My coinage of Realislamik is of course based on the term Realpolitik.
This thumbnail sketch of the meaning and history of the term Realpolitik seems to rest on the assumption that it centrally concerns a political policy of pragmatic self-interest which if informed by reason, would seek international self-restraint rather than ideologically motivated expansionism. I don't mind incorporating such a definition into the coinage Realislamik -- insofar as the West's strategy against global jihad (synecdochal for "Islam") need not be based primarily in an ideological conflict pitting our ideology against Islamic ideology, but rather should be based primarily in a rational, ruthlessly cynical and pragmatically self-serving calculation of protecting our societies from Islamic violence which itself is based in, and propelled by, the supremacist expansionist ideology practiced in various modalities (some more flagrantly deadly than others) by Muslims.
In terms of the very recent and remarkable domino effect in a major part of the Muslim world unfolding before us in this second decade of the 21st century (otherwise purveyed and retailed by the MSM as "the Arab Spring"), there are only three tacks to take whenever we see a Muslim country anywhere in the world going through a major revolt:
1) Defend the current tin-pot tyrant
2) Defend in starry-eyed idealism the Jeffersonian blue-jeaned MP3-listening Facebooking freedom-seeking rebels
3) Reasonably adopt the rational prejudice based on Realislamik that Muslims are always wrong and always dangerous no matter which side of a conflict they seem to be on, and base our geopolitical maneuvering accordingly with an eye ruthlessly cynical and utterly self-serving to our interests.
This would apply, as I say, anywhere: not merely in classic dictatorships like Libya or Syria, but also in "moderate" Indonesia or Malaysia should they begin to devolve in the near future -- or any other Muslim-majority region, from rugged Tadjikistan to the island paradise of the Maldives, from the south Philippines to northern Nigeria, and anywhere between.
In my view, #3 should more often than not consist in our fomenting internecine violence calculated to undermine both sides. Although there likely will be times now and then short of that where our Realislamik would lead us to support a tin-pot tyrant du jour against the Muslim People, when we are dealing with a Demos as diseased with deadly fanaticism as those who choose to follow Islam, there will rarely, if ever, be a right time to support them against a tin-pot tyrant, no matter how cruel he may be.
Further Reading:
Tunisia and Realislamik
The Jasmine Jihad
2 comments:
Hesperado -
I'll check out your further reading. Thnx.
Meanwhile, on GoV..
You are being accused of "saguntoism", detrimental to GoV, in a manoeuvre of guilt by association (with me), by a well-known commenter.
Here's the quote that was - in an unsurprising ad hominem - directed at my person, but with the peculiar inclusion of you:
"Issuing challenges without specifics or demonstratively refuting evidence borders on a sort of demagoguery that is not befitting with respect to your usual erudite comments. Both yourself and Hesperado have demonstrated this disturbing and uninspiring trend of late, much to the overall detriment of GoV."
Oh my, "the overall detriment of GoV"..
Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.
Hesperado
Was that a map of the Ottoman empire?
To fuel #3 above, one doesn't even need earthbreaking thinking: something as conventional as what used to be done during the Cold War would do. Remember how during the Ira war, when Egypt would supply Iraq w/ US weaponry, and Israel would do the same for Iran b'cos it viewed Saddam as lethal to its existence? That sort of thing.
Something along the lines of Oliver North arming the Contras in Nicaragua, you could have 2 government agencies - say the State Department & the Pentagon separately arming both sides of a conflict. Like take the rebellion in Yemen. Have the State Department back the rebels, and the Pentagon the regime.
Or if they want to avoid congressional oversight & controversy, have 2 different non-governmental organizations in the US supply the sides. As it is, a lot of US organizations provide 'charity' to organizations that end up providing that money to Hamas & Hizbullah. So here, have Americans provide not money, but just weapons, to different warring factions in the middle east, be it the factions in Yemen, Libya or Syria, and pop open the popcorn. Avoid giving money, but make US corporations that manufacture such weaponry rich by having oil money from all these countries - Saudi Arabia, Iran, Libya, et al - go to them in exchange of weaponry that can be used against each other.
The other day, I was reading somewhere that Saudi Arabia was trying to enlist the support of Islamic countries outside the mid east, such as Pakistan, Malaysia, et al, to support it militarily as it interferes in Bahrein, where it fears it could lose to Iran. In other words, what we are rooting for could happen w/o even our trying for it. However, in the story, it was mentioned that the US wasn't too happy @ the Saudis seeking such an alliance. Maybe Obama is too much in bed w/ Iran.
Post a Comment