Wright In The Times - "Huh?" And "Huh?" Again

Robert Wright explains jihad and the Cold War to the rest of us. First, keying off of the guilty plea of Times Square bomber Shazad, we learn that the attempted bombing was revenge for US exertions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere:

Here is how Shahzad explained his role in the holy war: “It’s a war,” he said. “I am part of that. I am part of the answer of the U.S. terrorizing the Muslim nations and the Muslim people, and on behalf of that, I’m revenging the attacks.”

Now, for a Muslim holy warrior to see his attacks as revenge runs counter to Pipes’s longstanding claim that Islamic holy war is about attack, not counterattack.

...

Now we have Shahzad suggesting roughly the opposite — that the holy war could end if America would stop using military force. He said in court, “Until the hour the U.S. pulls its forces from Iraq and Afghanistan and stops the drone strikes in Somalia and Yemen and in Pakistan and stops the occupation of Muslim lands and stops killing the Muslims and stops reporting the Muslims to its government, we will be attacking U.S., and I plead guilty to that.”

Should we really take this testimony seriously? It does, after all, have an air of self-dramatizing grandstanding. Then again, terrorism is a self-dramatizing, grandstanding business, and there’s no reason to think this particular piece of theater isn’t true to Shahzad’s interior monologue.

Indeed, it tracks the pitch of jihadist recruiters, notably Anwar Awlaki, the American sheik in Yemen who inspired not just Shahzad but the Fort Hood shooter and the thwarted underwear bomber. The core of the pitch is that America is at war with Islam, and the evidence cited includes Shahzad’s litany: Iraq, Afghanistan, drone strikes, etc.

...My point is just that, if you take Shahzad at his word, there’s more cause for hope than if Pipes were right, and Shahzad’s testimony were evidence that jihadists are bent on world conquest.

Yeah, well, it's always something with these jihadists.  All of Shazad's grievances post-date the 9/11 attacks, yet those 9/11 attacks happened.  And they were accompanied by the then-current list of grievances, which included US troops in the holy land of Saudi Arabia and of course the occupation of the West Bank.

Mr. Wright then explains that these long-term misunderstandings of the enemy are part and parcel of American history:

It’s only human nature. Once you decide that some group is your implacable enemy, your mind gets a little warped. Virtually all incoming evidence is thereafter seen as consistent with that model. (In fact, there’s a more specific finding from social psychology that also helps explain Pipes’s world view, as laid out by blogger Dan Drezner in this little video clip.)

This cognitive distortion reared its head in America’s previous cosmic struggle. Just about all cold war historians agree that Americans bought into the “myth of monolithic communism.” Once we decided that the communist menace was a single, vast, implacable force, we failed to appreciate, for example, tensions between Russia and China that in retrospect seem obviously important. We had our model, and we were sticking to it.

Waddya mean "we"?  And what could explain the frequent use of the phrase "the China card", or this contemporaneous reporting of Nixon's balancing of China and the Soviets back in 1972?

Comments

[Danube of Thought]

And they were accompanied by the then-current list of grievances, which included US troops in the holy land of Saudi Arabia and of course the occupation of the West Bank.

It also included the loss of Andalusia, which occurred as the Nina, the Pinta and the Santa Maria were underway. As you say, it's always something with these guys.

[fdcol63]

We won't be serious about defeating the Islamist threat until we start killing the radical imams who preach and promote it.

[LouP]

Credit where credit is due: the Left are the masters of "Opinion (theory) first, rationalization and justification second."

[matt]

the war will stop either when we make the price to continue too high for them of they win.

[Extraneus]

For all the naval gazing of these virtual apologists, if they spent a month or two studying what the Koran actually says, things would be a lot clearer to them.

Here's a brief snippet of a sober summary of Islamic beliefs:

This dual religious and social character of Islam, expressing itself as a religious community commissioned by God to bring its own value system to the world through jihad (holy war or holy struggle).

Muhammad died in 632 AD and through jihad, Islam spread within a century from Spain to India. During the Muslim conquests Jews and Christians were assigned a special status as communities possessing Scriptures and are known to Muslims as "people of the Book" (ahl al-kitab) or dhimmis (protected people). Christians, Jews, and later Hindus and Zoroastrians were allowed religious autonomy, but had to pay a per capita tax called the jizyah. Many people converted to Islam to avoid the jizyah tax. In the 12 century the Muslim mystics, known as Sufis, were primarily responsible for spreading Islam to India, China, Central Asia, Turkey, and sub-Saharan Africa. Islamic traders were responsible (by the 14th century) for extending Islam to Indonesia, Malaya, and China.

Under Islam, land once possessed by Islam, if subsequently lost to an invader, remains land that is holy to Islam. It is especially imperative that such lost lands be restored to the rightful rule of Islam. Historically, of course, such lost lands now lost to Islam include not only Israel but large portions of Southern Europe, Spain and North Africa. Since Allah's will is for the entire world to come under subjection to the rule of Islam, Muslims are known for their zeal in spreading their religion, whether by peaceful means or by the sword.

What's so complicated about that? Why bother having Shazad explain what fundamentalist Muslims believe, when there are many more authorative sources?

[fdcol63]

If you truly believe in a separation of Church and State, then there is a fundamental and inherent conflict with Islam and a tolerance for "sharia" law.

[fdcol63]

And IMHO, this inherent conflict makes Islam incompatible with Western democracies and culture.

[Janet]

Great comments on this thread. Now old Robert Wright needs to resign and let you guys write the columns. Americans would be better informed if you wrote them.

