“The error was that the problem was not Islam, but Islamic violence.”
By Daniel Greenfield, FPM
Obama’s greatest foreign policy error was the same one that had been made by Bush and by numerous past administrations. The error was that the problem was not Islam, but Islamic violence.It was Obama however who took that error to its logical conclusion by pursuing a foreign policy meant to part Islamists from their violent tendencies by allowing them to win without the need for terrorism.
Violence, the thinking in diplomatic circles went, was inherently alarming and destabilizing. When Islamists don’t take over, they move to the West, preach radical theology, gather up followers and begin blowing things up. But let them take over their own home countries and they’ll no longer have any reason to draw up maps of London and New York, not when they’re beheading adulterers and burning churches back home.
The Arab Spring was to the Middle East what the betrayal of Czechoslovakia to the Nazis and the betrayal of the rest of Eastern Europe to the Communists was to 20th century European history. It was the moment when all the diplomatic folly that had come before it came together in one great historical instant of national and international betrayal.
The diplomatic wunderkinds had never taken Islamist theology seriously, just as their predecessors had not considered the possibility that the Bolsheviks might be serious about their world revolution. And they had also failed to recognize that Islamic terrorism was not only a means to power, but also an end in and of itself, a way of harnessing the endless violence and instability in desert societies and turning them into power and profit.
What every Middle Eastern leader has always understood is that the violence, call it raids, terrorism, guerrilla warfare, gang activity, sectarian militias, military coups, desert banditry, was never going away. It was the tiger and the clever leader rides the tiger, rather than ending up inside it, harnessing and directing the violence, to remain in power.
Islam is a religion built around that violence, sanctifying it as a religious principle, and thus taking it out of the realm of Fitna and into the realm of Jihad. The difference between the two is a matter of theology and that theology is a matter of perspective. What is banditry and what is a holy war is a matter of where you’re standing and which way the bullets are flying.
The Islamists might be able to direct the violence, but they could no more shut it down than any of their secular predecessors could. They could kill their enemies, but only by unleashing the tiger on them and when the killing was done, they would still be left with a hungry tiger looking around for his next meal. So the Islamists, like the Saudis, were bound to fuse religion with realpolitik by making sure that the tigers were pointed our way.
Even if their violence were only a means to an end, the end would not come when every Middle Eastern country was run by Islamist governments. For one thing there would never be a means of agreeing on what a truly Islamist government was. The reactionary impetus of Wahhabism leads to an endless series of reforms meant to recreate a lost 7th century theological paradise by purging those damnable 8th century theological innovators.
To many Salafists, the Muslim Brotherhood is just Mubarak with a beard. To other Salafists, those Salafists are just the Muslim Brotherhood with an untrimmed beard. After overthrowing Mubarak to end the perception that the United States supports un-Islamic dictators, maintaining ties with the Muslim Brotherhood would invite attacks from those Salafists in the hopes of ending US support for the Brotherhood, resetting that foreign policy accomplishment to zero. And the Brotherhood would wink and nod at those attacks to maintain its Islamist street cred and keep the violence going in the other direction.
As the attacks of September 11, 2012 showed us, the effect of putting the Islamists in charge of the Arab Spring countries was not to relieve tensions or improve America’s image, but to make it easier for Jihadists to launch attacks on America. And the argument advanced by Obama and so many others, that it was our support for dictators that inspired terrorists, had come to nothing. As Carter had done in Iran, Obama had stood behind the Islamists and against the “dictators”, only to have the newly Islamist dictators kick him in the face, first through mobs carrying out attacks against American diplomatic facilities under the guise of plausible deniability, and then through bolder confrontations.
But finally, the seizure of one Muslim country or two of them or a dozen of them is not the end of the Islamists. Islamists don’t recognize borders or national identities, no more than the Communists did. Their objective is not a flag of their own, but the territorial expansion of their ideology.
The presence of Muslims in the West makes the takeover of Western countries necessary for the same reason that the takeover of Muslim countries by Islamists was necessary. Muslim immigration to the West creates a mandate to impose Islamic law on the West. Western leaders react to that by offering to accept some elements of Sharia into their legal system. This moves the process into the second stage, the one that the Arab Spring countries were under, practicing an imperfect version of Islamic law that the Islamists were then compelled to “perfect.”
Everything that the West has done to appease Muslims has worked as well as a man jumping into a tiger cage and pouring meat sauce all over his body. Each act of appeasement only makes Muslim violence necessary and inevitable. Every increase in the Islamic footprint in the West attracts Islamists intent on expanding and purifying that footprint, as they have done in their own countries. The more the West takes in Islamic populations and laws, the more Islamists are compelled to bring Diaspora Muslim populations and laws into full compliance with their theology.
Obama’s foreign policy aimed at allowing the Islamists to win. He ignored the Iranian protesters against an Islamist state, while rushing to support the Islamist protesters in Egypt and Tunisia. The Islamists won and September 11, 2012 was a consequence of those victories. And it won’t be the last consequence.
As Chamberlain learned of Hitler and as the Democrats learned of the Commies, there is no finite amount of concessions, no set range of territories that can be traded in exchange for peace. The Nazis and Communists wanted the world because their goals were not confined to mere territories, but to the enslavement of billions to create an ideal world for the benefit of their chosen elites. Islam is interested in the same thing.
Islamists don’t want Egypt, Syria or Palestine. And they certainly won’t settle for them. No more than Hitler settled for Czechoslovakia or Stalin settled for Poland. They will accept their conquests in bites, but they will never stop biting, chewing and swallowing until they run up against a force that will not allow them to advance and expand further.
