America needs a new plan for engaging Islam that doesn’t involve boots on the ground
The most recent issue of Time magazine features the image of an Afghan woman whose nose has been cut off by the Taliban.
The question — What happens if we leave Afghanistan? — posed by Time’s editors and reporters is really only one piece of a much larger question.
How does the United States begin to engage differently with the Islamic world?
First a bit of thumbnail history.
Over much of the last century, Islam posed no serious threat or concern to the United States, our interests or our values.
Our main “opponents” were entirely European and Western in origin, primarily in the form of Fascism and Communism.
But in the aftermath of World War 2, a confluence of factors gave rise to a new confrontationalism between our largely Christian society and that of Islam.
The first great factor was the collapse of European empires, which left nation-states from Iran to Saudi Arabia to Indonesia to fend for themselves.
The second complication was the growing realization that Muslim countries possessed in large quantities something that the United States desperately wanted: Oil.
The third tectonic shift was the Western-imposed creation of Israel — a Jewish state — in the midst of a largely Islamic near-Eastern region.
Finally, there was the increasingly disastrous engagement of Islam itself with the modern world.
Faced with declining economies and limited opportunity, many Muslims have fallen back on a version of faith which is very nearly Medieval in its fundamentalism.
Which brings us back to that woman and her horribly scarred face.
Also this week, we have word that the Taliban have murdered eight Western doctors and four Afghani aid workers.
And there’s more depressing news out of Iran, where senior clerics stormed out of a reconciliation session with expatriates because female musicians didn’t wear their headscarves properly.
What’s clear is that the United States needs to develop a practical, fair and tough-minded strategy for engaging the Islamic world
That strategy needs to de-emphasize full-scale military conflict, which isn’t working very well and is no longer affordable.
But it also needs to redouble efforts to protect the United States from Islamic militants, a tiny minority within the larger Muslim culture — who will certainly continue to view us and our interests as a priority target.
We need to acknowledge frankly that many aspects of global Islam — the lack of democratic and legal protections and the barbaric treatment of women to name two — are deeply, morally troubling.
To that end, we also need to consider deeply our own moral responsibility in the Muslim world. What will it mean for women and minorities in Islamic countries if we pull back and don’t engage?
Surely there must be better strategies for nurturing human rights in places such as Somalia and the Sudan.
Another question: What can we do to disentangle our interests — energy, primarily, but also geopolitics — from those of the Islamic world?
I for one am sick and tired of knowing that our economy is deeply intertwined in that part of the world.
One more question: What can we learn from countries such as Indonesia and Malaysia, two of the most populous Muslim countries which are also largely tolerant and have engaged successfully with the modern world?
To have this discussion won’t be easy.
The current debate over the proposed mosque near the ground zero site shows just how reactionary our political discussion has become.
And there are certain to be raw wounds for years to follow, following the ambiguous wind-down of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
We will also struggle to build a post-Middle-Eastern oil energy policy, because that goal has become intertwined with the culture war debate over climate change and conservation.
Lastly, of course, we go forward in this relationship in the shadow of the Twin Towers, in the knowledge that we now share some of the blood-sorrow that has long crippled the Near East.
Despite all those potential tripwires, the conversation has to begin.
We’ve seen what happens — in Israel and Palestine, in India and Pakistan, Iran and Iraq — when these grievances aren’t addressed.
Your thoughts? Comment below.
.jpg)
I think for me I am still struggling to understand where most Muslims fall. I keep hearing that the vast majority are tolerant with only a tiny fraction supporting the militant Islamic groups. But is that true? I see whole areas of the Middle East who really don’t believe the Holocaust happened and are basically simply anti-Semitic, the Clerics in Iran have great support, when Ahmadenijad talks many many people in those countries like what he says, or seem to? The Taliban have some support their theology has some support in Afghanistan. Look at how women are treated in Saudi Arabia, that is not a fringe bunch who have those ideas it is the mainstream of Saudi Society. Look at how the Islamic community reacted to the cartoons, those were not just fringe people those were many many mainstream Muslims. How many of them supported the murder of the Dutch film maker? I mean these guys have even scared South park writers into self censorship.
Frankly I feel a little like I am being sold when I keep hearing about all of the moderate Muslims. Certainly I know that is the true in the West in the US in particular, but that is not where most Muslims live.
