Because of Islam's unique tradition as a political and social system as well as an individual faith, I have expressed doubts about the viability of democracy in countries where there is significant attachment to the Sharia. But at AEI (thanks to EPG) Charles Krauthammer makes the best possible case for going forward:
Yes, as in Germany and Japan, the undertaking is enormous, ambitious and arrogant. It may yet fail. But we cannot afford not to try. There is not a single, remotely plausible, alternative strategy for attacking the monster behind 9/11. It’s not Osama bin Laden; it is the cauldron of political oppression, religious intolerance, and social ruin in the Arab-Islamic world--oppression transmuted and deflected by regimes with no legitimacy into virulent, murderous anti-Americanism. It’s not one man; it is a condition. It will be nice to find that man and hang him, but that’s the cops-and-robbers law-enforcement model of fighting terrorism that we tried for twenty years and that gave us 9/11. This is war, and in war arresting murderers is nice. But you win by taking territory—and leaving something behind.
Krauthammer's entire analysis is lengthy but well worth reading.
Also worth reading is this piece by David Brooks explaining the importance of working to establish democracy in the Middle East. (Thanks to Fanabba.)
Krauthammer says there is no alternative strategy. He is wrong. Working to "win hearts and minds" among Muslim populations is largely futile. Islam must be tamed -- it cannot be changed, but held in check, while efforts to slowly allow other religions, or unbelief, to take hold in Muslim socieites, are allowed to proceed. The way to do this is 1) create an awareness among Infidels -- all of whom are under assault by Islam, and whose differences are far smaller than their common victimization under Islamic rule, or in societies where large numbers of Muslims can disrupt the regular course of life, and threaten the otherwise reasonable existence of non-Muslims (as is now happening all over the dar al-Harb--where Muslims have been allowed to run riot over free speech guarantees, and make life dangerous for Jews in western Europe, and mightily unpleasant for Christians and other non-Muslims subject to threats, mock outrage, riots, threats of lawsuit, and worse -- in order to silence those who dare to point out the teachings of Islam.
2) use American money to buttress those in western Europe (and elsewhere) who are not prepared to be dhimmis, who are undeterred in their understanding of the threat of Islam, and of the role played by "moderate Muslims" (not a few of whom can suddenly morph -- when the dormant mental virus of Islamic teachings on Jihad becomes inflamed -- into quite different kinds of Muslims). It is important to create a large enough group of people who know both about Islamic teachings (dar al-Islam/dar al-Harb, the Treaty of al-Hudaibiyya, dhimmitude) and about Islamic history (the conquests, by violence and by demography, of vast areas, and the subsuquent slow or quick asphyxiation of other beliefs -- the virtual disappearance of the once-vibrant a Christian civilizatons in North Africa and Byzantium, the Jews driven into exile, or slowly converted, in their homeland,the Persian Zoroastrian civilization turned into the Islam that was indifferent to Persian civlization and, at every turn, attempted to arabize it, the 60-70 million Hindus murdered over 250 years of Muslim rule, and millions more forcibly converted under intolerable pressure, the complete extinguishing of Buddhism from India, and so on) and who provide an alternative to the easily-dismissed Fascists (such as Le Pen), who objectively, further Islamic conquest from within by being so unpalatable that respectable people tend to deny the evidence of the Islamic threat to all non-Muslim peoples and civlizations.
3) cut off all Muslim immigration to the West, which only increases Muslim power and decreases the will of the West.
4) cut off the ability of Muslims to build new mosques and madrasas in the West, which are centers of a geopolitical cult. Monitor, as the Turks do, all mosques now in existence, and close those that preach hate or subversion (there will be precious few topics left for the khutbas that accompany Friday Prayers, for Islam is based on a manichaenism of hatred: all that Muslims do is justified, all that non-Muslims do is to be opposed, even where the intentions "seem" to be good.
4) a world-wide embargo on military equipment beyond the level of jeeps and rifles to all Muslim armies -- not just material for nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, but also such things as Stinger missiles.
5) a propaganda campaign to alert not only non-Muslims, but to put Muslims on the defensive: let them explain, if they can, the central tenets of Islam, which will no longer be hidden. At every step, remind people of Muslim doctrines about dar al-Islam conquering dar al-Harb, about the worthlessness of Muslim treaties with Infidel states (based on the model of Muhammad's Treaty of al-Hudaibiyya). Emphasize the fact, which is undeniable, of the insistence, in Islam, of loyalty ONLY to Islam, which means that by definition, Muslims CANNOT, to the extent that they are observant, be loyal to any non-Muslim nation state, which means that the oath of loyalty taken to obtain citizenship in, for example, the United States, must be treated as, in the case of Muslims, simply a lie (at the very least, CAIR and other organizations should explain if it is possible for loyalty to the United States of America to take precedence over loyalty to Islam -- how does this square witha the 1350 years of Muslim teachings, and Muslim history? This is not a theoretical matter; it is clearly a matter to be discussed, widely and openly. For all of its many faults, Western civilization has no obligation to commit suicide. The examples of disloyalty, of subversion, of failure of "moderate Muslims" to do everything they can -- except to utter some soothing words -- to combat all those promoting Jihad is becoming overwhelmingly obvious to all.
5) stop the ability of Muslims to come to the West for medical treatment, to send their children to live (as Musharraf's son does, as an accountant, in Massachusetts, or the siblings of Karzai), or for the funhouse--cum--brothel that it has been for so many Arabs over the last 30 years. Confined to their own societies, travel made difficult to the hated/desired West, migration no longer an option (and expulsion, on a much larger scale, with recovcation of citizenship, for those shown to be engaged in furthering Jihad)will force, within the world of Islam, the kind of rethinking that caused Ataturk to institute the Kemalist reforms.
Those reforms, which will encourage secularism, can never be made permanent, because Islam itself cannot be changed. But it can be checked. If within dar al-Islam people feel free to leave Islam (for another religion, or no religion) many will do so; it is already happening in Iran, where the mosques are empty, and where, given the right kind of campaign, Zoroastrianism and Christianity could both be encouraged among a certain elite. When enough people born, through no fault of their own, into the world of Islam, attempt to find some other way, to find a way to a world where free and skepticdal inquiry are allowed, it will help both those in the world of Islam, and the non-Muslims under permanent assault by believing Muslims.
Krauthammer's notion that there is no "alternative" to attempting "democracy" is wrong. The most important reforms, tending toward a weakening of Islam, have come from despots, not democrats -- Kemal Pasha Ataturk, King Mohammed V of Morocco, Bourguiba and his Destour Party in Tunisia, even the hapless and weak Reza Pahlavi in Iran. "Democracy" in the Islamic world is not a desideratum; de-islamification is what the non-Muslim world must work towards. "Democracy" is likely to lead to more Islam, not less.