The third and greatest error repeated by middle east experts of all persuasions, by Arabophiles and Arabophobes alike, by Turcologists and by Iranists, is also the simplest to define. It is the very odd belief that these ancient nations are highly malleable. Hardliners keep suggesting that with a bit of well-aimed violence ("the Arabs only understand force") compliance will be obtained. But what happens every time is an increase in hostility; defeat is followed not by collaboration, but by sullen non-cooperation and active resistance too. It is not hard to defeat Arab countries, but it is mostly useless. Violence can work to destroy dangerous weapons but not to induce desired changes in behaviour.
Softliners make exactly the same mistake in reverse. They keep arguing that if only this or that concession were made, if only their policies were followed through to the end and respect shown, or simulated, hostility would cease and a warm Mediterranean amity would emerge. Yet even the most thinly qualified of middle east experts must know that Islam, as with any other civilisation, comprehends the sum total of human life, and that unlike some others it promises superiority in all things for its believers, so that the scientific and technological and cultural backwardness of the lands of Islam generates a constantly renewed sense of humiliation and of civilisational defeat. That fully explains the ubiquity of Muslim violence, and reveals the futility of the palliatives urged by the softliners.
The operational mistake that middle east experts keep making is the failure to recognise that backward societies must be left alone, as the French now wisely leave Corsica to its own devices, as the Italians quietly learned to do in Sicily, once they recognised that maxi-trials merely handed over control to a newer and smarter mafia of doctors and lawyers. With neither invasions nor friendly engagements, the peoples of the middle east should finally be allowed to have their own history—the one thing that middle east experts of all stripes seem determined to deny them.
That brings us to the mistake that the rest of us make. We devote far too much attention to the middle east, a mostly stagnant region where almost nothing is created in science or the arts—excluding Israel, per capita patent production of countries in the middle east is one fifth that of sub-Saharan Africa.

Add to Newsvine
Add to StumbleUpon
"I don't know that having nothing to do with the Middle East is a possibility, for three reasons: oil, Israel, and modern communication." We have blogged about this article at Conservative Times. Mr. Morton, your comment illustrates part of the problem. Why does Israel necessitate US involvement (beyond buying oil) in the Middle East? American foreign policy should be about one thing and one thing only, furthering the interests of America. Israel's security should have nothing to do with our foreign policy one way or the other. Washington warned us about such special affinities in his Farewell Address. Wise words that we would do well to head. The security of Israel is the responsibility of Israel and Israel alone. People make these sort of blatant statements that we are somehow obligated to be entangled in the internal disputes of the Middle East because of Israel, but yet they get upset when paleos suggest that concern for Israel is influencing our policy. Which is it?
Interesting article by Luttwak.
To paraphrase him, "...ending the Arab Israeli conflict would do nothing to stop Muslim-Hindu violence in Kashmir, Muslim-Christian violence in Indonesia and the Philippines, Muslim-Buddhist violence in Thailand, Muslim-animist violence in Sudan, Muslim-Igbo violence in Nigeria, Muslim-Muscovite violence in Chechnya, or the different varieties of inter-Muslim violence between traditionalists and Islamists, and between Sunnis and Shias, etc." What is the common factor in all these conflicts? Could it be, as Samuel Huntington said, that these "Muslims against the world" conflicts keep happening because Muslims are, in his words, "obsessed with the (supposed) superiority of their civilization and the inferiority of their power"?
I concede your point that the roots of Islamicism predate our involvement in the region. That does not live us off the hook completely, though. Some of our policies have caused the idealogy to gain more prestige rather than less.
And though we cannot and should not dialogue with every blessed soul that hails from Islam, dialogue with those Muslims we can speak with is essential. But then, I am neither an isolationist nor a warhawk.
AnotherBeliever - What's wrong with being an isolationist?
I hope to live to see the day that the debt is paid in full, and with interest just the way they like it. What does that mean? Who is the "they" in the second caluse and what could it mean to say they particularly "like ... interest."
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.