Which Fails First - Advocacy or Strategy

Submitted by M. Tovey (United States), Feb 1, 2012 at 11:31

The ability to differentiate between the moral approach to a volatile situation and the strategy to quell the violent solution, while an effort to be commended, does present some issues of conflict; that if misunderstood, can produce devastating results. This is apparently more true in the cause of seeking peace in the Middle East than anywhere else on the globe. It is an unenviable task.

The cause and effect of the circumstances leading up to and beyond any chance of winning in the Middle East exceed the most painstaking examination of the variant participants and their mindsets and ideologies; that if not completely addressed will produce scenarios and outcomes that too few would expect. First and foremost is the seemingly intransigent mentality the Islamic mindset has that the West apparently tries to work around or dismiss as merely an obstacle that presents a dilemma not yet solved. They look for a humanist rationale of peace that is as elusive as any quest of mankind's.

The strategy of the fundamentalist Muslim fully engaged in the Islamic cause is simple-to win: to win 'Palestine' in place of Israel; to decimate the 'Jewishness' of the Middle East (just listen to Erekat and his band of brothers); to win Jerusalem and dominate the world; to win for 'allah. From there, shari'a law would be imposed and a global caliphate institutionalized. They will die for the cause until it is won; or die trying. One from a western mentality has a hard time arguing with that in advocacy; and strategically they are already in tactical position to implement an attempt as the world looks on in apathetic complacency. The keg is charged and all fundamentalist Islamists are doing is waiting to find out who gets to light the fuse.

What is the strategic position of the West? This is too complicated to analyze due to the difficulty of the West not being able to find the right political mindset to follow in order to present a united front against the perceived Islamicist threat. There appears to be a general consensus that Iran is in the forefront of the Islamic cause, Iran having been involved in implementing a plan from the days of the Ayatollah Khomeini to gain Islamic supremacy in advance of the time when the al-Madhi appears to rid the world of non-Muslim influences. Global mayhem is intrinsic to that cause. To that end, the strategic and tactical response is to potentially neutralize Iran's capabilities; right? This turns out to be quite difficult when considering that the Russian CIS and China are strategically placed to counter any such efforts.

So, does advocacy step in to be the diplomatic course to peace? Therein lays the conundrum: this goes against the fundamentalist Islamicist's imperative: to win, etc. So we now circle back to what strategy to employ- and the apparent inability of humanist rationale to grapple with what course to take. After all, who in their right mind having studied the Middle East ever came to the conclusion that peace with Islam could be achieved except by conceding to the whims of the mullahs? In reality, the alternative, the posturing for position in the fight for supremacy and the capturing of Jerusalem is what is at stake, just as it was a thousand years ago. The players are the same-the strategy though, will end up being quite different.

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".