Where do you see Islamofascism in 50 years?

[Darth Wong]

Just curious. Regardless of their stances on specific actions such as the Iraq war, everyone here generally agrees that radical Islamic fundamentalism is a bad thing. However, suggested remedies are few and far between.

So what remedy do you suggest, and what long-term effect do you expect it to have?

[frigidmagi]

I would like to say democracy for the Middle East as a cure. But I am unsure if it could be substained throughout the whole region. I also wonder if democracies would find themselves more devouted to extremism.

By democracies I mean stable, working ones.

[Darth Wong]

Democracy is merely a reflection of the voters' wishes (hence the reason for Constitutional checks and balances in the US, because its founding fathers were wiser than the current crop of monkeys in suits). I don't see how it will solve Islamofascism.

[frigidmagi]

Which is why I wonder if Middle Eastren democracies would just find themselves more devouted to extremism.

However, I can't believe that the current state of government in any of the nations is helping at all. In my mind the question is wheter it would only make things worst.

[Master of Ossus]

I honestly don't think that there's a way to compromise between Islamic fundamentalists and the rest of the world. What they want is so completely at odds from what the rest of the world wants that peace really is another word for surrender--for both sides. The difficulty in the Middle East stems largely from the fact that Arabs as a group do not seem to understand the concept of a secular government with religious subjects.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Just curious. Regardless of their stances on specific actions such as the Iraq war, everyone here generally agrees that radical Islamic fundamentalism is a bad thing. However, suggested remedies are few and far between.

So what remedy do you suggest, and what long-term effect do you expect it to have?

I propose we fund the Soviet Union to go on a rampant conquest and indoctrination spree in every country with a large Islamic fundamentalist movement. After they're done we roll them back- we let them keep the atheism and them teach them the wonders of a market economy.

And before anyone suggests that the USSR is gone, I suggest you take a look at this..... (click on the picture that says "The Soviet Union broke up.... or did it?)

[GoldenFalcon]

Islamic fundamentalists are too blind to see that there are other religions beyond theirs. The whole situation could be likened to the Dark Ages in Europe, where Catholicism was the dominant religion and any other religion was scoffed at and considered heresy.

Soon enough, there will be an event or set of events that'll shake the foundations of their fundamentalism, just as what happened to Catholicism back then.

[Armored Goldbar]

I don't want to say that there is no answer, but I certainly don't know what it is.

The Islamofacists, from a political/religious standpoint, are stuck in the 13th century. They cannot distinguish between secular and religious, while our whole way of life is based around the distinction. They are religious fanatics and do not care for themselves, their wives, or their children...except when it suits them to do so (i.e. makes us look bad). I guess I'm uncreative, but I don't see foresee any solution that accomplishes the aims of both the US and the Islamofascist movement.

[frigidmagi]

One of their aims involes making the US subservient to them. Damn right there's no way to make both of us happy. There's really only 2 ways this can end. They win, we lose. We win, they lose.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Soon enough, there will be an event or set of events that'll shake the foundations of their fundamentalism, just as what happened to Catholicism back then.

Wow, with planning that specific and well reasoned we'll have them beat in no time!

[Admiral Valdemar]

Unlike Christian fundies, these guys are growing in number fast worldwide. It seems their followers are becoming more and this can only be a bad thing.

If they're not still at the top spot of Fox News' "War on Terror" spot, then they'll be waging a fullblown jihad against us or exterminated themselves. I don't think these guys do half measures.

[irishmick79]

As long as people keep defining the West/Middle East relationship in religious terms, there are going to be groups who will constantly be pushing things towards a final showdown, so to speak. Bush has spent the past four years defining US policy towards the middle east in such a fashion, and he's trying to force a great deal of political, social, and cultural change in the Mid East at bayonet point.

It's difficult to say what impact Bush's approach is going to have on the Middle East, because the West has already had a long history of intervention and domination in the region. America alone has already lost a lot of friends in the Middle East thanks to its efforts to support the Shah in Iran, its blanket support of Israel, and its failed effort to keep the peace in Lebanon. France and Britain certainly made their share of messes in the region. Britain promised the arabs a palestinian state, turned around, and promptly gave the land to the European Jews. As a result of our petty, self-indulgent policies towards the region, it's not too hard to find a lot of reasons to resent western influence if you're a middle eastern muslim.

