Policy Implications for Dealing with Political Islam
A Conference Report

The final session was opened by Torn Moore, Director of Foreign Policy and Defense Studies at the Heritage Foundation.

Mr. Moore raised two issues. First, he pointed out that coping with radical Islam must be categorized either as an issue of law enforcement - in which case protections under civil law are pertinent - or as a national security threat, which entails fewer protections for the protagonists. Second, he asked whether or not revolutionaries can be co-opted. Stating that Islam is the fastest growing religion in the United States, he questioned the role of people such as Louis Farrakhan and the issue of American sources of funding for Islamic extremism here and abroad.

Mr. Moore then introduced the first of two presenters for this session, Dr. Daniel Pipes, Editor of The Middle East Quarterly.

Liberal vs. Conservative Approaches to Policy

Dr. Daniel Pipes

"The policy debate in the U.S. resembles the old American policy debate over Marx ism/Leninism. Islam doesn't resemble Marxism," Dr. Pipes stressed. "But the debate does look the same in terms of the division of liberal and conservative opinion." Liberals largely believe in co-opting their adversaries; in dialogue with them. Conservatives are more interested in confrontation, leading, they believe, to victory."

He made a dichotomy between liberals and conservatives on various issues of foreign policy:

1. Liberals believe the source of the problem is material distress.
   Conservatives believe the source is radical utopian ideology.
2. Liberals believe the answer is economic growth, and so advocate that we help impoverished peoples.
   Conservatives want radical utopians to lose.
3. Liberals believe it is the fault of the West; we should have been nicer to them.
   Conservatives do not accept blame and believe we have to confront them.
4. Liberals believe the Islamists are comprised of individual groups.
   Conservatives see lines of cooperation, unifying threads among groups.
5. Liberals believe moderates exist among communists and/or fundamentalists.
   Conservatives do not.
6. Liberals believe that if the West leaves Islamists alone, they will not threaten Western interests.
   Conservatives believe they are gunning for us.
7. Liberals pay no attention to hostile words.
   Conservatives believe the text is important.
8. Liberals are more sanguine.
   Conservatives are alarmed.

Liberals believe human beings are essentially good. Liberals predominate in academic circles.

Placing himself on the conservative side of the spectrum, Dr. Pipes said, "The American government is taking advice from academia and largely getting the benign view. Until 1989, the U.S. government view was that fundamentalism was bad. They reassessed after fundamentalists began to win elections and President Clinton took office."

Pipes made four policy recommendations:

• The United States government should continue to repeat the distinction the government is making between religion and politics. "The U.S. government can't have a policy on a religion. It has interests in the public realm."
• The government should "celebrate anti-fundamentalists abroad. We sent the wrong signals in the case of the FIS (Islamic Salvation Front) in Algeria, suggesting that the Algerian government negotiate with them. It is not an accident that the French celebrated Castro in Paris shortly thereafter." The same policy is important domestically as well, as a counterweight to Louis Farrakhan. The Nation of Islam is a fringe group and does not represent the majority of Muslims who are patriotic Americans.
• The American government should encourage others to hold the line against encroaching radicalism.
• The U.S. should stand strongly by beleaguered governments – even those that are not ideal by American standards.