Unite to Defeat Radical Jihadism
. . . this is mostly because our allies in Europe cannot integrate a muslim to save their soul's. Peggy lays this out in simple easy to understand terms, "These things are obvious after the Brussels bombings: In striking at the political heart of Europe, home of the European Union, the ISIS jihadists were delivering a message: They will not be stopped. What we are seeing now is not radical jihadist Islam versus the West but, increasingly, radical jihadist Islam versus the world. They are on the move in Africa, parts of Asia and of course throughout the Mideast. Radical jihadism is not going to go away, not for a long time, probably decades. For 15 years it has in significant ways shaped our lives, and it will shape our children’s too. They will have to win the war. It will not be effectively fought with guilt, ambivalence or double-mindedness. That, in the West, will have to change." She notes that President Golf Pants had something to say, "The usual glib talk of politicians—calls for unity, vows that we will not give in to fear—will produce in the future what they’ve produced in the past: nothing. “The thoughts and the prayers of the American people are with the people of Belgium,” said the president, vigorously refusing to dodge clichés. “We must unite and be together, regardless of nationality, race or faith, in fighting against the scourge of terrorism.” It is not an “existential threat,” he noted, as he does. But if you were at San Bernardino or Fort Hood, the Paris concert hall or the Brussels subway, it would feel pretty existential to you." True. He cannot pass a cliche without stopping to make its acquaintance. So, if we are to unify to stop this threat, how? First we must understand what causes all mass movements. "There are many books, magazine long-reads and online symposia on the subject of violent Islam. I have written of my admiration for “What ISIS Really Wants” by Graeme Wood, published a year ago in the Atlantic. ISIS supporters have tried hard to make their project knowable and understood, Mr. Wood reported: “We can gather that their state rejects peace as a matter of principle; that it hungers for genocide; that its religious views make it constitutionally incapable of certain types of change . . . and that it considers itself a harbinger of—and headline player in—the imminent end of the world.” ISIS is essentially “medieval” in its religious nature, and “committed to purifying the world by killing vast numbers of people.” They intend to eliminate the infidel and raise up the caliphate—one like the Ottoman empire, which peaked in the 16th century and then began its decline." This doesn't really answer the question does it? This does. The short answer here is hatred of self, of religion, and of nationality. This is a festering sore, which is worsened if the adopted nation treats the individual as second class. Here are a large number of opinion polls which show the extent of muslim extremism. Muslim Opinion Polls On the other hand, I agree with this analysis as well: Labor Market Rigidity and the Disaffection of European Muslim Youth - Marginal REVOLUTION America does a better job at integrating immigrants than Europe. That should not surprise, Europe spent the past 150 years torn between sending waves of immigrants to the US or fighting internecine wars. It has no experience with emigration. Perhaps the key reason America does so well is we allow quick and complete economic integration of individuals. This ties them to the community economically, and whatever other negative feelings they may have, are muted by the strength of the economic tie. Europe on the other hand does what Europe always does, it ghettoizes the other, and economically marginalizes them.. "In Belgium high unemployment and crime-ridden Muslim ghettos have fomented radicalism but as Jeff Jacoby writes: Muslims in the United States…have had no problem acclimating to mainstream norms. In a detailed 2011 survey, the Pew Research Center found that Muslim Americans are “highly assimilated into American society and . . . largely content with their lives.” More than 80 percent of US Muslims expressed satisfaction with life in America, and 63 percent said they felt no conflict “between being a devout Muslim and living in a modern society.” The rates at which they participate in various everyday American activities — from following local sports teams to watching entertainment TV — are similar to those of the American public generally. Half of all Muslim immigrants display the US flag at home, in the office, or on their car. Jacoby, however, doesn’t explain why these differences exist. One reason is the greater flexibility of American labor markets compared to those in Europe. Institutions that make it more difficult to hire and fire workers or adjust wages can increase unemployment and reduce employment, especially among immigrant youth. Firms will be