Egypt's Future: How to Build a Free Nation (Part II)

by Dr Sam Holliday

Continued from Part I

United States Misconceptions since 1945
Before offering a conceptual framework for a new Egypt it is necessary to comment on some of the misconceptions, which have dominated the thinking in the foreign policy establishment of the United States since 1945.

Those identifying with a nation must be responsible for what happens to their nation. Others can assist, but the leadership, dedication, vision, and energy must come from within.

There are several critical differences between building a nation and the creation of a state, or the expansion of an empire, or the formation of a federation.

- A state is based on coercion--by either force or law--and administration.

- Expanding an empire i.e. creating hegemony, requires a desire to dominate, superiority of armed forces that control territory, and ruthlessness.

- A federation requires agreement among its parts.

- A confederation is a state with considerable decentralization of authority to smaller self-governing units.

From these, Egyptians must determine the form of governance of the new Egypt. At the heart of the new Egypt will be the creation and maintenance of a common sense of identity from which behavior will be self regulated, and coercion will only be required against criminals and insurgents.

Attempting to persuade rival groups, prepared to use force to eliminate each other, to form a coalition government is not wise. This should not be attempted in Egypt. It is naive to treat factions, each of whom demand control of an all powerful centralized government, as parties in a system of parliamentary government based on checks and balances.

This was the error the United States made from 1945 to 1947 in its policy toward China. The United States made the same error in Vietnam, the Middle East, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan—and many other places. Obsession with (1) authority of the central government, (2) “rule of law” to replace custom and tradition, and (3) “democracy” defined as universal suffrage and elections, have caused this same error to be repeated again and again since 1945.

Ideological tunnel vision of American policy makers, who wanted others to have the benefits of American democracy and economic system, have often squandered billions of dollars and produced meager results.

Economic development of the kind practiced by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (World Bank), often hinders more than it contributes. It has left a trail of destruction and poverty. It has propped up corrupt and chaotic governments. Many of the dams and highways it has financed have damaged the environment and destroyed social patterns of cooperation. It has contributed to the debt of many of the poorest countries.

Economic development has too often been determined by desires of central governments in their attempts to increase the state’s power. This view of economic development needs to be replaced with economic change to provide a better life for the people of Egypt.

Economic development in Egypt is essential; however, it should not focus on centrally controlled projects financed by an external source. There should be primary economic development, controlled at the local level, which provides the basic necessities of food, water, and shelter. There should be secondary economic development that provides the education and training so that Egypt can take advantage of technologic changes in production, distribution, financing, and marketing so as to benefit from an integrated worldwide capitalistic economic system.

The creation of a nation is a long--several generations at least--process; the maintenance of a nation is a never-ending process. This is at odds with the American desire for a quick fix. Today there are many examples of how long it takes to build a nation, even under favorable conditions. Spain after 500 years is still trying to absorb the Basques and the Catalans. After 300 years as the British Isles, Ireland broke away in 1922; both Wales and Scotland still have separatist movements.

Although some countries in South America and Asia seem to have developed national identities, it is difficult to find any true nation in Africa. Will Canada breakup? After extreme efforts in Germany and Italy to build nations around common languages, the primary identification of many Germans and Italians remain with something other than their nation-state.

Both building and preventing the decline of a nation is an art requiring the balancing of many factors. It is not something that can be done quickly or by following a specific recipe, and foreigners certainly cannot do it. However, a realistic conceptual framework of nationbuilding can be a useful tool for Egyptians as they tackle the difficult task of building a new Egypt.

A Conceptual Framework for a New Egypt
Egyptians should pay continual attention to four interrelated tasks:

• Achieve Security
• Provide effective local authority
• Organize and motivate
• Satisfy aspirations

Achieving a security shield is the first task since it is a prerequisite for the other three tasks. However, security cannot be seen as an end in itself. It is merely a means to the end of building a new Egypt. Also, if the focus was primarily on the creation of an Egyptian state, actions to establish centralized control by the police and the Army might be carried to the extreme--such actions would actually hinder identity with the Egyptian nation since they would not produce a self-regulating equilibrium.

Security is achieved when the various levels of government have a monopoly on the use of force, and no group within Egyptian territory is willing to use force to achieve political ends. In the new Egypt internal security will primarily be the responsibility of the police of the districts, villages, and neighborhoods; however, these police must be integrated into an alliance coordinated by the central government in Cairo. In addition, the central government would have the Army to protect Egypt’s interests and to ensure stability within Egypt.

Any group committed to the use of force to weaken or overthrow the established government must be neutralized. For Egypt this would mean insurgents of either the left (neo-Marxists) or the right (Islamists). First of all, this requires an effective intelligence system that will allow rapid response to any attempt at intimidation by any insurgent group, or payment to it.

When terrorism becomes a tool, a capability greater than that appropriate for policing ordinary crime must be added. This will usually require some temporary limitations on civil rights and the legal system. Finally, if insurgents gain control of a part of Egypt’s territory, control must be regained, using both the police and the Army, and the leaders of the insurgent group must be either killed or confined.

A second task for the new Egypt is to provide effective local authority. Each individual lives in a concrete, human, face-to-face world of clear and specific events and situations. Aspirations and an unseen environment may shape spiritual and material life of an individual, but he knows through what he sees, hears, smells and feels. This task provides local leadership.

Leadership which is: alert for signs of problems, inequalities and injustices; able to use initiative and flexibility to win loyalty and produce results; capable of countering acts of intimidation, violence, and destruction; able to see that everyone can earn a decent living; able to accomplish primary economic development; loyal to the established institutions; capable of educating each individual with values which blend freedom, ambition, duty and responsibility as well as the skills needed for economic improvement.

The third task of the new Egypt is to organize and motivate the people. The new Egyptian nation will be no more than Egyptian citizens welded together by a common destiny that binds into an active whole, yesterday, today and tomorrow. This task creates and maintains shared values, attitudes, habits and goals which shape the institutions through which a nation lives and grows: patterns of cooperation and conflict; the fabric of sanctioned relationship; the unseen lines of magnetic strength which link, join and confine; the elusive cultural environment. This task creates kinship and facilitates both primary and secondary economic development.

The fourth task of the new Egypt is to satisfy aspirations of Egyptian citizens. The fuel of progress is the never-ending attempt to satisfy aspirations. Economic development is a critical part of satisfying aspirations, but it must be joined with belief.

