Fewer Enemies, More (Potential) Allies

I know these lines are going to cost me. At least two dinner invitations that have been previously extended are going to be withdrawn summarily. The Hyper Liberal club of Washington, D.C. may well declare me persona non grata. And the abuse I am taking on the blogosphere may rise at least one more decibel -- not a small feat given its current level. Nevertheless, what is one to do? Truth be told, Karen Hughes, the Public Diplomacy Tsar of the Condi Rice State Department--and member of the Bush administration--aced it: in an op-ed in The Washington Post on September 17, she pointed out that Muslim majorities in numerous Muslim nations (including the larger ones) are rejecting terrorism, suicide bombers and bin Laden. Moreover, recent data show that these ranks are increasing by leaps and bounds.

Here are some of the details, in her own words:

"... polling in Turkey two years ago found that 90 percent of citizens believe the al-Qaeda bombings in London, Istanbul, Madrid and Egypt were unjust and unfair; 86 percent thought that there was no excuse for condoning the Sept. 11 attacks; and 75 percent said bin Laden does not represent Muslims."

Hughes correctly added that "Perhaps most significant, Muslim populations are increasingly rejecting bin Laden's attempts to pervert their faith. WorldPublicOpinion.org found in April that large majorities in Egypt (88 percent), Indonesia (65 percent) and Morocco (66 percent) agree: Groups that use violence against civilians, such as Al Qaeda, are violating the principles of Islam. "

Most importantly, there is not a word, not one, about democratization. She is hardly alone. The utopian goal of flipping the Middle East into a shining prosperous crest of democracies was dropped from Secretary of Defense Gates' last speech, too, and was barely mentioned in President Bush's last national broadcast on September 13, 2007.

As we previously argued (in Security First), if one makes support for democracy the litmus test for those Muslims we can work with, and defines all those who do not yet share this belief as the enemy, then we shall find most Muslims on the wrong side of the fence. In contrast, if we come to view all those who reject violence, terrorism and civil war as potential 'Partners in Peace,' we will find many Muslims on the right side of the fence, as the data both Hughes and we have assembled demonstrate.

Furthermore, these data also attest that the clash of civilizations, still promoted by Sir Bernard Lewis, is dead wrong. The same holds for the notion promoted by Samuel Huntington: "Some Westerners, including Bill Clinton, have argued that the West does not have a problem with Islam but only with violent Islamist extremists. Fourteen hundred years of history demonstrate otherwise..." Muslims are not all of one kind, and their religion does not legitimate violence per se, although it is open to such interpretations -- which is also true about many other religions as well as secular ideologies. Better yet, Hughes highlights (better late than never) that not only are there many hundred millions of peace-loving Muslims, but that their numbers are increasing dramatically. In short, we have many fewer enemies to contend with and many more potential allies -- if we sue for peace rather than forced democratization.

At the same time there is nothing in these data to suggest that if we were to help form a new global architecture, in which people of different beliefs would work together to serve their interest in security, that we ought to stop promoting democracy through non-lethal means. That is, using educational and cultural programs, student exchanges, and a variety of media outlets. These efforts can all proceed to advance nascent reforming forces in the Muslim world, for them to democratize in their nations in their own way.

We may have been among the first to point to these data and the many conclusions that follow from them. However, this is not about the pride of authorship but about a major course correction in foreign policy. It is a terribly overdue change.

***

Micro-blogging: Today is the eve of Atonement Day. If I properly atone, God will forgive me for the sins I committed against Him (or Her) but I am duty bound to ask your forgiveness for all the comments I did not respond to and those I did not get quite right. Thanks for considering my plea.

Amitai Etzioni is Professor of International Relations at the George Washington University and the author of Security First: For A Muscular, Moral Foreign Policy. (Yale 2007). www.securityfirstbook.com

Comments

[duboisist]

Mr. Etzioni,

"...hundred millions of peace-loving Muslims, but that their numbers are increasing dramatically..."