less willing to hire if it is very costly to fire. As Tyler and I put it in Modern Principles, How many people will want to go on a date if every date requires a marriage? The hiring hurdle is especially burdensome for immigrants given the additional real or perceived uncertainty from hiring immigrants. One of the few ways that immigrants can compete in these situations is by offering to work for lower wages. But if that route is blocked by minimum wages or requirements that every worker receive significant non-wage benefits then unemployment and non-employment among immigrants will be high generating disaffection, especially among the young. Huber, for example, (see also Angrist and Kugler) finds: Countries with more centralized wage bargaining, stricter product market regulation and countries with a higher union density, have worse labour market outcomes for their immigrants relative to natives even after controlling for compositional effects. The problem of labor market rigidity is especially acute in Belgium where the differences between native and immigrant unemployment, employment and wages are among the highest in the OECD. Language difficulties and skills are one reason but labor market rigidity is another, as this OECD report makes clear: Belgian labour market settings are generally unfavourable to the employment outcomes of low-skilled workers. Reduced employment rates stem from high labour costs, which deter demand for low-productivity workers…Furthermore, labour market segmentation and rigidity weigh on the wages and progression prospects of outsiders. With immigrants over-represented among low-wage, vulnerable workers, labour market settings likely hurt the foreign-born disproportionately. …Minimum wages can create a barrier to employment of low-skilled immigrants, especially for youth. As a proportion of the median wage, the Belgian statutory minimum wage is on the high side in international comparison and sectoral agreements generally provide for even higher minima. This helps to prevent in-work poverty…but risks pricing low-skilled workers out of the labour market (Neumark and Wascher, 2006). Groups with further real or perceived productivity handicaps, such as youth or immigrants, will be among the most affected. In 2012, the overall unemployment rate in Belgium was 7.6% (15-64 age group), rising to 19.8% for those in the labour force aged under 25, and, among these, reaching 29.3% and 27.9% for immigrants and their native-born offspring, respectively. Immigration can benefit both immigrants and natives but achieving those benefits requires the appropriate institutions especially open and flexible labor markets." Young American muslims will still be potential recruits to Islamism, but the ability of the radicals to find converts will be lessened by economic opportunity. This is a key reason why continuing to follow the dying progressive system is not just folly but dangerous. The progressive belief structure will mire the employment relationship in 19th century goals and ideals. We know this will slow economic growth, and do nothing to further the needs and desires of either the workers, or the employers. This will hurt the immigrant more than the native. The best mechanism to fight Islamic terror is rapid, inclusive economic growth, not slowed growth, and stagnation. Bad ideas are myriad, but should be eschewed. The other battlefield for this fight will need to be the Middle East itself, through the Islamic Reformation. The West cannot be involved in this war. If it is, the battle will surely spill into the West. This will be difficult but necessary. Ultimately this needs to be a war for reformation fought only by the parties to the reformation. Our current political class is not up to this.
Comments
ISIS carries out Good Friday crucifixion of Indian priest in Yemen
. . . of ISIS as the anti-God element! How stupid could these wankers be? That stupid. BrothersJudd Blog: THE MIGHTY SAUDI WAR MACHINE...:
. . . brilliant! "For all the bluster of Saudi generals who vow to lead their troops into Sana'a if necessary, the campaign now has more limited goals, says the confidant. Saudi Arabia wants to send Iran and its regional clients a message that it will resist their regional push. With Iran holding sway through its proxies in Baghdad, Damascus and Beirut, Saudi Arabia is loth to let a fourth capital, particularly one in its back yard, go Iran's way. But the campaign is now mostly about blunting the capabilities of the Houthis (a militia of Zaydis, a splinter Shiite sect concentrated in Yemen's north) and their ally, Ali Abdullah Saleh, who until Saudi Arabia engineered his removal in 2012 was the Arab world's longest-reigning ruler. Together the Houthis and Mr Saleh make a formidable force. Whereas the former are guerrillas who model themselves on Lebanon's Hizbullah, the latter commands Yemen's Republican army, which has been fighting wars (including