Islamic Civilization is Dying

A briefing by David P. Goldman
November 15, 2011

David P. Goldman is best known for his "Spengler" column at Asia Times Online, which draws a million readers a month. He headed global bond research for Bank of America as well as other Wall Street research groups. Trained in music theory as well as economics at City University of New York and the London School of Economics respectively, he has written extensively on music, mathematics, religion, and the cultural heritage of the West, in Forbes, The Tablet, First Things, and Pajamas Media. His "Ankara's 'Economic Miracle' Collapses" is featured in the Winter 2012Middle East Quarterly.
Mr. Goldman opened his talk by highlighting the widespread disappointment with the deterioration of the "Arab Spring" into an Islamist resurgence. He cautioned that the U.S. must learn to live with instability, as nothing in its power would enable it to stabilize the Middle East, yet noted that this was not necessarily the end of the world; Ronald Reagan was able to exploit it for the national interest in the case of the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s.
Rather than focus on Islamism and its conflict with modernity as chief culprit for this instability, Mr. Goldman pointed to the massive decline in Muslim birthrates attending the growing education of women. Iranian women, for example, used to bear 7 children on average; now the rate has fallen to 1.5, with the most highly educated subgroup approaching a fertility rate of 1.0. Such an inverted population pyramid means that fewer and fewer young people will be forced to support a growing but aging populace. This is not some pipe dream of Western demographers; President Ahmadinejad himself has called the decision by Iranian youth not to have children an act of genocide against the Iranian nation.
Turkey, which also boasts a high literacy rate, including among its women, has seen the fertility rate among ethnic Turks declining to 1.5 children per woman. At the same time, Turkey's restive Kurdish population is now some 20% of the citizenry, with Kurdish women averaging 4.5 children. If this trend continues, and there seems to be no reason it will not, the inverting Turkish population pyramid will be overwhelmed by the "normal" Kurdish one, in essence creating a Kurdistan within the borders of Turkey, a situation fraught with the potential for intensified conflict.
The population decline of these two Muslim countries is to be contrasted with Egypt with its 45% illiteracy rate, and where two thirds of the population lives in rural areas relatively untouched by education or opportunities for women. Combine Egypt's burgeoning population with its diploma mill universities (producing essentially unemployable graduates), its reliance on imports for half its caloric consumption, and its drawn-down of hard currency reserves and one has what can be viewed as a "perfect storm" for upheaval and potential chaos.
Besides bringing the Muslim Brotherhood to power, Tahrir Square has decimated the tourist industry; the camels upon which vacationers used to ride around the pyramids are now being slaughtered for meat. There has been massive capitol flight and the generals seem to be stealing everything not nailed down. Egypt is now facing economic collapse and is in danger of becoming another Somalia, filled with starving people.
Does the impending collapse of the nation-states of the Middle East ruled by plutocrats, dictators and mullahs offer an opportunity for the West? Unfortunately not, according to Goldman.
The hard truth is that countries that feel they have no future will take extreme steps because they have nothing to lose. Tehran does not behave rationally, at least not in the Western sense, and poses an existential threat to Israel; it will use its nuclear weapons once they are developed.
Goldman's advice then is to bomb Iran and take out its nuclear capability, despite the collateral damage that will likely ensue. In countries roiled by the Arab uprisings which are slipping into Islamist hands, hostile to U.S. interests, American policy should be to destabilize them through various measures.
Related Topics:  Islam  |  David P. Goldman This text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete information provided about its author, date, place of publication, and original URL.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------6) Barack Obama's Middle East Miscalculation
In Egypt, we are witnessing the democratic election of a dictatorship
By MORTIMER B. ZUCKERMAN

