extremists. But second, they also need to reformulate their definitions of national identity to be more accepting of people from non-Western backgrounds. Many Europeans assert that the American melting pot cannot be transported to European soil. Identity there remains rooted in blood, soil and ancient shared memory. This may be true, but if so, democracy in Europe will be in big trouble in the future as Muslims become an ever larger percentage of the population. And since Europe is today one of main battlegrounds of the war on terrorism, this reality will matter for the rest of us as well. |
| Posted by:Snerenter Slealing9041 |
| #11 Fukuyama et al want to put the Islamofascists on the coach and perform a social and pycho analysis. Crime is crime irrespective of "root cause." No one is forcing these facists to migrate to a new country. And, unlike their old country, the new one doesn't impose upon them to adapt to the tyrany of religion, theocracy, or monarchy. Force the fuckers out if they represent a national security threat. Yet that only relocates the problem, it doesn't resolve it. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2005-11-02 21:55 |
| #10 Weird thread. Thanks for the input Powatanidal, I've never considered the tribal military aspects of this confilict before. But come to think of it these Sunni kinda remind me of old Pawnee cliches. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-11-02 15:59 |
| #9 Wasn't my intention to deprecate, only to point out that there's not that much distance between what you and Fukayama said wrt the first two points. The final point you make, with which I and I believe FF disagree, is that the problem is inherent in Islam. There is no doubt in my mind that Saudi wackos are taking advantage of the opportunity to recycle their petro dollars to undermine non-islamic regimes, and thereby the kill goose that lays all those golden eggs. Dumb and stupid. I read FF as saying that our situation is akin to that in the fight against communism. There is no monolithic Islamism to fight just as there was no monolithic Comintern. While we in the west think that communism was defeated in 1989, and it may have been in the western intellegentsia, variants far less messianic, are still floating in China, North Korea, Cuba and Viet Nam. Each is being dealt with using a different strategy. And all will fall. But we didn't try to overthrow them all at once. Iran and Saudi Arabia are both inimical powers in the Middle East. What FF is saying is that we should address each of them individually in the manner most likely to achieve our goals. The article did not go into the specifics on how he thought each should be dealt with. I agree we have a problem with countries posessing nuclear weapons and a willingness to use them. but I am equally uneasy with Hugo wanting to go into the reprocessing business. And I am a lot more worried about to whom the ISI is passing out the keys to their weapons lockers. Islam has a history that is easily taken over by militants who seek to achieve a political end as the political and religious are not nearly as separate in Islamic society, or in most preindustrialized societies as in the Anglosphere. But, Islam is here and is not going to go away. Our problem is not with Islam, though it becomes a lightning rod for them. And if our problem is with Islam, what should we do about it? |
| Posted by: Snerenter Slealing9041 2005-11-02 14:59 |
| #8 I apologize, Chief, for the beatly behavior of us white men. I happen to be in the area. Perhaps I can come and grovel in person? |
| Posted by: Prince Charles 2005-11-02 14:22 |
| #7 The first two sentences are reiterations of points Fukuyama makes. But his point is: 1) the greatest threat to the Europeans is their unassimilated immigrants, not nutters coming from the ME to destroy them. 2) The Euros need to find some way to assimilate them to becoming Europeans first. SS9401: Isn't a little cheesy to take one paragraph out of my screed, deprecate it, then use it as springboard for your own? Especially when Fukuyama never characterizes European immigation policy as foolish or ever quesions it at all? This is a problem with Islam. The money is coming out of Saudi Arabia and the mullahs among the muhajiroun are either from SA or are being subsidized by it. The Quran and other Islamic writings are at least partially a record of how Arab immigrants living in the fragemented, Hellenized Levant, united, overthrew their masters and acquired an empire of their own. As such, it reads as a manual for taking over a fragmented, disfunctional society. That is why Islam remains relevant. This is a religous problem. I agree with both you and Fukuyama that Europe is a decisive point in this war. But the enemy centers of gravity are the oil fields (material)and Mecca (spiritual). These cannot be ignored and must be neutralized, else the enemy will continue to gather strength. I am especially suspect of Fukuyama's analysis since he has recently come out against the Iraq war. I see this article as an attempt to regionalize the conflict. We cannot ignore