[They're just crazee. Stop bowing, stop bowing, stop bowing!]

What these dhimmis are going to end up doing is reversing the Enlightenment.
==========

[AJB]

People always forget about the GUlf War and the subsequent sanctions against Iraq when discussing pre-9/11 grievances.

Here's a list of links to remind of why people were so angry:
http://freetexthost.com/z2fdxvtgud

[AJB]

I find it odd that some commenters on here keep telling us how afraid we should be of this monolithic entity known as "Islam." I don't understand how referring to one billion human beings as being a collective hivemind bent on taking over the world is going to help anything.

[Rob Crawford]

People always forget about the GUlf War and the subsequent sanctions against Iraq when discussing pre-9/11 grievances.

Ah, yes. Those horrible sanctions.

The same sanctions lefties wanted to impose as the sole response to the invasion of Kuwait. The sanctions which imposed no limits on medical supplies, yet get blamed for Saddam refusing to spend money on medical supplies.

*snort*

[Melinda Romanoff]

Oh, then this spade I'm holding is a diamond?

Thanks for clearing that up.

[Clarice]

"It’s only human nature. Once you decide that some group is your implacable enemy, your mind gets a little warped. Virtually all incoming evidence is thereafter seen as consistent with that model."

Chances are if someone says his aim is to kill you nd he advances toward you with a scimitar clenched between his teeth, screaming ,"Behead the infidel!" and you decide that man means you no harm, you will end up with your head cut off.

Just saying.

There are real threats and only nincompoops, esp educated ones, seem to think it wise and moral to ignore them.

[Danube of Thought]

I don't understand how referring to one billion human beings as being a collective hivemind bent on taking over the world is going to help anything.

I'm not aware of anyone who attributes an identical mindset to all Muslims. It is not at all necessary to do that in order to be very concerned about jihadist violence and the growing Islamification of Europe.

[Danube of Thought]

People always forget about the GUlf War

Is that a reference to the war to liberate Muslim Kuwait from Saddam? With the assistance of, among others, Saudi Arabia?

[narciso]

The thing is Awlaki was galvanized, by the best measures in the early to mid 90s, when
the big issues would have Bosnia and Chechnya, almost every midlevel AQ figure were tied to those first operations, from Zawahiri to KSM and Abu Zubeydah plus the two Mecca twins, and Moussaoui, in large part the Russians were either directly or indirectly through their support for the Serbs tied to
those two campaign, I mean if facts matter, rhetorical question I know

[LouP]

AJB, do yourself a favor and educate yourself on the concept of the Caliphate. Google it. It's one of the most basic objectives of Islam since it was founded.

Do all Muslims actively encourage the establishment of a new Caliphate? I don't think so; but right now it's the dream of AQ, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Saudi brand of Islam, the Iranian brand of Islam, and all of the radical, militant Islamists.

Would many Muslims oppose it? Or not be content if it were established? I doubt it seriously. And that's where your billion Muslims with a collective hivemind come in.

[fdcol63]

We've already seen the horrors that result when we stand by and ignore the rhetoric and actions of a hateful few within a society who were hellbent on world domination.

In 1941, Nazi Germany had just over 90 Million people, but only 8.5 Million were members of the Nazi Party.

No matter how good and non-threatening the 90% majority of Germans may have been, they either enthusiastically supported or tacitly stood by and did nothing to prevent the 10% of militants within their population from committing the aggression, genocide, and other horrors that we saw during WW2.

I see the same thing happening today with the majority of "moderate" Muslims who remain silent while their co-religionists in Islam commit their horrors and brutality against Jews, Christians, Hindus, and even other Muslims.

There should be NO tolerance for that.

[Pofarmer]

This didn't even hardly make the local news. But, a local man was convicted this week(muslim) of funneling over a million dollars to terrorists in Iraq.

[Melinda Romanoff]

fdcol63-

It's written that it must be done, just that 90% don't want to dirty their hands.

And is the same reason that Germany always acts in "Guilt First" mode.

[narciso]

Now this is a story that began unconfortably in my neck of the woods, part of the 1/6 of all stories like this, but end up somewhere
else, in the LUN

[Fenderdeluxe]

Robert Wright? Pretty funny stuff. And while I suppose that his piece is a counter-attack to Pipes' piece in the National Review, but still... wrong is wrong. Wright shows a fundemental misunderstanding of the nature of Salafism, the current conflict within the modern Muslim world on how to get back to "greatness," the return of the caliphate - basically all of the important elements of the conflict that we find ourselves in. Dear Lord, the facts are our there for Mr. Wright to find out about. Read a book for cripes sake! And yeah, I guess we could be more accomodating - if you're a Salafist - but even if we were, the USA will still be seen as the main roadblock in the path of where Salafism wants to go. And that leaves us right where we're at now anyway. But hey, what can you expect? It's the New York Times!

[Fenderdeluxe]

From AJB: "I find it odd that some commenters on here keep telling us how afraid we should be of this monolithic entity known as "Islam."

WADR, this is the stuff that just makes me laugh to no end. First of all nobody is "afraid." We're just realisitic and pragmatic about things, we see things as they actually are and are willing to face up to it. We're adults. And anyone with an ounce of sophistication won't see millions of individuals, Islamic or otherwise, as a monolithc entity. The real toublemakers within "Islam" are a small minority. The problem is that those small numbers cause BIG problems. Things are what they are and there's no sense sugar-coating any of it.

[narciso]

It's a valiant effort, fender, but trying to explain the finer points of Salafi, and Hambali theory to a troll, is like teaching
a pig French