Daniel Pipes: History shows Islam, democracy unlikely to mix in Iraq

Chicago Sun-Times ^ | April 14 2004

[knighthawk]

The current insurrection in Iraq was discernible a year ago, as I already noted in April 2003: ''Thousands of Iraqi Shiites chanted 'No to America, No to Saddam, Yes to Islam' a few days ago, during pilgrimage rites in the holy city of Karbala. Increasing numbers of Iraqis appear to agree with these sentiments. They have ominous implications for the coalition forces.''

The recent wave of violence makes those implications fully apparent.

Two factors in particular made me expect Iraqi resistance. First, the quick war of 2003 focused on overturning a hated tyrant so that, when it was over, Iraqis felt liberated, not defeated. Accordingly, the common assumption that Iraq resembled the Germany and Japan of 1945 was wrong. Those two countries had been destroyed through years of all-out carnage, leading them to acquiesce to the postwar overhaul of their societies and cultures. Iraq, in contrast, emerged almost without damage from brief hostilities, and Iraqis do not feel they must accept guidance from the occupation forces. Rather, they immediately showed a determination to shape their country's future.

Second, as a predominantly Muslim people, Iraqis share in the powerful Muslim reluctance to being ruled by non-Muslims. This reluctance results from the very nature of Islam, the most public and political of religions.

To live a fully Muslim life requires living in accord with the many laws of Islam, called the sharia. The sharia includes difficult-to-implement precepts pertaining to taxation, the judicial system and warfare. Its complete implementation can occur only when the ruler himself is a pious Muslim (although an impious Muslim is much preferable to a non-Muslim). For Muslims, rule by non-Muslims is an abomination, a blasphemous inversion of God's dispensation.

This explains why one finds a consistently strong resistance to rule by non-Muslims through 14 centuries of Muslim history. Europeans recognized this resistance, and in their post-Crusades global expansion stayed largely away from majority-Muslim territories, knowing these would awesomely resist their control.

The pattern is striking: For more than four centuries, 1400-1830, Europeans expanded around the world, trading, ruling and settling -- but distinctly in places where Muslims were not, such as the Western Hemisphere, sub-Saharan Africa, East Asia and Australia. In a clear pattern of avoidance, the imperial powers (Britain, France, Holland and Russia especially) took control of faraway territories, while carefully avoiding their Muslim neighbors in North Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia.

Only in 1830 did a European power (France) find the confidence frontally to confront a Muslim state (Algeria). Even then, the French needed 17 years just to control the coastal region.

As European rulers conquered Muslim lands, they found they could not crush the Islamic religion, nor win the population over culturally, nor stamp out political resistance. However suppressed, some embers of resistance remained; these often sparked a flame of anti-imperialism that finally drove the Europeans out. In Algeria, for example, a successful eight-year effort, 1954-62, expelled the French colonial authority.

Nor was the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq the first Western undertaking to unburden Muslims of tyrannical rule. Already in 1798, Napoleon Bonaparte appeared in Egypt with an army and declared himself a friend of Islam who had come to relieve the oppressed Egyptians of their Mamluk rulers. His successor as commander in Egypt, J.F. Menou, actually converted to Islam. But these efforts to win Egyptian goodwill failed, as Egyptians rejected the invaders' proclaimed good intentions and remained hostile to French rule.

The European-run ''mandates'' set up in the Middle East after World War I included similar lofty intentions and also found few Muslim takers.

This history suggests that the coalition's grand aspirations for Iraq will not succeed. However constructive its intentions to build democracy, the coalition cannot win the confidence of Muslim Iraq nor win acceptance as its overlord. Even spending $18 billion in one year on economic development does not improve matters.

I therefore counsel the occupying forces quickly to leave Iraqi cities and then, when feasible, to leave Iraq as a whole. They should seek out what I have been calling for since a year ago: a democratically minded Iraqi strongman, someone who will work with the coalition forces, provide decent government, and move eventually toward a more open political system.

This sounds slow, dull and unsatisfactory. But at least it will work -- in contrast to the ambitious but failing current project.

Daniel Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum.

[knighthawk]

Ping

[TheDon]

President Bush mentioned people like Pipes in his speech last night. They don't believe Muslims or brown skinned people can embrace democracy and freedom. It's a rather unfortunate and false mindset to have.

[swarthyguy]

Bring back Saddam?

[ruiner]

History also shows that democratic republics didn't have much of a chance before 1776 too.