against the Houthis) for 25 years. Together they wield an arsenal of tanks, ballistic missiles and, at one point, even the odd fighter-jet. Houthi fighters head to battle carrying charms, such as keys and visas to paradise. Their preachers on satellite television call for re-establishing Zaydi rule across the border, not just over the three border provinces the Al Sauds seized in 1934 but even over Mecca farther north. That is implausible given Saudi Arabia's air power and network of allies. But some Saudis ask how their overfed armed forces would fare should battle-hardened Houthi fighters make even a limited push across the border. It says much about Saudi trepidation that General Olyan limits himself to defending Saudi territory; he says his troops make no attempt to attack the Houthi heartland of Saada governorate, just across the frontier." The lede comes from the spot on comment of Kaspar. The House of Saud's military "superiority" is entirely technical. And once the money dries up, so will the technical. Iran is playing a very good game of Go, the House of Saud is limited to its childish understanding of checkers. While Saud would like to get out of Yemen, for all practical intents and purposes, it cannot. The Shia will consolidate Yemen if allowed, and Saud cannot allow that. On the other hand, Iran is expending little in this fight, while Saud is expending much. The House of Saud was a spartan band, back at the dawn of time when it was not fat and money rich. Now rich Saud is wont to throw money at every problem. But the money dwindles, and the House of Saud's power dwindles as well. Iran is forcing Saud to spend money like the proverbial drunken sailor. The Saud's cargo cult military will eat up as much money as Iran desires, but will never deliver on its promises. Whether Saud stays or leaves Yemen, Iran will continue to prosecute this proxy war, and open others, eventually engaging the House of Saud, and likely reducing it. Expect the next decade of Middle East history to rewrite much of what we have known up to now. If the US is capable of coherent 21st century foreign policy strategy, we will find ways to undermine the House of Saud, while trading with, and democratizing Iran. This is a long game. We need to reduce the Iranian hardliners, and bring Iran to a modern economic, and political status. By doing so, the people of Iran will be able to soften the hardliners, and move away from Iranian nationalism, and hardline Islam to a more internationalist stance. At the same time we need to complete reduce the House of Saud, the Salafist, and the Wahhabist. This will allow a dramatic reduction in Islamic terrorism, and hopefully trigger a Reformation of Islam, and optimistically, the Enlightenment of Islam. The long game is always a difficult tightrope walk, it is always worth it. This will also allow the American foreign policy establishment to finally cull its remaining Cold Warriors. By my count that's a Win/Win/Win. Therefer! I was over at the Brothers Judd blog when I found this gem:
BrothersJudd Blog: IT'S ALREADY DOCTRINAL IN SHI'ISM...: "Islamic Awakening : An ancient faith encounters modernity (Daniel Philpott, February 29, 2016, America) Should Westerners, then, avoid altogether looking for lessons for Muslims in their own history? No; the history of the West contains a different experience that may prove a more promising model for Islam: that of the Catholic Church. The church came around to religious freedom quite late in history upon the Second Vatican Council's promulgation of its "Declaration on Religious Freedom" in 1965--three centuries after a pocket of Protestant theologians began to argue for religious freedom and two centuries after the Enlightenment did so. This latter-day awakening, though, is part of what makes the Catholic Church's road to its declaration exemplary. It shows how a religion whose authority refrained from teaching religious freedom for centuries succeeded in finding a basis for the teaching in its own tradition rather than in modern secular ideologies. To be sure, the Catholic Church's pathway to religious freedom is not applicable to Islam in every particular. Islam lacks a single leader, like the pope, whose embrace of a doctrine would be authoritative for all believers. Still, the parallels are strong. Catholicism, like Islam, existed long before modernity. In order to arrive at the "Declaration on Religious Liberty," the church had to leave behind the ideal of medieval Christendom, where church and state worked in close partnership to uphold a thoroughly Christian social order. Heresy, in that milieu, was not merely a sin but also an act of sedition. St. Thomas Aquinas compared heresy to counterfeit money, implying that just as the king or prince could use his authority to protect the economy, so, too, he could muzzle spiritual miscreants to safeguard the spiritual ecology. In Islam's early centuries, a doctrine of "Islamdom" came to prevail. Here, too, apostasy and blasphemy were tantamount to rebellion and merited death. Non-Muslims living under Islamic law were in many places allowed to practice their religion but were restricted in expressing it publicly and spreading it to others--something well short of religious freedom in full. While the Catholic Church eventually left Christendom behind, though, Islamdom still predominates among the world's Muslim thinkers. Its most extreme version is found in the Islamic State, Boko Haram and Al Qaeda. Catholicism and Islam are also similar in having been treated as an enemy by the movements that have claimed to carry freedom into the modern world. When a few Protestant theologians warmed up to religious freedom in the 17th century, they continued to denounce the Catholic Church. The Protestant philosopher John Locke, for instance, relegated Catholics along with atheists to the category of people to whom religious freedom could not be extended in his "A Letter Concerning Toleration." In the minds of most Enlightenment philosophers, the church was the architect of the Inquisition, the silencer of Galileo and the foe of free thought. In the 19th and 20th centuries, political parties based on Enlightenment ideals in Europe and Latin America sought to eradicate the church's social influence. Anticlerical forces in the French Third Republic, for instance, exiled priests, shut down religious orders and closed the vast majority of Catholic schools in the name of a doctrine of laïcité that called for secularizing public life and privatizing religion. It was on account of the Enlightenment's hostility to the church as well as its religious skepticism that 19th-century popes denounced religious freedom as "absurd" and "erroneous." Muslims have found the messengers of modernity to be no less hostile. ...our job is to make sure the Sunni don't take 19 centuries to accept it, like the Church." The key here is to keep the price of oil rock bottom low, and engage in free trade relations with the Shia factions allowing them to create broadly diverse, and functional economies, while creating pressure on the anti-religious freedom, fundamentalist Sunni factions politically, and economically. As Orrin says, our job is to smooth, acceptance and reduce the time necessary for the Sunni to accept the Islamic Reformation, and ultimately Enlightenment. With this, we will be able to turn our attention to the final place on Earth in need of modernization, Africa. The primary US foreign policy interest today must be the Reformation, and ultimately Enlightenment of Islam. Yet, I suspect it is not even on the radar of State. Worst political class ever! Where Is Islam’s Martin Luther?
. . . sounds like a new children's book, but it is much more serious. It is good to find I have fellow travelers on this long difficult road. I am not an Islamic textual scholar nor is Ayaan Hirsi Ali, but her book is a fine first step towards changing the understanding of what is going on in Islam, both within Islam, and outside. The forces of antiquity and hate have about run their course, the Reformation, and modernization of Islam is now necessary, and the two large factions within Islam are in direct conflict, Shia, and Sunni ( Salafist/Wahhabist Sunni Islam). As we have seen in earlier posts, the House of Saud thought it could destabilize the Shia/Iran by cratering the price of oil. But this has only worked to the Shia/Iranian advantage. Proxy wars in Yemen, among other places are heating up, and the House of Saud will need to continue these to regain Sunni ascendency. Internecine warfare is also moving apace with the House of Saud fighting a fellow Sunni/Salafist/Wahhabist state, ISIS. The New York Times has an article on the sectarian war undergirding oil Category: Wahhabism Back to the article. "Whatever the case, Hirsi Ali states, “My own sense is that a Muslim Reformation will not come from within the ranks of the Islamic clergy.” Very well, but if the central “argument in this book is that religious doctrines matter and are in need of reform,” from what quarter—and how—these reforms ought to come, will take another book, at least." Because Reformation requires a book. Really? Reformation of Islam will likely require war, and perhaps books can make some people understand what it happening, and why it is happening, but no book published and sold in the non-Islamic nations will have much effect. Ali is simply explaining what we are seeing. I have no idea whether her Medina vs. Mecca vs. Moderate muslims paradigm is valuable, or not. I do find the Shia vs. Sunni valuable, but then again, perhaps I am wrong. I will continue to look for someone who I think can explain the deeper issues. The broad surface issues are simple enough even I can figure them out. It Begins
