Why we fear Muslims…really!

Three reasons why the West fears Muslims: The real reasons

• Ramadan and all that implies

• A non-consumerist ethic

• An empire to compete with those of the Americans, Europeans, Russians (hanging on to what's left), and Chinese (grasping and consolidating to become preeminent).

Ramadan

Western elites look at Ramadan with worried eyes. They see 100s of millions of people who, for 30 days out of the year, fast from sun up to sunset. That includes not even drinking water. And this is a practice taken up routinely, well before a Muslim is 20 years old.

Translation? These people are tough. We, who deny ourselves so little, ask, "Could we even go one single solitary day without a daylight drink of water or a bite to eat without becoming cranky as hell?"

Or even more telling: "Would we even be willing to try this for one day?"

Then our ever-alert elites start thinking: "How many of our young people would be willing to fight a superior army for years, lacking our customary luxury of air support, by taking to the hills in guerilla fashion?" And when our leaders and generals speak of such things amongst themselves, not liking the answers that are so obvious, the fear sets in. That's when the opponent is seen, not as some mystical and phantom force hidden in distant mountains, but instead as ... ourselves and our own deficiencies as human beings.

Non-consumerist ethic

I don't know about you, but I have severe doubts as to how many more trillions of dollars of debt we can assume before the whole house of cards comes tumbling down. Economists will tell you, though not as plainly as I: "As long as people keep expanding their appetites for more and more, it doesn't matter how much debt we pile up." Of course, that means our current system depends on stoking greed. Everybody wants to be a millionaire, right?

Oh, wait a minute. There's a fly in the ointment. Not everybody wants to be a millionaire. There are tens of millions of Muslims worldwide who think being closer to God and to their fellow Muslims, and doing charitable work for the poor, is more important. What if this non-consumerist ethic caught on in the West? There goes the economic recovery. Why, people might even start thinking, "Donald Trump has too much." And, worse yet, they might even think of trying to do something about that.

That's what our fearless leaders are afraid of, most of all.

Establishment of an empire

They fear this, but not as much as their own masses living simpler, cheaper, and more spiritually-fulfilling lives (at the expense of economic growth): A new caliphate. Like most monopolists, empires don't like competition. Which is why we've labored so mightily for so long to sabotage any possibility of Islamic political unity.

My personal opinion? Competition among the great world powers will come to a head in Africa. And those powers fear any alignment of African nations (many of them Islamic) with any kind of emerging Islamic empire. Frankly, I'd like to see how devout Muslims work to establish a just Islamic culture. Even though Mohammed is regarded as the last of God's prophets, even Muslims will acknowledge that others have contributed a lot in answer to the question: "What is the ideal Islamic state?"

We in the West tend to see only the worst of possibilities emerging, like the Ayatollah Khomeni's regime in Iran. And we easily denounce mobs of penitents engaged in self-flagellation to the point of drawing blood. But the story of Islam has not been completely told yet. It is very much a work in progress. It would be useful to keep in mind Lord Acton's bit about "Absolute power corrupting absolutely," and to remember that the Iranian form of Islam is viewed as heretical by the vast majority of other Muslims.

How they reconcile - if indeed they ever do - will make very interesting history indeed.

I believe in calling a fool a fool

My fool for today is one Dr. Andrew J. Bacevich, Sr., former military man and currently a professor at Boston University. It did not escape my notice that this gentleman, though in the military for about 22 years, did not manage to make General. He'd retired at the rank of Colonel. Nothing wrong with that in itself, though it would have excluded him from any direct knowledge of inner-circle workings. That alone might explain his rather lofty manner of writing.

Dr. Bacevich wrote a rather stilted piece in the Aug. 14, 2009 issue of Commonweal, which is free on-line. Or if you'd rather pay for it, buy the current issue of Harper's Magazine (Nov/2009). Title: The War We Can't Win: Afghanistan & the Limits of American Power.

That's a favorite topic in some circles these days: The idea of the limits of American power. Isn't it sad, though, that Bacevich and others don't say "Limits of American Military Power?" Personally, I'd like to think of American power as potentially far more profound and not limited to the military aspect (for instance, our latent spiritual power). But "thinkers" like Bacevich - a dime a dozen - would not even think there could really be any other kind of power.

