Ah, the Arab Spring — that sweet season, so long overdue, in which secular democracy began at last to bloom in the Muslim nations of the Middle East, ending a long dark winter of tyranny, tribalism and theocratic oppression. Observers here in the West swooned at the sight of all those brave young people, their faces alight with hope, standing up as one to build a better future. We always knew, after all, that people everywhere are just like us, and so of course they want the same things we want: democracy, secular government, women’s rights, the many freedoms we take for granted, and above all Tolerance, Diversity, and Inclusiveness. (Maybe they weren’t ready for gay marriage just yet, but they’d get there once they got the hang of it all. Rome wasn’t built in a day.)
Alas, in the event the soil turns out not to have been as fertile as some had imagined. The “reformer” Bashar al-Assad is slaughtering his subjects in Syria. Hamas and Fatah have joined forces in Palestine. Saleh retains his grip on Yemen. The Gulf Cooperative Council’s armored formations have forcefully imposed order in Bahrain. The Libyan uprising has, with NATO’s help and the bumbling support of the USA, descended into civil war. And despite the absurd psychological projections of many here in the West, the “revolution” in Egypt that provided convenient cover for the military to oust Hosni Mubarak has led, as I expected, to ascendant Islamism — and to what has been, throughout history, one of Diversity’s most reliable blessings: gruesome sectarian violence, in this case renewed persecution of the Copts.
With regard to that last, I’ve been struck this week by the prevailing tendency of our news organizations to refer to these recent assaults as “clashes” — a term that, with its implication of symmetry, was no doubt carefully chosen to spare further amplification of Islam’s reputation for intolerance.
I’m not the only one, it seems. Andrew McCarthy comments here.
27 Comments
Well, maybe not. Today’s Wall Street Journal has a piece by Gerard Baker, who has been in the Middle East since the events of the Arab spring began. Not surprisingly, he comes to very different conclusions.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703864204576319721428689078.html?mod=ITP_review_0
“The young Arabs who toppled Hosni Mubarak”? “Brought down the old regime in a secular revolution”? Balderdash. There has been no “revolution” in Egypt, secular or otherwise. The military deposed Mubarak when it became clear that he intended to anoint his son as his successor. The country is now run at the whim of an opaque military council — with the Ikwhan, whom the author correctly notes are anything but “benign philanthropists”, waiting in the antechamber of national power.
Assad has made it perfectly clear that he will stop at nothing to retain control of Syria; if there are more uprisings, they will be brutally suppressed.
I share the sentiments of your linked article’s author; they are inspiring and uplifting, and I would like nothing better than for them actually to augur a better future for the region. I also don’t doubt that there are a great many inspiring young people of the sort he describes in the various urban centers of the region, and it is clear from the author’s enthusiasm that their optimism is infectious. But the political and strategic realities plainly evident in the actual course of events in Egypt, Syria, Libya, Bahrain, and Yemen paint, I’m afraid, rather a different, and far more familiar, picture.
So who’s right? Am I being too pessimistic here? Perhaps. That would be a pleasant surprise; I’ll be the first to admit that I’m a dyspeptic old sourpuss.
Let’s just see how things go. We already know how it’s going for those Copts.
1) The military deposed Mubarak after weeks of popular protests which were the catalyst for change. Absent the protests, Mubarak would still be running Egypt.
2) The hallmark of ratiocination is this: when confronted with information which challenges one’s Weltanschauung, the rational man reappraises his thinking based on this new information. By this standard, professional Muslim haters such as Andrew McCarthy, Frank Gaffney, and Peter King fail. There is nothing which could possibly happen which would change their anti-Muslim hysteria. However, as an eminently rational individual, I am sure that over time you will recalibrate your thinking based on all that has happened and will happen, your dyspepsia notwithstanding.
The transition from authoritarian rule to democracy is never quick, easy, or painless. It wasn’t that way for us, or in modern times for places like Eastern Europe, South Korea, Turkey, Indonesia, and so forth. Nor is there any guarantee that the Arab spring will eventually lead to Jeffersonian democracy and free ice cream for everyone. Things will move forwards and backwards, in fits and starts, and there will be bloodshed and disruption along the way. However, the arc of history tilts towards democracy. If you compare the number of democracies today with those of a generation or two ago, the difference is staggering. In Arab countries (and possibly Iran too), the tectonic plates have suddenly shifted and a Humpty Dumpty like Mubarak won’t reassemble. It’s a pretty safe bet that within a generation — and possibly much sooner — Muslim countries will be very, very different than they were six months ago.
