« No Expertise Necessary | Main | The Ghost of Grover Cleveland »

Pipes versus the Islamists

19 Oct 2007 12:35 pm

danielpipes.jpg

Daniel Pipes, one of several frightening advisors Rudy Giuliani's presidential campaign, has gotten some attention from this and other liberal blogs recently, mostly focused on his crude and appalling views on the Palestinians. That's a crucially important issue, but it shouldn't be allowed to overshadow a picture of Pipes' broader views.

In essence, Pipes think al-Qaeda isn't that big a deal. They are significant only insofar as they are a manifestation of the much bigger and broader problem of "Islamists" writ large, a label that encompasses Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Council on America-Islam Relations and all sorts of other groups around the world. Not being a Muslim myself, I don't find that any Islamist political movements -- which is to say movements that attempt to ground their political agendas in Islam in some sense or another -- to be personally appealing. On the other hand, I also recognize that it's common for liberal democracies to feature at least one political party that in whole or part seeks to mobilize the locally dominant religion for political purposes. What's more I also recognize that it's possible for even an anti-democratic Islamist political movement to not necessarily be an enemy of the United States -- for, for example, the authoritarian Islamist regime in Teheran to be one with whom we actually have certain interests in common (to wit: al-Qaeda, among other things) and with whom we ought to seek improved relations through diplomacy while simultaneously hoping that, at some point, the regime's rule will come to an end.

To Pipes, though, all this is dangerous nonsense. All Islam-inflected political movements are essentially totalitarian, and the United States is remorselessly condemned to struggle with 10 to 15 percent of the world's Muslim population. And, indeed, by Pipes' definition of the Islamist threat, I think he's probably undercounting. It's the kind of mindset that leads to analysis like this:

Is Turkey going Islamist? Is it on the road to implementing Islamic law, known as the Shari'a?

I replied in the affirmative to these questions in a symposium at FrontPageMag.com a month ago. Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, I wrote, plans to undo the secular Atatürk revolution of 1923-34 and replace it with the Shari'a. I predicted the leadership of his Justice and Development Party (known by its Turkish initials, AKP) will use the democratic process only so long as this serves its purpose. It will circumscribe, or even terminate, political participation when the right moment comes. The end result, I predicted, could be an "Islamic Republic of Turkey."

Left out of Pipes' world is the possibility that Turkey -- or any other Muslim country -- might adopt neither the sort of illiberal secular Kemalism he admires nor the sort of anti-democratic Islamism he fears. But if, indeed, we try to force the world's Muslims to choose between this form of secularism and war with the United States, the odds are that they'll choose war, just as America's Christian population would be infuriated by efforts to install Turkish-style secularism here at home. These aren't cartoonish ideas that drive Pipes, but they're badly wrong and incredibly dangerous; a significant step beyond Bush in unnuanced and extreme approaches to the Muslim world. The prospect of Pipes serving as an influential advisor in a Giuliani administration is very frightening.

Share This

Comments (36)

I think overall this is quite a good summary of the Pipes problem, although one suspects it'll get drowned in flak over his views on Palestine.

The worst part about the "all Muslims are against us" approach is that eventually, if pushed with enough vigour it will be somewhat self-fulfilling. And that would be a terribly waste of potential allies and trading partners.

As for the assumption that the AKP will terminate democracy, that shows he's more interested in trolling than analysis. But of course then we're back to the same old issue. Why so many trolls in "serious discourse" and so few "serious discoursers"?

Also, he just looks so Halloween-scary!

What Pipes really hates is democracy. (Turkey is the only democracy in the Middle East that includes 100% of the people under its control.) How dare the Turks choose their own future, independent of management by Uncle Sam?

But this whole argument is really another distraction from the real issue at hand: oil and natural gas. There are only two distribution corridors for pipelines carrying natural gas from the Persian Gulf and the Caspian Sea to Europe. One runs through Turkey, the other through Russia. Uncle Sam is petrified that Turkey might decide to use its privileged position for profit which, as we know, is supposed to belong only to Big Oil.

What the "Islamofascist" position ignores -- and what, in my opinion, makes it deeply dishonest --are the past acts of the US government in the Islamic world. Acts committed for the sake of special interests --NOT the American people. Acts which provoked the rise of Al Qaeda, the attempts to unify the Islamic world, and the Sept 11 attack.

Both the present and past Administrations have inflicted enormous, Unnecessary death, destruction and misery upon the Islamic world.

If we want to eliminate Al Qaeda, we need the support of the Islamic world -- to tell us where Al Qaeda is hiding. We won't get that support if we continually show that we , as a nation, are becoming as bad as Al Qaeda -- that, indeed, we are in some ways worse. Al Qaeda does not cover its brutal crimes with chilling, psychopathic claims to morality that are obvious lies. Or hide its acts from the American people.