At this time Islam provides the strongest belief system in Egypt, but the Islamists would return Egypt to the 4th century. The belief of modern Muslims is not strong enough to effectively challenge the Islamists—nor is that of any other religion. Therefore, the only belief system that can provide a stronger horse than Islam is Egyptian nationalism and patriotism. The Egyptian military are well suited to use this belief system to neutralize the Islamists.

Aspirations can unite people in common effort; yet, aspirations can set one against another, preventing progress. Satisfying aspirations is an elusive, two faced task. Sole concern with satisfying aspirations can only result in turmoil, frustration and bitterness; as past aspirations are approached new and more demanding ones are invented.

This task means that Egypt must have its own, unique, ideology. Egypt must reject the ideologies of the Islamists and the neo-Marxists, since both would enslave Egyptians to the control of non-Egyptians. However, this task, just like the first task of achieving a security shield, must not be carried to an extreme.

If this conceptual framework is to be useful for the new Egypt, actions to accomplish these four tasks must be interrelated, and the building and maintenance of the new Egyptian nation must be seen as a never-ending process.

Conclusions
Egyptians need to remember the meaning of the Sacred Red, White, and Black of their flag. They must be prepared to fight against the ideologies of the neo-Marxists and Islamists. Americans cannot do any of this for the Egyptians, but they must understand and support Egyptians as they do about accomplishing the four tasks of building a new Egypt.

Copyright © 201 Armiger Cromwell Center, Atlanta, GA 30319.

Permission is granted to forward this article by e-mail to friends or colleagues on a fair use basis. For reprint permission, contact Armiger Cromwell Center at armigercc@comcast.net

For more essays and articles published by Dr Sam Holliday on Politeia  please refer to our file on Articles,  "The Armiger Cromwell Center"

Related

- "Who is a Patriot"
- "The Mandate of Heaven" (on authority and sovereignty)

Egypt's Future: How to Build a Free Nation (Part I)

by Dr Sam Holliday

On the night of 10-11 February 2011 the Egyptian military staged a bloodless coup to remove President Hosni Mubarak, following two weeks of turmoil and 19 hours of chaos. They promised to carry out the will of the Egyptian people. However, there is no way of knowing who will emerge to lead Egypt, or what the role of the military will be in the long run. For now the regime retains its power, for the aims of the younger military officers of the regime were the same as the crowds, i.e. to get rid of Mubarak and the patriarchs. The regime is a complex centered on the military but includes many civilians in the business and the government bureaucracies.

Since there is no consensus on Egypt’s future, the coming months and years will be a struggle between competing visions. Will it become a real revolution, or will the regime hold its control? This will be determined by the youth. What should be the policy of the United States during this move to a new Egypt—and a new Middle East?

FForemost should be the realization that the new Egypt is the responsibility of Egyptians, not Americans. Egyptians must establish a climate of order and satisfaction, they must rebuild Egypt’s economy, and Egyptians must determine a form of governance based on their own customs and traditions.

Also, the United States must not repeat the errors made, by the foreign policy establishment, around the world since 1945.

U.S. Foreign Policy Regarding Egypt
In relations with Egypt, the United States should do what it can to advance Sacred Red, White, and Blue/Black—the colors in the American and Egyptian flags.
Sacred Red symbolizes the courage, practicality, and duty of Moses, Saint Paul, Oliver Cromwell and George Washington.
White symbolizes the compassion, purity, and honor of Jesus, Buddha, and John Adams.
Blue/Black symbolizes the unity, shared identity, and administrative skill of the Egyptian Pharaohs’ in linking humans with the divine, of Genghis Khan’s “blue sky”, and of America’s founders dreams.

This Red, White and Blue/Black must be integrated into a whole through checks and balances of principles, ideals, individuals, factions, and institutions. The outcome should be the decentralization of power to achieve governance of, by and for the people, rather than the centralization of power in the hands of an elite in accordance with the Hegelian dialectic. Also the United States should do what it can to counter the threats of the socialist collectivism (Secular Red) and the social-political ideology of Islam (Green).

The waving of the Red, White, and Blue/Black flags of the United States and Egypt should be constant reminders that Americans and Egyptians are both in an existential struggle with true believers of both the right (Islamists) and the left (Neo-Marxists). The Egyptian youth were revolting against the paternalistic, unaccountable authority that as prevailed across the Middle East for thousands of years. It is essential to remember that free individuals, making judgments based on their inner compass, are hated by both the Islamists and the Neo-Marxists; some may consider them political opposites, yet they share the Hegelian view that authoritarian control, by true believers, of a collective is the best form of governance.

Democracy is a noble goal; however, since the word “democracy” has so many different meanings, it can be fool’s gold.

For Egypt U.S. foreign policy should seek: (1) a version of democracy which allows Egyptian citizens to determine their own destiny, (2) a constitution which maintains stability and economic development, (3) the recognition of how technology has changed communication, and (4) citizenship which is a privilege for those who give primacy to the interests of Egypt.

In Egypt the aim should be individual Egyptian citizens with the free will to determine their own destiny; the aim should not be equality of outcomes among individuals or factions.

The goal should be equality before God, equality before the law, and equality of opportunity; the goal should not be so called social justice, which takes from the haves and gives to the have-nots. There should be civil rights, given to individuals by God, which protect life, freedom, and property as individuals pursue happiness as determined by Egyptians—not human rights as determined by others.

There should be processes and procedures to ensure long-term governance of, by and for the Egyptian citizens--not processes, procedures and elections to insure compliance with specific written documents. “One man, one vote, one time” must be prevented. A future collective totalitarian state—of either the left (socialistic) or of the right (Islamic) must be avoided.

Consensus on a social contract (expressed in customs and traditions and also in a written constitution) is necessary, but not sufficient. Respect for the rule of law, political parties to champion competing points of view, freedom of speech, freedom of political expression, and freedom of assembly, and freedom of association are all needed to insure the Secular Authority of the state.

In addition there must also be primary economic development to ensure that there is adequate food, water and shelter and that the poorest aspire for a better life. Also there must the secondary economic development so that Egyptians think they are the economic equals of their peers and can see themselves as a worthy descendents of their 7,000 year history. Yet such worldly accomplishments must be in equilibrium with Sacred Authority, i.e. a common identity and shared principles and ideas which provide an inner compass to guide judgments between right and wrong, good and bad.

In the past when communication and transportation were more restricted national identity was based on cultural, ethnic, racial, or religious convictions. However, the global village of today and tomorrow make this impractical. Any future Egyptian nation must be based on shared principles, ideals and beliefs. This makes it necessary to exclude those individuals, groups, and parties who primarily identity with belief in a collective of either the left (neo-Marxists) or the right (Islamists)—as well as those who give their primarily allegiance to another state or to world governance.

