JOHN O'SULLIVAN: Our failings encourage Islamic radicalism

PRAGUE, Czech Republic -- Vaclav Havel, the Czech playwright and anti-communist dissident who went directly from jail to the leadership of his country in the 1989 Velvet Revolution, has kept himself busy since retiring from the presidency. For several years he has been the host of an annual conference, Forum 2000, which brings together a diverse set of public figures to debate international issues.

Because Havel is one of that endangered species, the pro-American European, he invites a genuinely diverse group of debaters. Because of his vast prestige his invitations are very rarely refused. Hence the former director of the CIA, James Woolsey, is present here alongside persistent critics of the Iraq war and the Bush administration.

The topic is "Our Global Co-existence." There should be a question mark there since terrorists claiming to represent Islam have threatened either to conquer the rest of the world or to die in the attempt.

An exaggeration? Well, here are the words of the terrorist leader al-Zarqawi: "We will either achieve victory over the human race or we will pass to the eternal life." And Osama bin Laden himself has said of the Iraq war: "It is either victory and glory or misery and humiliation."

That calculation, moreover, applies to both sides. If the United States is driven from Iraq, which then collapses into an anarchy that becomes a base for international terrorism, America will have been defeated and humiliated. In those circumstances, we would be less powerful in world politics, less able to pursue our interests, and more vulnerable to more serious versions of 9/11, perhaps with weapons of mass destruction.

Last week in Washington, President Bush dealt more frankly than ever with this threat. Speaking to the National Endowment for Democracy, he named "Islamic radicalism" as the ideology of the terrorists we are fighting. He pointed out that it is the enemy not just of the West but of the entire human race. He showed that it had killed more Muslims than those of other faiths. And for the first time he called on "all responsible Islamic leaders to join in denouncing an ideology that exploits Islam for political ends."

That demand was unfortunately necessary since too many Muslim leaders and scholars have either remained silent about such terrorism, or issued highly qualified condemnations of it, or attributed it to the CIA or Israeli intelligence, or even justified it outright. There are excuses for this indulgence -- fear of the terrorists, a general anti-Americanism, a foolishly conspiratorial mind-set -- but no justifications. Still, Muslim leaders won't take the risks of denouncing the terrorists until we make clear, as the president has now done, that the United States and the West will impose penalties on those who fail to do so.

Those Muslim leaders in Prague had long ago crossed that Rubicon and landed safely on the democratic side. Indeed, my neighbor at the table, Anwar Ibrahim, formerly the deputy prime minister of Malaysia and now at Oxford University, pointed out that though he sometimes encountered anti-Muslim prejudice in Britain and America, he was nonetheless a freer man than in most Muslim countries. If he spoke with some feeling, maybe that was because he spent six years in a Malaysian prison on highly dubious charges. (I was beginning to feel myself that the lack of any jail time was a marked social disadvantage around the table.)

Of course, as Muslim and non-Muslim speakers pointed out, it would be unjust and dangerous to hold Muslims responsible for the crimes of al-Qaida simply because they are committed by Muslims.

What we are asking is that they should condemn manifest crimes and not surrender to the temptation to ignore or downplay them because they are committed by "their" religious or civilizational team. Unanimous Muslim condemnation of the terrorism committed in their name would be more effective than any Western weapon in ending it.

Not that we should ignore the failings of our own Western civilization in this regard. If terrorism has been occasionally soothed by Muslim indulgence, it has been systematically encouraged by Western appeasement. As the respected British diplomatic historian, David Carlton, points out in his new book, The West's Road To 9/11 (Palgrave Macmillan), the rise of modern terrorism really began in 1970 when a secular Arab terrorist group seized several airplanes, landed them on Dawson's Field in Jordan, and threatened to murder their passengers unless their governments agreed to demands that included the release of their members from prison. Not only did the United States, Britain, West Germany and Switzerland surrender to these demands on their own behalf, they also put enormous pressure on Israel to release terrorist C whom the Israelis knew would immediately set about murdering more of their citizens -- and not for the last time. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, America and European countries established various forms of police, intelligence and legal cooperation in the fight against terrorism. Yet, as Carlton shows with dry sarcastic humor, in almost every terrorist crisis they went around these institutions to reach quiet deals with the terrorists, usually on the latter's terms. As a result of being fed in this way, terrorism grew steadily until 9/11.

Since that date the world's anti-terrorism cooperation has markedly increased. As Bush pointed out last week, it has enjoyed a series of unheralded successes in terrorist plots foiled and terrorists arrested or killed. At the same time, the number of terrorist attacks is still increasing worldwide. So the struggle against terrorism, especially the terrorism of radical Islamist groups, is likely to be a long and bitter one.

But not a hopeless one. As Gareth Evans, the former Australian foreign minister, pointed out, the struggle to end war between states has also been a long and bitter one, but it is now starting to bear fruit: ''There has been a dramatic decline in the number of armed conflicts since the early 1990s -- by 80 percent in the case of conflicts with 1,000 or more battle deaths in a year.''

This has been the work, in the main, of international institutions established to contain war and violent conflict. But their diplomacy works in part because it is backed by force or the threat of force from the United States. The same kind of ''muscular multilateralism'' will eventually defeat terrorism.

For that to happen quickly, however, one last cultural obstacle needs to be overcome: the anti-Americanism of Europeans who would prefer to see the United States humiliated in Iraq than to admit that Europe's ''soft power'' needs America's ''hard power'' (and, to be fair, vice versa) if both halves of the West are to be safe from terror.