[Nonstatist]

a democratically minded Iraqi strongmanI agree. Unfortunately, the Iraqi Army is a piece of crap, leaderless and unmotivated.

The Pentagon had the right idea, but the State Dept screwed us all over, royally. I cant imagine where we are going to be on June 30th.

[gilliam]

People were saying the same thing about Japan and Germany after WWII.

[tkathy]

Many of these writers are so consumed by what happened in the past that they don't appreciate the power of the internet and the information age.

[Iris7]

This is sort of true, and very Pipes. A demonstration of the usual sort of intellectual's faith in rationality, their religion, of sorts.

The situation in Iraq has developed as I expected. There are ways to deal with it. The reason the administration has put a June 30 handover deadline is that either this is done on schedule or increasingly firm measures will be required, and those measures will have undesirable consequences.

The essential goals of the Iraq operation have been met, in any case. I think there is more good to come, but even if there is not, the Iraq operation has been a resounding success.

[gobucks]

Pipes is also in favor of a very simple conversion strategy of radical Islamists ... secularization.

[Revolting cat!]

Ah, here we have the familiar nonpartisan pose in response to realistic analyses: you are a bad racist if you don't believe that Arabs are capable of democracy! Because everybody knows that all people everywhere are the same! Kumbaya!

But historical evidence supports Pipes' contention - there is no history of democratic aspirations in the region as there is all over Europe and even in colonized South America. Pipes is right as is Mark Helprin in this devastating essay from the September 2003 issue of Claremont Review of Books: War in the Absence of Strategic Clarity.

[TheDon]

You are right. Germans had war in their blood, they just couldn't help themselves! Same with the Japanese.

Now look at them. So much for those who make such pronouncements.

[FreedomPoster]

In summary, the shortcomings are cultural, not genetic.

[TheDon]

I guess you've placed yourself in the same category. How sad for you.

[ScaniaBoy]

Accordingly, the common assumption that Iraq resembled the Germany and Japan of 1945 was wrong. Those two countries had been destroyed through years of all-out carnage, leading them to acquiesce to the postwar overhaul of their societies and cultures. Iraq, in contrast, emerged almost without damage from brief hostilities, and Iraqis do not feel they must accept guidance from the occupation forces.

Not like Germany or Japan then. Much more like France!

[TopQuark]

Only in 1830 did a European power (France) find the confidence frontally to confront a Muslim state (Algeria). Even then, the French needed 17 years just to control the coastal region.

And at about the same time the Russian tsar marched into Caucausus and annexed Chechnya, which they have never been able to subjugate.

[Billthedrill]

While I normally agree with Daniel Pipes I have to wonder in this case what in the world he means by "democratically-minded strongman." Those two qualities are not often found in the same individual. Another Shah of Iran, perhaps? Someone less autocratic? Like...?

[lugsoul]

That's pretty impressive. You set up a straw man ("brown-skinned people" can't have democracy, according to some) and then, when a poster corrects your fallacy, you simply accuse him of the same bias.

No one said anything about "brown-skinned people." It is about Muslims. I can name plenty of "brown-skinned" nations that embrace democratic principles. Can you name a single Muslim nation that does?

[TopQuark]

democratic republics didn't have much of a chance before 1776 too.

They were not imposed from without, were they?

[TopQuark]

Pipes is a very astute Islam scholar and a sharp conservative as well. He is probably right. You are exactly right. However, in the following you make a mistake that Pipes made as well:

Muslims have no tradition of democratic institutions or a modern legal system or rule of law, or any of the other structures of democracy.

Turkey has a predominantly Muslim population and a secular state. It's been a democracy much longer than Germany or Russia. If Pipes makes this argument, he should not omit this important example.

[TheDon]

You missed this:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1117625/posts?page=15#3

[CalKat]

What about Turkey?

[CalKat]

Never mind my post 23. Thanks.

[ruiner]

My point is history is just that, history. We can learn from it and tailor our objectives based on it, but it shouldn't be used to discourage us from freeing oppressed people.

I know it must be easy to sitback and say, "Well, we can't help anyone to do something, they have to do it themselves," but we have a moral imperative to at least try.

[ScaniaBoy]

The real problem here is that Daniel Pipes probably is right. At least he is correct regarding the historical record of Muslim states. However, in today's world where most states have the financial and scientific/technological potential to produce WMDs and covertly support terrorist organisations, can one just withdraw and do nothing?

The only safe alternative to a democratic or at least a non-tyrranical rule would be a colonial rule - something that would be even less acceptable both to the "international comunity" and to the electorate of the colonial nation, than the present operation in Iraq.

Though I'm afraid that in the end it may turn out that Pipes will be right, I'm convinced that the Iraq operation at least has helped to increase the safety of the "West" in the short-run, and at least opened up a possibility of a democratization of the Middle-East.

Let's hope that "he who dares wins".

ScaniaBoy

[lugsoul]

I didn't miss it. That's where you set up the straw man by adding a race issue that didn't exist in any of these comments.

[ScaniaBoy]

At least he is correct regarding the historical record of Muslim states.

With the exception of Turkey for most of the 20th century, and maybe Pakistan and Malaysia, I should have added.

[gilliam]

I think we need to realize that the vast majority of Iraqis are not terrorists, just like the vast majority of Arabians are not terrorists. Also, the vast majority of Iraqis are not in favor of an Islamic state in the pattern of Iran. Even their most estemed Shiite leaders come from a school of separation of church and state (not exactly like the US view, but not the Iranian or Islamisist view either). In fact, Sadr's biggest problem, and why the Shiites of Iran did not take up arms in his attempted coupe, and why we are now finding suicide bombers in Iraq wanting to kill Shiites, is precisly this secular view. On the other hand, if what some have written in this thread were right, we would be in a world of hurt now, which we are not.

Respected Iraqi religious leaders want a say in the government and they want Islamic law to be respected, but they are not demanding another Iran (which they don't seem to like).

So what do the Iraqi civilians want? The vast majority of Iraqis want what all of us want. We need to get to basic human needs here. Remember Maslow's heararcy of needs:

First come the physical needs (they are complaining now that Saddam kept the electricity on, water flowing, etc.) That is because, unlike what some have posted here, their country is pretty much gone to pieces by the 12 years of allied bombing, Saddam exploiting and embargoes.

But a close second is the need for safety: If the physiological needs are relatively well gratified, there then emerges a new set of needs, which we may categorize roughly as the safety needs, (security; stability; dependency; protection; freedom from fear, anxiety, and chaos; need for structure, order, law, and limits; strength in the protector; and so on). (Abraham Maslow, Motivation and Personality, 18)

These needs are part of all of us. They are part of natural law. The desire for freedom is part of all of us. The gift of freedom, as Bush said, is a gift from God. He feels, and so do I, that with the power of being the most powerful country on earth, comes the responsibility to help God in bistowing that gift, where possbile. If it is done in the middle east, there is a good possibility the terrorists coming from there will be stopped by their own governments (democratic ones), before coming here. It is a bold vision, but not an irrational one. It has been accomplished in Japan, Germany and Italy.

[TopQuark]

We can learn from it and tailor our objectives based on it, but it shouldn't be used to discourage us from freeing oppressed people.

Yes, except what looks to you as oppressed people may not be oppression: it may be the choice those people made. That is the poitn Pipes makes. You may or may not agree with that point, but you should at least understand it. And history is relevant, then: it shows which choices those people have made. If I see you smoking, by choice, every day after dinner, I am unlikely to be successful liberating you from cigarettes. Only you can do that.

Some food for further thought: our Constitution has been an open book for more than two centuries -- how many countries have adopted it? Dozens if not hundreds of counties came into existence in the last 50 years. How many of them adopted any part of what we consider sacred?

So before you liberate, you shold know what the intended beneficiaries prefer.

[gilliam]

The June 30th deadline is necessary to show the Iraqis we are not occupiers or Crusaders.

[TopQuark]

The real problem here is that Daniel Pipes probably is right.

I also think that he is right, but not for the reason stated: it's not so much that Islam is weighing on the issue (Turkey is a counter-example) but the Arab culture. The Turks have proven that they can maintain democracy, and the Persians have potential for it too. The Arabs are something else for cultural reasons.

In application to Iraq, therefore, I think that he is correct.

[gilliam]

Yes, except what looks to you as oppressed people may not be oppression: it may be the choice those people made. That is the poitn Pipes makes.

This week they had the choice to pick up arms and create an Islamic state like Iran, and they voted NO!

