What's that? I thought only greasy Islamophobes thought that the likely outcome in the Middle East would be Islamic states, not pluralistic Western-style democracies! "Obama administration prepares for possibility of new post-revolt Islamist regimes," by Scott Wilson in the Washington Post, March 4 (thanks to Jamal):
The Obama administration is preparing for the prospect that Islamist governments will take hold in North Africa and the Middle East, acknowledging that the popular revolutions there will bring a more religious cast to the region's politics.The administration is already taking steps to distinguish between various movements in the region that promote Islamic law in government. An internal assessment, ordered by the White House last month, identified large ideological differences between such movements as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and al-Qaeda that will guide the U.S. approach to the region.
"We shouldn't be afraid of Islam in the politics of these countries," said a senior administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to describe internal policy deliberations. "It's the behavior of political parties and governments that we will judge them on, not their relationship with Islam."
Islamist governments span a range of ideologies and ambitions, from the primitive brutality of the Taliban in Afghanistan to Turkey's Justice and Development Party, a movement with Islamist roots that heads a largely secular political system.
...and is working to destroy the secular character of that system.
None of the revolutions over the past several weeks has been overtly Islamist, but there are signs that the uprisings could give way to more religious forces. An influential Yemeni cleric called this week for the U.S.-backed administration of President Ali Abdullah Saleh to be replaced with Islamist rule, and in Egypt, an Islamist theoretician has a leading role in drafting constitutional changes after President Hosni Mubarak's fall from power last month.A number of other Islamist parties are deciding now how big a role to play in protests or post-revolution reforms.
Since taking office, President Obama has argued for a "new beginning" with Islam, suggesting that Islamic belief and democratic politics are not incompatible. But in doing so, he has alarmed some foreign-policy pragmatists and allies such as Israel, who fear that governments based on religious law will inevitably undercut democratic reforms and other Western values.
Obama's suggestion here has never been borne out historically: there has never been and is not now an Islamic state that was democratic in the Western sense. Kemalist Turkey established a Western-style republic only by directly and openly restricting the political aspects of Islam. Maybe it will happen now that functioning democracies that guarantee equality of rights for non-Muslims and women, protect the freedom of speech and the freedom of conscience, and yet establish Islam as well, will emerge in the Middle East -- history is full of surprises.
But for that to happen, some aspects of Islamic law will not be implemented, and that will mean there will be pressure in those states from Islamic clerics who will find the new government, whatever its Islamic character, to be just as un-Islamic and hence unacceptable as the authoritarian regime it replaced. And that pressure will lead to continued unrest.
Some within the U.S. intelligence community, foreign diplomatic circles and the Republican Party say Obama's readiness to accept Islamist movements, even ones that meet certain conditions, fails to take into consideration the methodical approach many such parties adopt toward gradually transforming secular nations into Islamic states at odds with U.S. policy goals.Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Palestinian territories have prospered in democratic elections and exert huge influence. Neither party, each with an armed wing, supports Israel's right to exist, nor have they renounced violence as a political tool.
And while many in the region point to Turkey as a model mixture of Islam and democracy, the ruling Islamist party is restrained by the country's highly secular army and court system, a pair of strong institutional checks that countries such as Egypt and Tunisia lack....
The White House's internal assessment, dated Feb. 16, looked at the Muslim Brotherhood's and al-Qaeda's views on global jihad, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the United States, Islam in politics, democracy and nationalism, among others.
The report draws sharp distinctions between the ambitions of the two groups, suggesting that the Brotherhood's mix of Islam and nationalism make it a far different organization than al-Qaeda, which sees national boundaries as obstacles to restoring the Islamic caliphate.
This is just whistling in the dark. The Muslim Brotherhood differs only in means, not in goal, from al-Qaeda. Its core beliefs center just as much around the establishment of a global caliphate. It works within existing Muslim nations so as to establish Islamic states, but ultimately hopes that those new Islamic states will unite into one large Islamic caliphate.
The study also concludes that the Brotherhood criticizes the United States largely for what it perceives as America's hypocritical stance toward democracy - promoting it rhetorically but supporting leaders such as Mubarak."If our policy can't distinguish between al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood, we won't be able to adapt to this change," the senior administration official said. "We're also not going to allow ourselves to be driven by fear."
Great. I wish they wouldn't allow themselves to be driven by fantasy and wishful thinking.
