UPDATED: Will Iraqi realists win? Will American realists win?
Fascinating questions. AINA (an Assyrian Christian website) publishes an essay by Saudi journalist Mshari Al-Zaydi opinion page editor of Asharq Al-Awsat) which discusses the Iraqi context, with an eye on the trend toward realism Al-Zaydi has seen among Egyptian radicals.
Three key grafs, beginning with a comment about Zarqawi:
The horizon of the political dreamers is always limited and overtaken by reality. We may be surprised one day to find that Al Zarqawi has developed shades of grey as politics does, but will he be able to shed the rivers of blood that he has caused that will eventually drown him?
There are many examples that reassure that the final victory will belong to the realists. We have seen the transformation of viewpoint in the leader of Jihadist groups in Egypt, Abud Al Zumur. Al Zumur was imprisoned for over 25 years for the assassination of President Sadat and rejected all the juridical reviews of the Islamist Jihadist revisionist (who moderated their radicalism), but eventually issued a statement calling for the support of the Muslim Brotherhood in the Egyptian general elections. This means that after 25 years of rejection, he finally acknowledged the political means that he had previously described as pagan such as elections and representation in parliament. He finally got rid of such delusions bringing him to reality. Last August he issued a statement that encouraged Egyptian political parties not to boycott the presidential elections. He stated that the opposition should unite behind a single candidate to push for the desired change. Indeed, such is a new language that differs greatly to that used by the author of the ‘Missing Religious Obligation,’ Mohamed Abdel Salam Farag, Abud’s former colleague, and the religious ideologue of the group that killed Sadat. Maybe one day Al-Zawahiri will also renounce his language.
Even the Muslim Brotherhood, who see themselves as the pioneers of cultural-political resistance of the Crusading West, by employing notions such as the cultural invasion, cultural and political dependency from the ruling regimes of the West, and the maintenance of the Ummah’s identity, have now started to mitigate its hostile language towards the United States. One must however highlight the word mitigate as to eliminate such language altogether would be political suicide. We now hear the general guide of the Brothers in Syria, Ali Sadr Addin Al Bayanouni, in response to a question about dialogue with the United States saying, “We will happily meet any party and clarify our views and positions.”
As for Western realists and the US. The Economist sees the phenomenon I’ve mentioned several times since late 2004, undermining of entrenched myths in the Middle East. This is a round-about acknowledgement that the US grand strategy of fighting Salafist terrorism’s “root causes on its home turf” is winning. When I pointed out (November 13) that Zarqawi’s attacks in Jordan were a political and information victory for the US, there were doubters. Setting your enemy up to make mistakes –then taking advantage of his mistakes– is an old stroke in the terrible art of war.
The Economist:
The undermining of entrenched myths is a slow and halting process. But it is subject to sudden, shattering jolts, such as the November 9th suicide bombing of three hotels in the Jordanian capital, Amman. In the minds of the killers, American-allied Jordan had become a rear base for the “crusader” invaders of Iraq, and so its hotels, the sort of places where crusaders and their minions congregate, were legitimate targets for the resistance.
Yet it is perhaps more than incidentally ironic that among the 60 people they killed was Mustapha Akkad, the Syrian-born director who created “Lion of the Desert”. His film, glorifying the bravery of Muslim resistance fighters, happened to be one of the few productions explicitly endorsed on jihadist websites, albeit in a version that replaced the musical soundtrack with religious chants, and cut out all scenes showing women.
The global al-Qaeda franchise, whose Iraqi branch claimed responsibility for the Amman atrocity, has scored many own-goals over the years. The carnage in such Muslim cities as Istanbul, Casablanca, Sharm el-Sheikh and Riyadh has alienated the very Muslim masses the jihadists claim to be serving. By bringing home the human cost of such violence, they have even stripped away the shameful complacency with which the Sunni Muslim majority in other Arab countries has tended to regard attacks by Iraq’s Sunni insurgent “heroes” against “collaborationist” Shia mosque congregations, funeral processions and police stations.
In Amman, al-Qaeda’s victims included not only Mr Akkad and his daughter Rima, a mother of two, but also dozens of guests at a Palestinian wedding. The slaughter of so many innocents, nearly all of them Sunni Muslims, in the heart of a peaceful Arab capital, inspired a region-wide wave of revulsion. Far from being perceived now as a sort of Muslim Braveheart, the man who planned the attack, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, may be the most reviled person in Jordan, the country of his birth.