Therefore, Egyptian citizenship must become a privilege to be earned, not a right of residency that allows master manipulators to control others. Universal human rights can remain an ideal, but the civil rights of Egypt must govern the behavior of Egyptians. Only those who have pledged their loyalty to, and demonstrated their patriotism for, Egypt should be allowed to participate in the struggles to determine Egypt’s future.

What the United States has Done Since 1945
Since 1945, inept actions by the United States in many countries has squandered billions of dollars, contributed to the deaths of millions, created poverty, and caused the loss of many opportunities. Most of this was done with the best of intentions and humanitarian instincts. Often these were the consequences of unquestioned preconceptions regarding how to build a state or nation. Such preconceptions have dominated the thinking of Americans, in and out of government, who have shaped U.S. foreign policy.

Will this be admitted? Certainly not. Can this be proven? Probably not. Most likely, articles and studies will continue to debate what happened, and why, with the "history" presented determined by the preconceptions of the authors.

In the past many have questioned the appropriateness of the United States being involved in building states and nations around the world. And today this debate continues. During such debates regarding Egypt it is essential that the difference between building a state and building a nation be understood.

State building is the creation and maintenance of legitimate authority, a legal system, and administrative capability to govern territory. Nationbuilding is the creation and maintenance of a sense of common identity among a people. Also it is important to recognize the reasons for the successes and failures made in the name of “nation-building”.

Obviously there have been successes since 1945. Changes in Western Europe, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and even parts of Eastern Europe have been more positive than negative. Yet such progress has primarily been the result of efforts by the people of those countries, and circumstances unique to them. Nevertheless, preconceptions about building states and nations have hindered improvement in much of the world since 1945.

The Preconceptions
Unquestioned preconceptions about the creation and decline of nations were forged during World War II. The horrors of that war were blamed on nationalism and the nation-state. This overlooked the fact that paranoia and unspeakable crimes are to be found throughout history. The horrors committed by tribes, sects, and empires probably did affect fewer people, but they were no less repulsive.

Human beings need beliefs that offer a sense of order, that overcome the fears of an arbitrary environment, that give people some hope of control over random events. Group identity and religion have always been the two main sources of such belief systems. Moreover, human progress has depended on how group identities (be they family, tribe, sect, class, religion, or nation) relate to political structures having a monopoly on the use of force.

Human progress accelerated when the nation-state became the focus of personal loyalties, social order, political institutions, and economic coordination, because it was able to combine the cohesiveness of the nation with the legal authority and administrative capability of the state. However, with this progress came the excesses of integral (or totalitarian) nationalism.

Since World War II three contending ideologies (all called democratic) have been offered as replacements for nationalism: capitalism based on merit, communism based on equality of outcomes, and internationalism based on universal human rights. Yet none of the three have been able to create a sense of identity, vigor, innovation, and climate of order to equal that created by nation-states.

None have provided the new political form to replace the nation-state. This suggests that as a political structure the nation-state is superior to a multicultural state, or a coercion based state. It also suggests that any new world order must be of small nation-states rather than the centralization of power in world governance.

The challenge is achieve common identity among Egyptians yet to prevent the excesses and extremes, which have at times been associated with integral nationalism. Therefore, there is a need for a conceptual framework for building an Egyptian nation, which will be held together by sovereign nationalism—not by the integral nationalism of Egypt’s past statism.

Integral nationalism is intolerant and ethnocentric. Integral nationalism is linked to totalitarianism, and demands the highest loyalty be to the state in accordance with the views of Hegel. Integral nationalism seeks cultural and religious uniformity, plus institutional and economic unity. It tends to arise from religious or utopian beliefs, internal economic and political difficulties, or historical rivalries. The goal of integral nationalism is uniformity of purpose, appearance, beliefs, attitudes, and prejudices. It is linked to the statism, which many Islamic countries took from Western culture during the 19th and 20th centuries.

Sovereign nationalism seeks the ideals expressed in American Declaration of Independence. Sovereign nationalism is an expression of the human desire for freedom and self-government. It places an emphasis on popular sovereignty, a constitution, decentralization, and civil rights—it is legitimized by a social contract between a people and their state. Sovereign nationalism is often a melting pot resulting in E Pluribus Unum (of many, one). It is sovereign nationalism that offers hope for the Egypt—and the 21st century. It can provide peace, security, self-government, and stability by creating loyalties, emotional ties, and a common sense of identity among citizens.

In Part II

United States Misconceptions since 1945

Before offering a conceptual framework for a new Egypt it is necessary to comment on some of the misconceptions, which have dominated the thinking in the foreign policy establishment of the United States since 1945. Those identifying with a nation must be responsible for what happens to their nation. Others can assist, but the leadership, dedication, vision, and energy must come from within. (...)

Copyright © 201 Armiger Cromwell Center, Atlanta, GA 30319.

Permission is granted to forward this article by e-mail to friends or colleagues on a fair use basis. For reprint permission, contact Armiger Cromwell Center at armigercc@comcast.net

For more essays and articles published by Dr Sam Holliday on Politeia  please refer to our file on Articles,  "The Armiger Cromwell Center"

Related

- "Who is a Patriot"
- "The Mandate of Heaven" (on authority and sovereignty)

Why Islam is an Ideology

Several Western countries are struggling with the notion that Islam is a totalitarian  ideology masquerading as a religion. Most are in a firm state of denial.

The last few weeks we saw the Christian-Democratic Party (CDA) in the Netherlands tearing itself literally to pieces over Geert Wilders' claim that answers the question in the affirmative. A great number of Islam scholars agree with him.

The party was engaged in government coalition talks with Geert Wilders' Freedom Party. Wilders broke off negotitions last Friday, fearing endless dissent in the Christian-Democrat camp, that views Islam as a slightly more militant version of Christianity.

The claim touches fundamental, Constitutional rights on the freedoms of expression, religion, and education, causing some even to express fears if the rule of law would remain in responsible hands. On the one hand such fears are caused by a corruption and a misunderstanding of these rights; but it is also not well grasped what precisely constitutes a religion.

The following essay answers the question from an American perspective.

While there is an argument to be made, as Dr Holliday does, that religion is something separate from political ideology, on the broad philosophical scale of things all religions belong to the family tree of ideas, viz. ideologies.

