Posted by
Cary Wesberry on Saturday, March 22, 2008 6:34:38 PM
3. Non-Interventionism: U.S. Foreign Policy to Blame for Islamist Terrorism
3.1. Occidentalism and Non-Interventionists - Islamist Terrorism as a Reaction to U.S. Foreign Policy
In his book "Marching Toward Hell", Mr. Scheuer mocks those concerned about Islamism as "Cold Warriors" (p. 148), while adopting a Cold War mentality towards Islamism himself. In Mr. Scheuer's efforts to promote Non-Interventionism, his argument is that Islamist terrorism is exclusively a reaction to U.S. foreign policy. Since logical contortion is inconsequential to the larger Non-Interventionist cause of preventing America from recognizing an enemy, Mr. Scheuer does not care that such reactive thinking is indeed a Cold War mentality itself. Contradictions don't matter to the Non-Interventionist ideologue.
The term "occidentalism" is defined as "usually refer[ring] to stereotyped and sometimes dehumanizing views on the so-called Western world, including Europe, the United States, and Australia." In the case of the Non-Interventionist arguments, occidentalism refers to the views that western ideas such as western democracy, pluralism, and secularism are somehow destructive forces in the larger world, as viewed by non-western eyes.
So to understand Mr. Scheuer's Non-Interventionist views on American foreign policy, Mr. Scheuer's occidentalist views on democracy, secularism, and pluralism must also be understood. Non-Interventionist Mr. Scheuer echoes Islamist Osama Bin Laden in regards to his contempt for democracy. As previously stated, in Mr. Scheuer's book "Marching Toward Hell", he mocks offering democracy to Muslims as nothing more than a pointless effort "so Mrs. Muhammad can vote, vamp, and abort" (p. 254), and sees Islamist Bin Laden as "urging Muslims to liberate themselves from tyranny in order to attain life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in terms that are compatible with their Islamic faith" (p. 164). In addition, Mr. Scheuer decries the value of secularism as well, stating "in the Muslim world" (p. 139) that Muslims "regard secularism as inherently inferior to their way of life and an affront to their faith, indeed, as fighting words". (Mr. Scheuer sees no "hubris" himself in his speaking on behalf of "the Muslim world" or for all Muslims on this.) Moreover, Mr. Scheuer states that "[o]nly among the U.S. governing elite is multiculturalism an attainable goal" (p. 140).
With this occidentalist viewpoint, Mr. Scheuer provides a detailed argument that Islamist terrorism is the result of American foreign policy. In "Marching Toward Hell", Mr. Scheuer calls attention to six areas of "indictments" by Islamists regarding America's foreign policy (p. 149-150) that he insists on Americans keep "squarely in view":
"1. The U.S. military and civilian presence in the Arab Peninsula"
"2. Unqualified U.S. support for Israel"
"3. U.S. support for states oppressing Muslims, especially China, India, and Russia"
"4. U.S. exploitation of Muslim oil and suppression of its price"
"5. U.S. military presence in the Islamic world - Arabian Peninsula, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc."
"6. U.S. support, protection, and funding of Arab police states".
The basic thesis of Mr. Scheuer's Non-Interventionist argument is that if America surrenders to Osama Bin Laden's demands on these "indictments", it will be spared from further Islamist terrorism. With such an argument, it is imperative for Mr. Scheuer to first completely deny the existence of any Islamist ideology or objectives, outside of a reaction to U.S. foreign policy, because the obvious question would be asked - what if the U.S. agreed to act on such "indictments", and Islamist terrorism continued and/or increased? Such occidentalist, Cold War thinking by Mr. Scheuer is essential to make such his Non-Interventionist argument sound plausible.
(I address each of these "indictments" in part 3.4.)
Mr. Sageman's book "Leaderless Jihad" makes a similar, although far less sweeping Non-Interventionist argument, that Islamist terrorism is the reaction of U.S. foreign policy, by ignoring the impact of Islamism on actual terrorist actions (p. 40), demanding that Americans lose their "sense of moral outrage" against Islamist actions, and insisting on "[w]ithdrawl from Iraq is a necessary condition for diminishing the sense of moral outrage that Muslims feel" (pp. 154-155).
This excerpt is from Part II of III in Jeffrey Imm's series at Family Security Matters. Read the whole thing by following the link above. I just heard an interview with Mr. Scheuer, author of "Marching Towards Hell, on Dennis Prager's podcast which you can listen to right here at Townhall.com. The author of this column is quite correct; Scheuer is a non-interventional theorist as intellectual as they come. Scheuer rationalizes the threat of Islam and, almost brilliant in his dangerously wrong conclusions, blames the foreign policy of the United States for the actions of our enemies in Islam who are using their religion to conquer the world.
I'm in near amazement every single time I see or hear of such an intelligent person who will come-up with anything from the most sophisticated to the downright stupidest of reasons to explain away the reality of Islam and its goals. Whatever it takes to not have to face the truth and act upon it. There's a group of people who seem to find it easier to say, "It must be us" rather than take action against Islamic terror. I admit it's a frigtening truth, hard to accept for many, and even harder to deal with appropriately. While sometimes well-intentioned, these misguided individuals are dangerous to our country and the civilized world in which they live.
What can you do about it? Don't believe the non-interventionalists and the isolationists. Support those who fight Islam, support our military, and support leaders who understand that only by facing our enemies and taking action will we achieve victory and remain free.