|
Page 3 of 3
Civil liberties are being curtailed in the name of security against terrorism and the American people by and large are accepting this. The invasion and subsequent quagmire war in Iraq have isolated America to a large extent on a governmental level, and to an even greater extent among the populaces of Europe, and most of the rest of the world. Surely George W. Bush is the most hated and feared political leader on the planet, and the United States the most feared and hated nation.
Moreover, as long as the war in Iraq drags on, the United States is rendered effectively powerless to intervene militarily elsewhere, even if its vital interests are at stake, for instance should a coup turn Saudi Arabia into an enemy Islamic state with a stranglehold on its oil supply. The American public will not accept a draft, the Army and the National Guard and the reserves are failing to recruit sufficient volunteers, and the United States military is already being forced to
alter its doctrine requiring readiness to fight two wars at the same time because it simply cannot raise the forces necessary to do so.
Thus, whatever they may say, the jihadi terrorists in Iraq are not trying to drive the American forces out. As opposed to the Baath revanchist terrorists, they like things the way they are just fine. And since the Americans tie their departure to turning things over to an Iraqi army and security force capable of standing against them on their own, they have altered their tactics to concentrate on killing Iraqi soldiers, police, security forces, trainees, and potential
recruits to see to it that this cannot happen.
This is a war against democracy, the western way of life, secularism, the concept of multicultural states, and the 21st century itself, waged not by incoherent death-loving nihilists (though such gunfodder may be employed) but by an enemy with sincerely held theocratic political beliefs, a stepwise political strategy and very clear tactical thinking, waged against a clueless American administration which displays no understanding of the true nature of its enemy or its overall strategy and has therefore handed it and continues to hand
it a series of tactical victories.
Can there even be a strategy that can hope to definitively defeat such an enemy? Perhaps not.
This is a jihad that has gone on in one form or another for 1000 years and it is doubtful whether the hard-core terrorist believers can ever be completely eliminated and will never accept final defeat. The best that can be hoped for is to attenuate the conflict towards a vanishing point which can never quite be reached. In the real world, this could be an acceptable outcome. The situation in Ulster, with Catholic minority seeking union with Ireland and a Protestant majority that refuses such a union that would reduce it to a minority may be inherently unresolvable, but the Irish Republic Army and the Unionist terrorists have lost their popular support for terrorist acts, Sri Lanka may be moving in the same direction, and where terrorism failed
to achieve its political goal in South Africa it was achieved by Nelson Mandela and Willem De Klerk without what had seemed like the inevitable bloodbath.
The democratic West needs its De Klerk and Islam needs its Mandela.
The former is presently nowhere in evidence, but could arise through the democratic process exercised by an enlightened electorate. Neither is the latter, but while it seems unlikely that such a figure could arise through the largely non-existent democratic processes in the Islamic world, the example of Anwar Sadat, who came to power by other means, concluding at least a cold peace with the least likely Israeli leader, Menachim Begin, at least gives cause for hope.
Begin did nothing to create his "Arab Mandela," far from it, but enlightened democratic leadership could take steps to nurture the emergence of a "Madhi of Peace." Islam has no final authority, no Pope to issue a fatwah against terrorist tactics religiously binding on all sects and factions. But there are many mullahs, ayatollahs, and other Islamic authorities who could issue such fatwahs, and if enough of them could be persuaded to do so, the terrorist hard-liners could be reduced to apostate pariahs within the Umma no longer able to swim like fish in the sea of the people even though popular support for their political goal might remain.
Initially this would probably have to begin outside the Middle East. Indonesia is the most populous country and despite the overwhelming Muslim majority there is little popular support for Islamic terrorism, not much more for the establishment of an Islamic state, and multiculturalism is the official ideology. A similar if more precarious balance exists in Malaysia.
In Europe, where 20 million Muslims are a culturally suspect minority, fatwahs at least proclaiming that multicultural democratic societies are not against Islam and the Koran might be enthusiastically welcomed provided that there was a quid pro quo by the Christian and secular majority.