 
A little-noticed event gives a grim insight into what is really happening in the Middle East. The euphoria of the "Arab Spring," the instant Twitter-style transition from dictatorship to democracy, is seen for what it is: an illusion. Yes, the dictatorship of one kind has gone, but democracy in the sense we understand it is, shall we say, somewhat delayed.
There have been any number of disappointments. The event that should give us pause about the underlying forces was obscured by the Christmas holiday. In mid-December, violent Islamic Salafist extremists burned down Cairo's famous scientific Institute d'Egypte, established by Napoleon in the late 18th century during a French invasion. The institute housed some 200,000 original and rare books, maps, archaeological objects, and rare nature studies from Egypt and the Middle East, the result of generations of work by researchers, mostly Western scholars. Zein Abdel-Hady, who runs Egypt's main library, remarked, "This is equal to the burning of Galileo's books."
The Salafists, who hate all things Western, no doubt saw their vandalism as an act of defiance against the West, destroying the precious documents of historical Egypt that were so intimately connected to the West. They are either too ignorant and/or too careless to realize that they were destroying their own heritage from Pharaonic Egypt.
Last year in the Middle East was the most dramatic it has known for many. The series of uprisings in Egypt were marked by the emergence of Islamic forces from years of suppression. They scored dramatic political gains in Tunisia and Libya, too. Leaders who perceived themselves as invincible fell, one after the other, the most dramatic being the end of the rule of Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak.
The United States could not decide whether to support a regime that was disagreeable, but yet a strategic ally, or abandon it because it ignored fundamental American values like freedom and democracy (which means not just fair elections and majority rule, but respect for the rule of law, equal rights for women, tolerance of minorities, and freedom of expression). Alas, with the collapse of the Mubarak regime, the cause of freedom in Egypt is set back since, in the battle between the army and the conservative Islamic extreme, the Islamic bloc won by an overwhelming majority, with first place taken by the Muslim Brotherhood and second place grabbed by the Salafi extremists. By the time the elections are finished, there is likely to be at least a two thirds majority for an Islamist constitution. What we are witnessing is a democratic election of a dictatorship.
The White House completely miscalculated in Egypt, as it did in Gaza. It seemed only to care for the mechanics of the electoral process rather than the meaning of the results. Washington vacillated on who its Egyptian allies really are. We had long shared with the Egyptian military understandings on national security, ours with an eye to maintaining peace in the region. That relationship is now pretty much lost.
Americans, in their perennial innocence, have demanded that the generals turn over power to the civilians whomever they may be, just as they did to the Persian shah, just as they did after Israel's pullout from Gaza when they hadn't a clue about the danger posed by Hamas. Our ingenuous attitude has been tantamount to handing over Egypt on a silver platter to the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists, who ironically are coming into power as democrats.
Their new foreign policy will include opening the blockaded border with Gaza, ending normal relations with Israel, and opening them with Hamas and Iran in such a way as to alter the balance of power in the region against U.S. interests. Indeed, one of the few things that unites the political parties in Egypt is an anti-Western foreign policy. Cairo has already allowed Iran's warships to transit the Suez Canal; failed to protect pipelines supplying energy to Israel and Jordan; endorsed the union of Hamas and Fatah; and hosted conferences in support of "the resistance," that is, terrorism.
The United States forgot the lessons of Iraq, namely, that it is easier to remove an Arab-state dictator by military means than it is to alter the internal balance of power and create a solid foundation for human rights. Had it kept the Iraq experience in mind, the Obama administration would have thought a lot harder and ensured that there was a foundation for genuine democracy in Egypt before demanding Mubarak's immediate resignation.
The Islamic groups can credit their success to better resources and organization, but they also have deep ties with Egypt's religiously rooted public. Their work with social and economic welfare programs during the country's long history of economic hardship gave them wide popularity among the illiterate poor. But as Robert Satloff, the executive director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, has put it, "The Brotherhood is not, as some suggest, simply an Egyptian version of the March of Dimes—that is, a social welfare organization whose goals are fundamentally humanitarian." It is a "profoundly political organization," he added, that seeks to reorder Egyptian society along Islamist lines and "transform Egypt into a very different place." As the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood put it in a sermon, "Arab and Muslim regimes are betraying their people by failing to confront the Muslims' real enemies, not only Israel but also the United States." The sermon was titled: "The U.S. is now experiencing the beginning of its end."
In six months a new president of Egypt will be elected. This is important because the presidency has long been the supreme locus of power. After the presidential election, which is supposed to occur before June, authority will pass to the newly elected leadership, and at that stage, the army is supposed to exit. The army's leaders seemingly intend to continue to play a central role, but this may lead to a clash between the army and the Islamic bloc.
The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) is doing everything in its power to avoid transferring full control to civilian hands in order to retain the dominant status of the army, whatever may emerge. But army leaders are now seen as trying to steal the achievements of the revolution—and for the worst reasons, namely, their corrupt control of economic assets and the perks they have accumulated over the decades.
This does not bode well for America and its policy of deposing dictators and replacing them with "democratic regimes." As collateral damage, Saudi Arabia, once America's closest ally in the Middle East, no longer sees the United States as reliable, and the Saudi king's willingness to listen to the Obama administration has evaporated.
The new regime in Egypt will face challenges. For one, it will have to stabilize the economy. For that, experts say, it will need tourism; maritime traffic through the Suez Canal; gas sales to neighbors; and Western investment, not to mention American economic and military aid. These probably are the main barriers to a renewed confrontation with Israel, for this vital aid would then be stopped.
Democracy in Egypt without the Muslim Brotherhood may be impossible, but so is democracy under its leadership. It is one thing for the Muslim Brotherhood to run in an election; it's another to imagine what they will do if they gain power, for the Islamists will replace secular dictatorship with Islamic dictatorship, leaving only the army to prevent the establishment of an Islamic state. The young men and women of Tahrir Square toppled the regime. Then along came a second wave, the Muslim Brotherhood, whose founder, Hassan al-Banna, once declared, "It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated." Now we will see how the Egyptian military faces its dilemma. If it holds fire, it will seal its fate, and the Islamic forces will take over by default. If army leaders decide to open fire, they will be classified as murderous dictators.
Of course, images of Mubarak on a hospital gurney in a metal cage in a Cairo courthouse, with the Robes­pierran prosecutor now demanding the death sentence, could provoke the SCAF to reconsider its eagerness to return to the barracks and hand power to the new Islamic leadership.
The West faces a dilemma: If it confronts the Islamists, it will confirm the Brotherhood's claim that the West is conspiring to undermine the religious identity of the Muslim world. If it does not, it will ignore the forces within Arab society that yearn for genuine democracy and Western forms of government. At the very least, the United States should withhold economic or diplomatic support to Arab states that follow the path of political Islam. Cairo will now be painted in Islamic colors, but this is not a clash between the secular and the religious. It is a clash between freedom and tyranny.

