America's war on terror is in many ways an effort to avoid collateral damage here and in other parts of the world because of an Islamic civil war. Fleeing Afghanistan will not end the civil war. It just risks more collateral damage in the West. The main fight is still helping the good guys beat the jihadis in the civil war.
Yes:
In the Islamic world, the year 1979 was a landmark. In Iran, a popular revolution overthrew the monarchy; the revolution later evolved into a ruthless Islamic theocracy. In Afghanistan, a general Islamist uprising against a socialist government, which had overthrown that country’s monarchy the previous year, led to an effective takeover of the country by the Soviet Union. Neighboring Pakistan moved decisively toward Islamist governance. In Saudi Arabia, Islamist revolutionaries occupied the Great Mosque of Mecca, the holiest place in the Islamic world. The Saudi state savagely put down the revolt but then, in partnership with Pakistan, strengthened its own commitment to Islamic governance, in order to co-opt the radicals in its midst and confront Iran’s revolutionary claim to be the true leader of the Islamic world.
All three of these explosions originated inside Muslim-majority societies that had struggled to adapt to the modern world. In Iran, Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia, Islamist revolutionaries argued that they were revolting against a secular (“un-Islamic” or “godless”) tyranny bent on modernizing the country from the top down, causing great hardship and disturbing traditional ways of life. Always, the argument included the accusation that the tyrants were corrupted by foreign ways and foreign influence. Americans, Russians, and other “Westerners” were the usual villains. The Islamists promised to fight corruption, restore religious harmony, and preserve law and order based on Islamic jurisprudence. In the revolutions that had upended the Atlantic world in early times, liberty was a touchstone. In the Muslim world, in contrast, the more common appeal was to justice.
I have believed that democracy with rule of law can end the appeal and generation of jihadi Islamism. Does the desire for justice above all else mean I'm wrong?
The Arab Spring of a decade ago almost totally failed. But it at least showed a lot of Arab people wanted to try democracy instead of the usual choices of autocracy or religious dictatorships for their governments.
And I did recognize that rule of law was important for democracy to mean more than a one-time vote for dictatorship by the majority. Whether I used the term "constitution," "accountability," or "rule of law" that I usually use, it's all the same thing.
Justice is best guaranteed by rule of law. Which is also a component of functioning democracy. So it is possible for the West to support rule of law in the formal system of even an imperfect democracy. After all, Iran has the forms of democracy with votes and a parliament--just not rule of law. Rule of law is more important in the long run than voting. So don't give up on democracy in the Arab world:
This depressing state of affairs demands that the United States and other actors reconsider their support of Arab dictators and replace their generous supplies of bullets with a renewed commitment to ballots. Ultimately, that is the only way long-term stability, security, and possibly democracy can be achieved.
Yes, eventually democracy can be achieved. Yet don't mistake voting alone--which can be achieved quickly--as being democracy. Rule of law is key. And that takes time. And if Arabs accept rule of law more readily as a pursuit of justice, that's fine. This is the way to end the Islamic civil war.
There are people in Saudi Arabia who reject Islamist violence and who want to change Islam and modernize it. They deserve our support as a path to rule of law, justice, and democracy.
Again, the September 11, 2001 attack was essentially collateral damage in that civil war. I've long recognized that this is the nature of the struggle and that Arabs have to win this civil war by defeating the murderous nutballs in favor of those willing to live and let live.
I wonder if the threat of non-Arab Moslem powers encircling the Middle East will push the good guys to do a better job of defeating the Islamists who help weaken the Arab states.
The Long War goes on. And it is more than just killing jihadis. America and the West will be potential collateral damage in the Islamic civil war whether we fight to keep that from happening or don't out of a misguided notion that if we don't make eye contact the jihadi nutballs will leave us alone.
As an aside, while I agree that America didn't cause or deserve 9/11, I strongly disagree with the author's negative take on the Iraq War. If rule of law justice--and perhaps even democracy--emerges in the Arab world, we may eventually speak of George the Liberator.