The Economist adds:
The direct impact of tragedy has not been the only impetus for change. Arab governments used to treat local terrorism as something that dented their prestige and should be covered up. Now they eagerly exploit the images of suffering to justify their policies. The way such events are reported in the press no longer hints at a reflexive blaming of external forces. The Arab commentariat, much of which had promoted sympathy with the Iraqi insurgency, and focused on perceived western hostility to Islam as the cause of global jihadism, has grown vocal in condemning violence. Jihad al-Khazen, the editor of al-Hayat, a highbrow Saudi daily, is a frequent and mordant critic of western policy. Yet his response to the Amman tragedy was an unequivocal call for global co-operation to combat what he blasted as the enemies of life, of joy, and of the light of day.
Popular culture, too, has begun to reflect such shifts in attitude. Recently, during the peak television season of Ramadan, satellite channels watched by millions across the region broadcast several serials dramatising the human toll of jihadist violence. One of these contrasted the lives of ordinary Arab families, living in a housing compound in Riyadh, with a cartoonish view of the terrorists who eventually attack them. Another serial focused, with eerie foresight, on a group of jihadist assassins in Amman. Their plot to murder a television producer who is critical of their methods goes awry, killing three children instead. Unusually for an Arabic-language serial, even the villains are presented as conflicted souls, alienated from society and misled by dreams of glory and heavenly reward.
Religious leaders have chipped in. Moderate Muslim clerics have grown increasingly concerned at the abuse of religion to justify killing. In Saudi Arabia, numerous preachers once famed for their fighting words now advise tolerance and restraint. Even so rigid a defender of suicide attacks against Israel (on the grounds that all of Israeli society is militarised) as Yusuf Qaradawi, the star preacher of the popular al-Jazeera satellite channel, denounces bombings elsewhere and calls on the perpetrators to repent.
The irony: as a political-cultural victory nears, American neo-isolationists demand retreat.
UPDATE: See this new blog post on potential negotiations with Sunni holdouts in Iraq’s Al Anbar province. The AP report is unconfirmed but interesting. Consider it in light of The Economist article.
UPDATE 2: Comment 1 makes a very important point. Consider the ISF in Algeria’s elections. Iraq differs from both Algeria and Egypt. In Iraq Salafist and old-line fascist terror are being defeated, militarily and politically. Iraqis also have political options. However, the corruption of Algeria’s government should serve as a reminder that bribery and crime are destructive acids. The ISF had a reformist pitch.
From the Middle East Intelligence Bulletin website (a post from May 2001)–take the site with a grain of salt but the December 1991 election data is accurate:
But when the ISF won a landslide victory in the first round of voting in December, the military ended Algeria’s brief experiment with democracy. On January 12, 1992, just days before the second round of elections were expected to hand the FIS another landslide victory, the Algerian High Security Council, headed by Gen. Khaled Nezzar and Gen. Larbi Belkheir, canceled the elections, forced Benjedid’s resignation, and arrested ISF leader Abdelkadir Hachani and over 500 other ISF activists. The state of emergency established by the military junta remains in effect to this day. While a veneer of civilian political governance was soon reinstated, the military has remained in power behind the scenes.
Having groups like the Muslim Brotherhood participate in general elections does not give me warm fuzzy feelings. There are, of course, some positive aspects of such participation. However, my great concern involves what occurs after groups like this do once in power. For example, look at the erosion of freedoms and democracy in Venezuela after Hugo Chavez ascended into power through apparently legitimate (though questionable) means. True democracy/freedom ceases to exist.
Comment by ET USN 71-78 — 11/25/2005 @ 10:06 am
The historical parallels between the Muslim Brotherhood and the early Nazi Party are striking. And just like the nazis I have no doubt that the Brotherhood, once in power and/or the majority, will dismantle any democracy that may emerge in Egypt. They will establish a democracy as surely as Mubarak did in his first two decades of entrenched power–which is to say, no democracy at all. Can you say “Islamic Republic of Egypt”? Or “sharia”? The Coptic Christians, for one, should be very afraid of what the future may bring.