6a)Subject: WESTERN MEDIA TAKE CUE IN MIDEAST COVERAGE FROM DR. PANGLOSS AND CHARLIE BROWN

The Mideast is in turmoil.  The Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafi party win big in Egyptian elections, capturing 70 percent of parliamentary seats.  Meanwhile, Khaled Meshal, the Damascus-based supreme leader of Hamas wants to step down, as his staff flees the mayhem in Syria.

What to make of all this?

All very disturbing to Western values and interests?  Should liberal Egyptians, trounced at the polls, worry about their future under Islamist rule?  Does the Arab Spring bode well for Iranian-backed terrorist outfits like Hezbollah and Hamas?  Is the region apt to be plunged into a new era of medieval darkness?

Not to worry, according to the general tenet of Western media reporting.  There are lots of silver linings.   Harsh evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, mainstream media correspondents insist that the Arab Spring is changing the likes of the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, turning them into movements the West can do business with.  So Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reaches out to the Muslim Brotherhood in search of reassurance, which the Brothers are only too happy to supply.

Here’s one example among many of media readiness to portray ascendant Islamist groups in roseate hues – an Associated Press dispatch run by the Washington Post on Jan. 22 on Meshal’s announcement that he’s ready to step down as head of Hamas. (World Digest, page A12).

  Does the AP remind its readers that Hamas is a terrorist group dedicated to the destruction of Israel and unalterably opposed to a two-state solution, that it therefore opposes any peace talks with Israel?  No way.  The AP instead sees an opening for a more peaceful, less unbending Hamas.  Meshal, according to the AP, hasn’t headed a terrorist outfit. The article starts by describing Hamas as a “political movement.”  The AP also postulates that Hamas faces “far-reaching decisions on whether to stay the course of militancy or to shift to a more moderate path.”  Never mind that Hamas leaders keep insisting that they’ll never bend in their pursuit of a single state from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, or in their reliance on “resistance” (read terrorism) to achieve this objective.

The AP, however undaunted by such evidence, conjectures that Meshal still might retain his leadership post, which would be a “boost for his more pragmatic line.”  This is another favorite media-propagated myth that Hamas is not a single, unified movement under Meshal’s supreme control, but that he merely heads the political side, untainted by the military side’s terrorist pursuits.

In the same vein, the AP portrays the Muslim Brotherhood as ready to change its spots and, since having won elections in Egypt and Tunisia, fully prepared to govern in pragmatic ways.  As a sign of this supposedly beneficent metamorphosis, the AP reorts that the Brothers have been urging “Hamas to moderate.”

So there you have it – the Brotherhood and Hamas on the cusp of transformation from Islamist militancy to more “pragmatic,” more “moderate” agendas.

