By Eugene Robinson
Destroying, degrading or
containing the Islamic State — whichever goal President Obama chooses — will be
the easy part. Finding ways for fundamentalist Islam to express itself
peacefully is a bigger, tougher and more important project.
In his remarks Tuesday
following the beheading of journalist Steven Sotloff, Obama offered a
smorgasbord of options. “Our objective is clear, and that is to degrade and
destroy” the Islamic State, he said, although it sounded like two different
objectives. He added that the goal was “to make sure that [the Islamic State]
is not an ongoing threat to the region.” Then he said the aim was to reduce the
terrorist group to “a manageable problem.”
Before the warmongers have a
cow, keep in mind that Obama’s idea of managing a terrorism problem involves
killing people, without warning, even in countries where we are not at war.
Just this week he authorized an airstrike in Somalia in an attempt to kill the
leader of al-Shabab, an al-Qaeda offshoot. Obama’s fondness for drones as
instruments of surveillance and assassination is such that any terrorist leader
is foolhardy if he ventures to take out the garbage.
But the Islamic State is
clearly not “manageable” in its current state, flush with weapons, cash and
eager recruits — and occupying a huge tract of land in Iraq and Syria. Obama
will have to destroy or degrade, but all the focus on his decision misses the
larger context: the fundamentalist political instinct that the Islamic State
represents, or rather misrepresents.
We’re talking about 15,000 or
so fighters — not much of a challenge for the greatest military force the world
has ever known. Why not just smash this group and be done with it? Let’s look
at recent history.
The U.S. military invaded
Afghanistan following the 9/11 attacks, quickly routed the Taliban and
eliminated the haven from which Osama bin Laden orchestrated his mayhem.
Eventually, al-Qaeda was decimated and bin Laden was killed.
But jihad did not disappear, it
metastasized. It turned up in Yemen, where an active al-Qaeda affiliate plotted
attacks against the United States, including the failed underwear bombing. It
emerged in Iraq, after the U.S. invasion and the toppling of Saddam Hussein
created a vacuum for extremists to fill. It popped up in Somalia, in Libya, in
Mali.
Meanwhile, hundreds of
Westerners — mostly Europeans but some Americans as well — have gone to fight
on the side of the Islamic State. The butcher who was shown executing Sotloff —
and, earlier, fellow journalist James Foley — spoke English with a British
accent. “I’m back, Obama,” he said.
The Islamic State’s vision of
conflict in the Middle East as part of a centuries-old struggle between faithful
Muslims and infidel crusaders is apocalyptic and insane. But there is a
less-crazy version of this narrative — involving colonialism and oil — that
many people accept, especially in Arab countries. The dictators who held power
in the Middle East for much of the 20th century, propped up by the West, were
brutal in repressing the Muslim Brotherhood and other religiously inspired
political movements. Yet even when they were outlawed and driven underground,
these movements managed to survive — and grow.
When Hosni Mubarak was deposed
in Egypt, creating another of those sudden vacuums, the political force most
ready to step in was the Muslim Brotherhood. Mohamed Morsi had the chance to
show the world that a government led by an Islamist party could be fair,
tolerant and effective. The United States and its allies had the chance to help
Morsi succeed.
He failed, and so did we.
Had things worked out
differently, Obama would be able to point to Egypt as an example for frustrated
young Muslims who feel powerless. Instead, the jihadists point to Egypt and
say: Look, my brothers, it is as we told you. They will never allow pious
Muslims to hold power, not even in our own lands.
There is much about
fundamentalist Islam that is incompatible with — even abhorrent to — the modern
world. I’m not talking about the Islamic State’s obscene and theatrical
violence, which appalls and disgusts devout Muslims. I refer mostly to a set of
attitudes about women that need to be aired, challenged and reformed. This kind
of positive change can take place, but only in the open. Repression strengthens
the hand of the hard-liners.
Political Islam cannot be
bombed away. If it is not somehow allowed constructive expression, it will make
itself heard, and felt, in more tragic ways.
Read more from Eugene
Robinson’s archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on
Facebook.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий