Still, Berman's message, much as he tries to avoid stating it clearly, is "Invade Iraq." I can't get behind it, and I think "Islamofascism," however scary, is a neoconservative canard. That rift between pan-Arabs and Islamists is huge, and ought to keep them fighting among themselves for years, without our direct involvement. I'll be posting more later on why I think liberal hawks are so creepy.
as a liberal hawk, i gotta say that my impression is that the rift between so called "pan arabists" and islamists is not so big as it once was.
the ruling elites of egypt, syria, and iraq came to power as pan-arabists, but they don't believe in it or do anything about it anymore. It's not a good description even of the elites. It is certainly not an ideology with any popular support, at least in its old Nasser-type formula.
By contrast the Islamist movement, which originally began as a set of fairly discrete national opposition movements (eg Khomeini's), has been internationalized to an extraordinary degree, especially through the shared afghan jihad, as evidenced in the saudi/egyptian/sudanese/yemeni grouping of al quaeda. The call for a new Caliphate IS the strongest Pan-Arab ideology in the middle east today.
Meanwhile even a so-called secularist like Mubarak has been forced to institute modified Sharia law in Egypt, and Saddam has obviously wrapped himself in (Sunni) Islam ever since the gulf war (when he added "Allahu Akbar" to the Iraqi flag).
The rift is between ruling military elites in alliance with the US, and masses of people who believe that "Islam is the answer"and who can see that the US-backed regimes are corrupt and brutal. There is no third way at the moment.
I recommend the current New Republic article on the failure of democracy in oil economies for more creepy liberal hawk pessimism...
|
- tom moody 3-24-2003 9:10 pm
as a liberal hawk, i gotta say that my impression is that the rift between so called "pan arabists" and islamists is not so big as it once was.
the ruling elites of egypt, syria, and iraq came to power as pan-arabists, but they don't believe in it or do anything about it anymore. It's not a good description even of the elites. It is certainly not an ideology with any popular support, at least in its old Nasser-type formula.
By contrast the Islamist movement, which originally began as a set of fairly discrete national opposition movements (eg Khomeini's), has been internationalized to an extraordinary degree, especially through the shared afghan jihad, as evidenced in the saudi/egyptian/sudanese/yemeni grouping of al quaeda. The call for a new Caliphate IS the strongest Pan-Arab ideology in the middle east today.
Meanwhile even a so-called secularist like Mubarak has been forced to institute modified Sharia law in Egypt, and Saddam has obviously wrapped himself in (Sunni) Islam ever since the gulf war (when he added "Allahu Akbar" to the Iraqi flag).
The rift is between ruling military elites in alliance with the US, and masses of people who believe that "Islam is the answer"and who can see that the US-backed regimes are corrupt and brutal. There is no third way at the moment.
I recommend the current New Republic article on the failure of democracy in oil economies for more creepy liberal hawk pessimism...
- big jimmy 3-25-2003 2:48 am [add a comment]