Comment by american_infidel — 11/25/2005 @ 12:53 pm
[…] Violence, Open Source Media (Friday November 25, 2005 at 1:57 pm -PERMALINK- ) Austin Bay has a great post on the dawning of a new realist outlook in the Middle East in regard to terrorism an […]
Pingback by QuickRob » Austin Bay on Impending Victory of Realism in the Arab World — 11/25/2005 @ 12:58 pm
In response to the first commenter, I am more concerned about an extremist or violent group operating completely outside of the democratic accountability system. Chavez, while he has subverted democracy and capitalism in Venezuela and South America, is an easier-to-quarantine threat as part of a semi-legitimate political system as opposed to some sort of violent opposition leader. The US and other states can apply pressure, as we are, in a diplomatic fashion and can place constraints on his economic and military choices (such as our opposition to his acquiring certain military tech) while we arm him with crowd-control devices and leg shackles…thereby seeking to deny him the equipemt needed to seriously oppose the US or his neighbors while simultaneously giving him the means with which to stifle his people, crush dissent, and become unpopular at home. We will give him the rope to hang himself and also deny him the rope to whip us with. I prefer the enemy in the open to the enemy in the shadows. And I always prefer the electoral accountability system. So long as it is not subverted and abused, such a system will eventually weed out the human virii who tend to ruin a contry’s future prospects by alienating them globally and impoverishing them economically. in due time the people will see what is good for them and will jettison the scummy baggage in order to reach new heights.
Comment by QuickRob — 11/25/2005 @ 1:10 pm
Iran is also a major concern. It is now totally controlled by radicals who make Zarqawi seem like a mouse. As for Chavez, I do not expect him to live to the year 2010.
Comment by leaddog2 — 11/25/2005 @ 2:38 pm
If this dreamer gets his way, Zarqawi and Zawahri will not live long enough to be mellowed by realism!
Comment by GHelton — 11/25/2005 @ 2:38 pm
Yes, it is great to have these killers suddenly turn to lambs, but in view of Muslim tenets, this is just a lie to, at a later point, establish the caliphate over the West. Nice to think positive, but after so many centuries, do not be fooled.
Comment by Southern(USA)whiteboy — 11/25/2005 @ 3:02 pm
Democracy in muslim countries is a calculated gamble. Worst case would be more Irans but even that would place responsibility on a religious/political movement to produce something other than brainless violence. Would the democracy survive? thats a good question but still a better question for us to contemplate than whether or not Mubarak or the Saudi family will survive.
Comment by kieth nissen — 11/25/2005 @ 3:09 pm
‹Muslim democracy› one man, one vote, one time. ‹/Muslim democracy›
Comment by lounsbury jr — 11/25/2005 @ 6:03 pm
Commenter #4, I like the adage about keeping your friends close, and your enemies even closer. However, allowing radical extremist groups like Muslim Brotherhood places of authority and responsibility would ligitimize their violence, not to mention probably subvert democracy for decades (when we finally have to effect regime change). Are their activities legal or illegal? If their activities are illegal, they should be detained and prosecuted to the fullest extent possible. Their violence should not be condoned, allowed or encouraged. If legal, they should already be able to participate; since they do not participate, I assume they are not legal. I like commenter #2’s reminder about how the Nazis came to power; there is a lot to be learned from that alarming transition of power. I prefer open electoral accountability, too, but not the dissolution of free elections, which is what you will have with a criminal violent radical group! You mention containment as a viable strategy, but I question this strategy if you’ve already willingly allowed evil a place at the table. Your example of Chavez/Venezuela is a vivid reason why NOT to embrace containment; Venezuela is already forging numerous ties with the Peoples Republic of China, including oil sales. I’m sure other products and services will be forthcoming, too. So much for containment. This doesn’t bode well for security in this hemisphere. (StrategyPage.com is a good place to keep tabs on Venezuela.) BTW, Austin, it sure would be easier to check/correct comments (for spelling and content) if the sentence wrap-around problem was fixed, and you also had a “preview” feature before a post is sent. Just a suggestion…
Comment by ET USN 71-78 — 11/25/2005 @ 8:41 pm
You take good news whereever you can find it In this case, it comes from the Arab world, where opinions are being dramatically altered due to the crushing intimacy of recent losses.OF ALL th…
Trackback by Media Lies — 11/26/2005 @ 12:50 am
The diligent subversion of Sunni Islam by Egypt’s neighbors across the Red Sea in Saudi Arabia has brought a context shift in favor of Islamic supremicism. By some reports, al-Azhar, the seat of Sunni Islamic thought located in Egypt, has become largely bought & paid for by the Wahhabis. It now makes pragmatic sense for the ‘Hood to embrace electoralism.
