The Palin ABC interview

In case any of you missed the Sarah Palin interview on ABC with Charlie Gibson, it pretty much went like this:



The real video is here:



Apart from not knowing what the Bush doctrine is, not realizing the implications of allowing Georgia and the Ukraine to join NATO, a casual ambivalence toward a possible war with Russia, believing that Ahmadinejad has any type of substantial power in the Iranian gov., being an uncritical supporter of Israel, misunderstanding the true motivations of the 9/11 hijackers, and nonsensical answers about the controversial raids into Pakistan by U.S. forces, she did just swimmingly.

If this woman becomes vice president, God help us.

Why Do They Hate Us?--A question of values or foreign policy

So, why do they hate us? I guess I should elaborate. By "they" I mean militant Islamic fundamentalists, specifically Sunnis of the Wahabist sect--even more specifically the dangerous minority within this minority that is comprised of groups like Al Qaeda. And by "us" I mean the "West"--a.k.a. the developed, secular nations, with a specific focus on the United States of America.

If you were to ask certain conservatives this question, you'd get a simple answer--they hate us; they attack us because of our values. The Wahabists hate our way of life, democracy, liberty, secularism and pretty much anything having to do with Western Enlightement era values.

"But wait," chirps in your average liberal college professor. "It's our political foreign policy that draws these men to arms, not our freedoms or values." This wing of the argument believes that the Wahabist violence and cause is a direct result of "blowback" from numerous unpopular and sometimes unjust actions taken by the United States and the West in general--overwhelming support for the state of Israel; the stationing of troops in Saudi Arabia; neo-liberal economic policies; economic, military and political support for authoritarian regimes in countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan; and, most recently, full-scale invasions of "Muslim" countries like Afghanistan and Iraq.

The true answer to this question lies in neither of these aforementioned camps. It lies in the words and actions of the people whom we're trying to analyze. And after investigating these words and deeds, one quickly comes to the conclusion that both sides are dead wrong, but a little bit right.

The mistake the average liberal camp makes when analyzing groups like Al Qaeda is limiting their readings to the sanatized, propagandist literature without examining the available internal writings and writings aimed at a broader Muslim audience (as opposed to a Western one). The mistake many conservatives make, on the other hand, is not reading any of this material.

Probably the current intellectual leader of this dangerous fringe movement would be Dr. Ayman Al-Zawahiri, Al Qaeda's second in command. In his treatises--such as "Loyalty and Enmity," "Sharia and Democracy," and "Jihad, Martyrdom, and the Killing of Innocents"--Al-Zawahiri gives us a clear picture of militant Wahabist thought--its beliefs and aims.

Now, complaints against Western foreign policy are rampant in these writings, and some of these criticisms are valid; yet, most are not. Bin Laden, Al-Zawahiri, and their conhorts wish to restore the former glory of the original Muslim caliphate--a supranational religio-political entity. They despise democracy, secularism, human rights (those not explicitly enumerated in the Q'uran or Hadith), and pretty much anything that's fun (music, movies, sex):

Know that democracy, that is, "rule of the people," is a new religion that defies the masses by giving them the right to legislate without being shackled down to any other authority.

....

Thus, democracies raise up gods, establish masters, and assign partners to Allah Most High...The bottom line regarding democracies is that the right to make laws is given to someone other than Allah Most High. Such, then is democracy. So whoever is agreed to this is an infidel--for he has taken gods in place of Allah.
-Sharia and Democracy

They do not believe that peace can be achieved with infidels (any non-muslim) or apostates (any muslim who doesn't believe exactly what they believe). Instead, the infidel has three choices--death, conversion to Islam, or relegation to second-class citizenship under the new caliphate:

Allah Exalted has forbidden us from taking infidels as friends and allies, and aiding them against the believers, by either word or deed. Whoever does this is an infidel like them.

....

The Lord Almighty has commanded us to hate the infidels and reject their love. For they hate us and begrudge us our religious [way of life], wishing that we abandon it.
-Loyalty and Enmity

So what does this all mean? It means that, unlike what many on the left and isolationist right suggest, by simply pulling its presence out of the "Muslim World" (whatever that is), the scourge of militant religious whackos would not be placated, and would not result in a pleasant situation for the West or the rest of the world. Sorry Ron Paul. Al Qaeda and other religious thugs, however, are not an existential threat like many on the right would like you to believe. Their goal of a worldwide caliphate is a pipe dream. But that doesn't mean they can't inflict damage, as we've seen from recent attacks in NY City, London, Madrid and Saudi Arabia.

As far as U.S. foreign policy is concerned, this tells us that we can not rule out the importance of military action, yet we must reform our fp strategies in many areas. Being an ally of Israel is important, yet we should not be an uncritical ally. A true friend is an honest friend. It means we should not engage in reckless, cowboy behavior that results in more problems than we had before we began this project--case in point, invading Iraq.

A key component of our foreign policy that needs to change is to put greater focus on empowering human rights, secular or liberal groups, and the private sector in the "Middle East." (A great example is micro-financing programs for women seeking to start up a business. These programs encourage economic development, promote human rights, and challenge patriarchy.) By doing this, the unsustainable status quo authoritarian regimes are weakened, yet, at the same time, militant Islamic extremism is not strengthened. So we can never again hear that liberal democracy cannot be achieved in Egypt or Saudi Arabia or Pakistan because the alternative is militant theocracy.

The mistake this current administration has continioiusly made is believing that the simplistic diet of pre-mature military ejaculation (once again, Iraq) and elections would solve all of the problems in the "Middle East." As we can see from the elections in Palestine and Lebanon, a stable, liberal private sector needs to be established before some countries move to open elections. Otherwise, what we saw in Palestine and Lebanon were groups like Hamas and Hezbollah winning elections.

Chances are, we won't be courting the favor of Bin Laden, Al-Zawahiri or Al Qaeda through changing our policies and promoting human rights and economic development. But they're not the aim. It's the average Muslim man, the average Arab woman, the average Persian child who needs to be won over, as an ally against these religious bigots. We must help them weed out and further ostricize these individuals and groups--we must give them a middle path between oppressive authoritarianism and religious extremism. And that middle path is, liberal democracy.