I think we can engage the Muslim community with respect and I do agree that military action except in the most extreme cases will not work. But I think we should be realistic about who we are dealing with. It does not help to pain a pc view of Islamic society simply because we don’t want to offend anyone.
We will probably never get past the debate among ourselves on who the enemy really is.
Unless we do, we may all end up looking like that.
I don’t think that Muslims are the enemy of anyone. They are not really manufacturing weapons. Spending millions of pounds on developing killing machines. And they have not occupied countries for centuries to enslave them and steal their natural resources. When you speak to Muslims from different enthnic backgrounds: you will find that they are proud to be Muslims and they don’t not have darck memory of Arabs and Muslims. It is the oppisite.
As if you want to understand Islam, you only need to read the Quran in its context.
If I wanted to undersand the USA, I would not visit prisons and police stations, and through my encounter with these criminals I then conclude this is what the USA stands for. I need to know the contitution.
The real problem is that both sides are so ignorant of each other but I have to say that it is really more of a problem with the West in that westerners refuse to recognize why we have offended Muslims to the point that they wish to harm us. It wasn’t very long ago that America was greatly loved by practically everyone in the Islamic world…certainly in my lifetime. Most Muslims actually still do love America, ask any Afghan and all but a small minority would do practically anything to become an American citizen.
So here is what Americans refuse to recognize: we have used the mostly very poor Islamic nations to our own purposes. We have considered their natural resources as our own, we have had them spill their blood in numerous wars for our own political ends, and we have fostered some of the most radical factions of radical Islam. And what have these nations gained from this? The ordinary persons life is as hard or harder than it was a generation before. We propped up both sides in the Iran/Iraq war and were happy that they were killing each other. We sponsored radical Muslim mujahiddeen factions in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets…the same factions that started assassinating moderate leaders after the Soviets left. Even this cartoon thing, nobody in the west seems to understand why Muslims were so upset. If you go back and read about it Muslim leaders were upset about cartoons published in Denmark, they asked for a meeting with government officials to explain why the cartoons were so offensive to them. Government officials refused to meet with them. It was a slap in the face of every Muslim who was trying to integrate into the society. A double slap in the face. It was only then that the cartoons became a worldwide issue among the Islamic community.
American foreign policy slights Muslims regularly. Most Americans have no clue this is happening. Most Muslims can’t help but be aware of it.
Americans don’t understand that people in many Muslim countries always considered themselves to be strong allies and friends of the US. Why did the US squander those friendships?
KNL –
Some of your argument I agree with. We have done truly foul things in Islamic countries.
But I think Mervel is right, too: Much of the foul behavior can’t be ascribed to this dynamic.
It’s a reality that Muslims are dealing with that many of their most passionate, popular and charismatic leaders are willing to stone women to death, murder doctors, ban art, and limit democracy.
How do we help them deal with this dead end when we ourselves are culpable for some very bad behavior as well?
It’s a tricky but crucial question.
–Brian, NCPR
Funny, you bring this up and I was watching Al Jezzera English last night. To say they have a somewhat different view than we do is something of an understatement.
We’ve kicked dirt in their faces in the past, knowingly and unknowingly, I’m sure. And I suppose I’d be mad too. Unfortunately when they get their nose bent they seek blood. I have a hard time putting all of it on the good ol’ USA. I was reading a book on TE Lawrence and even then in the ‘teens the Arabs were warning of jihad should the Jews be given a homeland. This is older than the US part in it.
Oil. Some call it greed and exploitation, others call it use of a natural resource and a way to grow nations. I agree we need to wean our selves. But how do we do that when special interest groups fight tooth and nail against logical workable alternatives? When even more special interest groups fight any type of drilling for gas or oil here (The Gulf). The alternatives that we know work, like nuclear and coal, are so divisive that it goes no where. Look in our own backyard with the wind issue. So just how do we go about it? And lets not forget that we need to do this in a way that isn’t going to throw us further in debt or ruin whats left of our economy.
On the basic question of how do we “deal” with them? I’m not sure we can. Look at Israel and Palestine. How many times has Israel agreed to pretty much everything they wanted only to have them refuse to make the deal? I’m not sure we can “deal” with the radical Moslems at all. Whats in it for them? Nothing I can see.
Brian, I am describing the situation that drives people to follow these sorts of people. I am not defending any of that but I am saying that you must understand the problem before you can formulate a solution.
