Read and Response - Time Out of Joint
I was reading an article by Sadik al-Azm (as if that name means anything to you) called Time Out of Joint. It's thesis is summarized in the following:
...the number of supporters of armed Islamism is unlikely to grow, its support throughout the Arab Muslim world will likely decline, and the opposition by other Muslim groups will surely grow. 9/11 signaled the last gasp of Islamism rather than the beginnings of its global challenge.
I'm not sure how much I agree or disagree with this, but his article contained several arguments that I often see when this topic is discussed, and that really bother me. For example:
The madness of the Islamists’ spectacular attack on the World Trade Center is self-evident; its despair lies in its inevitably annihilating impact on the plotters and perpetrators themselves, world Islamism in general, and the al Qaeda networks, organizations, and systems of support in particular (including the Taliban regime in Afghanistan).
The madness is self-evident? Not in the sense that al-Azm is speaking of. Inevitable annihilating impact on the plotters and perpetrators itself? Taken to it's logical conclusion, this would appear to mean that a successful act of warfare by a group is "madness". I don't know about you, but this doesn't appear to make much sense to me. Perhaps he's speaking of the madness of a weak force taking on a much more powerful and resourceful force (assuming for the moment that al-Qaede is a "weak force" - I think distinctions of power in this case are somewhat nebulous and if not irrelevant). It still seems to be a fairly nonsensical statement, whatever he means.
And this quote is central to his thesis. Analyze who the "annihilating impact" is on. First, the plotters and perpetrators. Where oh where is the annihilated bin Laden? Is the al-Qaeda structure really destroyed? Damaged severely, I'd agree to that, but destroyed? And even if al-Qaeda itself were destroyed, what of the philosophy represented by the organization? It certainly appear alive and well. What about world Islam? Is that really damaged? It is almost certain that it is suffering from more discrimination in the non-muslim world than it would otherwise have. But from the perspective of the radical Islamist, perhaps current growth is not as important as future growth, or perhaps it is not as important as the destruction of the enemy. But it certainly does not seem to be hurting Islam in the Islamic world at all. It's more a question of perception, I think, than anything else. And finally, yes certain systems of support were destroyed (such as the Taliban government). But many systems of support are still around (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc.) and again, for those committing warfare, sometimes it is necessary to sacrifice something for a greater good. I do not see terrorism as an "obviously" mad idea. Perhaps it is not best strategically, but certainly not mad.
The other quote that I want to talk about is the following:
...as Arabs and Muslims (and I use Muslim here in the historical and cultural sense), we continue to imagine ourselves as conquerors, history-makers, pace-setters, pioneers, and leaders of world-historic proportions.
In the marrow of our bones, we still perceive ourselves as the subjects of history, not its objects, as its agents and not its victims. We have never acknowledged, let alone reconciled ourselves to, the marginality and passivity of our position in modern times. In fact, deep in our collective soul, we find it intolerable that our supposedly great nation must stand helplessly on the margins not only of modern history in general but even of our local and particular histories.
Now this appears to be a generalization that can be applied to any major civilization that has any hint of grandeur in it's past. Would this not also apply equally to China? I'm sure Europe during the middle ages certainly thought of itself as great, in the spirit of the Roman Empire. Any lack of power was intolerable, and that it would stand on the margins of "modern history"...basically I just find this to be a problem not particularly unique to the Arab world.
One final quote that made me think (though not particularly insightful):
The two supposedly clashing sides are so unequal in power, military might, productive capacity, efficiency, effective institutions, wealth, social organization, science, and technology that the clash can only be of the inconsequential sort.
In the short term, this is quite clearly true. However, in the long term it is in no way obviously true. Look how far China has come in fifty years. Great civilizations seem to rise and fall every few hundred years (and in this sense I mean "civilizations" in the sense that would apply to the British Empire as a unique civilization, America as a unique civilization, etc.). Britain is in no way a destitute nation, but how much weaker is it comparitavely than at it's height? How far has Germany fallen from being the center of world science and philosophy? How much longer does America really have? Despite all this talk of America as a "hyperpower", it seems realistic that in another fifty or one hundred years, another or civilization will take it's place. Why not the Arab nations? Or China? It seems to be the natural course of history. 'course, I don't honestly know much about history...
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home