[lugsoul]

I'll give you a "close" on that one. I wouldn't call it an "embrace." But the Turks seem to be the exception that proves all of the rules. After all, if a "free" Iraq is supposed to result in a cascading domino effect of Middle Eastern democracy, why hasn't anyone - anyone - followed Turkey's example if a mostly secular, mostly democratic state.

[gilliam]

Turks are not Arabs by the way.

[marron]

People were saying the same thing about Japan and Germany after WWII.

True. There are differences. Some have pointed out that Germany was demolished and rebuilt from the ground up, while Iraq was not. Iraq did, on the other hand, go through 30 years of horrificly brutal rule, a fact which cuts both ways, leaving us with some people who are determined not to go back, and others who are merely cynical and brutal themselves.

The biggest difference, though, is that in both Germany and Japan we came to stay. We out-lasted early insurgencies, and rebuilt their political systems in our own image, imposed control over them for 10 or 15 years, and kept a conspicuous presence in both countries for decades.

If we expect to be successful in Iraq, we had better be prepared to do the same. The present level of discourse suggests that at least half don't get it, and the other half are watching their words to avoid panicking them.

[ScaniaBoy]

Actually, one Arab state that was democratic was Lebanon - however, when the demographics changed and Muslims became a majority, and thanks to Arafat and his ghouls this once flowering state went through a terrible civil war.

Maybe it will be able to recover if enough pressure is put on Syria.

As regards Iraq - there is still the possibility that the fundamentalists will lose. Most Iraqis still seem to be sitting on the fence. There has not been a large support for al-Sadr, who now appears to agree to negotiate with the Council.

[swarthyguy]

Succinctly and cogently stated.

Pragmatism (Baathis, a strongman type) or Idealism (democracy).

[lugsoul]

Agreed. But neither are Persians, or Pashtuns, or Tajiks, or Kurds, or Punjabis. Radical Islam in the homelands of these persons seems to be more dangerous than in Arab lands. After all, Islamicist Arabs had to flee their own countries and go to these places to "do as they pleased."

[untenured]

If we expect to be successful in Iraq, we had better be prepared to do the same.

You could add that Japan and Germany were also not surrounded on land by neighbors with a huge stake in undermining the project.

[gilliam]

You could add that Japan and Germany were also not surrounded on land by neighbors with a huge stake in undermining the project.

No, they both were: Germany by the USSR, East Germany and the Iron Curtain nations. Japan by Red China, the USSR and North Korea.

[TopQuark]

That is an excellent point, of course (Lebanon).

My personal projection for Iraq is its disintegration into two or three states. I just cannot see how it would happen without a major regional conflict.

[Zack Nguyen]

I think Pipes may be right. He is a Muslim. Islam and democracy do not mix, and never have. Islam does not believe in freedom of conscience or freedom of thought. They believe in death to the infidel, and a government to carry that out.

This reluctance results from the very nature of Islam, the most public and political of religions.

That is the root of the problem. Unlike Christianity, Islam recognizes no distinction between the institution of "church" and state. The state is an extension of the church, if you will, and thus they will never submit to the rule of democracy.

We have to try. But I am afraid we are trying to force freedom on people who hate it religiously.

[Lorianne]

I doubt seriously whether Islam and democracy can mix, period. Nevermind just in Iraq.

[the OlLine Rebel]

Again, the exception that proves the rule.

Of course, as some would say, don't think Turkey is totally peaches & honey.

[TopQuark]

Good to see you too, Uburoi. Thanks for your post and a pointer to de Soto's book: I'll try to look it up since you recommend.

[TopQuark]

as some would say, don't think Turkey is totally peaches & honey. What is, peaches and honey --- the current EU? Canada, where an expression of Christian opposition to homosexuals is hate speech?

The fact remains that, with all the flaws, Turkey is a longer-running democracy than Germany or Russia. People do not seem to have such a strong distrust of the poptential of either of these countries, and yet they love to put down Turkey. We've got to apppy the same standards, should we not?

[Skywalk]

Pipes is not 100 percent accurate. While the Dutch and British used alliances and puppet rulers in Indonesia and Malaysia, these places were certainly dominated by Europe(eventually) and were Muslim.

Of course, until recently, their brand of Islam was more synthesis between native traditions and the new desert religion.

But then SEAsia is notable in that Islam did not spread mainly via the sword.

[TheDon]

I was replying with a statement from President Bush about those who don't think Muslims and brown skinned people like freedom and democracy. It is you who are ignoring the Muslim part of the statement and are only focusing on the racial element.