I have a proposal: the US should actually promote the things through foreign policy that we say we believe in. We should support freedom and democracy. We should be more open, that is to keep fewer secrets. And we should stop having a foreign policy that we tout vocally while at the same time running a secret foreign policy that runs exactly counter to our stated policy.
It took a very long time for the current state of affairs to develop within Islam; it will take a long time to turn it around.
Much of what is going on today can be traced back to the goals of the Muslim Brotherhood in the 50’s. But also it can be traced to our support of the House of Saud, and a whole host of characters that were tied to the Cold War in one way or the other, Saddam Hussein, the Shah, Gulbaddin Hekmatyar and Pakistan.
Let’s consider Pakistan for a moment. During the Cold War India was a Non-aligned nation. We wanted everyone to line up on our side and since India wanted to remain outside of our sphere we considered them to be a threat. We propped up Pakistan with it’s secret service the ISI and a whole string of tyrannical leaders who enriched themselves at the expense of the people. The ISI supported numerous terrorist groups, some of whom we supported, some of whom we did not. Pakistan developed atomic weapons with very little discouragement from the US. Now as we start to become more friendly with India Pakistan has become more nervous. And guess what? We have an ally in Afghanistan who we can’t be sure is working with us or against us. They are supporting radical clerics and their madrassas that spawn more radicals.
The CIA itself has funded some of these very people who are creating more radical fundamentalists.
I could go right through a series of countries like this, Iraq, Iran, Syria. How many Muslims have died because of our unquenchable thirst for oil and desire for hegemony? How many secret programs have we funded like Iran Contra?
And I haven’t yet mentioned Israel. The situation between Israel and the Palestinians is a major sore point in the Islamic world. Think of how we use our veto in the UN.
Then we have people question “why do they hate us?” I’ll tell you why; because we said one thing to these people and then we did the exact opposite. Eventually when you keep doing that you will develop enemies.
One more fundamental problem in the Muslim world. Where once it was a center of scholarship it is now largely a poor and uneducated backwater. When the level of education increases the level of despair and violence will decrease.
Also this is really hard in that we are dealing with western secular governments trying to reach out to people of faith for political reasons in this case Muslims.
Just using introspection a little I am not sure that can really work, I know that as a slightly conservative Christian how I would feel about some secular government trying to talk to me about my faith and how I should do things one way or the other? I think western and eastern Christians need to be involved in this and not just the usual suspects, but conservative Christians need to talk to conservative Muslims about differences and commonalities and how we can live at peace with each other which I do think both traditions demand.
This is a good topic though.
khl says,
“We should support freedom and democracy. We should be more open, that is to keep fewer secrets.”
Obama was your poster boy for this. Hope, Freedom, Change.
There won’t be another candidate so inline with your proposal for quite sometime.
Meanwhile, we better come up with a better solution, cause this ain’t workin.
JDM,
Yes, I voted for Obama, but don’t put him on me. I wanted someone more liberal. But it is fair to bring him into this because the Muslim world was elated at Obama’s election. They felt that finally there would be someone in the Whitehouse who might give them a fair shake. At least he has shown some respect but there is a long way to go in finding common ground.
On the other hand, Americans must recognize that out of about 1 billion Muslims in the world the number of radicals is fairly small. Of course, it isn’t all America’s problem either but we must find a way out of the dead end we are in because right now we are talking about radical Islam but in a few years we could be talking about radical Islam along with radical Africa. The real problem is poverty, especially the poverty of people who have been thrown into poverty by outsiders who grow rich on their resources.
Bret is correct in that the British and French controlled most of the Islamic world in the colonial era. But just as we did in Viet Nam we stepped in to be the bad guy when the European power had had enough. Why are we so stupid? We could have been the good guys.
Let’s try this on for size. The issue is and isn’t about religion.
It about religion because some/most people make it an issue. Essentially, what you have is people insisting they know something when they don’t know. Religion is about what people believe, not what they know. To disagree with them or to believe otherwise is viewed by them as you calling them stupid and nobody likes to be called stupid, especially when they fear you might be right. In defense, they think you are stupid because you don’t believe as they do.
It isn’t about religion in every sense of the word. For the fundamentalists, be they Christian, Muslim or anything else, the issue is really about culture. Western culture is the enemy of all fundamentalists regardless of their stated religion because Western culture focuses on the here and now. Some call this secularism.