And that is the key. An acceptance of co-existence between the Islamic concept of governmental legitimacy and the democratic concept must arise from within the Umma, and given the nature of Islamic, this can only happen via the collectively weight of fatwahs issued by diverse authorities in diverse lands.
To encourage this, to foment it if you will, the democracies must not only address the grievances of Muslims, but demonstrate the practical advantages of democracy and legally protected civil liberties over theocratic rule in their multicultural societies and in general to the self-interest of individual Muslims.
Indonesia and Malaysia show the way, and Europe must follow suit to demonstrate both a greater welcoming acceptance of the elements of the Umma within multicultural European societies and the economic and civil advantages of living as Muslims in advanced and relatively prosperous democratic states over life in backward Islamic societies that deny the realties of the 21s century itself.
Even under its presently benighted leadership, the United States is further advanced that Europe along this road. The American Constitution forbids the governmental establishment religion, but it protects "the free exercise thereof."
American secular public schools do not forbid the wearing of yarmulkes, crosses, or Islamic dress; such expressions of religious affiliation are protected by law. Surely France can follow this example and accept the wearing of the foulard in its own multicultural secular schools.
And indeed even under Bush, multiculturalism is a cornerstone of the national ideology, as it has been for a hundred years, more or less, strengthened perhaps even to a fault in recent years, a glaring contrast to the assimilationism prevalent in all too many European states, some of whom even have established specific Christian sects as the official state religion. An enlightened European Union would do well to adopt the clause of the American Constitution and legally prohibit the establishment of a religion by its member states and legally protect the free practice of all religions within its boundaries.
On the political level, French, British, and particularly German championing of Turkish entry into the European Union would be a transformational beau jeste, a statement that Europe's Muslims are not a suspect minority on a Christian continent but a welcome addition to the great community of democratic European states. But the United States must take the first giant step. Bush's verbal championing of democracy in the Middle East would be all well and good if it did not come from the mouth of "the Great Satan" doing business as usual with monarchical and secular local despots and 135,000 troops occupying an Arab state. But as such it is worse than hollow, it discredits democracy itself in the eyes of the Arab masses, and not without a certain justification. If Mohammed was the Messenger delivering the Word of Allah, an American President under such conditions as the Messenger of Democracy has about as much credibility as Bill Clinton preaching the virtues of chastity to the teenagers of America.
It is highly unlikely that the leopard in the White House is about to change his spots, so it is up to the Democratic opposition to screw up its courage as it failed to do in the last election, face the true nature of the conflict, explain it in clear terms to the American people, demonstrate faith in the outcome of the enlightened democratic process America presumes to defend and promise to do the following if elected:
Announce a schedule for withdrawal from Iraq, based not on an arbitrary timetable, but on events--once the Iraqis write their own constitution and hold an election under it and install a government, the American troops will withdraw in a rapid and orderly fashion and with victory and honor.
The first stated goal, after all, was to remove weapons of mass destruction. There weren't any. Mission accomplished. The first back-up goal, after all, was to overthrow the government of Saddam Hussein. Mission accomplished.
The final goal was to install a legitimate Iraqi government elected under a constitution written by Iraqis. In the real world, bases might be retained in Iraq, or in the Emirates, but once that mission is accomplished, the United States can, should, and must declare victory, which can truly and honorably do, and go home. Islam needs its Mandela.
America needs its Gorbachev.
To do a terrible thing to Bin Laden and the terrorist jihadis by depriving them of their self-created paramount enemy. Only one force on Earth can slay their Great Satan.
For the honor of the American people, in the name of democracy, in the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful, only America can make it so. 
About the author: Norman Spinrad is the author of some 20 novels and 60 stories published in 14 languages, including "Bug Jack Barron," "The Iron Dream," "He Walked Among Us," And "Mexica." He has also written feature films, television programs, and songs. He is also a journalist, film critic, literary critic, and political commentator. He has been a radio talk show host, vocalist, literary agent and President of the Science Fiction Writers of America and World SF. He grew up in New York, lived in Los Angeles, London, San Francisco, and Paris, and has travelled widely throughout Europe. Latin American and Asia.
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 Next > End >>
|