Your quote suggests that at some point there were large numbers of Muslims who WEREN'T PEACE-LOVING. How else could the currently peace-loving represent a "dramatic increase?" Since you are a noted sociologist and historian, I believe you have a responsibility to put your assertion in its proper sociological and historical context. Where is the evidence that the proportion of Muslims who love PEACE is different from the proportion of every other major religion?

Some people stand opposed to the domination, exploitation, and hegemony that certain imperialistic interest groups wish to impose on their lands, families, and societies. Some of those in opposition to these interests also happen to be Muslim.
These interest groups care little about what religion people practice. Islam is just the must resent common characteristic of the people who have resources that they want. They treat the Middle East exactly the same way they treat South America and Africa. Their WAR AGAINST ISLAM over the past 6 years is the same as their wars AGAINST COMMUNISM over the last 60 years, and UNCIVILIZED SAVAGES over the last 600 years. If their victims had some other characteristic they could label and justify their wars of conquest, they would be at war with that instead.
You are correct in stating that opposing these interests does not make someone a terrorist, but it does not mean someone is not "peace-loving" either. Moreover, you selectively and narrowly defined "peace-loving" to make your argument just as those you criticize selectively defined "enemy."

[Hastings]

"...the most warlike nation on earth is the US...go back for the past 100 years and ask yourself which nation has been involved in the most wars, the most invasions, the only nation to use nuclear weapons...it isn't the bad guys(Russia) it is America."
I find comments like the one quoted above to be bizarre but fascinating. It shows an inability or unwillingness to honestly understand history in it's totality. It is as if those that make such comments, and there are a lot of them on this web site, refuse to acknowledge the participation or responsibility of those nations or intities with which the United States is or has been at conflict with. I see no mention of Germany, Japan, The Soviet Union, North Korea, North Vietnam, Iraq, Saddam, al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, and Iran. In this view of history The United States of America actions are preceived to exist in a vacuum. I believe this strange and weird view of history is foolish, dishonest, and very very dangerous.

[retarius]

What is one to say? Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Americans like to see themselves as unique and special but they are simply repeating exactly the same patterns of imperialism as have been seen with every other empire...power begets empire, empire begets hubris, and hubris is the midwife to catastrophe.

The powerful define morality as what serves their interests...just as the powerful in America pursue the riches that come from control of oil, they bring the morality to justify their actions into being. So democracy is the cause we fight for, unless the Palestinians or Algerians vote for the wrong party. We can all see the lack of consistency in the moral compass...America can, and does, deal with the devil to pursue its own aims...and screw everybody else....the powerful only need some pithy statement to make before the cameras to convince a woefully ignorant electorate (eg the mushroom cloud) and a curiously incurious press.
Now democracy does not, (I repeat does not) bring peace...the most warlike nation on earth is the US...go back for the past 100 years and ask yourself which nation has been involved in the most wars, the most invasions, the only nation to use nuclear weapons...it isn't the bad guys (Russia) it is America. The world is rightly scared of the warlike, armed-to-the-teeth modern day version of Ghengis Khan...

I'm sick of Americans bleating about the losses of their troops in Iraq...what about the Iraqi people that suffer unimaginable horrors? They are the ones who deserve our sympathy...US troops are there by choice.

Now what is the next step in the evolution of empire? That, sadly, is for the dimwitted American voters to decide...there isn't too much hope for the world. I'm glad I'm old and will not be around to see the death throes of the American Empire.

[peterg76]

Fundamentally, most Americans feel that the measure of "democracy" is how much a foreign government reflects the interests of Americans (actually US dollars, not US citizens, but I'm simplifying), not its own people.

Officials like that are known in political science as "traitors", and their hold on power relies on repressing their own citizens.

An actual democracy would stand up for its own citizens. Most leaders in the US are terrified by the idea of a foreign country (or their own) doing that.

[winningticket]

It's not your place to tell Muslims how to run their affairs! With all due respect sir: Mind your damn business! Has it occurred to you that Israel is part of the problem with their brutal policy against Palestinians? What planet are you living on!!