Comment by Alan Furman — 11/26/2005 @ 1:11 am
4. Your comment regarding operating inside or outside of the democratic systems reveals the flaw in most international logic. It suggests that you can negotiate with these people. They care not for their people or other nations. They have their own agenda and use others to further it. They agree only so they can delay. They change slightly and achieve good press only to delay. They continue to do what they want even if it takes a little longer. All the while giving cover to those enlightend diplomats who so skillfully have drawn us away from the breach every time they negotiate. Look at Korea. Look at the Sudan. Look at Iran. And by the way I hope that everyone is keeping a very sharp lookout on what Libya is doing. Look at Palestine, that paragon of virtue since the Oslo Peace Accords.
Comment by davod — 11/26/2005 @ 2:39 am
PS: While we are talking about entrenched myths. I am British by birth so Laurence of Arbia was a hero of mine. His name and book Seven Pillars od Wisdom have come to further prominence in Iraq. It seems that every US officer has a copy and is using it in his dealing with the Arabs. I would like to know if any of the other indigenous people of the area helped fight the war or just the Muslim Arabs. There were Christian tribes, jews and other religeoud grups who had an interest in the Turks leaving. Does the use of the Seven Pillars of Wisdom in any way explain why no attempt was ever made to protect these groups after the recent war - the real minorities in Iraq. It is well known that the Christians are being persecuted in Southern Iraq and I have no doubt that any remaining Jews are as well. I do not know about the other religeous groups.
Comment by davod — 11/26/2005 @ 2:48 am
Though a politically empowered Muslim Brotherhood should cause pause, I have to wonder if it isn’t better to have this rabble in “legitimate” power versus the underground “street” power they already posses. At least they are accountable as the head of a nation/state and can be dealt with more overtly. Furthermore, their actions, both political and otherwise, can be directly critiqued by the populace, moving them from folk heroes without accountability to political leaders exposed to the light of local and world opinion. I believe it would be a step back for perhaps as long as a decade but ultimately it would be their undoing. Iran immediatly comes to mind as a contradiction to my theory but the 1970’s is well behind us. It is a different world today and I believe Iran is tittering on the edge of implosion. Add a democratic neighbor in Iraq with a stable economy (once it stabilizes that is) and a growing, affluent middle class and I believe you have the bases for a revolution that actually benefits people. Unlike the leftist variety that is.
Comment by rezzrovv — 11/26/2005 @ 12:30 pm
[…] Undermining Their Myths November 26th, 2005 Austin Bay takes a look at evidence the United States is winning the war of ideas in the Middle East. No one is saying that a positive out […]
Pingback by SpeckBlog » Blog Archive » Undermining Their Myths — 11/26/2005 @ 2:02 pm
Something important to remember in the upcoming elections in Iraq is that the extreme Shiite parties stand to lose quite a bit of influence. As the Sunnis vote their delegates into the legislature, there will be fewer Shiites. Add to that the decision of Iraq’s Shiite Ayatollah not to endorse any party or candidates and his call for all Iraqi’s to vote as their heart would guide them and you have the stage set for a dramtic deflation of Shiite power in Iraq, particularly among the more fundamentalist groups. in places such as Basra, people have gotten a taste of fundamentalist control and are starting to chafe at being yelled at for getting a haircut and a shave, etc. The pendulum is about to swing the other way a bit in Iraq and I believe that is a good thing overall, let’s just hope the more extreme Shiite parties can behave themselves when they lose influence.
Comment by crosspatch — 11/26/2005 @ 4:48 pm
I highly doubt that this recent spat of “realism” is anything more than opportunism to disassociate themselves from an unpopular result of methods that they have supported in the past.
Comment by Basil Doughty — 11/26/2005 @ 9:04 pm
[…] are now openly targeting children, since they are not capable of fighting anything else. Austin Bay points to some in the ME who are beginning to see the imminent threat of success in Iraq The horizon […]
Pingback by No End But Victory :: "Imminent Threat Of Success" by AJStrata — 12/2/2005 @ 11:13 am