Walther Russell Mead is a favorite, a liberal with a clarion understanding of international relations. If you do not, you should read every one if his posts. Go ahead, I'm married with family, I am nothing if not patient, I'll wait right here. Back, good, right?! The Obama Doctrine The article starts, "Friday, august 30, 2013, the day the feckless Barack Obama brought to a premature end America’s reign as the world’s sole indispensable superpower—or, alternatively, the day the sagacious Barack Obama peered into the Middle Eastern abyss and stepped back from the consuming void . . . " This artfully points out the comedic nature of the chosen headline. The last word the knowledgable use to describe President Feckless ODither would be "sagacious." Obama, if not sagacious, is a mid-19th Century Cold Warrior. "Obama, unlike liberal interventionists, is an admirer of the foreign-policy realism of President George H. W. Bush and, in particular, of Bush’s national-security adviser, Brent Scowcroft (“I love that guy,” Obama once told me). Bush and Scowcroft removed Saddam Hussein’s army from Kuwait in 1991, and they deftly managed the disintegration of the Soviet Union; Scowcroft also, on Bush’s behalf, toasted the leaders of China shortly after the slaughter in Tiananmen Square. As Obama was writing his campaign manifesto, The Audacity of Hope, in 2006, Susan Rice, then an informal adviser, felt it necessary to remind him to include at least one line of praise for the foreign policy of President Bill Clinton, to partially balance the praise he showered on Bush and Scowcroft." It is difficult to place Bush since his Presidency spanned the fall of the USSR, and the end of the Cold War. Bush seemed to misunderstand what that meant. It is easy to understand Bush's problem here, he was a WWII vet who lived and fought before the Cold War, way back when the US and the USSR were putative allies. He then spent his entire career working politically to undermine and overthrow the evil empire responsible for the Cold War. Once it came, he was at a loss. President Feckless ODither has no such excuse, he never had any involvement in fighting the Cold War, instead, he seems nothing more than a Cold War romantic. And what is a Cold War Romantic to do in the face of modern chaos, and warfare? "'The message Obama telegraphed in speeches and interviews was clear: He would not end up like the second President Bush—a president who became tragically overextended in the Middle East, whose decisions filled the wards of Walter Reed with grievously wounded soldiers, who was helpless to stop the obliteration of his reputation, even when he recalibrated his policies in his second term. Obama would say privately that the first task of an American president in the post-Bush international arena was “Don’t do stupid shit.” A doctrine this simple should have been easy to follow, but President Feckless ODither failed right out of the box, but his failures are unlike the Bush père failures, his failures are of the naif, inexperienced in all, who does not understand both action, and inaction pose equal danger. But then Obama, a man without even a hint of military experience, had the hubris to believe he was a greater adviser than his advisers. He has one position in the bag, he is without a doubt a greater fool than his Administration's Fool, that's a White House job, right? The article is long but worth your time. Obama plays the feckless prat, Hillary shows up as the interventionist , and Old Joe Biden plays the old sage forcefully arguing that "big nations don't bluff." Obama, invigorated, mans the ramparts, and orders the military to stand ready. And with the cold light of day, becomes "queasy" and takes a powder. Classic Obama, feckless, and dithering to the bitter end. Jellyfish have more spine. "The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing." Although appending the phrase "good man" to President Obama is a bit of a stretch. At best, he could be considered a neutral. He seems a man with no discernible moral, or ethical compass. The Obama Doctrine, "don't do stupid shit, " is more a CYA self protection device than it is a doctrine. But this is all one should expect from a man whose sole drive to become President of the United States was to have "President of the United States" at the top of his resume. Obama puts to rest the argument that the first half of the Boomer cohort, which the Clinton's represent, are somehow more venal, and self serving than the second half, which the Obama's represent. Walter Russell Mead weighs in on another important topic within the article. "The fallout from President Obama’s indiscreet remarks in Jeffrey Goldberg’s landmark Atlantic article has begun. One day after the article dropped, reports of the President dissing major world leaders and close allies fill the London papers, which highlight Obama’s belittling of David Cameron. The Times of London‘s headline blares, “Obama Lays Blame for Libya Mess on Cameron,” and continues: In highly unusual criticism of a serving