> The Daniel Pipes apologetic article from Flemming Rose/Jyllands Posten
24 February 2006, 06:15
Pipes argues that "radical" (versus "moderate") Islam poses a threat not only to the nations of the West but to the citizens, particularly the female citizens, of countries in the Middle East. While one can easily, indeed whole-heartedly, agree with his point about the suppression of women in Islamist states, the preponderance of the female population in the countries of the Middle East seem unlikely to join the National Organization of Women if allowed to do so. Moreover, in their present state of military preparedness the nations of the Middle East cannot in any sober assessment be considered to represent a military threat the U.S. or any nation that enjoys its protection. Admittedly, they are capable of the kind of asymmetric (terrorist) military initiatives associated with bin Laden and al-Zarqawi. How that is most effectively dealt with is a most contentious point, though it does not appear that anyone has the answer to it, least of all England or Israel, both of whom have been the target of terrorism for a generation. Pipes appears to think that it is best dealt with by an all out pre-emptive war.
Pipes argues that Islam is compatible with democratic government—though radical, or fundmentalist, or Wahabist, Islam is not. While Islamic countries appear to be thoroughly besotted with Jihadist attitudes at present, Pipes calls attention to the genuinely surprising changes that were effected in Japan and Germany in the aftermath of WWII. I do not know if one is entitled to suppose that Pipes is endorsing an all out war against Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Syria of the kind waged against Germany and Japan as an acceptable means by which to bring about the displacement of radical elements. It would however appear that Pipes has no moral objection to a war in which the nations of the West combine against those that profess "militant" Islamic values, a war in which perhaps millions of human beings would need to be killed for their own good and the good the the West.
The objective of this war, presumably, would be the imposition of pro-Western governments whose values harmonize easily with those of the aggressor nations, the ones that pre-emptively (and high-mindedly) invaded these countries en masse. These governments, not incidentally, would be more to the liking of people like Pipes and other neo-conservatives. In the name of Western style liberalism these governments would be permitted to stand only if they agreed in advance to prevent those who favor a theocratic "Islamist" government from achieving their end. It would very likely be necessary to suspend the self-styled allegiance of the West to the democratic process for as long as it takes to assure that, when democracy is implemented, the majority of those allowed to vote would hold the line against the fundamentalists—if any are be left standing—in their midst.
This I genuinely understand to be the position endorsed by Pipes. If I have no misunderstood him, my question is this: Does not the present state of affairs in Iraq attest the naivety of his position? The invasion of Iraq was predicated on the supposition that, when the bad fellows were rooted out, the good ones would create (or agree to) a government along the lines thought desirable by the architects of this war. We see now that the situation is infinitely more complex, infinitely more costly in blood and treasure, infinitely less susceptible of being effected by military means than was thought at the advent of the war by its neo-conservative architects. I pause for a reply.
Pipes argues that "radical" (versus "moderate") Islam poses a threat not only to the nations of the West but to the citizens, particularly the female citizens, of countries in the Middle East. While one can easily, indeed whole-heartedly, agree with his point about the suppression of women in Islamist states, the preponderance of the female population in the countries of the Middle East seem unlikely to join the National Organization of Women if allowed to do so. Moreover, in their present state of military preparedness the nations of the Middle East cannot in any sober assessment be considered to represent a military threat the U.S. or any nation that enjoys its protection. Admittedly, they are capable of the kind of asymmetric (terrorist) military initiatives associated with bin Laden and al-Zarqawi. How that is most effectively dealt with is a most contentious point, though it does not appear that anyone has the answer to it, least of all England or Israel, both of whom have been the target of terrorism for a generation. Pipes appears to think that it is best dealt with by an all out pre-emptive war.
Pipes argues that Islam is compatible with democratic government—though radical, or fundmentalist, or Wahabist, Islam is not. While Islamic countries appear to be thoroughly besotted with Jihadist attitudes at present, Pipes calls attention to the genuinely surprising changes that were effected in Japan and Germany in the aftermath of WWII. I do not know if one is entitled to suppose that Pipes is endorsing an all out war against Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Syria of the kind waged against Germany and Japan as an acceptable means by which to bring about the displacement of radical elements. It would however appear that Pipes has no moral objection to a war in which the nations of the West combine against those that profess "militant" Islamic values, a war in which perhaps millions of human beings would need to be killed for their own good and the good the the West.
The objective of this war, presumably, would be the imposition of pro-Western governments whose values harmonize easily with those of the aggressor nations, the ones that pre-emptively (and high-mindedly) invaded these countries en masse. These governments, not incidentally, would be more to the liking of people like Pipes and other neo-conservatives. In the name of Western style liberalism these governments would be permitted to stand only if they agreed in advance to prevent those who favor a theocratic "Islamist" government from achieving their end. It would very likely be necessary to suspend the self-styled allegiance of the West to the democratic process for as long as it takes to assure that, when democracy is implemented, the majority of those allowed to vote would hold the line against the fundamentalists—if any are be left standing—in their midst.
This I genuinely understand to be the position endorsed by Pipes. If I have no misunderstood him, my question is this: Does not the present state of affairs in Iraq attest the naivety of his position? The invasion of Iraq was predicated on the supposition that, when the bad fellows were rooted out, the good ones would create (or agree to) a government along the lines thought desirable by the architects of this war. We see now that the situation is infinitely more complex, infinitely more costly in blood and treasure, infinitely less susceptible of being effected by military means than was thought at the advent of the war by its neo-conservative architects. I pause for a reply.