Editors of the Washington Post and the AP badly need to ask their Mideast correspondents for some long overdue reality checks when it comes to coverage of the Brotherhood and Hamas.  They seem to suffer from a bad case of journalistic amnesia, forgetting   how Hamas, empowered by its election victory in 2006, unceremonious ousted Fatah and Mahmoud Abbas from Gaza in a brief but violent civil war.  Hamas and the Brotherhood know how to cultivate phony “moderate” images for consumption by gullible media, while biding their time for the right moment to demonstrate and achieve their real goals.

In the meantime, the AP and the Washington Post --- along with other Western media – keep emulating Charlie Brown’s misplaced optimism that next time Lucy is bound to play fair with him and not  yank away the football.

   Voltaire, the 18th Century French philosopher, memorably nailed such illusory tendencies in his great satirical novel, “Candide,” in which one of the characters, Dr. Pangloss, keeps insisting that “all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds “ – even in the face of a terrible earthquake that devastated the Portuguese capital of Lisbon
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7)Scrutinize President Obama’s record
By Patrick B. Pexton, Published: January 20

When President Obama has a bad day, or more specifically, on days when the economic news has been bad, I get a slew of feedback from conservative readers that go like this:

“See, you liberal media nincompoops, this is all your fault, you treated Obama like a saint when he was running in 2007 and 2008 and you didn’t vet him, investigate him, report on him skeptically. You were so fawning (and adoring of his blackness), you missed that he was a (pick your adjective), radical, socialist, Muslim, inexperienced, dangerous, corrupt, weak Chicago politician with no track record of accomplishment, whose only talent is giving speeches.”


Those e-mails usually employ much harsher language, and some are filled with expletives.

If you watched the Republican debate Thursday night, you heard a muted version of this criticism of Obama from Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum. (Although Ron Paul almost never mentioned Obama, he criticized the entire system of government instead.)

Deborah Howell, Post ombudsman from 2005 through 2008, said at the end of her tenure that “some of the conservatives’ complaints about a liberal tilt [at The Post] are valid.”

I won’t quibble with her conclusion. I think she was right. I read all of The Post’s lengthier, meatier stories on Obama published from October 2006 through Election Day 2008. That was about 120 stories, and tens of thousands of words, including David Maraniss’s 10,000-word profile about Obama’s Hawaii years, which I liked.

I think there was way too little coverage of his record in the Illinois Senate and U.S. Senate, for example, with one or two notably good exceptions. But there were hard-hitting stories too, even a very tough one on Michelle Obama’s job at the University of Chicago Medical Center.

And that’s what The Post needs to do in covering his reelection campaign this year: be hard-hitting on his record and provide fresh insight and plenty of context to put the past three rough years into perspective.

More than anything else, Obama campaigned and was elected on the promise of change, of changing politics to something less partisan so that Washington would work better. Did he do that? How hard did he try to work with Republicans? How hard did Republicans try to work with him?

How are his, and Congress’s, choices on the financial crisis and bailouts looking now, three years later? Were banks regulated too much or not enough? Was enough done to ease the mortgage and foreclosure problems? What do nonpartisan economists say about this record?

Obama campaigned on health-care reform, and he got a massive bill passed, most of which will not go into effect until 2013 and beyond. How do experts look at it as implementation gets closer — its potential costs and its benefits?

Obama also campaigned on green technologies, and he used the stimulus bill to tilt government spending toward those objectives. How effective has it been, beyond the Solyndra fiasco? Can we get a better handle on how effective the stimulus bill was, or wasn’t, in creating jobs or keeping economic activity from bottoming out?

In foreign policy, Obama campaigned on getting the Middle East peace process moving again. It hasn’t happened. Why not? Is it his fault, or are changes within Israel and the Middle East more broadly to blame? Has Iran’s drive for nuclear technologies been blunted at all?

Obama campaigned on ending the Iraq war, and he did. He campaigned on doing more in Afghanistan; he did that. He got Osama bin Laden. Under Obama, drones may have killed more Taliban and al-Qaeda terrorists than anything George W. Bush did in eight years of office. But has that stopped terrorism? Has it worsened relations with Pakistan? Has it worked?

Has the image of the United States abroad gotten, as Obama promised, better than it was under Bush? Has Obama’s reaction to the Arab Spring in 2011 been right, including the limited intervention in Libya and the non-intervention in Syria?

How well or badly have his Cabinet secretaries run the government? Has his Race to the Top education initiative worked?

Some of this has been looked at already in Post coverage. But collecting it in one place on the Web would be helpful, as well as looking deeper, now with more hindsight and evidence, at Obama’s record.

Patrick B. Pexton can be reached at 202-334-7582 or at ombudsman@washpost.com. For updates, read the omblog at www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/omblog.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------