Nailed It!
Moral Clarity BUMP !

This ping list is not author-specific for articles I'd like to share. Some for the perfect moral clarity, some for provocative thoughts; or simply interesting articles I'd hate to miss myself. (I don't have to agree with the author all 100% to feel the need to share an article.) I will try not to abuse the ping list and not to annoy you too much, but on some days there is more of the good stuff that is worthy of attention. You can see the list of articles I pinged to lately on my page.
You are welcome in or out, just freepmail me (and note which PING list you are talking about). Besides this one, I keep 2 separate PING lists for my favorite authors Victor Davis Hanson and Orson Scott Card.

JOHN O'SULLIVAN:

...Muslim leaders won't take the risks of denouncing the terrorists until we make clear, as the president has now done, that the United States and the West will impose penalties on those who fail to do so.
...Of course, as Muslim and non-Muslim speakers pointed out, it would be unjust and dangerous to hold Muslims responsible for the crimes of al-Qaida simply because they are committed by Muslims.
What we are asking is that they should condemn manifest crimes and not surrender to the temptation to ignore or downplay them because they are committed by "their" religious or civilizational team. Unanimous Muslim condemnation of the terrorism committed in their name would be more effective than any Western weapon in ending it.

Unanimous Muslim condemnation of the terrorism committed in their name would be more effective than any Western weapon in ending it.

How so? The terrorists are only obeying the teachings of Islam.

But their diplomacy works in part because it is backed by force or the threat of force from the United States. The same kind of ''muscular multilateralism'' will eventually defeat terrorism.

For sure he nailed it.

And another good reason for the current coalition-led war in Iraq: The current war in Iraq gives tremendous strength to diplomatic channels that solve real problems.

If we talk about benefits of the war, there is a very practical if a cynical one: our military gets an enormous experience fighting this war. US military demonstrated that among things it does exceptionally well is to learn and improve. Through all the mistakes and uncertainties, it learns a lot now. Combining with a high retention and re-enlistment rate, the human capital gets better and better.

In the spirit of open and honest disclosure I have not read the article. However:

JOHN O'SULLIVAN: Our failings encourage Islamic radicalism

Is utterly moronic. The koran COMMANDS islamic radicalism. There is nothing we can do or not do to discourage it. The war on terror ends with the death of the last moslem.

Allow me to join the others on this thread who will or have flamed you. In the context of the article, O'Sullivan is correct. You need to read the entire article to grasp the meaning of the headline.

Good question. But it is for them to decide who is a good Muslim and who is not. There is definitely a foundation in Islam that Jihadists draw on. On another hand, 80% or more of Muslims don't ACT on those interpretations. They live normal from our point of view lives.

It is not in our interest for Wahhabists and other radicals to take over the whole Islamic world. But it is not in their interest neither.

Let them figure out how they will answer this question who is a good Muslim and who is not. We need to support all those whose answer is "the peaceful one" and help to eliminate the Jihadists. If it takes a reformation, or a civil war, so be it. Afghanistan and Iraq democratization is a good step also.

But if Jihadists win their internal struggle they will eventually attack us so painfully, that we will stop asking questions and will leash out terribly. So, if anybody wanted my advice, they better answer correctly now.

I read the article. The headline is still moronic. Islamic radicalism exists only because the koran commands it's followers to be terrorists. If we were more aggressive against them we'd eliminate some small percentage of the terrorists but the central source of the terrorism would still be there festering under the surface waiting for our resolve to slip, as it would whenever a democrat got elected.

Islam causes islamic radicalism and the war on terror ends with the death of the last moslem. There is no other way.

Then, apparently, you missed this gem from the article:

If terrorism has been occasionally soothed by Muslim indulgence, it has been systematically encouraged by Western appeasement.

One last cultural obstacle needs to be overcome: the anti-Americanism of Europeans who would prefer to see the United States humiliated in Iraq than to admit that Europe's "soft power" needs America's "hard power" (and, to be fair, vice versa) if both halves of the West are to be safe from terror. -John O'Sullivan

Terrific piece. Vaclav Havel should be a key, but I fear Europe won't change its spots.

here are the words of the terrorist leader al-Zarqawi: "We will either achieve victory over the human race or we will pass to the eternal life." And Osama bin Laden himself has said of the Iraq war: "It is either victory and glory or misery and humiliation."

They will not see victory.

The terrorists are only obeying the teachings of Islam.

Right. That explains the last elections in Malaysia & Indonesia. The blood running in the streets of Flint Michigan. Not to mention Lance Cpl. Sajjad H. Rizvi
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1488432/posts
Hatim Kathiria
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1477079/posts
Samir
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1391805/posts

But I guess they're not REAL Muslims.

But I guess they're not REAL Muslims.

Not all people that call themselves muslim follow the teaching of islam or the example set by their 'prophet' muhammed.

Right. Like Nurcholis Madjid

A Man of Light Passes Away in Indonesia (Good article)
Asharq Al Awsat ^ | 9/9/05 | Amir Taheri
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1481048/posts

"Madjid helped popularise many classical concepts of Islamic politics... ...the crucial concept of “sabr” (patience) which stipulates that, whenever achieving the ideal may cause massive hardship or opposition in the real world it is best to wait for future opportunities for doing so."

Indeed!

“I’ve always wanted to be a Marine to help people who were suffering like my people were,” said Rizvi who is a Shia Muslim. “I wanted to be a part of a warrior tradition like those of my religion.”

Indeed!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.