British prime minister from his American ally, Mr Obama claimed that Mr Cameron stopped paying attention soon after the 2011 military operation because he was “distracted by a range of other things”. Mr Obama also made clear that he forced Mr Cameron to sign up to Nato’s benchmark of spending 2 per cent of GDP on defence. “Free riders aggravate me,” he told The Atlantic magazine, which reported that he instructed Mr Cameron “to pay your fair share” during a G7 summit last year. The Financial Times (“Obama Criticizes ‘Free Riding’ Allies in 2011 Libya Campaign”) notes that the French came in for a beating too: Mr Obama said that British prime minister David Cameron was “distracted” in the months after the death of Mr Gaddafi and suggested that then French president Nicolas Sarkozy was more interested in trying to “trumpet” his country’s involvement in air strikes in Libya than ensuring a peaceful transition to a new government.[..] In an interview in which the president already appeared to be letting down his guard with 10 months still left in office, some of Mr Obama’s most pointed comments were directed at Mr Cameron.[..] On the French role in the Libyan campaign, Mr Obama said that “Sarkozy wanted to trumpet the flights he was taking in the air campaign, despite the fact that we had wiped out all the air defences and essentially set up the entire infrastructure” for the intervention. Expect more shoes to drop—and the anger in London and Paris will be less damaging than the fallout in other parts of the world. For instance, the Iranians are starting to weigh in: (Laura Rosen tweet:) Adviser to Iran president citing Obama on Iran/KSA need to share Middle East, work out a cold peace … The Iranian trumpeting of Obama’s position will almost certainly not be warmly received in Riyadh, Dubai, and Amman." An American President, a feckless, dithering, decisionally impaired fool, has the temerity to blame other leaders for his incompetence?! But of course, President Feckless ODither has been blaming anyone, and everyone for his incompetence since taking the oath of office. This is his seminal accomplishment, blaming others, and whinging about how hard his job is while only making vague attempts to perform the duties, then going golfing, or spending tens of millions of taxpayer dollars vacationing. We should have simply bought an island, and ship him off for the duration. Even that idiot pretender Biden could not have done worse. One thing we need to do post haste is to begin pressuring the calcified cankers which remain in the Middle East, primarily Saudi Arabia, and its Salafist/Wahhabist supporters to begin an Islamic "protestant reformation." The Saudi/Wahhabist association has become as horrible, and deadly as the Catholic church prior to the Protestant Reformation. The cure for this is for the US to begin to create better relations with Iran, while politically pressuring the House of Saud for reform. If that does not happen, we may need to support Iran and the Shite factions in what appears to be a building war of reformation. While this is not a significant point made in the Atlantic article, it is necessary, post haste. Mead ends his piece: "This sets up an odd duality: the President in the interview is reflective, thoughtful, making a strong case for why he is wiser and more far seeing than other people. But on the other hand, running your mouth and being openly contemptuous and dismissive of fellow leaders to a journalist is the mark of a careless and clumsy amateur. As so often is the case with this President, there’s a wide gap between the cerebral processes and the ill-considered actions. This would be somewhat explicable in the rookie year of a presidency, but it’s very hard to understand in the final year of an Administration." The answer to this enigma is that the actions are Obama's own, clumsy, amateurish, the naif in over his head. The later reflective, thoughtful is the spin his handlers/advisers feed him to respond to the accurate claims of incompetence. Obama is not stupid by any account, he is inexperienced, and he was Peter Principled years ago, and once PP'ed no one can learn, or gain experience, this is like the child who missed out on 4th - 7th grade math, unquestionably lost. The the only solution to this problem is to return to the experiences missed and gain the experiences the old fashioned way, by crucible. Obama emotionally cannot do this, and will never go back. He is terminally incompetent. But looking back at the Obama Presidency is valueless. What we must do now is look forward, and determine what we, as a nation need going forward. We need to leave the hoary old Cold War mentality once and for all, and we need to seriously rethink our goals in the Middle East, and our strategy to achieve those goals. Obama cannot do this, it will be up to the next President. The time of choosing is at hand. Choose wisely. |
AuthorMaddog Categories
All
|