Earlier articles and essays from the pen of Sam Halliday posted on Politeia, are available on the Articles file of the Armiger Cromwell Center, a non-profit organization aiming to contribute to more effective and efficient policies in international relations.

First published on 5 September 2010 under the title "Shari’a Makes Islam an Ideology"

by Dr. Sam Holliday

The First Amendment of the US Constitution grants freedom of religion. But what did the Founders mean by religion? Surely they did not mean for any behavior to be justified by the claim of religious freedom. Freedom of belief, yes; freedom of worship, yes; but not freedom of behavior.

Religion to the Founders meant a belief system compatible with morality. In the United States any belief system that contradicts morality—as understood by the Founders--should be considered a legal/political ideology, rather than a religion. Shari’a contradicts such morality and thus Americans should not consider Islam a religion protected by the First Amendment of our Constitution.

- Caption: "Battle of Lepanto or Naupaktos" which ultimately inspired the Greek War of Independence against Ottoman oppression - 

Religion and American Morality
The American nation is unique. Most nations are based on shared history, ethnicity, language, culture, or religion. Not so the United States with a diversity of people with nothing in common but principles and ideals upon which to have a better life for themselves and their descendents. Even those who did not come of their own free will now have the same opportunity if they are willing to seize it. It is an error to refer to all of those living in this country as Americans. Americans are those individuals willing to accept the risks and rewards offered by freedom, and willing to seek their dreams through hard work.

America is indeed “out of many one” symbolized as a melting pot. If “We the people” is to mean anything it is the American nation of self-governing people, free from the arbitrary edicts of centralized Secular Authority. With such diversity, what provides a common identity to form an American nation? It can only be the principles and ideals upon with the United States was founded. Without this shared identity there is no American nation—and no Americans. There could be many people living in the territory governed by the United States of America, but no American nation. This fact should not be obscured by demands for rights, equality and governmental largess.

There are many definitions of morality, religion, ethics, belief, and faith; what they define is fundamental to a way of life. Together they define Sacred Authority, and they shape the inner compass of individuals; they determine what individuals consider right, good and virtuous. The American nation depends on all Americans sharing a Sacred Authority, i.e. specific principles and ideals. It is suggested that these be those of the Founders of this country.

In order to gain acceptance of a Sacred Authority for America these definitions are suggested:

Morality contains: (1) beliefs about the nature of man, (2) beliefs about ideals, and about what is right, good and virtuous, (3) rules of what ought to be done, and what ought not be done, and (4) motives which are right, good and virtuous.

Religion, according to the U.S. Constitution, is any belief system that supports the morality expressed by the principles and ideals of the Founders.

Religion, according to philosophy, includes (1) belief in supernatural powers, (2) appropriate sacred attitudes and emotions which create a sense of reverence, and (3) ceremonies, rituals, and duties.

The Threat of the Third Jihad and Shari’a
The goal of the Third Jihad is the destruction of Western Culture. We must not let the Islamists use our most cherished convictions to achieve their goal. Conspiracy is just as much a threat to America as the planting of an atomic bomb in a city. Much of Shari’a condones what our Founders would consider criminal activities. In accordance with taqiyya Islamists willingly lie to deceive non-believers. To teach or practice such behavior, in the name of any belief system, is not compatible with American morality.

The problem is that Islam contains aspects that are religious, by any definition, and some aspects that do not reflect American morality. In fact, the Founders did not want the state to specify a belief system that required submission. For them belief, worship and behavior were determined by the free will of individuals—not by submission to a doctrine prescribed by an elite. This is what freedom of religion is all about. Shari’a is just what they wanted to prevent.

Some want to reject all of Islam because it contains Shari’a. This would be wrong. Some want to accept all of Islam, including Shari’a, because Islam is a “religion”. This would be wrong. What needs to be done is to welcome those parts of Islam that are compatible with American morality, but to reject other parts of Islam. This is very difficult because all parts of Islam are intermingled.

We must be able to identify those Muslims who want to protect their children from a drug-laden, sexually permissive, and tradition rejecting society, who want a better life for themselves and their children, who reject violence, embrace pluralism, and work to stop terrorism, and who want to exist peacefully with nonbelievers. Also we must be able to identify those Muslims who accept the teachings that promote hatred, discriminatory edicts, Shari’a and conflict between the Islamic nation (umma) and all nonbelievers. Therefore, we need to use our judgment to accept what is moral in accordance with the principles and ideals of our Founders, and to reject any alien legal/political ideology.

In the case of the Ground Zero mosque this will require some way to determine if the outer jihad (a moral struggle which is evil and unconstitutional since it requires the submission or killing of all nonbelievers) will be advocated by that mosque, or if teaching in the mosque will be limited to the inner jihad (the struggle against the baser instincts of an individual, which is constitutional). Limiting teaching to the inner jihad would require the rejection of much of the Qur’an.

The necessary action will be very difficult to do, since it cannot be done solely through politics and peacetime law enforcement activities, i.e. the rule of law (Secular Authority). It requires intelligence gathering and actions beyond those specified in our Constitution. It will require actions appropriate for Irregular Warfare during an ideological struggle. It will require recognition that Feisal Abdul Rauf is typical of the intellectual Islamists of the lead element of the Third Jihad’s penetration into Western Culture. Such Islamists pose as moderates, oppose terrorism, claim that the United States supports terror against Muslims around the world, and use only non-violent means. Such Islamists manipulate our tolerance to advance Shari’a toward the goal of a world wide Caliphate.

Shari’a is about power—neither faith nor making an individual a better person. It is not compatible with American morality. It is totalitarian and inherently unconstitutional and the direct opposite of the American ideal of "religious freedom."

We need to recognize that the Muslim Brotherhood, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), Hamas, and other Islamists groups support the Third Jihad. For them Shari’a is a  "tradition of Islam" which dictates what everyone must do regarding their whole life, including marriage, divorce, commercial relations, and personal behavior.

They want to bring Shari’a to the United States. Any Muslims in the United States living according to all of the tradition of Islam violates our Constitution regarding freedom, civil rights, government and way of life.

An appeal for understanding of Islam is a Trojan Horse. The noble idea of mutual respect between the Cross and the Crescent based on overlapping, and shared beliefs are fool’s goal. “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you” only works among those with shared values and principles. To practice it with those who are evil and seek your end will insure that you are a victim. We are currently engaged in an ideological struggle not unlike those in our past against Fascism, Nazism, and Communism.