People will occasionally tolerate a blustering bully. But no one tolerates a psychopath. To do so would be as stupid as letting a nest of rattlesnakes sleep in your bed.

I interviewed Pipes once, and he is scary. But he is scary enough that he is somebody like David Horowitz - a personality that will quickly repel enough people that he will always be condemned to the annoyance category. I think Giuliani is stocking up on these stock characters not for real advice - he's not that insane - but rather to get out a sort of dogwhistle message to the true rightwing nuts, who are willing to forgive a guy everything if he will only pledge to nuke significant parts of the Middle East. I can't imagine that Giuliani would continue with that kind of thing once he has to campaign for real, outside of the loony bins of certain Republican primaries.

One of Pipes' truly bizarre projects never gets much attention -- The "Islamist Watch". A programm directed against The Threat of Lawful islamism

Here's the key bit (at this site: http://www.meforum.org/islamist.php)

The fight against invidious Islamism has two components. The first is to widen the "war on terror" from violent enemies to political enemies. The war needs to be understood to involve scholarship, think tank research, textbooks, ... feature movies, toys, computer games, and much else.... [Islamist watch] is not about counterterrorism...

...To the extent that Islamists recognize the value of lawful methods, they will rely increasingly on legal and political means rather than on violent and terrorist ones.

Of course, target political enemies and their insidious toys, computer games, and women-only swime-nites.

(Note: I'm not arguing that hating all Muslims and making efforts marginalize them in every way is an illegitimate political activity. It's weird, not illegal. But Pipes belief that this is an extention of the war on terror is really kooky. We're on board with the fight against suicide bombers, not bacon-avoiders.)

"On the other hand, I also recognize that it's common for liberal democracies to feature at least one political party that in whole or part seeks to mobilize the locally dominant religion for political purposes."

That's both an awfully weak defense of Islamist political movements, on it's own terms, AND a rather blantent effort to conflate genuine theocracy with the sort of thing the Reverend Jesse Jackson does.

I can't imagine that Giuliani would continue with that kind of thing once he has to campaign for real, outside of the loony bins of certain Republican primaries.

I guess that's possible but I'm not as sure - I don't know how many of these nimrods you need to bring on as advisors if you're just trying to make a point.

I'm assuming the angle he'd be going with here is that he's the only one serious enough to bomb the daylights out of muslims - wouldn't this also be his general election theme as well as his primary campaign theme?

What is interesting is to compare the Daniel Pipes of 1991 with the Daniel Pipes of today. See, e.g, his 1991 Wall Street Journal article at
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/209 .

Some excerpts:
-------------
"Second, there are worse prospects than Saddam Husayn staying in power. Here are two: an American occupation of Iraq or the dissolution of that country.

U.S. government assistance to the anti-Saddam forces could over-commit Americans in Iraq. What begins with humanitarian and military aid might end up as something much larger. Provisioning blankets leads to repairing electricity grids and roads; shooting down aircraft ends up with the guaranteeing of international borders. The inexorable logic of power would eventually induce Americans to topple Saddam. Before anyone realizes what happened, U.S. forces would be occupying Iraq, with Schwartzkopf Pasha ruling from Baghdad.

It sounds romantic, but watch out. Like the Israelis in southern Lebanon nine years ago, American troops would find themselves quickly hated, with Shi'is taking up suicide bombing, Kurds resuming their rebellion, and the Syrian and Iranian governments plotting new ways to sabotage American rule. Staying in place would become too painful, leaving too humiliating. Saddam in power may well be less dreadful than American occupation.

Alternatively, there is the danger of Iraq being dismembered. As Turkish president Turgut Özal rightly observed, this would lead to "incalculable turmoil." The world economy needs a reasonably strong Iraq to balance Iran and assure the free flow of oil from the Persian Gulf. Were Iraqi power to disappear, Iran would likely become the regional hegemon, rationing oil according to its whims.

Iraq's dissolution also raises the prospect of the Iranians imposing a fundamentalist Islamic regime on southern Iraq. Not only would this new state want to take Baghdad and reconstitute Iraq as a Shi'i-dominated country, but it might well revitalize the Islamic revolution in Tehran, leading to fresh outbreaks of Khomeini-style aggression.

Further, the fracturing of Iraq would create chaos between the Persian Gulf and the Taurus Mountains in Turkey. The Kurds, for example, would achieve their long-sought independence in northern Iraq-and then the real fun would begin. Persecuted by Kurds, non-Kurds would flee the new state. Large and bloody exchanges of population would follow. Kurdish leaders, eyeing the predominantly Kurdish areas of Iran, Turkey, and Syria, would enthusiastically destabilize those important countries. Border wars would proliferate. As a headline in yesterday's New York Times put it, Kurds would become "the new Palestinians."