I’ve been reading the Wall Street Journal for about thirty years, and I know enough to say with confidence that it’s not the Huffington Post. When a paper like the Journal sends a reporter to the Middle East and he comes back with reporting like this, it’s worth a reappraisal. (By contrast, I would be surprised if the Frank Gaffneys of the world have set foot in a Muslim country over the past few years, and I’d be shocked if they’d been there since the spring. Other things being equal, I would give a lot more credence to someone who has witnessed events with his own eyes, especially when those eyes are not clouded by rigidity and dogma.) Whether the reaction of the shop keeper in Tunisia back in February is the modern equivalent of the Boston Tea Party remains to be seen, although the possibility certainly exists that its ramifications could be equally profound.
“I’ll be the first to admit that I’m a dyspeptic old sourpuss.”
Sorry ol’ fella, seat’s taken.
Re 1):
When the popular uprising occurred, it gave the military the perfect opportunity to get rid of Mubarak, which they had been itching to do. After that they sent all those starry-eyed youngsters home. Going forward, Egypt seems likely to be run by some combination of the Army and the Muslim Brotherhood. Some “revolution”.
2) First of all, none of this is about “hating” Muslims. The people you mention are concerned about the religious and political ideology of Islam, and about how the latest phase of an ancient struggle will play out. There is an important distinction to be made (which no liberal seems able to make) between a prudent regard for the protection of one’s own people’s safety and interests, and “hate”.
As you say: the hallmark of ratiocination is to face facts. Given how the “Arab Spring” is actually playing out (as opposed to how we might wish it were playing out, or how well it all gibes with the rose-bespectacled liberal-universalist Weltanschauung, I’d say McCarthy (who was the lead prosecutor in the WTC bombing case, and has made a career of careful research into the history and tentacular spread of the Ikwhan) is far more attuned to reality here than you seem to be. Read the news. (And for a more concentrated dose of reality about Islam’s agenda in the West — as opposed to happy ahistorical fantasies — I suggest you have a look at McCarthy’s The Grand Jihad.)
As for your last paragraph, I’ll just repeat what I said above:
The point is not whether there are some modern, secularizing young people in the Muslim world; of course there are, and I wish them every advantage. The question is whether they will prevail.
Malcolm and Peter,
I am forced to credit both of you, albeit grudgingly to one of you, with cogent and persuasive presentation of your divergent worldviews. If I may, I would offer only a cautionary note, to wit:
Socio-political prognostication is a bit like macro-economic forecasting, only much, much less reliable. And, although fun to indulge in the process, the return on investment of time and energy is usually minuscule. The one thing that history has shown repeatedly, however, is that the premise “this time it’s different” is almost never correct.
Better skooch over, JK.
Henry: thank you for your gracious, albeit grudging, words.
Malcolm: I congratulate you for having the insight to recognize that the Egyptian army was itching to dump Mubarak during the decades during which they faithfully served him. Personally, I have no idea what was on their minds. What I do know is that had the Egyptians not assembled in great numbers, the army would still be itching.
Whether Egypt will be ruled by a combination of the army and the Muslim Brotherhood is anybody’s guess. What role the military will play after this transition period is an open question. In a democracy the Brotherhood has just as much right to compete for power as any other group. What roles these entities will play as things unfold remain to be seen.
There is an important distinction to be made (which many conservatives seem unable to make) between the very real threat posed by Muslim extremists and the non-existent threat from the vast majority of the other billion or so other Muslims. In my view, the conflation of the two is reckless, inflammatory, and hateful. Looking at IRA supporter and terrorist sympathizer Peter King’s recent witch hunt in his committee is one such example. Another example is McCarthy’s description of the Muslim cultural center in downtown Manhattan as a “victory garden,” as though it was al Qaeda or the Taliban which was setting up a branch office there. Gaffney is totally off the rails. I could go on and on, but this would be pointless, as I do not expect you to share this view. Not that this would stop me from playing my faithful role as the skunk at the garden party.
