From: Steve Davies (steve365@btinternet.com)
Date: Sun Jun 08 2003 - 07:21:00 MDT
> From: Spudboy100@aol.com [mailto:Spudboy100@aol.com]
> > On your points 3 and 4; one might then conclude that the
> > disuasion of radical, militant Islam as practiced by
> > Salafists, Wahabbis, and Shiite Ayatollahs, as well as their
> > Baathist cohorts, would thus be in your interests?
Ramez responded
> IMO, the reduction of fundamentalism in the world is in just about
> everyone's interests. Certainly I think it's in the interests of both
> the US and vast majority of people living in the middle east.
>
Absolutely. Easier said than done though. It isn't clear exactly why
"fundamentalism" (basically a response of traditional religions to
scientific modernity) should have such a receptive audience in some parts of
the world and not others. It does seem though that the key to undermining it
is changing the social role of women (see Callum Brown's "Death of Christian
Britain" for a discussion of this).
> > The
> > Egyptian government has surely followed the Saudi practice of
> > blame the USA since Sadat's assasination, as a means of
> > deflecting due criticism for failed economic policies.
>
> Yes. Most of the arab governments use the US (and Israel) as
> convenient scapegoats to deflect people's attention away from their
> awful situation and the vast corruption of the dictatorial regimes
> that rule them.
Why is this misleading propaganda credible though? (Or is it - I know it
isn't in Iran but don't know about Egypt or the ME proper.)
>
> > Since
> > nothing seems to be more poweful then power in this old
> > world, what are we to do to disusade militant, radical, Islam
> > (and its non-Muslims supporters) from practicing nuclear
> > guerilla warfare?
>
> Prosperity and freedom undermine fundamentalism. Fundamentalism
> thrives in areas where people are oppressed, poor, uneducated, and
> have few prospects for the future.
This may be true but I don't think terrorism is commonly associated with
these factors. Typically terrorists come from an educated and privileged
background (they seem to have disproportionate likelihood of having an
engineering qualification for some reason). They are usually aspirant
would-be elites or to put it another way people who feel they ought to be
higher up the pecking order than they are. All this has been true since at
least the 1860s when the first modern style terrorist movements appeared. So
reducing poverty will be good in itself and will help somewhat but it's not
enough by itself.
>
> So again, I see tackling oppression and poverty as the only viable
> long-term strategies to reducing terrorism. And I see US cultural and
> economic might as the most effective tools to accomplish this.
Again I agree that "soft power" is the best strategy. However if undermining
religious fundamentalism is one of the aims doesn't this involve
disseminating what are ultimately anti-religious notions (memes if you
prefer)?
Steve Davies
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jun 08 2003 - 07:34:06 MDT