Michael Yon has a great piece about militant Islam up that I highly recommend. He covers the scope and causes of this scourge and highlights its far-reaching effects around the world.
On a completely separate note, I wish there was an episode of Batman where something about the apocalypse is the theme and Robin, at some point, exclaims: "Holy eschaton, Batman!"
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
2 comments:
I actually found Yon’s account utterly baffling. On the one hand, he very much wants to believe that the “Euro-rhetoric that claims our foreign policy is to blame for the rise in terrorism cannot account for the problems in China” or around the world while, on the other, wants to accept the “Clash of Civilizations” thesis. Those seem completely at odds with each other.
If he takes the latter seriously, then he has to understand that the foreign and domestic policy and the EU and the US and Israel and China are in some basic ways a) the same and b) opposed to pre-Modern Islam. If it is really “a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another mentality that belongs to the 21st century,” then why does he want to make all these fine distinctions in the “mentality that belongs to the 21st century” and expect that those who have a “mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages” would recognize or care about them. As far as they are concerned, so this thesis goes, there is no qualitative difference; the US and EU and China are all part of a larger process that is fundamentally at odds with theirs.
Also, it is worth noting that neither Yon nor the scholars he quotes offer any justification for why exactly we should give moral support to the “mentality that belongs to the 21st century” as opposed to the “mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages.” I think there are some reasons, but since the group that he is critiquing (pre-Modern Islamists) obviously don’t find that to be the case, then it seems worth addressing that issue.
So I just don’t get it and I suspect that he himself is fairly confused.
I found two other things interesting that, hopefully, you could clear up for me:
First, Yon likes this quote from Ahmed Rashid very much, which, in part, claims that:
“The new jihadi groups have no economic manifesto, no plan for better governance and the building of political institutions, and no blue-print for creating democratic participation in the decision-making process of the future Islamic states. They depend on a single charismatic leader, an amir, rather than a more democratically constituted organization or party for governance. They believe that the character, piety, and purity of their leader rather than his political abilities, education, or experience will enable him to lead the new society.”
Now, I am no expert on Islamic history, but how exactly is this “new jihadi group” different than jihadi groups eight centuries ago? Did 13th century jihadi groups have a “blue-print for creating democratic participation?” Did 13th century jihadi groups eschew the belief “that the character, piety, and purity of their leader rather than his political abilities, education, or experience will enable him to lead the new society?” I just don’t know but I am not convinced as yet. Do you have any thoughts?
Secondly, I have to take issue with this passage:
“Consider now the question of Israel. Islamic terrorists often cite US support for Israel as the cause of their anger. They are lying. They don’t care about the Palestinians. The Palestinians are pawns and excuses. Saddam Hussein “cared” about Palestinians, and he focused his charity by giving bonuses to the families of homicide bombers. His sponsorship of terrorism welled up from ancient land disputes between Arabs and Jews. But he used Palestinian pawns to attack Jews in a desperate ploy to curry favor with Hamas leaders, lest they begin to concern themselves with all their Shia brethren piled into mass graves in the Iraq desert.”
Now, I am not trying to be naïve, but I consider it basically unethical to attribute motivations to a person or group, especially when they are quite forthcoming about motivations. There is something very Freudian about that (You THINK you want to be an astronaut because you BELIEVE it is exciting and important, but, in actuality, you want to be an astronaut because you secretly want to kill your father and rape your mother) It is a way of avoiding the real issue presented to you by attributing it to something that you don’t have to wrestle with. I find it lazy, immoral, and cheap. Now, not to say that it is always invalid, but you should check all your p’s and q’s before you go that route.
Also, I am confused about these “ancient land disputes between Arabs and Jews.” What exactly is he referring to? I am unaware of any such land disputes that are previous to 1948.
J. Morgan, I think that you need to break down and start your own blog. Yon's piece does carry a lot of opinion in places. But I get the feeling that you are not wanting to discuss the piece so much as underlying issues. Either way, I think that you should start your own blog so that when things like this come up you can have a space to explore them thoroughly in a place where the rest of us can more clearly understand your points and discussion can happen more easily than on the comments of one of my posts that is several posts old. If you start a blog I will definetly read every post you make.
Post a Comment