| Submit your comments on this article |
| Olde Tyme Religion |
| Muslim unCivil Wars |
| 2013-06-08 |
| Daniel Pipes of the Middle East Forum (where I am associate fellow) replies this morning to Bret Stephens‘ June 3rd Wall Street Journal column, “The Muslim Civil War: Standing by while the Sunnis and Shiites fight it out invites disaster.” The Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, when the Reagan administration quietly encouraged the two sides to fight themselves to bloody exhaustion, did America no good, Stephens argues: In short, a long intra-Islamic war left nobody safer, wealthier or wiser. Nor did it leave the West morally untainted. The U.S. embraced Saddam Hussein as a counterweight to Iran, and later tried to ply Iran with secret arms in exchange for the release of hostages. Patrolling the Strait of Hormuz, the USS Vincennes mistakenly shot down an Iranian jetliner over the Gulf, killing 290 civilians. Inaction only provides moral safe harbor when there’s no possibility of action. Today, he adds, there comes “the whispered suggestion: If one branch of Islam wants to be at war with another branch for a few years — or decades — so much the better for the non-Islamic world. Mass civilian casualties in Aleppo or Homs is their tragedy, not ours. It does not implicate us morally. And it probably benefits us strategically, not least by redirecting jihadist energies away from the West.” This is not a good thing for the West, but a bad thing, he concludes. Pipes and Stephens are both friends of mine, and both have a point (although I come down on Pipes’ side of the argument). It might be helpful to expand the context of the discussion. I agree with Stephens that it is a bad thing. It not only a bad thing: it is a horrifying thing. The moral impact on the West of unrestrained slaughter and numberless atrocities flooding YouTube for years to come is incalculable, as I wrote in a May 20 essay, “Syria’s Madness and Ours.” If Syria looks bad, wait until Pakistan breaks down. The relevant questions, though, are 1) why are Sunnis and Shi’ites slaughtering each other in Syria at this particular moment in history, and 2) what (if anything) can we do about it? |
| Posted by:g(r)omgoru |
| #3 These people want to kill each other. They don't mind killing civilians--some may consider it a perk--and this means they won't stop because somebody tries to talk nice. You stop them by killing them--one side or the other--until the survivors quit. Given their level of motivation, nothing else will work. Then the other side starts killing the ones who quit first. Currently, it looks as if Assad will be the one to come out on top, whereupon he will be able to continue the other side without the fuss of fighting. So the question is whether we--who is this we?--can kill enough of one side or both sides to get them to stop without killing more of them than they would kill of each other if left alone. This will, of course, get Americans killed, give the dems another war to lose--they can't help it, it's what they do--and more excuses for other Muslims to attack us. But, if we weren't lucky, even worse things would happen. See the Balkans ca 1914. |
| Posted by: Richard Aubrey 2013-06-08 12:52 |
| #2 Ye but formerly, Kim, they didn't have WMDs. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2013-06-08 06:28 |
| #1 If one branch of Islam wants to be at war with another branch for a few years -- or decades Try a millenia. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2013-06-08 03:54 |