| Hi.
http://www.meforum.org/article/pipes/103
This is a great article. But I decided to pick on the bits I disagree with. And of course I invite others to find fault with my opinions in turn, in order either to identify and correct my errors or find out what the main (but in my opinion insuffiently valid objections) would be, and start working on solutions to them.
Or if what I say makes sense, feel free to say that too. A boost to the old ego has its place. :)
Pipes' description is fine, but his prescription is no good.
The prescription falls down in three key areas.
(1) It relies on, and would ultimately make the like-minded nations hostage to, worthless allies who nobody will fight for. "Anti-Islamists today are weak, divided, intimidated, and generally ineffectual."
Also, moderate Muslins are essentially free riders on militant Islam: not willing to take risk or pay costs, but still relentlessly opposed to America and the like-minded nations, and still beneficiaries in the long run (over generations) from the advance of Islam, by whatever means.
What kind of strategy is it to rely on people whose sentiments and long-term self-interest calls for your enemy to win and for you to lose? Especially when those you want to be rescued by have no power to help you even if they wanted to?
(2) Containment is a worthless idea, because the horse has already bolted. In Indonesia, in Africa and elsewhere, militant Islam is making great strides. Where Islam has power, for example in Pakistan, ethnic cleansing against non-Muslims is permanently changing the religious map of the world. People who know they are winning on many fronts won't have their will to fight broken because they are stalled here or there.
Once you settle in containment, this defensive strategy filters down to operations, throwing away the advantages of the Western way of war and America's expensive war machine. The only way for us to fight effectively is to fight aggressively.
(3) The kind of policies Pipes recommends fail his own test. Can you really give this stuff to a general, and tell him to do that? "Moderate Islam to the rescue" is not a military strategy, it's an obviously false hope that somebody else will solve the problems that we lack the will (and the demographic strength) to tackle.
A more rational strategy would:
* rely on non-Muslims whose self-interest requires that they fight. (Corollary: allies and potential allies willing to take on militant Islam must be allowed to gain by doing so.)
* try to seize the initiative and fight aggressively, and
* go for real, clear-cut gains at the expense of militant Islam.
This approach begins (it does not end) with unreserved support for India in Kashmir, Russia in Chechnya, and Israel in the whole territory in which it is being compelled to fight for its survival.
When when non-Muslims are taking turf from Muslims, when Muslims are converting out (with impunity) in large numbers (which will only happen under the protection of non-Muslim governments), when Saudi oil no longer buys Riyadh immunity, and when militant Islam's efforts to reverse the course of events by force have failed comprehensively, then we can expect to see a great change of heart in Islam, and then the war will be over.
But as things stand, and as things would go with Pipes recommendations as our guide ... why on earth would you expect our enemies voluntarily to stop winning?
David Blue
Riyadh delenda est!
|