Obama tried to divide violent Islamism from political Islamism, giving the Islamists what they wanted without violence, to eliminate the need for a War on Terror. But all he accomplished was to give Islamist violence a bigger base and more resources to work with. Islam is inherently violent. A non-violent Islamic victory doesn’t end the violence; it only expands its capacity for violence.
@ Jay:
Jay Said:
Smarmy comments?
I only said that the Israelis worried about a nuclear strike by Iran are not hysterics, but rationally cautious.
Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In its fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life. Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components. The religious component is a beard for all of the other components. Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious privileges. When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well.
Here’s how it works: As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the > case in: United States — Muslim 0..6% Australia — Muslim 1.5% Canada — Muslim 1.9% China — Muslim 1.8% Italy — Muslim 1.5% Norway — Muslim 1.8%
At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. This is happening in: Denmark — Muslim 2% Germany — Muslim 3.7% United Kingdom — Muslim 2.7% Spain — Muslim 4% Thailand — Muslim 4.6% From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves — along(clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in: France — Muslim 8% Philippines — 5% Sweden — Muslim 5% Switzerland — Muslim 4.3% The Netherlands — Muslim 5.5% Trinidad & Tobago — Muslim 5.8%
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.
When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris , we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam, with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections, in: Guyana — Muslim 10% India — Muslim 13.4% Israel — Muslim 16% Kenya — Muslim 10% Russia — Muslim 15%
After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in: Ethiopia — Muslim 32.8%
At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in: Bosnia — Muslim 40% Chad — Muslim 53.1% Lebanon — Muslim 59.7% From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in: Albania — Muslim 70% Malaysia — Muslim 60.4% Qatar — Muslim 77.5% Sudan — Muslim 70%
After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in: Bangladesh — Muslim 83% Egypt — Muslim 90% Gaza — Muslim 98.7% Indonesia — Muslim 86.1% Iran — Muslim 98% Iraq — Muslim 97% Jordan — Muslim 92% Morocco — Muslim 98.7% Pakistan — Muslim 97% Palestine — Muslim 99% Syria — Muslim 90% Tajikistan — Muslim 90% Turkey — Muslim 99.8% United Arab Emirates — Muslim 96%
Islam is not a religion. It is a political, nationalistic, ideology. Search for “sharia courts uk” in Google. Sharia courts are now legally binding in the UK.
Reading the smarmy comments of others suggests that you have hit the nail squarely on the head! The side issues (How do you know Israel has 500 nukes?) fails to detract from your considered analysis. I only make one criticism: Islam is not a religion. It is a group of bullies masquerading as some perverted form of “holiness” behind the thin veil of religion. Best thing to do is revoke the tax-free status of mosques and other so-called “islamic centers” whenever hatred of others is preached or when their disciples attempts an act of religious violence. Then — at least in the West — this foul, social corruption called islam will start to wither and fail.
vivarto Said:
U prove my point: the society did not ….
@ steven l:
steven l Said:
According to a recent survey by AICE, the majority of American campuses are not anti-Semitic. But you put your finger on it by drawing attention to the so called “liberal” (for they are not liberal at all) campuses.
http://www.jpost.com/JewishWorld/JewishNews/Article.aspx?id=289002
American students seem not to be so easily duped to anti-Semitism, compared to the European youngsters.
I think that the cognitive battle against Jew-haters in US universities will be the most decisive for Israel’s public image – and that’s part of the reason i am a fan of Mitchell Bard (AICE’s executive director).
@ Sam Goldblatt:
Sam Goldblatt Said:
Sam, if Iran lands a nuke in Israel, it will be 1938.
It’s not hysteria, because it is a rational fear.
@ vivarto:
vivarto Said:
Wikipedia gives a number between 75 and 400.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
The Guardian says that as of 2009 the number was 200.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/sep/06/nuclear-weapons-world-us-north-korea-russia-iran
We could ask commentator yamit, who has made an estimate, but he isn’t around.
Your adamant statement could not be more incorrect. You are the schmendrick that needs a psychiatrist.@ Sam Goldblatt:
Rubin Katz Said:
That’s not correct. Look it up.
@ Steven I.
“They were not assimilated, otherwise they would not have ended up in the crematoria.” Nonsense!
According to Nazi racial laws, descendants of mixed marriages going back as far as the grandparents were marked for death; and not how well the individual concerned was assimilated.
steven l Said:
Well, from their side they were assimilated. They thought of themselves as Germans, not as Jews.
But of apparently the society did not think that.
Islamic violence is a core value and principle of Islam unless you submit.
@ vivarto:
They were under the illusion of assimilation. They were not assimilate otherwise they would not have ended-up in the crematoria! Similarly, the American Jews believe that they are assimilated. Go to the liberal universities and then come back!
@ Sam Goldblatt:
And how did you obtain the information that Israel has 500 nukes?
Secondly please verify for yourself the following:
Jews were very well integrated and very successful and even assimilated in Germany before Nazism.
They were disproportionally rich and over represented in the prestigious professions: Law, medicine, business, banking, and government.
This was not an error. Obongo is an Islamist.
Again with the “It’s 1938 all over!” hysteria. Israel has 500 nukes, one of the most lethal militaries in the world. In the U.S. Jews are prosperous, empowered and a big part of the Establishment. Contrast that with 1938 and the next time some schmendrick tries to tell you it’s 1938 – get the men in the white coats.