What Must be Done?
We need to establish policies, strategies, techniques, and processes that are appropriate for the ideological struggle of Irregular Warfare, i.e. asymmetric conflict between those in authority and those who want to weaken and destroy them. We need to reestablish the means used in the past to obtain compliance with shared morality, i.e. Sacred Authority. We must again be judgmental and discriminate against that which is considered wrong, bad, or sinful. In our current legalistic and politically correct society this will be difficult to achieve.

We must recognize the extent the Third Jihad has advanced in this ideological struggle--and what it is doing to subvert the West. The Saudis alone have invested at least $2 billion a year over the past 30 years to spread the most radical form of Islam. The response of Europe and America in this ideological struggle has been negligible. In fact much of what has been communicated by our movies and media has worked against us.

We must actively defend Western Culture

• The first step is to recognize that Islam with Shari’a is not a religion of peace, as our Founders understood religion; it is an alien legal/political ideology designed to control the behavior of everyone and to eliminate anyone who does not submit to the way of Muhammad, as described in the Qur’an.

• The second step is to recognize that those Muslims who believe in the outer jihad, as taught and practiced by Muhammad, can never be assimilated into America or Europe—the outcome of any such attempt would be the destruction of Western Culture. Such Muslims must be expelled.

• The third step is to revitalize belief in the principles and ideals upon which America was created.

Copyright © 2010 Armiger Cromwell Center, Atlanta, GA 30319.

Permission is granted to forward this article by e-mail to friends or colleagues on a fair use basis. For reprint permission, contact Armiger Cromwell Center at armigercc@comcast.net

An online printable version of "Shari’a Makes Islam an Ideology" is available here.

Filed on Articles in "The Armiger Cromwell Center"

Related

Politeia: "The Power of Ideas" 

Coping with Islamists

By Dr. Sam Holliday

The Obama administration has stated that our enemy is al-Qaeda and its terrorist affiliates. They reject any suggestion that Islam motivates our enemies. John Brennan has said "Nor do we describe our enemy as jihadists and Islamists." They do not recognize the two faces of Islam. This view does not recognize that we are in a struggle with a worldwide movement, known as the Great Jihad, motivated by the teaching of Muhammad. It is time for the Obama administration to face the reality of the Islamists Threat.

Today there are Muslims who, in accordance with the Qur’an, continue the Great Jihad. They call themselves jihadists, or holy warriors. Those who value Western Culture should refer to them as hirabahists, or unholy warriors. Islamists is an accurate name for them, since that indicates Islamic motivation, yet it does not suggest all Muslims. Islamists call the current worldwide struggle the Third Jihad, and have five goals:

1. To weaken US influence in the Middle East and South Asia and to increase the “fifth column” in Europe and the United States.

2. To use the United Nations to paralyze effective action by the United States.

3. To control the oil in the Middle East, and then use that control to weaken the economic power of the United States.

4. To eliminate Israel.

5. To continue the struggle until a Great Caliphate is created.

How many Muslims are Islamists? It is impossible to know. Clearly the leaders of the Third Jihad are Islamists. Most of the terrorists lack the necessary historical perspective or theological knowledge to be Islamists. They are motivated by feelings of envy, frustration, greed, prejudice, and hatred resulting from manipulation by the leaders. What about most Muslims? Most Muslims believe in jihad, i.e. struggle.

However, they believe in different kinds of struggles. For some Muslims it is a personal (inner) struggle. Islamists struggle for the five goals of the Third Jihad. Some Muslims belief the Qur’an prevents them from condemning Islamists, or helping to neutralize them. The critical question is: How many Muslims will struggle for modernity and integration into Western Culture?

The current threat to Western Culture is from transnational Islamists with political goals. This is a battle of wills. We have not yet neutralized them or weakened their will, and they have not weakened our will. However, this conflict will not end as long as there are Islamists who believe the Qur’an requires a Great Jihad.

Muslims are not our enemies. Our enemies are all the Islamists that want to kill us and drive us out of “Islamic lands”, and those that provide them funds, sanctuary, and moral support; this includes al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and many other groups and individuals. Islamists support an ideology that opposes modernity and Western Culture; but not all Muslims support this ideology. At this time the threat doesn't call for a Holy War; there is not justification for an overall strategy similar to those used in World War II or the Cold War. We are not yet in a Clash of Civilizations and it would be a mistake at this time to think that we are. We should attempt to handle the conflict as Irregular Warfare, until the threat from the Islamists becomes greater—or is neutralized.

Our Overall Strategy

Our overall strategy must include information dissemination (communication) that is as effective as that of our enemy. However, this should not be confused with the spreading of our own values, attitudes, and ideology about economic and political systems. The goal of our strategy should be stability (homeostatic equilibrium), not political or economic development. The immediate goals must be local security and local authority. In time, we can hope, all Muslims might learn to value the free exchange of ideas, tolerance, free market economics, and representative government and give up those aspects of Islam that are incompatible with Western Culture. In other words, conversion to what we consider best should not be the strategic goal. Our strategic goal should be stability and stopping those who want to destroy us.

Our strategy must include getting Muslims to become a counter-balance to the Islamists. But the two faces of Islam cannot fool us. On the one hand, Muslims can be outwardly moderate, understand, tolerate and peaceful when living among nonbelievers, but inwardly believe in the Great Jihad. Only those who will work against Islamists and the Great Jihad can be trusted.

To date Muslims have failed to:

• Point out that it is un-Islamic for the Islamists to claim they are conducting a Jihad (holy war), and that the so-called jihadists have perverted authentic Islam.

• Clarify the “jihad martyrdom” factor so that it is not used as a recruiting tool.

• Distinguish between offensive, defensive, and personal jihad.

• Clarify the meaning of “infidel”, so that it is not used for political purposes and the killing of innocents.

• Point out that many Islamist leaders are not clerics and have no authority to issue fatwas (religious edicts).

• Point out that the Islamists deliberately ignore or misread many passages of the Qur’an and the Islamic Jurisprudence (the Figh).

Any successful strategy against Islamists requires realism, frankness and a high degree of unity. It requires honesty from governmental officials about the threat, and honesty from a loyal opposition in domestic politics. The skeptics, ideological Luddites (those with naive political beliefs that destroy that which supports and protects them), and partisans cannot be allowed to sabotage our strategy against the Islamists. Domestic political disputes must not provide an opportunity for the Islamists to divide and conquer. The useful idiots must be exposed. We must face this threat as one nation. In Irregular Warfare motivation, dedication, unity, effort and sacrifice are just as critical to success as they are in Conventional War.

