Saturday, October 22, 2005

The New Foreign Affairs

The new issue of Foreign Affairs has arrived and it has a number of interesting articles, none more so than Zayno Baran's piece on the threat posed by Islamist groups like Hizb-ut-Tahrir.
HT is not itself a terrorist organization, but it can usefully be thought of as a conveyor belt for terrorists. It indoctrinates individuals with radical ideology, priming them for recruitment by more extreme organizations where they can take part in actual operations. By combining fascist rhetoric, Leninist strategy, and Western sloganeering with Wahhabi theology, HT has made itself into a very real and potent threat that is extremely difficult for liberal societies to counter.

HT's ideology and theology, which are derived from those of other radical Islamist groups, are simplified to make them more accessible to the masses. Whereas many other Islamist groups insist that their particular religious interpretation is the only valid one or are obsessed with a single issue, such as Israel or Kashmir, HT keeps its focus on the broader goal of uniting all Muslims under the Islamist banner and thus emphasizes issues of more general concern, such as the clash of civilizations or the injustices suffered by Muslims worldwide. Other radical Islamists therefore tend to see the group not as a competitor but as an ally and often use HT's concepts and literature (readily available on the Internet) to rally their own supporters.

HT's greatest achievement to date is that it has shifted the terms of debate within the Muslim world. Until a few years ago, most Islamist groups considered the notion of establishing a new caliphate a utopian goal. Now, an increasing number of people consider it a serious objective. And after decades of stressing the existence and unity of a global Islamic community (umma), HT can take pride in the growing feeling among Muslims that their primary identity stems from, and their primary loyalty is owed to, their religion rather than their race, ethnicity, or nationality.
There's other interesting stuff, too, on Iraq and Vietnam by Melvin Laird (did he lose Vietnam, or was it Rumsfeld? or Cheney?); and on Uzbekistan's Karshi-Khanabad airbase by John Cooley (he believes dictators are unreliable partners for the US Air Force and democractically elected rulers are more dependable...like Franco and Schroeder, maybe?). Another article that's worth reading is a book review by John M. Owen of a new study showing that emerging democracies are very likely to go to war, subhead: Who Says Democracies Don't Fight?.

Something for everyone in this issue of Foreign Affairs...and the best part of all is the REALLY BIG PRINT for ageing eyes.