Douglas Streusand, a historian of the Middle East, points out that solving the Kurdish problem means destroying Iraq; do Americans truly wants to do this?

Third, there is evidence that the Syrian and Iranian governments used their leverage to encourage Jalal Talabani of the PUK to rise up against Baghdad. And the Kurds are no innocents; having fought the regime for decades, they knew exactly what they were getting into. They rolled the dice and lost. It is not an American moral responsibility to save them from their mistake."
----------

Of course, Daniel Pipes may simply have meant to argue that we should not interfere when one group of brown people in the Middle East are killing another group of brown people.

But he was so good as Commander Riker in "Start Trek: The Next Generation."

Nah, if ain't Judeo-Christian it ain't good.

By the way, did this scholar who created "Campus Watch" ever get tenure??

By the way, Nation put out an interesting profile of Daniel Pipes in 2004 -- see "Neocon Man" at
http://www.monabaker.com/pMachine/more.php?id=A1994_0_1_0_M

"I also recognize that it's possible for even an anti-democratic Islamist political movement to not necessarily be an enemy of the United States"

Including one's whose proxy army, Hezbollah, killed hundreds of our marines?

I am just floored by Matt's suggestion we ally with Iran for any reason.

What would Matt's take be if any other country hanged thousands of people including teenage boys for being gay?

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=2955

Or if it stoned women to death for adultery like Iran

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=467588&in_page_id=1811

Would he be suggesting we be ally with that country if we had a common enemy?

Of course not, he would be repulsed beyond the possibility of alliance.

Pipes' analysis on Turkey is just plain bizarre. The AKP may control the government, but it doesn't control the army. The army is full of committed Kemalists that will never allow an Islamist government to hold power. The army has already made this clear to the AKP. And they are not making idle threats. Every time a Turkish government has attempted to move away from Kemalist secularism, the army has overthrown that government. The AKP is well aware of this history and will only push for tiny steps away from Kemalism. I would be very surprised if the army were to allow religion to influence the Turkish government to extent that it is allowed in the US.

Including one's whose proxy army, Hezbollah, killed hundreds of our marines?

Jeez, Dave--that was more than two decades ago. I can think of lots of countries who in the past, killed Americans by the hundreds, and even thousands--some of those are our closest allies.

Remember Pearl Harbor? Remember the Maine? Remember the Alamo? Hell, remember the Battle of Long Island?

...teenage boys for being gay?

Your own link says for "raping younger boys", Dave.

Including one's whose proxy army, Hezbollah, killed hundreds of our marines?

And why not? Our good friend and creditor the PRC killed many thousands of our marines. As did our Vietnamese friends. And I believe our Israeli friends killed a few hundred as well. Hey, all it takes is one night in Paris bordellos, as they say.

rea has a good point. We have been at war with most of our allies. Consider the Suez Canal incident. We were at war with France, England and Israel. Are these countries with which we should avoid alliances? Aside from Turkey, Australia, and New Zealand, we have been at war with all of our allies at some point in our history. You might be questioning this about Turkey, but we never declared war against Turkey in World War I, much to the dismay of England. And we maintained trade with Turkey during that war.

I am just floored by Matt's suggestion we ally with Iran for any reason.

And yet, you don't seem to be complaining about China, or Russia, or Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia, all of whom are at least as bad as Iran.

Hell no, I'm not suggesting that we condone Iran's behavior toward its citizens. But as the history of the last 60 years or so shows, the best way to change that is to cooperate with Iran on matters of mutual interest, stop giving the Iranian leaders an external enemy against which to unite the country, and let the advantages of changing their society become obvious to the Iranians. It worked with the Soviet Union--why not let it work with Iran?

Your own link says for "raping younger boys", Dave.

I'm no fan of Dave, but that accusation was not likely true. Women and gays are murderously oppressed in Iran--but we're not going to change that by bombing them.

They were accused of and executed for rape. You don't believe they were guilty of rape? Fair enough.

Nevertheless, I see absolutely no good reason to state as a fact that these two were executed "for being gay". Do you?

Yada,yada,yada...

Plezzzzzzzzzzzzeeeeeeee.....let's leave off the yada,yada on spreading Democracy to Islam until after we actually have some sort of Democracy here in the US instead of government by big "biz" cults, jewish israeli cults, evangelical cults, NRA cults, anti abortion cults, tiny penis "wur" cults, me,me,me, my tiny little personal peeves cults....

gawd!..

