Let
me sum up the situation regarding U.S. policy toward revolutionary
Islamism like this. A man threatens, "Surrender or I'll kill you!" The
victim surrenders and then boasts of how he put an end to violence by
offering an alternative, peaceful "channel of expression"!
By Barry Rubin
Michael Hirsh has responded to my critique of his article. Amazingly,
yet in the context of our era, he did not engage with a single —not a
single—idea that I presented. It is also rather clear that Hirsh knows
nothing about the Middle East and so is merely arguing based on
unsuitable analogies, a lack of knowledge about history, and a blind
faith in "experts" who don't seem to be very expert at all. About their
political philosophy I couldn't care less.
First,
Hirsh relies on a partisan political characterization This is how
things work now. You cast the person in a political category your
readers will detest, signaling your readers to ignore the substance of
what that person says. Thus, Hirsh begins:
“On
the Web, other conservatives joined in: Barry Rubin, a zealously
pro-Israel writer, addressing what he called the “great controversy”
that “erupted” over my article, acknowledged that Obama had discarded
the GWOT.”
Incidentally, I'm not a conservative but a foreign policy analyst of the Realist school who
has dealt professionally with the Middle East for 35 years almost to
the day (happy anniversary!). I also guess he didn't want to write a
zealously pro-American writer, too. Indeed, I'm the one here who
represents a liberal position here, not those who are indifferent to a
right-wing repressive, dictatorial, and clerical regime gaining power.
So
that makes me one of those silly, strange people who think that when
your worst enemies take power in key countries, through violent
revolution or election, this is not a cause for celebration. I discuss
the proper alternative policy here which is as "conservative" as Franklin Roosevelt's strategy in World War Two and Harry Truman's strategy for the Cold War.
I’m
also amused that he said I “acknowledged” his claim when what I
actually proved that I'd scooped it by three years. More important,
however, he ignored my point that this is not a political issue:
“Still,
why should someone have to be `right wing’ to oppose a group that in
Marxist terminology would be called `clerical-fascist?’ Why should those
on the `left wing’ (or mainstream, which often seems to amount to the
same thing nowadays) back a group that wants to suppress women,
kill homosexuals, wipe out Jews, crush basic freedoms taken for granted
in the West, and holds an ideology that resembles fascism more than any
other Western ideology? Since when does the `left wing’ love those who
could be called
reactionary religious fanatics?”
There
is absolutely nothing “conservative” in my article nor anything that
necessarily relates to Israel. But Hirsh maintains the myth that good
liberals should want to engage and foster the Brotherhood and other such
groups while conservatives don’t. To understand how upside-down Hirsh's
view is, think of these analogies: right-wingers explaining the
Communists are moderate; left-wingers insisting the Nazis are ok.
Incidentally,
that is why those on the Western left must always insist that their
opponent can never be liberal: because they must conceal the
anti-liberal nature of their own views.
He continues:
“But
then Rubin went on to lament how misguided this approach still was. `In
this context, then, all other revolutionary Islamist groups—the Muslim
Brotherhood, Hezbollah, Hamas, and so on—are not enemies. They can be
won over or at least neutralized as threats to U.S. interests,’ he
wrote. This is dangerously naïve, Rubin concluded. The truth, he said,
is that America’s “interests and allies are increasingly menaced by a
growing threat [revolutionary Islamism] whose existence, meaning, and
scope current U.S. policy does not even recognize yet, much less counter
effectively.”
It is nice he quoted my argument. But he did not respond to it! Hirsh goes on:
“Yet
Rubin’s contention no longer appears to stand up well to the developing
realities in the Arab world. Not only are bin Laden and most of his
senior lieutenants (except for Ayman al Zawahiri) dead; the so-called
Arab Spring has opened up new channels of expression, supplying for the
first time in decades an alternative to violent jihad.”
But
I’ve been describing this reality for a long time. Hirsh twists my
words that were mostly written only hours before his response. My
contention is designed as a response to “developing realities” not as a
failed prediction that they wouldn’t happen. He simply repeats the
contention that I have just critique in detail.
The fact that this supplies an alternative to “violent jihad” is not so marvelous for two reasons.
First,
a violent jihad is a form of revolutionary struggle. If the revolution
wins you don’t need to continue the struggle on that front. For example,
in the past there was violent revolutionary Communist activity in Latin
America. If Latin American countries were to become fundamentally
transformed and taken over who needs guerrillas in the mountains?
Second, as I pointed out:
“At
least today it should be clear that a group capable of taking over a
country with millions of people and running it for decades (the
Brotherhood, Hamas, and Hizballah) is a greater threat than a group that
can stage a few terror attacks each year. But it still isn't even on
the radar of the Western mainstream debate or the Obama Administration's
strategy.”
Yet Hirsh assumes that the question of power doesn’t matter, what’s bad is violent jihad but if the jihad triumphs that’s okay.
1 comment:
Professor Jacobson also makes a point worth repeating. As Obama dances in the end zone for his one military success, the Middle East is sliding into Islamofascism.
Iraq, that militarily naked country has become an Iranian protectorate. Once the region became unstable, the seeds were planted for regional revolution. Lacking an American presence, and more importantly an American President who doesn’t like the idea of American power, the most committed revolutionaries are winning out. And those revolutionaries are not idealistic college students and small shopkeepers who want a better life, but Islamic ideologues who are essentially 2, 3 many Osama bin Ladens.
While the MSM was having orgasms over the Arab Spring, I predicted the outcome. Hope vs. Experience. Don’t blame Obama, he’s only the President. The ‘Arab Spring’ is a Horror Show
There is no pleasure in this “I told you so.” Given the cast of characters, any Conservative could have foreseen this. For the same reason, Liberals could not.
Post a Comment