Our leaders have to be candid about the threat, and what must be done; they should not speak in generalities or in words designed not to offend Muslims. They must believe in American exceptionalism. They must be honest, accurate and frank. They must project strength and confidence. Our leaders must admit that they don't know all and can't tell all that they know. They must explain:

• That this is a protracted conflict being played out on a global field with Islamists who have their tentacles virtually everywhere.
  
• That the "organization" of the Third Jihad has many autonomous parts and they often hide behind respected religious, culture, and welfare institutions.
  
• That the legal rights and protections of individuals, determined to be appropriate for peace, are a mill stone around the neck of open, free, representative societies during Irregular Warfare; they need be appropriately revised in those situations when the actions of Islamists destroy the conditions of peace.

Unless there are such revisions, the Islamists will exploit the weaknesses of their target countries to their advantages.

The Challenge

The ideology of the Islamists is hostile to pluralistic, representative, secular government, since true believers consider Qur’an law and its Sharia derivatives the only basis for governance. This view must be recognized as a subversive ideology; it should not be legitimized as a religion. It is true that Christianity, Shinto, and other religions do not have stellar records.

However, dhimmi status (subordinate, disfranchised, residents subject to discriminatory taxation and limits on freedom) is unique to Islam. The teaching of hatred for non-believers is unique to Islam. Only when Islam controls a country, and all non-Muslims have accepted dhimmi status, can Islamists accept diversity. We value God given rights of individuals—Islamists values submission to Islamic leaders.

It is true that Islamists want to expel Western influences from all territory formerly under Muslim control. They want their politico-economic and philosophical views to be dominant. Whereas most insurgents in the past were motivated by a utopian view of a better world with economic equality and social fraternity, Islamists seek spiritual purity in the eyes of Allah. Islamists see nonbelievers as too weak, too easily tempted, too confused to govern themselves; therefore, scholar-jurists who know the way of Allah must control them. They seek to protect people from worldly temptations; therefore they attempt to remove anything that will prevent people from submitting to Allah.

The ideology of the Islamists is hostile to pluralistic, representative, secular government, since Islamic true believers consider Qur’an law and its Sharia derivatives the only basis for governance. This view must be recognized as a subversive political ideology; it should not be legitimized as a religion. It is true that in the past the leaders of Christianity, Shinto, and other religions have twisted religious doctrine into political ideologies.

However, today this is true only of Islam. Dhimmi status (subordinate, disfranchised, residents subject to discriminatory taxation and limits on freedom) is unique to Islam. Only when Islam controls a country, and all non-Muslims have accepted dhimmi status, can Islamists accept diversity. Today the teaching of hatred for non-believers is unique to Islam. Western Culture values the God given rights of individuals—Islamists values submission to Islamic leaders.

“Moderate and reasonable Muslims” who support the Third Jihad—such as CAIR, the Holy Land Foundation, ISNA, Organization of the Islamic Conference, and the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination League--are a greater threat than terrorists. Such “moderates” are Islamists since they do not reject those parts of the Qur’an that call for a Great Jihad.

They hid their true intent and consider it in keeping with the Qur’an to deceive non-believers. They use our legal system to silence and punish free speech critical of Islamists or their sources of financing. They are the lead elements of the “fifth column” seeking to weaken Western Culture and prepare the way for Islamic domination of the world.

It is Islamists—not all Muslims—who want the Third Jihad to be a worldwide movement that will cause all non-believes to submit.

More effective ways to neutralize the tactics, techniques and strategies of the Third Jihad must be used in the future if it is to be defeated. We must defeat, deter, or neutralize our enemy. In Irregular Warfare there is never the final victory of Conventional War—success is defined by stability. First, we must recognize that killing Islamist leaders will not end the Third Jihad.

The leaders represent an important segment of our enemy, but not its totality. Second, we do not want to make Islam or an entire Islamic culture our enemy. Third, we must recognize that the demise of Israel will not mean an end of the Third Jihad, even though Israel will always be used to rally support for the Third Jihad. Fourth, we must recognize that withdrawal from the Middle East will only embolden the Islamists and make the final Clash of Civilizations more likely.

Strategy to Defeat the Third Jihad

The best strategy for defending Western Culture includes:

1. Assure that the Middle East and South Asia are stabilized and that worldwide no state is willing to support Islamists attempting to overthrow those in authority.

2. Work toward energy independence through:

• Developing the massive U.S. oil resources so that our economy is not dependent on sources that our enemies can disrupt. This would include the conversation of coal and natural gas into oil.
  
• Reducing dependence on fossil fuels, and using less energy overall, while maintaining our standard of living.
  
• Developing new sources of energy—primarily proven nuclear energy systems, such as those non-SL1 systems abandoned by the Army in the 1960s.

3. Adopt a policy of containment until the faults within the Third Jihad cause its ideological certitude to collapse, allowing other Muslims to neutralize the Islamists. Pursue such policies, both overt and covert, to hasten this collapse.

4. Face the fact that communication superiority is a prerequisite for success in Irregular Warfare--just as air superiority is a prerequisite for victory in Conventional War. To date we have been ineffective in the strategic communication campaign to strengthen the will of our own people, to weaken the will of our enemies, and to gain the support of people around the world. In the current battle of wills strategic communication is the center of gravity. This conflict is not to be won through economic, diplomatic, and military means.

5. Develop a message as effective as Muhammad's in winning hearts and minds. Then develop a sociopolitical structure to communicate that message which is more effective than that of the global revivalist movement known as the Third Jihad.  Recognize that the true believers of the Third Jihad are willing to suffer, sacrifice, deceive, kill, conquer, and die for their cause. Recognize that we need true believers in our cause, i.e. the principles and ideals of Western Culture.

6. Encourage respected leaders and scholars of the Islamic world to condemn in religious terms those using violence in the name of Islam. Also condemn as “useful idiots” those in the West who give aid, comfort and support to Islamists.

7. Take actions to strengthen pride in Western Culture. The weakening of the will in Europe and America, and ability to protect Western Culture as it developed in the modern era (from 1500 to the 1960s), has many causes. Partly it is the result of actions by those disillusioned by World War I and World War II, and partly it is the result of the cycle of rise and decline common to all groups. The ability to counter the Third Jihad depends on strengthening the will and unity of all of those who value Western Culture.

8. Designate any Muslim an Islamist, even if he or she claims to be a moderate, if that person will not condemn the Islamists and renounce that portion of the Qur’an that calls for the Great Jihad.

Life and liberty requires knowledge of your enemies and the ability to destroy or neutralize those enemies.