With the number of autocratic regimes we've backed into the middle east, it's hard to determine if the radical islamic movement is mostly an indeginous one that has formed independently of outside influence, or if it is more reactionary towards certain elements in society and abroad. The oppressive regimes backed by Western powers have done their fair share to fuel the radical islamic movement, but I really believe a lot of the radical islamic movement stems from resentment of western policies towards the middle east with poverty and lack of education providing a catalyst for action throughout the region. There are too many people who are getting completely shafted by both the regimes and by the west that it's near impossible to expect that some of that anger and resentment won't be directed towards people they view as being responsible (namely, the west).

We can't really fight the fundamentalists until we're able to completely revamp foreign policy towards the Middle East and we're able to pressure the regimes into accepting reforms and changes that will bring about positive changes in a lot of Middle Eastern societies. The problem is we can't really change our approach to the Middle East as it would require a dramatic rethinking of our relationship with the region. You don't hear too many politicians making suggestions to solve the problem because they know that deep down, they don't have the balls to really make the concessions necessary to develop a solid relationship.

The problem is that we don't really know how to incorporate the Middle East into our understanding of the world, and a lot of people in the Middle East don't really understand the west. Just amongst ourselves in the United States we have vast differences in how we choose to approach the Middle East, and because politicians usually want to appear united, they generally choose to accept the status quo out of fear of alienating our own people.

The only real answer is continual cultural engagement with the Middle East. Far too many westerners no virtually nothing about the Middle East, and the opposite is true for Middle Easterners. I think that if we made real attempts to understand each other, we would be able to develop working relationships that would enable us to agressively fight the fundamentalist movement.

[ArmorPierce]

Improved standards of living and education? Isn't there a correlation between standard of living and education and how fundy people are?

[ArmorPierce]

I should add that the problem would be keeping the money from going into the pockets of corrupt leaders.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

The US will never win the war on "terror", not unless there is a drastic change at "home". This is because it refuses to explictily state that fundamentalist Islam is evil, mainly because of the parallels that could be drawn against fundamentalist christanity and religion in general. I mean seriously, how can you expect to win a war against Islam when your leaders are out there saying "really folks its a good and great thing", what type of moral ground do you think that puts you on in the eyes of your enemy?

[Darth Wong]

This is what's bothering me about the whole situation. While Bush and Co. have been running around playing Risk and their political opponents have been lambasting them for it, I really haven't heard much dialogue in terms of "how can this situation ever be resolved?" Truth be told, I can't see one either, and I don't share GoldenFalcon's faith that the problem will just take care of itself somehow.

I can only compare several proposals. On the right, we have:

1. "Nuke 'em all": impractical for many reasons, not to mention unethical.
2. "Declare war on Islam": see #1.
3. "Neutralize islamofascists by forcefully suppressing their ability to make war": this appears to be the Bush Administration's general strategy, once you look past their childish "spread freedom" rhetoric. However, the feasibility of this operation is in extreme doubt. Such a strategy tends to assume the enemy has armies and bases (and indeed, much of the Pentagon's effort to neutralize Al-Quaeda hinges upon locating and destroying "training camps", which are viewed as analogous to the military bases of a traditional OPFOR). However, terrorism is so pitifully easy to conduct (two guys + 1 car + 1 rifle = the entire state of Maryland under siege last year) that bases and armies are not necessary, and this approach seems doomed to failure. Indeed, the use of force may only breed more fanaticism, particularly in the younger generation, thus exacerbating the problem that the remedy is intended to solve.

Meanwhile, on the left, we have:

1. "Remove the irritants which inflame their passions against us". Specifically, cease US interference in the Israel/Palestine situation, preferably in such a manner as to make it clear that it's due to impatience with Israel's refusal to make peace and stop "invasion by settlement" rather than capitulation to radical Islam. While this would undoubtedly have some positive effect in terms of Arab hatred, it would not really "solve" the underlying problem per se (like the right's option #3, it would only hope to lessen its effects), and it might also have the unintended side-effect of emboldening the enemy.
2. "Negotiate with their leaders". This is infeasible for many reasons. First of all, their goals and values are so grossly incompatible with ours that a workable compromise seems basically impossible. Worse yet, there are no centralized leaders anyway; you can make friends with one Islamic leader but a hundred others will still be calling for jihad, not only against you but also against him for befriending you.
3. "Send massive foreign aid to Islamic countries in order to help them develop". This idea is based on the reasoning that Islamic fundamentalism is bred from poverty and misery, so you can dilute it over the long term by making the Arab states prosperous. Of course, Bin Laden himself is not an example of this phenomenon, but there is a larger general correlation between primitive, impoverished nations and religious fundamentalism. However, even if we leave aside the gigantic cost of such an idea, it would only be a gigantic welfare system, and it seems unlikely that the Arab nations would actually use this aid in order to better themselves rather than simply becoming welfare junkies on a national scale, with the threat of renewed terrorism if the payments should ever dry up.