Western culture is hated for a very simple reason. Envy. The envious person thinks it’s not fair that they don’t have it as good as someone else, especially if they view that person as undeserving because they are sinners, heathens, infidels. “I’m a good person,” they say. “I should have it better.” And their religious leaders agree with them, telling them, “God will make it better for you in the next life.” Thus, the stage is set for conflict.
I’m sorry to say but as things now stand, religion is the problem. Yes it is true – all religions talk about peace, brotherhood and love. But on whose terms? And the problem becomes unholy when men use religion to gain power over people. They play upon the fears of what happens after you die. Pain and suffering in this life is sold as stepping stones to an eternal life of bliss. How do you argue with a belief like that? I don’t think you can.
What to do?
For now I think our best course of action is to stop sticking our noses into other peoples business. We can do business with them but that should be it. We should make it clear to them that they should do the same with regard to us. If they don’t want to live like Westerners, then don’t come live here.
It really burns me up when I see an American woman in a Muslim country putting something on her head to keep the Muslims happy. But when they come here, they want to continue to dress the way they are expected to dress in their country. Fair is fair. When in Rome, do as the Romans do. When in the US, dress and behave as Americans do.
We are asked to understand them while they see no reason to understand us.
So we should stay out of their business (except for the trade they and we want) and they should stay out of ours.
Comments like, “it burns me up” because “they want to continue to dress the way they are expected to dress in their country” makes one wonder.
The attire of a person _ indeed to some even a lack of it _ is a form of expression, the freedom of which is hailed as one of the American ideal. The patriots think that bit of Americanism should be theirs alone.
The newcomers are used to being discriminated against, but it is disheartening to know that it is so because of their belief in the afterlife.
The “problem”, if it all one exists here, may be the opposite belief that this life is it, and that there shall be no accountability of deeds. In death, both an evildoer and a saintly man are equal. In life, therefore, anything one can get away with, one may commit with a sense of impunity. Who will know, God? What’s He going to do about it, and when, after I am dead?
The zeal and enthusiasm about the afterlife of the new Americans may be an asset, not a problem!
Good point Pete, but it needs a little massaging. It’s not religion so much as power IMO. Religion is a way to power in some cultures.
Fair is fair, true. But you don’t get fair play from people who cook children and serve them to their families as a way to induce co-operation.
I think it is about religion and part of the problem is that Western secular thought can’t grasp what people of faith are thinking and what their motivations are they keep trying to put their own straight jacket of thought on motivations of people who have a true faith in God.
Al-Qaeda may certainly attract oppressed Muslims, but Al-Qaeda itself is led by wealthy men, the hijackers were upper class Saudi men who believed so fervently in what they were doing that they were willing to kill and commit suicide for what they thought as the calling of their God. It was not about money or power for them, they had those things, it was about the afterlife and service to God (in their view obviously I disagree). Money and power are of this world and will die with this world, people who have true faith in God know that this world is passing away and are interested mainly in serving the eternal and may not respond to materialistic viewpoints.
The problem that we have is how to engage a religious faith without trying to change that faith and to do it with respect.
It would take forever to try to address all the points Munir Munshey seems to be trying to make. But I’ll try to keep it short.
Munshey says, “The “problem”, if it all one exists here, may be the opposite belief that this life is it, and that there shall be no accountability of deeds. ”
Civil secular doesn’t allow too many people to get away with much of anything. If you actually believe all the books get balanced in an afterlife, why should that matter? Why should there be any religious law that seeks punishment in both this life and an afterlife? Are’nt the punishments and rewards given in an afterlife sufficient?
I don’t care what any person’s religious beliefs are, so long as they don’t try to force me to live according to their beliefs. If Muslim women are willing to be subjected by men under their religious beliefs, so be it. It’s their life and their problem.
mervel – a true faith in God? One person’s faith is truer than another’s? Faith is faith. It is what you believe and is often more about what you hope is true.
I see no reason to respect someone’s faith or belief but neither do I disrespect what they believe. What I do ask, why is why is it so difficult to expect the same neutrality for the other, whomever the other might be, be they of another faith or no faith at all?
Being an American of the Catholic faith, I take comfort from the fact that our forefathers had the good sense to follow the words of Jesus when he said, “Give to Cesare the things that are Cesare’s and to God the things that are God’s.”
How about that! Jesus as a true blue secularist advocating the separation between religion and government!
Pete says:
“If they don’t want to live like Westerners, then don’t come live here.
