FrontPageMag.com By Robert Spencer By Hugh Fitzgerald Books Jihad Watch Islam 101 Qur'an Blog Raymond Ibrahim Robert Spencer
 
« Fitzgerald: Un petit bleu -- Sois-belle et tais-toi | Main | Fitzgerald: Paying for the stupidity of others »

October 27, 2006

Fitzgerald: A tribute to Vali Nasr

Vali Nasr (Member of the US Council on Foreign Relations): "We Need Engagement with Iran"

No doubt Vali Nasr, the son of a well-known Shi'ite writer and apologist, Seyyed Hossein Nasr, wishes to enroll the Americans in Iraq in order to dampen the Sunni-Shi'a clash. But his perspective is that of a Shi'a, loyal to Shi'a Islam, although not to the Islamic Republic of Iran, which he no doubt deplores. That is understandable. What is not understandable is why his views should coincide with those of Infidels, or that Americans should heed his desire to "avoid radicalization" of "both sides" by, of course, having the Americans remain and stick it out -- not for their own good, but for the good of both Sunni and Shi'a Muslims in Iraq.

Particularly piquant is Vali Nasr's inability to see that wherever Infidels are concerned, all the supposed assumptions about Sunni-Shi'a rivalry -- remember during Israel's attack on Hezbollah how we kept being assured that the Sunni Arab states were secretly delighted, and wanted Israel to keep going? -- tend to be muted, for the Infidels are the real enemy who will unite even warring sects of Islam.

This is how Vali Nasr put it:

"We saw this in Lebanon where a war that was initially an Arab-Israeli war -- a war that belongs to the old conflicts of the region -- very quickly became all about the Shiite-Sunni issue. Some Arab governments and radical Sunni clerics came out and characterized this as a Shiite power grab and said Hezbollah cannot legitimately fight for the Palestinian cause because it is Shiite and a heretical organization."

No, it is not true that the war became a Shiite-Sunni issue. Washington was quite disappointed, in fact, in dreamily assuming -- no doubt with Vali Nasr's prognostications and Shi'a-apologist advice in view -- that the Sunni Arabs would not denounce Israel. But of course they all did -- all of them. And while the Shi'a in Lebanon have managed to worry the Sunni Arabs in Lebanon, they have worried even more the Druse and, above all, the Christians.

And then there is Vali Nasr's ostentatious worry about "radicalization" (as if there could be even more) of both Sunnis and Shi'a in Iraq, and the implied corollary, which he never states outright, of the need to keep American troops there in order to dampen those sectarian tensions and hostilities which, Nasr says, are so bad "for the region." Why yes, they are bad "for the region" -- that is, for the Muslims of the region. They aren't bad for us, the world's Infidels. For us Sunni-Shi'a tensions are a wonderful thing.

That is why Vali Nasr and Fouad Ajami, just like the Shi'a apologists -- Chalabi and others -- who helped promote so cleverly the American invasion of Iraq in order to get the only power that could get rid of the Sunni despot Saddam Husein to do its work for it, are to be listened to for some parts of their analysis, but with different conclusions drawn. They want a Muslim Middle East where the Shi'a are given their due. We, on the other hand, want something else: we want a world where the Camp of Islam and Jihad, in and out of the Middle East, is weakened.

These are not the same thing. And no doubt the soft-spoken, personally winning Vali Nasr is, for that very reason, an inhibiting influence at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, where some of his colleagues might not quite grasp that his point of view is that of a devout, though not violent, Muslim. He would not like a policy based, as any intelligent policy by any Infidel state must now be based, on the goal of weakening Islam, the power of Muslim states and groups to inflict harm, the size of the Muslim presence in the West, and the appeal of Islam to the economically and psychically marginal populations that are likely only to increase, unless Islam is allowed to make a spectacle of itself as it will, even more than it has, in Iraq if the Americans leave.

And what is more, if the Americans leave, the intra-Muslim violence in Iraq will be a kind of vivid demonstration of what Muslims do when there are no longer any Infidels immediately present to unify them in hatred, or to draw their malevolent attention, and when Infidel support of all kinds is also withdrawn.

Just look, if you need to, at Gaza today. What a spectacle. Why any Infidels would wish to stop it is beyond me. Only fools or appeasers or collaborators or hopeless antisemites who wish the "Palestinians" well not because they like them but because they hate, pathologically, the Israelis -- for the obvious reasons – would want to stop it.

