Islamic expansionism is not like Chinese expansionism

Submitted by Erich Wieger (United States), Oct 20, 2010 at 13:38

I read the Project for a New Chinese Century. Are the proposed policies more appropriate to Democrats or Republicans? Neither really, but the present New Left attitudes of the Democratic party appear to preclude such aggressive, robust attention to confront long term dangers. Confrontation is "out of style" in Democtatic circles to a large degree, as is protection of American hegemony. The old, classic Democratic party line might be more friendly to these policies. Republicans will vary between protecting American hegemony to withdrawing from our engagements overseas, on constitutional grounds. Such engagements go beyond the limitation of Federal power to "the common defense" in the view of some conservatives.

China and the problem of Islamic expansionism are entirely different animals. The more one engages with the Islamic world, the more the sticky mess of their constant sensitivity, indignation and threats of violence compromise our own institutions and freedoms. Even when we try to "subvert" by exporting ideas of human rights etc, we end up kowtowing to Islamic identity and ideas in order to get a hearing. The result is that their good cop/bad cop act toward us is only enhanced. In other words, when we nurture the "moderate Islam" side, these people become a bridge for their more authentic and militant brethren.

Liberal Muslims, in general, do not abandon their emotional and civilizational alliance with their thoroughly illiberal brethren. See Clair Berlinski's street interviews with Turks about the Gaza Flotilla. So even enhancing liberal, westernized Islam, as a policy, is of questionable value. In the process, we tend to subvert ourselves. I wonder if the fine (spiritual) work of Zekarya Boutros, and Egyptian priest on sattelite TV, who in gentle, scholarly ways, exposes the nonsense of traditional Islam from its own best sources, is a factor behind the increasingly violent rhetoric against the Coptic Christians of Egypt. See Raymond Ibrahim's recent article for documentation of the threatening Muslim rhetoric. I do not say this to blame the priest. I think highly of his work and wish I could do it. I'm only saying that whatever you do toward Islamic civilization, even to enlighten them without compromise, seems to have some very serious, fatal down-sides to it. Policies of selective and thoughtful disengagement, some isolating policies, aggressive but short lived response to threats, and real energy independence would seem optimum policies for the West.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".