Recently author and NYU professor Paul Berman wrote a NY Times op-ed piece in which he makes the case that radical political Islam is a modern religiously based movement and that the US has used various policy approaches over the past 3 decades to address this phenomenon. (To see the whole article, click here) I would argue, however, that fundamentalist Islam like fundamentalist Christianity is a modern religious phenomenon born out of a reaction to the threat of liberal modernity. Political Islam, on the other hand, has its roots in political grievances and the US and its western allies have, for 60 years, made consistent policy choices that have led to the rise of and strengthening of militant political Islam.
The US has long pursued policy goals in the Middle East that conflict and in many cases are mutually exclusive. Consistently, through Democratic and Republican administrations, the US has favored confronting the Soviet Union, western access to Middle Eastern oil and support for a Jewish state in Palestine over Middle Easterner’s quest for independence and self mastery.
Over this period, a series of disastrous wars and political decisions have discredited (Egypt) or destroyed (Iraq) secular Arab nationalist governments as a force in the Middle East. People under oppression, whether internal or external, have long had a tendency to retreat to churches (Catholics in Soviet dominated Eastern Europe), synagogues (Jews in 20th century Europe, particularly Germany) and mosques (Muslims in present day Middle East). It is not surprising, therefore, that political Islam in its national form (Iran) and in the form of non-state actors (Hizbollah and Hamas) would arise to supersede failed Arab nationalism.
Unless policy makers make different choices that take into account the aspirations of Middle Easterners, political Islam, in both its moderate and virulent forms, will be force to be reckoned with for a long time.
No comments:
Post a Comment