If there's another option, I'd like to hear it.

[irishmick79]

The US will never win the war on "terror", not unless there is a drastic change at "home". This is because it refuses to explictily state that fundamentalist Islam is evil, mainly because of the parallels that could be drawn against fundamentalist christanity and religion in general. I mean seriously, how can you expect to win a war against Islam when your leaders are out there saying "really folks its a good and great thing", what type of moral ground do you think that puts you on in the eyes of your enemy?

Absolutely correct. If you're not willing to admit that your side has some repugnant fundamentalists who should be shut up, why should you expect the other side to? The United States government in particular spends a great deal of energy refusing to admit that there are some serious religious wackos in the country who in many ways are just as bad as anybody in the Middle East.

[Armored Goldbar]

None that I can think of.

There is no solution, there is only war. One of us has to lose. I don't foresee the next 50 years really changing that.

[Spice Runner]

I thinkl that the only way to defeat the fundy islamists without war or bloodshed is for the moderate muslims to stand up against the extremists. Islam needs to be liberelized. This is a very hard thing to do in most middle eastern countries as there is no way for people to speak out against the status quo.

Although current repressive leaders have to go, Bush and company are going about it the wrong way. It can't be done externally or through military force. That will only make the fundies fight harder. it must happen from the inside. Sadly however I can't see such a thing happening anytime soon.

[RedImperator]

Sadly, I think the state of the world as it is now is how it's going to be for the next several decades, at least. The only thing that's going to kill Islamofacism, as I see it, is frustration and disillusionment as the years go on and the Middle East continues to rot while the West stands, and their internal support dries up as new generations of Muslims disavow their parents' failed philosophy. That means 50 years of cat and mouse games, mostly, with the only thing the West can do is keep muddling through until the movement burns out.

This is assuming the West doesn't just give up and convert to Wahabbi Islam (highly doubtful, though the demographics in parts of Europe are rather alarming), and the Islamofascists don't manage to push the West into launching a nuclear strike on every population center between Algiers and Karachi.

[aerius]

I'll see how Seer Stuart's Crusade pans out and go from there.

[Howedar]

I expect Islamofascism to eventually devour itself in a situation rather similar to RI's theory. The ultimate winners of this conflict will either moderate themselves or be destroyed.

[Patrick Degan]

Sadly, I think the state of the world as it is now is how it's going to be for the next several decades, at least. The only thing that's going to kill Islamofacism, as I see it, is frustration and disillusionment as the years go on and the Middle East continues to rot while the West stands, and their internal support dries up as new generations of Muslims disavow their parents' failed philosophy. That means 50 years of cat and mouse games, mostly, with the only thing the West can do is keep muddling through until the movement burns out.

This is assuming the West doesn't just give up and convert to Wahabbi Islam (highly doubtful, though the demographics in parts of Europe are rather alarming), and the Islamofascists don't manage to push the West into launching a nuclear strike on every population center between Algiers and Karachi.

Looks like Red beat me to the punch. Time is the weapon best suited to employ against Islamofascism, because fanatacism is very difficult to sustain over years, particularly as they grind onward with the Dedicated Faithful moving no closer to their goals than when they started their Great Jihad.

[Joe]

To be honest, I think that disillusionment with Islam is going to become a lot more common; look at Iran. Twenty-five years ago the extreme theocratic government of Iran enjoyed widespread support in the country, today it does not. The younger generation is more secular, is relatively (at least by Middle Eastern standards) pro-Western, and wants reform. The latest defiance of the mullahs is nothing more than a desperate death cry, I'm convinced; Islamofascism is on its way out there (assuming the government doesn't get ahold of nukes), and it may depart violently if the government keeps running sham elections like it has been doing. This sort of thing may start happening in some countries.

But I don't think it's just going to go out like that everywhere in the world. Saudi Arabia, for example, how do you get this place to change? People complain about the House of Saud being fundies, and that's a perfectly reasonable complaint to make, but the people who would be in charge if the Saudis weren't there are even worse.

[Enforcer Talen]

Just curious. Regardless of their stances on specific actions such as the Iraq war, everyone here generally agrees that radical Islamic fundamentalism is a bad thing. However, suggested remedies are few and far between.

So what remedy do you suggest, and what long-term effect do you expect it to have?

a field of corpses a horse's high 400 miles in width.

the survivors should have a fairly good thing going.