As for how “the Arab spring is actually playing out:” it is far, far too early to make any kind of judgment. These things take years to unfold. We’re not even at the end of the first inning. As noted above, history is full of examples when the transition from autocracy to democracy was messy, painful, bloody, and inconstant. Hence the proper context is to look at things within the arc of history, and people like Assad and the Saudi royalty are on the wrong side of it. Since they have the guns and are unwilling to surrender peacefully, it’s a fool’s errand to predict in the near term what will happen when an irresistible force meets an immovable object. As one example, Hungary had an unsuccessful uprising in 1956 and did not become a free society for many years afterward. Other countries — such as the Philippines — had an easier transition, which nonetheless saw its share of violence and upheaval. Times of great transition are rarely times of tranquility or placidity. Perhaps my different perspective comes from having lived overseas and spent a lot of time in Muslim countries, or perhaps it is due to my sunny and glass-half-full disposition. In any event, as Zhou Enlai would happily agree, it is too soon to say.
Yes, yes, I’m sure things will go just swimmingly in the Middle East once this awkward “transition period” is over. (By the way, though, I never said that the army was itching to ditch Mubarak for decades; as I pointed out, the recent tension arose when, in his old age, he decided that his son should succeed him.)
I suppose it is useless to point out that Libya, Syria, etc. aren’t Hungary; I’ll try to keep reminding myself that people are the same everywhere.
Again, as I’ve attempted to point out on countless occasions, the threat to the West is not from this or that Muslim; it is from Islam itself, which is idelologically antithetical to the secular West at its very core.
But let me ask you this: how, exactly, would you define a Muslim “extremist”?
And Qaddafi isn’t Stalin. Your point is what, exactly?
I would define a Muslim extremist as anyone who would cause violence to innocents, or would encourage others to do so.
Fine. And I would remind you that not all jihad is violent jihad, and that the definition of “innocent” varies according to whom you ask. For example, are those who blaspheme the Prophet “innocent”?
Here’s a little snippet from from the Muslim Brotherhood — who by your own definition are not “extremists” (and I’ll agree with you that they are not, because their larger aims are entirely congruent with the historical core of mainstream Islam, and are in harmony with the views of large majorities in all Muslim countries):
This “process of settlement” is “dawa” jihad. The Muslim Brotherhood explicitly rejects violent jihad, for purely tactical reasons: it understands, correctly, that it is counterproductive. Instead it counts on precisely the attitude you exhibit here — the amiable disposition on the part of good-hearted Westerners like yourself to assume that the only conceivable existential threat posed by Islam is that of terrorist violence, to see any Muslim organization that is not directly involved in violent terrorism as friendly “moderates” to be welcomed, and to vilify and denounce any wariness about Islam’s expansion in the West as an expression of “racism” and “hate”.
Well, yeah. When I see a Muslim moving to America, I see someone who thinks enough of this country to want to live here. You see the same person and see a sinister fifth column looking to overthrow the West and establish Sharia law. I think you are sadly mistaken. You think the same of me. I think this can fairly be described as an irreconcilable dispute.
Again: I am not talking about this or that individual “Muslim moving to America”.
But when I see Islam itself expanding in any Western nation, I know that it inevitably brings with it, yes, exactly what you describe: a sinister fifth column looking to overthrow the West and establish Sharia law, a fact plainly evident everywhere that Islam takes root. (And as you pointed out above, the hallmark of ratiocination is to face facts.)
Our irreconcilable difference, then, is that unlike me, you don’t think that’s enough of a problem to warrant asking ourselves whether the benefits that secular Western nations accrue from an expanding Islamic presence within their borders (and frankly I’m blessed if I can say just what those benefits might be) outweigh the costs.
I’m skeptical, but hopeful that the Arab Spring will actually bear edible fruit, but we’ll have to wait to see what happens.
As for Islam itself expanding into Western nations, again I think we need to wait. But I’m more hopeful and less skeptical about things turning out well. In the clash of ideas, I am quite confident that the children of Muslim immigrants will be more Western in outlook, and more willing to critically examine Islamic teaching. It won’t help to speed this process, though, to marginalize and put Muslim immigrants on the defensive.
Bob, I’m hopeful too about the Arab Spring; I’d like nothing more than for it to be a new beginning for the region.
But what do you mean by “As for Islam itself expanding into Western nations, again I think we need to wait”?
It sounds like you’re saying “well, we have no choice but to just keep right on encouraging Islamic expansion in Western nations, so let’s just hope for the best, and see what happens.”
