A recent debate I had with Tacitus on Redstate got me thinking as to whether the roots of militant Islam lie primarily in the socio-economic conditions that exist in Islamic countries or in the religion itself. The issue is crucial because the cause of militant Islamic will dictate our strategy in response. (This view is admittedly so commonplace that it verges on the cliche'. Bear with me.)
Frequently, the issue is framed as "whether Islam should reform itself." I think that it's a distraction to do so. The issue is really "what motivates our enemies".
If one takes the dim view that most people are primarily motivated by money (i.e., socio-economic conditions ultimately drives people), then money is what needs to be addressed. Islamic doctrine will be addressed by implication. The solution is greater trade and investment in Middle Eastern countries (such as the Bush Administration's proposed Middle East Free Trade Area), support for liberal economic regimes (with fingers crossed for the regime emerging in Iraq), and, where directly threatened by the few not motivated by money, a direct and devastating military response.*
If one takes the view that Islam itself if the issue (faith ultimately drives people), however, then the strategy is different. Economic engagement, with the free flow of people and ideas that it engenders, will only grant the enemy freer access to our people and institutions. It will not help us to win because it does not address the root cause: the religion itself. The only things that will help are (a) conversion of Islamic practicioners to a "reformed" Islam (or a different religion); (b) isolation and containment of those who will not convert; and, where practical, (c) death of the committed believer.
There are those who fall into the first camp (me). There are those who fall into the second (Coultier, certain folks at LGF and like-minded sights, and perhaps Paul Cella -- though, if so, he's light-years smarter than many of the others who hold this view).
And then there are those who, I suspect, actually fall into a third category: They believe in the first approach, but often choose to phrase the debate in terms of the second. Bush falls into this third category. Tacitus may as well.
So, addressing the third camp: Things would be simpler if we would simply put our cards on the table. (Or explain what other, unknown cards we may be holding.)
(FYI -- the radical leftists, pro-Palestinian hacks and apologists, and Rachel Corrie types will be addressed in a future post; despite some pseudo-similarity, they are not part of the first camp.)
von
*It may also involve containment of a few unique cases -- e.g., Saudi Arabia. By the way, though I'm still confident of my position, my most-dispassionate view of things it that Tacitus got the better of me in our debate. I find some solace, however, in the fact that the experience is far from unique -- indeed, it's far from unique for me!
Recent Comments