If the agencies of this democracy were living up to their missions the FBI would have already suicided racist freaks like Pipes and his neo ilk.

What rea said.

"They were accused of and executed for rape. You don't believe they were guilty of rape? Fair enough.

Nevertheless, I see absolutely no good reason to state as a fact that these two were executed "for being gay". Do you?

Posted by abb1 | October 19, 2007 3:03 PM"

A lot of people who have looked into this case have called bullshit on the rape charge. Yelling "rape" is an easy way for an authoritarian homophobic state to execute gays and lesbians.

A silly debate, everyone knows there are no homosexuals in Iran, although someone might want to talk to the guy who choreographed their uranium enrichment ceremony.

I like Pipes. His bias is out-front: he's a proud ethnic warrior. So you can evaluate everything he says in a straight-forward matter. He works hard to come up with arguments to support what he sees as his people's best interests.

Obviously, he should have no more role in _U.S._ government foreign policy than, say, other ethnic warriors like Doug Feith and Elliott Abrams, but as an independent analyst he's a useful figure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Asgari_and_Ayaz_Marhoni


Mahmoud Asgari (Persian: محمود عسگري) and Ayaz Marhoni (Persian: عياض مرهوني) were Iranian teenagers from the province of Khuzestan who were publicly hanged in Edalat (Justice) Square in Mashhad, northeast Iran, on July 19, 2005.
The case attracted the attention of the international media on two grounds. First, reports in the Western media gave rise to an initial belief that the boys had been executed for engaging in consensual homosexual sex, although later examination of Iranian press reports convinced many human rights activists that they had been convicted of the forcible rape of a third, 13-year-old boy. [1] Second, the two were believed to have been juveniles at the time of the offense, and one is believed to have been a juvenile at the time of his execution. [2]
The facts of the case are still subject to heated debate. The British activist Peter Tatchell, known for his militant statements about Iran and Islam, has accused activists who have suggested the two were charged with rape of being "western left-wing and Islamist apologists" of the "Iranian regime." [3] Some of the reports that have been used to discredit the rape charges originated with an Iranian dissident group accused of serious human-rights violations, one that is classified as a terrorist organization by the United States and several European countries.[4]

You can call bullshit on anything you want, but you can't create your own facts. Even if it's very tempting.

And BTW, I might add that the worst case scenario - being persecuted for engaging in consensual homosexual sex - is still not the same as being persecuted for being gay.

Well, it's a lucky thing that the Brits didn't get as worked up about American-Catholic support for the IRA as our "leaders" do about Moslem support for "Islamo-Fascists".

-Daniel Pipes as one of Rudy's advisors. Whoa. I mean, not that I ever didn't believe that Rudy would campaign on/enact as President an a swell in clash of civilizations/religious war rhetoric, but this is still kind of stunning.

-In fact: This really makes me think that Giuliani's whole 9/11 Tourette's thing is not an act at all, that he really hasn't recovered from September 11 at all. Like, he's in a "9/12 mindset", except not figuratively; he literally thinks basically the way he did on 9/12.

-In Turkey (and not only Turkey) the secular/theocratic distinction is basically non-functional and meaningless, except to the extent that it's been gradually imported relatively recently; their politics just isn't structured according to those concepts and trying to grasp it that way will only lead to poor understanding.

"Including one's whose proxy army, Hezbollah, killed hundreds of our marines?"

Hizballah is not Iran's "proxy army". Nasrallah may have to deal with Iran's demands to get the support he wants, but there is no evidence that he is Iran's puppet - certainly not to the degree that most of the Iraqi "leaders" so far have been US puppets.

And the Marines a) had no business being there; and b) were stupid enough to get boxed in a "Maginot Line" mental state.

As for not engaging states that engage in "barbarous practices", well, some people think the US qualifies for its support of capital punishment - not to mention the reckless use of its military in killing civilians in foreign countries.

If you want to start arguing the "morality" of states, the US is on particularly thin ice. SLC likes to make that comparison, although in an incorrect context. The proper context is: "We don't support what you're doing, but we're not going to do anything about it because it's none of our business."

Which means in regard to Israel, you can do what you want to the Palestinians - but you get no more support from us at all. And have a nice day when it comes to the Iranian nuclear program, too, because that's none of our business either.

But SLC wants it both ways - he wants the US to admit it's a genocidal nation, so it will support Israel's genocidal nature.

Nice.

"I like Pipes. His bias is out-front: he's a proud ethnic warrior."

Yeah, I like that David Duke too, at least he's honest about his views!

SoCalJustice - Heh heh, thanks, that was a good photo.


Comments closed November 02, 2007.

Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.