Let Iraq be Iraq. Never again should those who make high policy allow themselves to be inveigled by the Shi'a Lobby, whether of Chalabi and Makiya and Fouad Ajami and Vali Nasr, or of others yet unknown, or by the Sunni Lobby, including our "allies" in Jordan and Egypt and "staunch ally" Saudi Arabia. Neither My Weekly Standard, with its pro-Shi'a lineup (with blame laid only at those "Wahhabis" and no attention paid to the doctrines or behavior of Shi'a Muslims, whose differences with Sunnis are not about treatment of Infidels), nor James Baker, who likes to refer to "our friends in the Gulf" (and you know he's talking about "our Arab friends" on the western coast, not the Iranian enemy on the other side of what the east-coasters call, with justice, the Persian Gulf, and what the west-coasters renamed, as they do everything, the Arabian Gulf), should be heeded at this point.

Neither the Shi'a nor the Sunni Lobby need be listened to. We are not Muslims, after all. We need to weaken the Camp of Islam and Jihad, not to improve it for Muslims, not to make the "region" less alarmed. Let the region be alarmed. Let there be a squandering of resources within the Camp of Islam. Let them channel their natural aggression -- natural because of the attitudes that naturally arise in societies suffused with Qur'an, Hadith, and the violent figure of that conquering warrior Muhammad -- against one another.

Let Wanda Ga'g (see "Millions of Cats") be your guide to policy in lieu of Vali Nasr.

Posted by Hugh at October 27, 2006 1:58 PM
Print this entry | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us

Comments
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)

It is indeed funny how the Sunni and Shia both hate the West, yet always try to get it to back their side. Unfortunately, the West's leaders always fall for it, backing whatever side is the "flavor of the month". These Islamic nuts expect the Infidels to basically save them from themselves and stupidly we do. That's the reason why Islam's still around after all these centuries. If the West totally collapsed what would Islam do? It would most likely turn its murderous impulses upon itself in the mother of all suicide attacks.

I say screw both the Sunni and the Shia-if they can't control themselves that's their own damn problem. Their Koran has all the answers (so both sides claim) so go look up the part on getting along (good luck on finding it). The West has enough problems of its own to deal with.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 27, 2006 2:12 PM

Thanks for the analysis, Hugh. I've always been curious about Nasr. Especially since his critiques of the Saudis are often right on the money.

For instance, in his interview at
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saudi/interviews/nasr.html

where he said:
"It's Saudi Arabia and its network of charities and the like. The argument I make is that there is an undercurrent of terror and fanaticism that go hand in hand in the Afghanistan-Pakistan arc, and extends all the way to Uzbekistan. And you can see reflections of it in Bosnia, in Kosovo, in Indonesia, in the Philippines.

For instance, in one madrassa in Pakistan, I interviewed 70 Malaysian and Thai students who are being educated side by side with students who went on to the Afghan war and the like. These people return to their countries, and then we see the results in a short while. ... At best, they become hot-headed preachers in mosques that encourage fighting Christians in Nigeria or in Indonesia. And in a worst case, they actually recruit or participate in terror acts...

Saudi Arabia has been the single biggest source of funding for fanatical interpretations of Islam, and the embodiment of that interpretation in organizations and schools has created a self-perpetuating institutional basis for promoting fanaticism across the Muslim world. ... There is no other state who spends as much money at ensuring conservatism and fanaticism among Muslims. ..."

Seeing him make excellent points like this while claiming to be a serious Muslim always baffled me. Now that I know he is Shia, it makes sense.

Posted by: Provoslavni [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 27, 2006 2:19 PM


Who is cfr?
http://www.cfr.org/about/mission.html

Pertaining to terrorism:
http://www.cfr.org/issue/135/

Posted by: squire [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 27, 2006 2:41 PM

And nasr's fellow class clowns like les gelb are very well aware of what will happen if the U.S. vacates the premisses. Bitch as they will about everything this administration does, they are solidly behind the Dubya in not wanting any kind of 'time table'.

O/T, al queda is threatening saudi oil infrastructure? My response is best of luck, boys, and don't spare those princes if you can get your hands on them, either. They are all drunkards and whoremongers, and deserving of allah's wrath.

Posted by: Infidel33 [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 27, 2006 2:58 PM

Nasr and his father are associated with the 'heretical' traditionalist sect of Fritjhof Schuon. The 'universalist' viewpoint of this group regarding the fundamental spiritual unity of all religions is so at odds with Traditional Islam I've never understood how the group members 'reconciled' it. Especially since Schuon taught that one must choose one traditional religious orthodoxy as a 'way' but the Muslims I personally know of in the group didn't pray five times a day, didn't fast on Ramadan etc. and (like Schuon) were more interested in Plains Indian spirituality than anything else.

I'd love to understand. Listening to Nasr Sr. on Israel and the Palestinians soured me on him. It was the same old same old.

Posted by: poetcomic1 [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 27, 2006 5:34 PM

Looking up the membership in the CFR is a real eye opener. How well those who, in the public view look to be at each other's throats. But are all allied togeather here.

The new world order people, the membership list is at times shocking.

Posted by: Islofob IS-1 [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 29, 2006 12:22 AM

Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.


Web Site Counter