the Middle Eastern or Islamic dimension of this war. At the beginning of WWII, we said that we would defeat the Germans's first then the Japanese. In reality, we had to defeat them more or less at the same time. We cannot say that we are only going to win this war in Europe and ignore the rest of the world. I'm not accusing you of saying this, because obviously you're not. But if Fukuyama isn't saying this in this article, then this article along with the rest of his recent comments seem to say that he wants us out of the Islamic core. I cannot accept this. Such a course of action will result in a nuclear armed Islamist state sitting on a big chunk of the world's energy reserves. It would be a disater for the West. |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2005-11-02 14:19 |
| #6 Assimilation is a white man's word, it means nothing. Initially they came across the big waters in large canoes, but few in number. They were peaceful at first and we tried to show them the way of our tribes but they refused. Many more came in many canoes. They worshiped strange Gods and thier women covered themselves as if in shame. Thier Captain violated my family and my daughter Pochahontas. The Captain had a roving eye, and frequently let his tomahawk do his thinking for him. Later they brought very dark skinned people in chains who listened to strange drums. They built a fort named James which had a big PX. They began running snatch missions and sometimes search and destroy foreys against my people. We tried everything, peace overatures, corn, deer meat, funny weed, nothing worked. They called us savages and were bent on our destruction as a people. They are many now and have created global warming. We are forgotten. Assimilation is a white man's word, it means nothing. |
| Posted by: Powhatan 2005-11-02 13:51 |
| #5 Islamic society will react violently as it undergoes its clash with modernity as every society before it (including ours) has. Europe has been drawn into that violence due to foolish immigation policy. The real question is whether in the end the Islamic reaction will be merely violent or suicidal (a Gotterdammerung) as I suspect it will be. The first two sentences are reiterations of points Fukuyama makes. But his point is: 1) the greatest threat to the Europeans is their unassimilated immigrants, not nutters coming from the ME to destroy them. 2) The Euros need to find some way to assimilate them to becoming Europeans first. The unaddressed question is whether, if they could figure out the perfect assimilation program, the Europeans could implement it in time to avoid things falling apart at the seams. What's going on in Paris right now is not a sign for optomism. What's going on in Paris looks a lot like the long hot summers of the mid '60s. A strategic decision was made by America to integrates blacks into our society. That was the right decision. I don't agree with every policy to implement it, but I wouldn't change the basic decision. Europe has not made any decision yet, nor is it clear it is even having a discussion. The handling of the Turkey EU application is the most blatant example. If Europe is limited to Christian Members of the Tribe, say so and implement the policy. If you're going to have guest workers and send them home, that's a policy too. But this let them show up and pretend they aren't there policy is nuts. I have a bit of a hard time making the religious argument as we have had relatively little problem in the U. S. with Muslim immigrants. There's lots of reasons, but our model of assimilation, especially of children, seems to have been more effective in defanging the Islamonuts. That there is a ghetto of 500,000 muslims in Paris with no-go areas where police and EMS will not go is an indication that France has had a policy of non-assimilation. That the kids in these neighborhoods speak Arabic, not French, is a sign of non-assimilation. It's sure not like America where the parents have to send the kids to name-your-ethnic-group school to make sure the kids can talk to the grand parents in the old country and then the kids react by making sure there is not a trace of the old country around when they raise the grand children. I think the ability of America to assimilate is also a source of the hatred for America around the world. Because they are all tribally based, no other country, especially non-Anglosphere countries, assimilates nearly as well as does the U. S. Our ability to assimilate, to attract the smartest and most talented individuals from every country in the world is a threat to them and their culture. It means that sooner or later they will become Americans culturally if not legally. And it scares the hell out of them. I believe a good point is being made that there is not an ummah here to be defeated, there are lot's of populations involved and each must be dealt with effectively. Combatting what is going on in Nigeria and Darful will be different than in Europe, than in Iran, than in Saudi Arabia, and on and on. That makes the problem much more complex and difficult to resolve, but we aren't going to kill every muslim in the world, so we, and especially the Europeans, need to prepare some more effective strategies. That's also why this will take decades. It simply will not be a quick and dirty win like WWII, which if one really thinks about it was a series of wars, started in 1870 and lasting till 1945 or 1989 depending on how you want to look at it. |