It really burns me up when I see an American woman in a Muslim country putting something on her head to keep the Muslims happy.”
It seems to me there is a profound misunderstanding between the west and the Islamic world. First let me describe the Islamic world. Muslims in habit every populated continent and virtually every country. They come in all shapes, sizes, colors, sexes. You can’t even tell that many of them are Muslim just by looking at them (that is a joke, folks).
So what has been said here in large part, I believe has been limited to only Middle Easterners and possible Central and South Asians.
Contrary to popular belief (and with the exception of Saudi Arabia which is a special case) in most Muslim countries western women are not obliged to follow any local custom though if people wish to be polite and respectful women will often wear a scarf in public and certainly when visiting a Mosque. In most Muslim countries non-muslim women are treated by Muslims as ritually male. I don’t know why so many westerners are offended by being polite.
Many problems result from a lack of understanding between cultures. Let me give a couple of examples. In America we consider it polite to look each other in the eye. In many non-western countries staring into another persons eye is considered an aggressive or sexual act, it is terribly impolite.
Another example: here at a dinner party if we are served tea we would consider it polite to finish the cup. In other countries if you are served tea and you finish it you will be served more. The way that you indicate you are finished is to leave half a cup. That shows that you are sated.
A little politeness and understanding could go a long way, religion or not.
Oh yes as a Christian and a Catholic I also take great comfort in our religious protections.
But I think your comment about Caesar is instructive for this discussion. Cesare may not be the right group to engage the Muslim faith what does Cesare know about these matters?
Once again the disparaging comment “If Muslim women are willing to be subjected by men”. If religiosity was an affliction as Mark Twain seemed to think, _ “A thorough perusal of the bible is the cure for Christianity” _ it would afflict both genders. If women choose revealing clothing, it may not be because their mates made them.
Assumption it is that all women who cover up are being forced into it. Arrogance is convincing: what we practice is the norm; those who deviate from it are the deviants. We concede the right to Gays to deviate from the “normal” sexual behavior, but women should definitely not cover up. Women are exhibitionists, so if they do cover up, it must be their mates who keep them from displaying their bodies. Isn’t that right?
My friend thinks that “Civil secular doesn’t allow too many people to get away with anything”. Not true of course, but even if it was it does not trump the argument that justice demands there be an afterlife. For that argument to be valid there does not have to be chaos in this life.
These women believe that this life is a test. Not that there are tests in this life, but that life itself is a test. This life is merely an examination hall. One enters it through the door marked “birth” and leaves through one marked “death”. Compared to eternity, time here passes rather quickly. Rewards in the afterlife are not just sufficient, they are irrevocable and irreversible, and need to be earned before death.
Women who believe in the above might easily change their perspective on life, and may begin earning credits for the life to come. The piece of cloth on their head might merely be a symbol of their resolve.
Their effort may come to waste, if it turns out that there exists after this life, no afterlife. Yet, their beliefs are neither illegal, nor illogical, and may produce positive results even if they lived in a “civil secular” where no crook escaped punishment, and no innocent ever went to the gallows.
It isn’t easy to punch a hole in their logic. Nobody can produce evidence to definitely disprove their faith. Who will be surprised after death? Who knows!
Exactly the western secular mindset cannot often fathom that this may actually be true and that real people actually base their life on this Truth.
Instead I think we kind of get a denigration that if you really do believe in God as a true literal being which He is and have a relationship with this being; then you must be slightly tribal or crazy or less advanced, thus they often miss the whole point. Stephen Carter wrote an excellent book some time ago called “The C ulture of Disbelief” he simply points out how our culture does denigrate all religious faith. Most of us should read Sayyid Qutb for a good view of how western culture is seen by many devout Muslims. The Muslim Brotherhood is not a small group.
I just think we are missing out when we want to put religious devotion in a box for the devout it can’t be done.
This line ” justice demands there be an afterlife” from Munshey sums up one of the problems we humans have. We tend to think everything is about us. This planet, this solar system, this galaxy and this universe was created just for us. Nothing matters but us. We want to believe and say we believe, all of creation was created just for us. It’s a stage, a prop and all the plants and animals were created just for us.
Let me tell you what I really believe. I fully realize I don’t know but this is what I believe.
I believe God by any name is the infinite and eternal creator. I believe the best description of God comes from the Old Testament where God replies to the question “Who are you?” by saying “I am Who am.”
