Tunisia, Egypt, and Yemen: Moving toward Islam and away from the West

The bankruptcy of America’s ideological and unrealistic educational system — especially its universities — has seldom been on better display than during this period of unrest in the Muslim world. For the most part, the well-educated folks offering analysis on television seem befuddled that anyone could think that the mass protests in Tunisia, Egypt, and Yemen have anything remotely to do with religion. No, say they, the unrest is the result of poverty, oppression, and a dozen other things, but it has nothing to do with Islam.

Continue reading “Tunisia, Egypt, and Yemen: Moving toward Islam and away from the West”

Rep. King’s hearings: U.S. Muslim leaders must brave the lion’s den

The hearings that Congressman Peter King (R-NY) has called to discover what factors “radicalize” U.S. Muslims are a chance for non-interventionists to make an obvious point that so far has escaped the notice of almost all of the 535 federal legislators, the last four presidents, much of the media, and the academy; namely, that the United States is at war with an increasing portion of the Muslim world because of its interventionist foreign policy, especially its support for Israel and tyrannical Muslim regimes. More plainly, ongoing U.S. intervention in the Muslim world is the major engine of radicalization for young Muslims in the United States and abroad. [NB: As always, this is not to say U.S. policy either “caused” the war — America was attacked first, after all — or was made by mad policymakers. It is said to to suggest the worth of “knowing the enemy” by recognizing his motivation.]

Continue reading “Rep. King’s hearings: U.S. Muslim leaders must brave the lion’s den”

Is there an ‘acceptable’ kind of U.S. intervention?

A recent reader’s comment asked if there is a kind of U.S. intervention that is appropriate. I take this to mean: “Is there a kind of U.S. intervention abroad that will help the United States and the people we are seeking to help?” The writer suggested a facility like Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty to broadcast our “ideas” to oppressed peoples. I think RFE/RL and the Voice of America are useful tools for telling foreigners about America, how it works, and its problems and successes, but they should not be used to encourage others to rebel against oppressive governments.

Continue reading “Is there an ‘acceptable’ kind of U.S. intervention?”

U.S. intervention in Sudan and Somalia: Sowing war’s whirlwind for Americans

How many non-elite Americans do you think can find “Darfur” on a map? How many of the same tax-paying folks do you think want the U.S. government to spend money on the poor, hungry, unemployed, and illiterate in Darfur, when there are tens of thousands of Americans living in the same conditions at home? And how many non-elite Americans want to worsen America’s war with Islam?

Continue reading “U.S. intervention in Sudan and Somalia: Sowing war’s whirlwind for Americans”

Why is a dead Islamist bomber smarter than three U.S. presidents?

I wrote the article below the broken line for the National Interest’s foreign affairs blog this week. The Islamist bombing in Sweden last Saturday (11 December 10) has again given the U.S. government and its allies a chance to understand that the primary motivation of Osama bin Laden al-Qaeda, their allies, and those they inspire is to be found in U.S. and Western policies and their impact in the Muslim world, and not in the West’s lifestyle and political systems. This is the umpteenth chance Western leaders have had to find this key insight in the aftermath of an Islamist attack. Will they take it?

Continue reading “Why is a dead Islamist bomber smarter than three U.S. presidents?”