Do we have a Saudi Arabia policy? I thought we were just flying by seat-of-your-pants pragmatism.
There is a problem with Saudi Arabia: it is one of the wellsprings on the militant Islamic ideology, and promotes religious totalitarianism. The monarchy is a puppet regime, who makes a lot of pomp out of their "power," but whom are very mindful that if they don't play it the way the mullahs want in the end, they will be assassinated. It is the mullahs, who control the hearts and minds, who run Saudi Arabia - the monarchy is just a front and the legacy of an old power-sharing arrangement.
There has been talk recently, esp by Rumsfeld, of convincing the mullahs to "moderate" their positions. This is one of the hallmarks of his "war of ideas." And it is a disaster.
One can see this by observing what the so-called moderates are saying themselves. In an October meeting of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Mohathir Mohammed (Malaysian PM) addressed the assembled delegation. Mohathir is widely applauded moderate, whom NYT columnist Paul Krugman describes as, "....as forward-looking a Muslim leader as we are likely to find." Krugman and others have praised Mohathir for encouraging Islamics to rediscover the sciences and mathematics, which he correctly identifies as having been lost to them in the 12th c.
But look what Mohathir, the quintessential Muslim moderate, has to say about what they would like
to do with this science and technology. Quoting from his speech, in reference to what fruits progress will bear in the Islamic world: (my comments in brackets)
"
We are enjoined by our religion to prepare for the defense of the ummah [NOTE:
ummah: Islamic realm].
Unfortunately, we stress, not defense, but the weapons at the time of the prophets [in other words, they are hopeless to defend themselves b/c they have not embraced science and technology]
. Those weapons and horses cannot defend us anymore. We need guns and rockets, bombs and warplanes, tanks and warships for our defense. But because we discouraged the learning of science and mathematics, etc., as giving no merit.... today we have no capacityto produce our own weapons for our defense. We have to buy our weapons from our detractors and enemies.... Times have changed. Whether we like it or not, we have to change, not by changing our religion but by applying its teachings in the context of a world that is radically different from that of [antiquity]."
This is what is taken as moderation. Does it sound as if there is less hostility to the West? Of course not, just the pragmatic compromise on their part in recognition of the obvious fact that they have no hope against us militarily without modern weapons.
And for all his attention to "defense," one may think he means just regular old border security. But later in the speech he clarifies:
"
[O]ur detractors and enemies do not care whether we are true Muslims or not. To them, we are all... followers of a religion and a Prophet whom they declare promotes terrorism, and we are their sworn enemies. They will attack and kill us, they will invade our lands, bring down our governments, whether we are Sunnis or Shia, Alawite or Druze, or whatever. And we aid and abet them by attacking and weakening each other, and sometimes by doing their bidding, acting as their proxies to attack fellow Muslims."
Wonder who he's talking about there?
"
We know [Muhammad] and his early followers were oppressed by the Quraysh. Did he lauch retaliatory strikes? No. He was prepared to make strategic retreats..... At Hudaibiyah, he was prepared to accept an unfair treaty, against the wishes of his companions and followers. During the peace that followed, he consolidated his strength, and eventaully was able to enter Mecca and claim it for Islam..... It cannot be that there is no other way; 1.3 billion Muslims cannot be defeated by a few million Jews. And we can only find a way if we stop to think, to assess our weaknesses and our strengths, to plan, to strategize, and then to counterattack."
This is moderation? Houston, we have a problem.
The problem is that if you take an evil idea - like slavery - moderation is not the answer. For the US to embrace a "moderated" version of Islam as the answer in Saudi or elsewhere, without demanding fundamental changes in the precepts of that faith or its expulsion from public life, may be only to embrace a more deadly form of the virus that already infects that region.
To some extent, the zealous maniacs like Bin Laden are so self-deluded as to be self-defeating. A person obsessed with living in caves while destroying his enemies, may be less dangerous in the long run than the man who still sees driving infidels out of the
ummah as his ultimate goal, but who realizes the value of science in developing nuclear weapons towards that end.
Unfortunately, however, this push of Rumsfeld's to moderate Islam appears to have some currency in Washington. Of course, following our usual MO this will probably mean financial enticements to those whom we decide are "moderates," and we'll probably once again wind up funding the next generation of antagonists from that region, whose depredations will take the form of nuclear brinkmanship someday rather than conventional terrorism.
The only way to solve this problem is not to continue to fawn over "Islam: Religion of Peace." It is not to be the apologists of the world's Muslims, branding the most vile "extremists" while embracing moderates who have an equally vile though more practical idea about how to destroy the West. Moderation is not what Islam needs. Islam needs to be completely changed starting at the most basic level. It is a religion that is incompatible with any dissent, it demands absolute authority, it demands sacrifice and death on its behalf of both its adherents and those who stand in the way of their other-worldly goals. Before we have peace, it has to be exposed as such. If some vestigial version of it remains as the dying cultural legacy of a corrupt totalitarian ideology, then so be it. But until it ceases to exists as a political force in the world, America (at least not as a free nation) will not be safe.
We will not solve Saudi, or any of the middle-east, until we impose upon them the ultimatum they seek to impose upon us: change or die. We are not doing that now for sure, and I don't see it in the near future. But it will come to that before my generation is gone, mark my words. Unfortunately, I'm afraid, a lot more innocent people are going to die before we recognize the full extent of the problem.