[clevelandchick]

Mr. Etzioni,

I don't know why this post would get you uninvited except perhaps to AIPAC events. Even if I don't like a person (Hughes) that doesn't mean they aren't right. What Hughes wrote in that Op-Ed I've seen in some form or another in the liberal media over the last five years. Except the public called them traitors for saying it. If for some reason Hughes' message is accepted over a liberals, at this point I don't care. It's a message worth heeding.

We can't force democracy with bombs. The people of a nation have to want it and work for it themselves. We can work with other nations for peace, something the people desperately want be they Muslim or Christian. Most folks regardless of religion just want to live their lives of work, school, family, friends, food, drink, play and love.

Here in America we have our own version of fanatics that want to screw it up for everyone else. Eric Rudolph, Timothy McVeigh, the Westboro Baptist Church, the right wing....no society is ever going to be without those who want to impose their extremist views. It is an element that has to be marginalized and controlled. We should be helping Muslim nations to do this through diplomacy not by invading their soil to control their oil.

[marko77]

A significant minority of Muslims continue to embrace Wahhabism and violent jihad.

The Iraq War is fueling terrorist training and activities including the planting of bombs in Iraq and Afganistan and suicide bombing in both countries. The author of the book "Taliban" stated that there are at least 4 suicide bombings in Afghanistan weekly, which a shocking new development. This is a result of Wahhabi - Al Queda training and activity.

The season for Islamic religious extremists seems to be getting stronger, despite the majority of Muslims rejecting terrorism and bin laden.

It's heartening to know that many Muslims reject bin laden's message, but many also accept it.

[Snakeback]

"if one makes support for democracy the litmus test for those Muslims we can work with, and defines all those who do not yet share this belief as the enemy, then we shall find most Muslims on the wrong side of the fence."

That's also true for most of the people who worked in the White House for the past seven years.

It's OK if the Middle east doesn't want Democracies, but that's NOT OK for the President and the Vice President, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Defense.

Besides, the plan was never to build Democracies there. It was to lay waste to the nations of Iran and Iraq, and take their oil from them while their destabilized people struggled to recover from the trauma of having the hell blown out of them by Americans and mercenaries like Erik Prince, who hates Muslims and defines himself as a Crusader and member of Knights Templar.

Erik Prince sees his work as being ordained by the Biblical God to annihilate the Muslim faith. He is a friend of the President who believes he was chosen by God.

To Muslims Erik Prince represents America.

That's a HUGE problems for America.

It's about time we started being honest about that and remove Bush and Cheney from the White House and disband Blackwater completely, and ban any organization like it from ever forming again.

Please tell me what legal structure exists to keep the President from deploying Blackwater in US cities.

Well...I'm waiting...

[hoopoe]

exactly. we are probably not allowed to use the 'crusader' reference because that is the argument the 'terrorists' use. but the truth is, that is how many, if not most, in the muslim world view the wests intentions toward them. and they aren't too far off. there is a frighteningly vast number of people of people in the US alone whose twisted version of their religion tells them god has commanded them to kill all infidels, and these people happen to be christians...

[zull2]

I think most Middle Eastern Muslims would have been more receptive to the concept of democracy if it hadn't been so overtly tied to a greedy lust for their oil and delivered through the barrel of a gun.

[altohone]

A piece of marble is also a potential masterpiece...

Public sentiment against America is increasing though support for terror decreases.

Potential allies? Maybe.
Fewer enemies. Not on your life.

[The Collinbrandt]

It is not logical to mix very religious people with the concept of democracy. If you are religious you will follow the person that says he himself is annointed by God, before you will follow an elected individual. The elected may send you to jail for life, the annointed one may send you to hell for an eternity. Why take the chance? If you are a true believer then, you would ignore elected officials and follow your annointed one no matter what consequences might follow.

[whoknows]

I just got back from Spain and the tasered student in Florida was splashed all over TV. The commentator said" Well! This is the Democracy the Americans like to export. So, I agree with mrcontinental, we have become a punch line.

[IronDragon]

Forgiven. Good post.

[bloomster]

Thanks for the heads up - Interesting and hopefull posting!!!

[mrcontinental]

Newsflash: We are no longer the envy of the world. We have become a punchline.