Dr Sam Holliday is Director of the Armiger Cromwell Center

All publications copyright © 2010 Armiger Cromwell Center. Permission is granted to forward this article by e-mail to friends or colleagues on a fair use basis. For reprint permission, contact Armiger Cromwell Center at armigercc@comcast.net

All posts by Sam Holliday on Politeia

Related dossiers

- The Unholy Alliance"
- "The Jihad Project"
- "In Defense of Liberty"
- "Legal Jihad"
- "The Balkan Caliphate"
- "Stop Islamization of Europe/America"
- "Eurabia"
- "Islamization=Apartheid"
- "Apostating Islam"

On Authority, Sovereignty and We the People

First posted on September 13, 2009

On August 16 , 2009 we published an essay written by Dr Sam Halliday entitled "The 'American Manifesto'". As a sequence we are posting today his "The Mandate of Heaven". Enjoy!

Earlier articles and essays from the pen of Sam Halliday posted on Politeia, are available on the Articles file of the Armiger Cromwell Center, a non-profit organization aiming to contribute to more effective and efficient policies in international relations.


The Mandate of Heaven

In the Chinese tradition the ‘Mandate of Heaven’ has long been associated with legitimacy. It confirms the authority of a ruler; it withdraws legitimacy from a despot or tyrant. A loss of the Mandate of Heaven necessitates a change in governance.

As a practical matter the Mandate of Heaven argues for the removal of incompetent or despotic governmental officials, and provides an incentive for officials to govern well, justly, and for the common good. It can also be invoked to curtail the abuse of power.

In America this same idea is expressed in the motto ‘In God We Trust.’ Legitimacy comes from something superior to humans. There is no agreement on what this superior authority is; those who accept this concept only agree that it gives legitimacy to the laws, procedures and practices of Secular Authority.
Secular Authority is created and administered by humans within governmental structures; however, it is The Mandate of Heaven, which gives Secular Authority legitimacy. When those in government usurp Secular Authority in order to advance their own interests—rather than to protect, preserve and advance the interest of all citizens—it can be claimed that the Mandate of Heaven has been lost. Then the alteration or abolishment of that regime can be justified.

The Mandate of Heaven at the Founding of the United States of America

The Founding Fathers never used the term Mandate of Heaven, but they acknowledged it in their reference to “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” in the first paragraph of The Declaration of Independence. This is in keeping with English common law that “man depends absolutely upon his Maker for everything” and the will of “his Maker is called the law of nature.”

This view is repeated in a reference to unalienable Rights being “endowed by their Creator” in the second paragraph. And again they acknowledged it at the end of that document: “with a firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

The Mandate of Heaven is both similar to, and different from, the European concept of the Divine Right of Kings. Both sought to legitimize rule through something superior to human made laws, rules and procedures. However, the Divine Right of Kings granted unconditional legitimacy, something the Founding Fathers rejected--just as does the Mandate of Heaven.

Both the Chinese concept and the view of the Founding Fathers are conditional on the behavior of the regime maintaining a climate of order and satisfaction. Revolution is never legitimate under the Divine Right of Kings, but a revolt might be justified after the fact under the Mandate of Heaven--a successful revolt being evidence that the Mandate of Heaven had been lost. The Founding Fathers expressed their view on this in the Declaration of Independence.

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station ….

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of those ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

In the Chinese concept the words Mandate and Heaven have meanings different from the common usages of these words in the English language. It is not a message that a religious zealot claims to have received from God. Mandate does not mean a command from a superior to an inferior; it means legitimacy, or approval to establish and administer Secular Authority.

Heaven is not the abode of God with the angels of the after life. It is not a Supreme Being, i.e. a God in the Western sense. Heaven is an authority which judges mortal behavior, in this life and the after life, and which directs the forces of nature.

The Mandate of Heaven is an unwritten agreement that proposes a set of mutual obligations between rulers and ruled; in China it was used by authoritarian regimes to maintain a “harmonious society”.

The Rise of Those Who Do Not Accept the Mandate of Heaven

Since the 18th Century many Americans have not accepted, or have ignored, the views of the Founding Fathers. Also today many do not recognize Sacred Authority as being equal to Secular Authority. They want laws, legal procedures, and legal practices determined by humans to be supreme and unchallengeable.

- Caption: b/w photo of the Supreme Court
by Andrew Prokos - 

In fact today most lawyers, politicians, professors, and pundits think the Supreme Court has unchallengeable authority, i.e. the equivalent of the Divine Right of Kings. As a result the United States has become increasingly like countries that preceded it with struggles among factions, the centralization of power, and growth of bueaucratic government. The new form of governance that the Founding Fathers envisioned has been increasingly ignored.

However, the First Amendment of the Constitution explicitly recognizes the Mandate of Heaven concept: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. In other words, there is something superior to human laws.

However, the original intent of the Constitution has been eroded by many interpretations of the courts.  If “In God We Trust” means anything, it means that the legitimacy of government and Secular Authority (so called “rule of law”) are both subordinate to some higher authority. It is time to return to the principles and ideals of the Founding Fathers.

Why the Mandate of Heaven Is Important

Secular Authority must be conditional if those in government are to be prevented from taking unto themselves the authority of the sovereign. In the United States of America the citizens are the sovereign. The citizens are not subjects of the government.

When those in government usurp the authority of the sovereign and attempt to dictate what should or should not be done, or to transfer the sovereign’s authority to some supranational organization, they are no longer legitimate—they have lost the Mandate of Heaven.

It is then appropriate for the sovereign, i.e. the citizens, to remove those attempting to usurp their authority. It is the duty of the security forces to support the sovereign in re-establishing the Mandate of Heaven through a new regime.

All governance is some combination of centralization and decentralization. Centralization goes from oligarchy to authoritarian to the extreme of totalitarian. Decentralization goes from representative republic, to pure democracy to the extreme of anarchy. In practices the forms of governance are mixed.

Thus the despotism of a totalitarian regime cannot survive in the long run, just as anarchy, in which many refuse to be ruled at all, cannot last. The extremes tend to create their opposite. Anarchy usually results in a call from greater authority to maintain order, and when a totalitarian regime falls there are demands for greater individual freedom.

Only a large-scale popular movement toward decentralization, self-help, and the acceptance of responsibility can arrest a tendency toward centralization with authoritarian rule by an elite controlling all positions of power in the government. Such a movement can only be successful if the security forces (police and military) support it.