After Hamas won the Palestinian parliamentary elections in 2006, the United States and Israel led an international boycott of the government. But Obama administration officials, reviewing that history with an eye toward the current revolutions, say the reason for the U.S. boycott was not Hamas's Islamic character but its refusal to agree to conditions such as recognizing Israel.In a speech Monday in Geneva, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton appeared to draw on that lesson, implicitly inviting Islamist parties to participate in the region's future elections with conditions. "Political participation," Clinton said, "must be open to all people across the spectrum who reject violence, uphold equality and agree to play by the rules of democracy."
And in return she will get lip service to these principles from groups that will flout the assurances they gave her once they are in power.
"It's the behavior of political parties and governments that we will judge them on, not their relationship with Islam."
And if the "behavior" draws its inspiration from Islam, what then?
Obama administration officials, reviewing that history with an eye toward the current revolutions, say the reason for the U.S. boycott was not Hamas's Islamic character but its refusal to agree to conditions such as recognizing Israel....
OK. So when Islam agrees that the Yahood can have Al Aqsa and Al Quds we will have world peace. These guys are fliping geniuses.
nabi ZK (pbum)
Not related to the article
this post is for gravenimage and moharebeh
Please read my reply to you both under the article titled '' Two new Jersey plead guilty …."thank you for your concern'' .
Next thing you know, we'll be reading, "Obama administration preparing for Islamic states in Midwest"--in Illinois and Minnesota, say.
Oh, yes--and the Islamic Emirate of East Dearborn.
"This is just whistling in the dark." I have to disagree, Robert. It is whistling past a graveyard. The graveyard of western democracy, as both the radical left (the Obama administration) and Islam desire its destruction.
There is something that may be used by pro-Democracy anti-Islam-people; the formation of Islam-Democratic parties. We see in our Democracies how all parties are constantly taken to task for the minutest details of their programmes. And membership of parties is encouraged but still conditional on certain conditions. And these conditions, or lack of them, can be criticized mercilessly.
Now contrast a so-called Islam-Democratic Party with the Ummah. Being a Muslim is obligatory, so almost non-conditional, when a person is born in Islam. And new members are taken in with open arms, and thereafter forbidden to leave again. In high contrast to political parties, who would be heavily criticized if they behaved in this way.
This means that if we get worldwide Islam-Democratic parties we can hold Muslims participating in them accountable much better. Either these parties will have clear anti-Democratic principles and that can be broadcasted endlessly to our own damned ignorant, fair-play-minded, so-called neutral masses.
Or Islam-Democratic parties really part ways in some significant aspects from conservative powerful Islamic leaders across the world. And we can then make the distinction on a clear basis and demand to know whether a Muslim is a default-Muslim or a member of a really Democratic party. And that distinction can then be used for a policy of reasonable conditions for new or even continued citizenship of Democratic Nations.
But it seems that Muslims themselves are only too well aware of this and in Democratic Nations there are few Islam-Democratic parties and these have very small following.
Instead in the mainstream parties (esp leftist parties) Muslims have many influential positions. I think this is because Islamic leaders advocate against forming Islamic-democratic parties.
At the same time Islam-apologists suggest that many citizens would not like the emergence of sizable Islamic-Democratic parties, minding the interests of Muslims.
But I would welcome such parties. They would also be obliged to articulate political goals. Then they would be held accountable for them and for declarations and behavior of it's members.
After which comes questioning why Muslims do NOT belong to such parties. Is that perhaps because they are opposed to the whole democratic state?!
I agree with you wrote tanstaafl:
"This is just whistling in the dark." I have to disagree, Robert. It is whistling past a graveyard. The graveyard of western democracy, as both the radical left (the Obama administration) and Islam desire its destruction."
whistling past a graveyard: ignoring an upcoming hazard, hoping for a good outcome.
Many in our own homelands think that they can remain neutral in this existential war and carry on as before. I tried to express this naive belief in the face of the extreme danger to western democracy and all that that implies in my poem
"The Martyrs", with the line,
"the existers, whistling in no-man's-land."
No-man's-land is a most dangerous place. Whistle and you will hear the bark of a machine gun, perhaps from both of the opposing sides.
Working to make ISlam into WASlam.
"It's the behavior of political parties and governments that we will judge them on, not their relationship with Islam."
Haven't we seen enough of the bad behavior seen in countries whose parties and governments have a relationship with Islam?
Just a further point to my post: I believe that Robert would agree with tanstaafl and perhaps what I wrote.
The leftists, self-loathing postmodernists that they are, cannot be changed. It is the silent and apathetic majority that we need to get. I believe that JW et al are doing just that.