Point/Counterpoint

Point: Bacevich writes:

"The misguided and mismanaged global war on terror reduced Bush's presidency to ruin."

Counterpoint:

No, Dr. Bacevich, it didn't matter that Bush "misguided" and "mismanaged" the GWOT. What mattered is that he even declared this war. I disagree with Noam Chomsky on many fronts, but he got it right when he said: "Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it."

Point: Bacevich writes:

... the primary reason why the 9/11 conspiracy succeeded: federal, state, and local agencies responsible for basic security fell down on the job... The national-security apparatus wasn't paying attention...

[followed almost immediately by this]

Averting a recurrence of that awful day [9/11] does not require the semipermanent occupation and pacification of distant countries like Afghanistan. Rather, it requires that the United States erect and maintain robust defenses.

Counterpoint

Is this guy on drugs or something? First he says security agencies "fell down on the job," and then he says preventing more 9/11's is a matter of erecting and maintaining robust defenses. Does Professor Bacevich even bother to proofread his own work, or at least have the decency to avoid placing such contradictions so close to each other?

Maybe I've been wrong (like all my life?), but I thought the US had erected and maintained robust defenses starting with the Cold War. Isn't that how we beat the Rooskies [no offense to my Russian brothers]? What part of "robust defenses" am I not understanding? Or more to the point, what part is Bacevich not understanding?

Point: Bacevich writes (my underscore added):

...the people out there, rather than requiring our ministrations, may well be capable of managing their own affairs relying on their own methods...

[followed by this bit of contradiction]

It would be much better to let local authorities do the heavy lifting. Provided appropriate incentives, the tribal chiefs who actually run Afghanistan are best positioned to prevent terrorist networks from establishing a large-scale presence. As a backup, intensive surveillance complemented with precision punitive strikes (assuming we can manage to kill the right people) will suffice to disrupt Al Qaeda's plans.

Counterpoint:

What does our never-made-General mean by "let" when he writes "let local authorities do the heavy lifting?" He gives the game away in the very next sentence: "Provided appropriate incentives..." Ah, so that's it. We "let" them by providing "appropriate incentives" for them to do our will. And what if they don't care to accept our "appropriate incentives?" What if they just want our White (mostly) Christian Asses out of their country and say "Screw your incentives?"

Bacevich nobly admits that the Afghans "may well be capable of managing their own affairs relying on their own methods…" But of course he meant to add this bit: "but only upon American approval."

Bacevich speaks blithely of the "tribal chiefs who actually run Afghanistan," but seems to overlook that it was the Taliban that ran Afghanistan until the US decided to oust them.

Point: Bacevich writes:

As for the putatively existential challenge posed by Islamic radicalism, that project will prove ultimately to be a self-defeating one. What violent Islamists have on offer - a rejection of modernity that aims to restore the caliphate and unify the ummah [community] - doesn't sell.

Counterpoint:

Here, Bacevich is whistling in the dark, while attempting to write (not rewrite, but write) history. Later in this article, he pooh-poohs the Iranian attempt at theocracy as the one that (at first) frightened the West. But we all know that attempt failed, right? Just like Communism failed, yes? Or at least writers like Bacevich would love to equate the two. And we all know that the Iranian form of Islam represents Islamic thought the world over, yes?

And of course our good scholar just had to find a way to put the word "violent" in front of "Islamists" at least once in his article. Of course he doesn't say, but really means, "We must isolate and demonize the violent ones, since we can easily cow the pacifists." [Good strategizing, "General."]

As for rejecting modernity, I'm not so sure that what we call modern is all it's cracked up to be. Anyway, maybe this so-called rejection of modernity is nothing more than a plea not to be overwhelmed by the crass over-consumption, self-indulgence, and materialistic agendas of our self-appointed elites. Maybe there's nothing wrong with a plea to slow down.

The history of the Islamic struggle on the world stage is still unfolding and is, relative to any possible renaissance, in quite an early stage of development.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

"This might sound strange coming from a candidate for the US presidency, but I’ll say it anyway: I don’t have a problem with an Islamic Union coming into being – in fact, I would welcome it.”

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com