| Posted by: Snerenter Slealing9041 2005-11-02 12:39 |
| #4 A case could be made that assimilation (or at least attempts to assimilate) is the problem. Germany until recently took the non-assimilation route and they have few of the problems of France, Holland and even the UK. If you need workers, bring them in as temporary guest workers, not as immigrants. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2005-11-02 11:41 |
| #3 Hey. None of these POLITICAL EXPERTS understand any RELIGION AT ALL because they are not religious and don't know any religious fanatics. I understand the problem. As an engineer who spent my early childhood years on a mission field ... I know religion and I know these experts don't have a clue! Just before 9-11 I remember discussing how Islam was going to be a huge huge problem with several executives on a long walk. (One was even the guy who invented the woodpecker and should know better has he experienced the weak relgion of Stalinism.) I only have encountered one executive that gets it. Teachers and schools don't comprehend so that can't teach it to the so-called experts. They need to make themselves a bit more well rounded. Sort of take some fundementalist of any relgion to live with them for awhile. Then add a few other religions and observe like hell for 24/7. Their eyes will be opened but their minds might not accept it since they will then understand the less generous positions of folks like myself and ".com" who are quite aware of the dangers. They have definitely not been to a bye-bye or a airing of the gods, a sand dance, trances, extreme rituals, or any of the other aspects of extreme religion. The only way to understand a little is to be there - just don't join in an become a participant as that way leads down paths away from logic. View them closely but don't travel them. |
| Posted by: 3dc 2005-11-02 11:41 |
| #2 There is good reason for thinking, however, that a critical source of contemporary radical Islamism lies not in the Middle East, but in Western Europe. Odd. I seem to remember those "you must not be friends with the infidels and must commit to jihad" pamphlets in US mosques were paid for by the Saudis. Does Fukuyama think Saudi Arabia is part of Western Europe? You're right, 11A5S, these "analysts" are blotting out the Muslim world while they're looking for explanations for the behavior of the Muslim world. It's not much different than the left's use of the Islamists as proxies for their cause de jure. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-11-02 10:59 |
| #1 I would echo RC's critique of the Dalrymple piece with regard to Fukuyama's editorial. Muslims are being radicalized in Morocco, Thailand, SA, Indonesia, etc., not only Europe. Both Dalrymple and Fukuyama are (consciously or unconsciously) trying to restrict the scope of the conflict by excluding Dar al Islam from their analysis. I agree that the lack of assimilationist mechanisms in European society tend to reinforce tribal and religious structures native the Dar al Islam. But that just proves the belief of most of us here at Rantburg -- that the root of the problem is Islam. An additional argument against both Dalrymple and Fukuyama is that Britain, which does practice assimilation to a limited extent (the UK has Muslim MPs and CEOs -- unknown in the rest of Europe) has the same problems as France, Holland, and Sweden. I think that one of the reasons that we here in the US have been lucky is that for a Muslim to come here, he must make a bigger phychological break than he would by emmigrating to Europe. After all, we are the great Satan, and have been at least since the time of Qutb and Nasser. To come here, a Muslim knows that he he going to the land of compound interest, licentiousness, and shirk. A Muslim coming here is making a strong statement that he is rejecting some or all of the Islamic world view. In contrast, moving to Europe simply means living among al muhajiroun. In conclusion, I think that Dalrymple (who I have immense respect for) and Fukuyama are dodging the issue. Islam is the problem. Affirmative action in Europe will not solve the problem. Perhaps if the Euros had been humble enough to look to the American model of assimilation forty years ago when they first began importing guest workers, the Muslim problem would be manageable. Islamic society will react violently as it undergoes its clash with modernity as every society before it (including ours) has. Europe has been drawn into that violence due to foolish immigation policy. The real question is whether in the end the Islamic reaction will be merely violent or suicidal (a Gotterdammerung) as I suspect it will be. |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2005-11-02 10:54 |