""Political participation," Clinton said, "must be open to all people across the spectrum who reject violence, uphold equality and agree to play by the rules of democracy.""
and what about those people who do not reject violence, uphold equarlity and agree to play by the rules of democracy?...oh that would be the Muslims whose political aims are intertwined with their religious ones... and their religion endorses non plurality, inequality, and violence....just like it has for the last 1400 years...
It's not about Al Aqsa really, but the entire Israel. And it's true that that was the reason for boycotting Hamas. The PLO, as the representative of the PalArabs (the PLO was elected in a free election, not "installed"), signed various agreements with Israel - these were the basis for them getting land in stages. When Hamas came to power they said all agreements are null and void and doubled the rocket attacks (after they already increased 500-600% immediately after the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza). By declaring the agreements null and void they practically declared war of destruction on Israel, annulling any and all recognition in Israel and its right to exist and cancelling the so-called peace process, in contrast to the PalArab obligations (and the premise for the entire "peace" process). That was the reason for boycotting them, not because they are Islamists (which they are).
Indeed, if Islamists are elected and don't go to wars, and don't annul peace agreements, and don't heavily abuse human rights, there's no reason to boycott them. Most chances are they will do all that in time (gradually, that's how the MoHood works, in contrast to the more primitive strategists), but if they don't, no reason to boycott them.
"And new members are taken in with open arms, and thereafter forbidden to leave again."
That reminds me of this piece of calssic nostalgy:
The mirrors on the ceiling and champagne are symbols of western hedonism (more precisely, this is about the music industry, or more broadly the star factory where western culture is manufactured). Replace them with crescents or veils or minarets or Qurans and you'll get a very different type of human-deviced self-imprisonment, still the lyrics fit uncannily. What happens when these two prisons collide? Will both of them breaks in pieces and set the prisoners free?
It's a good think they finally noticed the Middle East isn't made up largely of liberal democrats. Unfortunately, at some point, maybe 6 months from now and maybe 6 years from now, they will also be forced to notice that the MoHood isn't moderate at all. Too bad the people running so much of this world are so far behind the learning curve.
Meanwhile, the Muslim hordes do what they had done for 1400 years, yet again, in Egypt: http://therealtimer.com/Hawass-admits-Egypts-ancient-heritage-is-in-danger
So what will the 'new' Middle East look like?... Like the 7th century into which it is heading head long, raping and looting its way back to 'religious' fundamentals.
Constitutional democracy in modern ME? ... Forgettabouttit!!
"We shouldn't be afraid of Islam in the politics of these countries. It's the behavior of political parties and governments that we will judge them on, not their relationship with Islam."
So, when the "behavior" of stonings and amputations begin, will we then deny its "relationship with Islam"?
Obama is really saying he is just going to end up with what he always wanted.
I don't know where else to ask this, so, I'm going to ask it here. Excuse me for being off-topic.
Can anyone tell me what happened to Victoria, the projected feature film about the defense of Vienna in 1683?
When I first heard about it I got the impression that it was to appear in about three years, but that was certainly more than three years ago, and, nothing.
There's still a website about it, but the information there is very scanty, and no news about release.
It's not hard to guess that the whole thing had to be shelved for reasons of political correctness. Would anyone really dare to make a movie about Europeans defending themselves against Islamic onslaught in today's Europe?
Can't help but wonder. If anyone has any information it would be much appreciated.
I've been wondering about that, too.
Because the whole concept looked absolutely marvellous. And the soundtrack was gorgeous.
It could have been a real morale-booster.
I, too, would be interested to know what happened to this movie.
By his continuing lack of action from Iran/2009 and now in tumultuous 2011, obama has proved he is no champion of human rights. He is showing no support for any of the "secularists," trying to establish interim governments. Perhaps, rightly so, but I think he's more comfortable dealing with the leaders of totalitarian regimes. Nobody knows his true agenda, but readying parts of America for sharia compliancy is not out of the question. This is a nightmare scenario as POTUS repeatedly demonstrates where his true loyalty lies and it is not with the people of America.
Once again, Obama is misdirecting the U.S. by focusing/pointing to individual factions of the global jihad while making everyone ignore the whole picture. Of course, he does hint at it in using his favorite term: "Muslim world." (That must give him a smirk.) The infighting is only for our benefit, so we will be distracted by the whole picture and plan of Sharia for all.
It's actually a bit too early to tell, but it wouldn't be outrageous for me to suggest that at least one of the recent upheavels in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya will result an Islamic state, even if it turns out to be a mini-state in a devolved Libya.
I've quoted you and linked to you here: http://consul-at-arms2.blogspot.com/2011/03/re-obama-administration-preparing-for.html