I believe this universe is but the latest universe of an infinite number of universes that came before it and the start of an infinite number of universes that will come after it. Creation without beginning and creation without an ending.
What we need to do is to stop being so full of ourselves. A little humility would be nice.
For us to think we know what God wants is to presume we know God when we have a hard time understanding ourselves. We are less than fleas when compared to the infinite and eternal creator God. We are even under some form of excessive self worth when we think we can offend God or go against the will of God.
Maybe there is a life after death. I like most like to think there is. But couldn’t we be thankful for the life we do have without demanding something more and something better?
It often seems to me that we think God didn’t do a very good job with this creation. We always want to fix things. We are never satisfied with what has been given. In a sense, we keep committing the Original Sin which basically was acting as though God didn’t give us enough so let’s take what wasn’t freely given.
Religious devotion? Yes, by all means love God with your whole heart and soul, and love others as you should love and be thankful for yourself. Forgive without seeking justice because justice is deaf, dumb and blind, and doesn’t care about humans. It cares only about the law.
Peter if as you said you are a Catholic you believe what the Apostles Creed says about exactly who the creator is and who our Savior is; you stand up at Mass and say this is what I believe, when you take communion you are claiming that is what you believe; you are saying I am in communion with this Church. So yes we have some specific beliefs about God and yes you are correct we need to have humility and I agree with much of the rest of what you are saying.
But of course God has given us eternal life and yes justice itself is played out in this eternal life we don’t decide on that justice God decides. There is certainly not justice in this world and God has told us there would not be it is a fallen world. But God has indeed told us how we are to live and who He is. Of course I am being totally parochial here and I know that many don’t believe much of what I just said, but I just think that if we are going to speak to Muslims about their faith and the common points, we need to be clear about what we believe as Christians. We have much in common with Muslims and our Pope has spoken of this vast area of agreement I have much much more in common with a conservative Muslim than I do a secular materialist.
So a serious political question has devolved to a discussion on religion. It isn’t about religion, people.
A few closing thoughts.
Sadly, religion and politics are often served up as a peanut butter and jelly sandwich we are expected to eat. The same might be said of what we like to call culture.
In this mix, the rights of a person to be an individual person are often suppressed to the point where the individual doesn’t even realize their rights are being suppressed.
How is this accomplished? Very easily because every person, while being an individual, feels safer in being part of a group. This desire to belong often results in the individual “going along with the crowd,” be that crowd a religion, a political party or a culture of this or that.
Politicians like to say, “My fellow Americans,” as though we all thought whatever it is they want us to think. They hope we respond as though we were “their fellow sheep.”
The same holds true for religions and cultural groups such as the black community or the gay community.
It’s all about control. Someone, some group, some religion or political party wants to control the horizontal and the vertical of what we think. They know better, so they imply, and we should agree with them.
Going back to Brian’s original question, how many boots? Given the way things are in that part of the world probably a lot of boots.
Let’s look at what has worked effectively elsewhere. We have had to have a strong military presence in areas where things are much less volatile. For example we have large military bases and troop presence in parts of Europe and the Pacific. I would think that a stronger presence will be required in the Middle East for many decades to come.
There are elements in this part of the world that have no interest in anything other than a fight. There is only one way to deal with these folks. You have two simple choices. Pull out and try and negotiate with those that will never listen or two stay nearby so you can deal with them when they get out of hand. No one likes to fight but sometimes there is no alternative. If we can’t afford this we better figure out a way that we can or we will be in serious trouble moving forward. Just like with the original conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan we have tried to deal with this with far too few troops at the outset, now we are making the same mistake with the follow through. This is no longer a world with walls, or one where we are protected by oceans, we have to deal with problems where they are. This has nothing to do with religion.
It is always about religion for those people who believe God is the most important thing in their life, how could it not?
“Faced with declining economies and limited opportunity, many Muslims have fallen back on a version of faith which is very nearly Medieval in its fundamentalism.”
I know what you mean by this statement but it does not take into account that some of the most conservative and yes radical Muslims live in England and Germany and are actually much better off than many other Muslims around the Globe. For these people, these young men in particular I don’t think their more conservative Islam is about limited opportunity it is something else entirely.
Paul, that’s where you’re wrong. It isn’t about boots but nobody seems to understand that. It is about bad foreign policy over a very long time creating enemies where we had none.