Again: given that Islam itself is explicitly anathematic to core principles of modern, secular Western civilization, and has been the West’s implacable foe for fourteen centuries — and given also that with any expansion of Islam in any Western nation there is also, always and everywhere, an expanding “fifth column” of the sort Peter describes — do we have any reason whatsoever to suppose the benefits to the West, whatever on earth they may be, outweigh the costs and risks?
I would much rather have Islam “on the defensive” outside our borders than on the offensive within them.
Also: you seem to assume that when one “critically examines Islamic teaching”, the effect is to turn one away from sharia, fundamentalism and jihad. My own critical examination of Islamic teaching over the past decade or so, however, inclines me toward the opposite view.
No, Malcolm, we have choices. For example, we in the US could choose to follow the example of some European nations and marginalize Muslim immigrants. But that hasn’t worked so well in Europe. On the other hand, we might choose to learn from the remarkable success of assimililation in areas like Detroit (which example I again raise against your “always and everywhere” nonsense).
BTW, the core principles of Western civilization might be understood to require that anethema be given a voice. So let the opponents of freedom speak their piece. I’m a lot less worried that we’ll sacrifice our freedoms to the mullahs than that we’ll sacrifice them to home grown wanna-be tyrants.
Right, no “fifth column” in Detroit… or Dearborn…
Bob, nobody is suggesting that Muslim immigrants already here should be “marginalized”. Nor am I suggesting that speech be suppressed in America, anathematic or not. And I certainly share your concern about erosion of our freedoms by home-grown, wannabe tyrants.
But there’s no reason one can’t ask whether continued mass importation of Islam is a desirable policy for Western nations.
Malcolm –
There are plenty of self-styled Christian warriors to counterbalance crazed jihadist immams. Should we question the mass importation of Christians? In both cases, I think that we treat should them not as representatives of the religions they espouse, but as political nut-cases who think their god has chosen them to fix the world.
Right, Bob, but (leaving aside the question of whether Sharia-promoting Muslims are “representative” of Islam): Christian nut-cases are our nut-cases; they’ve always been a part of Western culture. What advantage, what benefit, does any Western nation accrue by voluntarily adding an alien, invasive variant of the species?
I think arguing the virtues of divergent worldviews is the rightful province of philosophers, who specialize in such mental pissing-contests. But it is useful, nevertheless (IMHO), to examine potentially false premises that arise in such passion-inducing ejaculation.
Consider, for example, the well known controversy over Columbia University’s invitation, extended by its administration to Imadinnerjacket several years ago. From the President of the University on down to the lesser administrators, faculty, and the majority of its students, the basis for allowing this avowed enemy of the United States, a Jew-hater, and, most likely, a certifiable maniac, to spew his venom on the Campus (my alma mater, by the way), was the grand ideal of freedom of speech. But in this instance that was an incorrect application of the free-speech concept.
Columbia University, for example, is not compelled to offer its auditorium as a platform for anyone seeking to speak freely. In fact, freedom of speech does not compel anyone to accommodate anyone else with a platform. Freedom of speech, as guaranteed by our Constitution, does allow anyone who is legally within the borders of the United States to voice his opinions wherever they have a right of public access, as well as the right to speak there. That, however, does not include, for example, Columbia’s auditoriums, nor does it include the living room of my home, unless I, or my wife, grant that privilege.
Similarly, legal immigration to the United States is a privilege, whose prerequisites are specified by Congressional legislation and signed into law by the President. It is not a fundamental human right available to anyone who desires it. Nor is it a fundamental human right to be served free lunch, at the expense of the taxpayers of the United States. That would be a privilege, extended by the elected representatives of the citizens of the United States.
If you want to make the case that there is a fifth column in Michigan, you need better sources than right wing polemicist David Horowitz and known fabricator Andrew Breitbart. They lack both objectivity and credibility.
Good point. Probably none of those things actually happened, and that picture was Photoshopped.
Right, Henry: when the balance between rights and privileges gets out of whack, bad things happen.
Yes, Malcolm, especially when the imbalance between them is exacerbated by conflation.
Well, that’s the whole point: when things that ought to be privileges begin to be seen to be rights, a nation slides toward impotent mediocrity. And in a state of tyranny, there are no rights at all — just privileges, granted or denied at the whim of the sovereign.
malcolm mentioned: “tribalism”
tribalism ain’t gonna disappear in the middle east|arab world|maghreb|mashriq|iran|afghanistan|pakistan until they stop marrying their cousins.
besos,
hbd chick (^_^)