A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which an all-powerful executive is supported by a compliant judiciary and an ineffective legislative. And one in which the executive retains control of the security forces. In effective centralized regimes the people are subjects who do not have to be coerced, because they accept their servitude. In a servile state even the most centralized regime retains the Mandate of Heaven.

- Caption: "Chinese Emperor Han Wudi, the fifth emperor of the Han dynasty
(156 BC–87 BC) - 

Extreme centralization of power is the outcome whenever Secular Authority (the rule of law) is the supreme, and unchallengeable, authority. This is because the method of decision-making is the dialectic, which is the struggle of thesis versus anti-thesis producing a synthesis.

This is the path to what Hegel called the World Spirit. Those who follow Hegel’s method consider the human created State the final and perfect development of political institutions. They assign to the State an importance greater than the individual. For them the State has “the highest right over the individual, whose highest duty in turn is to be a member of the State”.

This was not what the Founding Fathers wanted to create. They wanted power decentralized as much as possible. They wanted citizens to be the sovereign, and for governmental officials to be beholden to the citizens.

This is only possible when Sacred Authority is separate from, but equal to, Secular Authority. Sacred Authority provides an inner compass to individuals so they can make judgments between good and bad, between right and wrong, and between virtue and sin.

- Caption: Washington enforces British surrender at Yorktown, by Eugene Hess (1824-1862) - 

Sacred Authority provides a check on Secular Authority, and thus it discourages the self-serving excesses of governmental officials; it encourages the removal of incompetent or despotic governmental officials; it provides an incentive for officials to govern well, justly, and for the common good; and it curtails the abuse of power by officials.

Throughout history demagogues, heading political factions, have destroyed States and Nations in order to create some Utopia which they hold dear; true believers have used rhetoric, inflated views of themselves, and raw power from militias, gangs, enforcers, and the security forces (police and military). America is now at a crossroads and patriotic Americans must determine which road is to be taken.

Questions to be Answered

Are today’s Americans as unwilling to accept servitude, as were those who founded the United States of America in the 18th Century? Do they consider themselves free citizens who are the sovereign, or do they consider themselves subjects of an all-powerful government who will determine social justice for all?

Today how many will rally to “Do Not Tread on Me” and “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death”. Today will the police and military support the sovereign (the citizens) and the Constitution as it is written, or will they support the Commander in Chief and the Constitution as interpreted by the ruling elite?

Do we want an America in keeping with the vision of our Founding Fathers? Or do we want to transform America into a centralized socialist Utopia in which every one receives the same benefits regardless of their merit, effort, or commitment to America?

What will be America’s future? Will America follow the cycle of past states and nations into decline and decay, or will the citizens reestablish their position as sovereign in keeping with the vision of the Founding Fathers?

Will America return to the principles and convictions that made it great? Will the Mandate of Heaven play its critical role? Only the American people can answer these questions. And they must be answered with actions—not merely words.


Copyright © 2008 Armiger Cromwell Center, Atlanta, GA 30319-1322. 404-201-7374. Permission is granted to forward this article by e-mail to friends or colleagues on a fair use basis. For reprint permission, contact Armiger Cromwell Center at armigercc@comcast.net

An online printable version of "The Mandate of Heaven", by Dr Sam Holliday

- Filed on Articles in "The Armiger Cromwell Center" -

Afghanistan: the Road to Nationhood - Part II

"On Development Aid, Stability and Unification"


by Dr Sam Holliday


The visit of US Defense Secretary Robert Gates to Afghanistan, on 8 December 2009, unfortunately suggests that US policy will not basically change. Or if there is to be a change toward decentralization of power, it was well hidden.


Gates spoke of continued support for Harmid Karzai and the building, training and retention of the security forces controlled by the central government, Afghan Army and the Afghan "National" Police.


Gates stated that the US was not going to abandon Afghanistan as it did in 1969 and that money for "development" would continue to flow. He mentioned the need to clean up government corruption, without recognizing that money for "development" was one of the causes of corruption.


The visit of Gates suggests more of the same. New visibility and vigor perhaps, but still a failure to address the fundamental problems.

Because of the fragmented nature of Afghanistan any centralized government able to maintain stability would have to be strong, nationalistic, authoritarian, and corruption free; therefore, the foreign-funded government of Hamid Karzai, protected by westerners and promoting Western ideas of politics, economics, diversity, and human rights has been unsuccessful.

To have both stability and democracy would require much greater common identity among the Afghans, something that would take, under the best of circumstances, several decades to develop. Since the US will not support the kind of centralized regime now required, it is necessary to move to a more decentralized structure.

This will make the various levels of governance in Afghanistan more responsive to the people. It might not be government of, by and for the people but it will be a move in that direction from the current ineffective, corrupt centralized structures.

It will be difficult to shift to greater decentralization since the US foreign policy establishment and the United Nations think in terms of a top-down control to achieve economic and political "development". They want a single point of contact; they are accustomed to dealing with state-to-state relationships; they expect the US and Europe to expend blood and treasure to "develop" others.


They see "development" as making others more like themselves.

Decentralization will no doubt consolidate the power of Rashid Dostum, an Uzbek, Mohammad Mohaqeq, a Hazan, Abdul Rasul Sayuyaf, a Pushtun, Abdullah Abdullah, a Tajik, and their likes within the provinces. While many of these leaders have defects in Western eyes, they are capable of providing a security shield against the Muslim extremists within their our provinces—if they think it is in their interests to do so.


Getting local leaders to provide the needed security shield for the people is an essential first step to stability. Then it would be possible to influence the course of events toward a more desirable outcome. Without this first step there is no possibility of long-term stability.


Therefore, the focus of US and NATO efforts should be shifted to making local leaders, local militia, and local police more effective and efficient. If this is done the cost will be less and the benefits will be greater. XXXXX


Dr Sam Holliday is Director of the Armiger Cromwell Center


All publications copyright © 2008 Armiger Cromwell Center. Permission is granted to forward this article by e-mail to friends or colleagues on a fair use basis. For reprint permission, contact Armiger Cromwell Center at armigercc@comcast.net

Read also part I in this series, "Losing the War is Not an Option", by Arend Jan Boekestijn

Also by Dr Sam Holliday

-  American Diplomacy: "Aghan Federation"
- Armiger Cromwell Center: click "Afghanistan*New

All posts by Sam Holliday on Politeia

Related dossiers:

- "The Afghan Front"

- "Pakistan's Double Bubble"

- "The Finer Points of Warfare"

- "The Propaganda Hirabah"

- "Narco Wars"