The Bosque Boys

The Cold War analogy may be too optimistic. Islam has been at war with everyone else for about 1400 years. We are in another of the many hot periods of this conflict, with no end in site. Islam has demonstrated an ability to renew itself that Marxist-Leninism never did.

On the other hand, unreformed, unenlightened Islam's fight is with modernity as much as it is with us. All good things must come to an end, whether it is a 70-year Marxist-Stalinist empire or a 1400-year thirst for caliphate.

I guess you realize that "unreformed, unenlightened Islam" covers almost all Islam. As far as coming to an end goes, while we have seen the extinction of tribal religions in history, those religions that break out of tribal/ethnic boundaries have real staying power. I don't anticipate the ending of most Buddhisms, Christianity, Islam, or even Hinduisms any time soon. Of course, "all good things must come to an end," applies to the West and modernity also.

Appropos the decline of the West, Historian Niall Ferguson writes:

"Gibbon called the decline and fall of the Roman Empire "the greatest, perhaps, and most awful scene in the history of mankind." Could a still more awful scene be unfolding in the form of the West's decline and fall? For Gibbon, Rome's decline was the result of military overstretch, inner decadence, religious conversion, and barbarian invasion. To my mind, all of these are operating today to undermine what remains of Western dominance in the world. If the United States suffers mainly from the first and second, the European Union seems even more afflicted by the third and fourth [Ed. First, second, third, and fourth refer to categories discussed in the article]."

A hundred years ago, as we have seen, the West could justly claim to rule the world. After a century during which one Western empire after another has declined and fallen, that can no longer credibly be claimed. Empires, of course, take time to decline and fall. Gibbon begins his narrative in A.D. 96; he ends it in 1430, more than a millennium later. Yet there can be no question that the pace of imperial descent has quickened in modern times. The longest-lived empire after the Romans was the Ottoman Empire, which endured for 469 years. The East European empires of the Habsburgs and the Romanovs each existed for more than three centuries. The Moguls ruled a substantial part of what is now India for 235 years. Of an almost identical duration was the realm of the Safavids in Persia. The Spanish, Dutch, French, and British empires can all be said to have endured about 300 years. The lifespan of the Portuguese empire was closer to 500.

The empires created in the 20th century, on the other hand, were all of comparatively short duration. The Bolsheviks' Soviet Union (1922–91) lasted less than 70 years, a meager record indeed, though one not yet equaled by the People's Republic of China, established in 1949. Japan's colonial empire, which can be dated from the conquest of Taiwan in 1895, lasted barely 50. Most ephemeral of all modern empires was the so-called Third Reich of Adolf Hitler, which did not extend beyond its predecessor's borders before 1938 and had retreated within them by the end of 1944. The remaining empires of the West are young by Roman standards. But by the standards of modern times, the United States—at 230 years—is quite long in the tooth. The day when the Capitol in Washington, D.C., will be reduced to a picturesque ruin may seem to us infinitely remote. History—including the greatest historian of them all, Edward Gibbon—suggests that it may come sooner than we think."

But don't stop there. Read the whole thing here:

http://www.vanityfair.com/p...

Without reading the Nial Ferguson piece, which I promise to do--

Gardener:

Let me address your oft-repeated assertion that Islam is not a religion of peace.

Granted, but isn't every Muslim living in the West (who is not planning on killing us and/or working to reinstitute the caliphate) implicitly reformed and bowing to Western-style enlightenment thought?

And isn't the biggest threat to true Islam not the West but modernity itself? Isn't the real war between Islam and modernity?

And, if modernity wins, unreformed Islam ceases to be?

In re Niall Ferguson:

1. Great and instructive piece. I love the guy. Although he pronounces his name "neel," I cannot help but pronounce it "nile" in my head.

2. By the way, I am working on a post inspired by Brian-Lamb Friday entitled David Walker's Appeal (David Walker the comptroller), who offers the same gloomy statistics and economic forecast that Ferguson mentions in Part III. Certainly sobering--if not frightening.

3. Ferguson asserts that NASCAR and porno are our equivalent to "orgies and circusses" (Part IV). I actually believe that our Romanesque enervating entertainment is the modern reality show (ironically, he mentions the British version of "Big Brother" in a different context in Part V). "The Bachelor" is our modern gladiator; we love to watch those hopeful candidates stabbed in the heart. But he is certainly right that we are going soft in the body and soft in the head.

4. Having said all that, the USA is capable of saving itself. Much more so than our European cousins.

Farmer, No, I would not say the every Mluslim living in the West is implicitly reformed. Study has shown that large percentages of Muslims in Western lands, especially in Europe, reject Western values and want to live as a separate community under Islamic law (or, for the more ambitious, to bring their resident countries under Islamic law). Canadian Muslims are moving toward similar percentages. Here in the US, while the percentages of those who want to live under Islamic law is smaller than in Europe, it is disturbingly high where Muslims are found in concentrations such as parts of Detroit and Jersey City.

Regarding "modernity itself," abstractions do not have an ethereal existence on this planet. Modernity, as it does exist, means the West, including Western influenced areas such as Japan. It is a distinction without a difference to say the anger is against modernity, I think. (But, in this I am being more Aristotelian than Platonic I suppose, though even for Plato the Ideals exist in this world in concrete expression.)

I will rephrase:

Isn't every Muslim living in the West (who is not planning on killing us and/or working to reinstitute the caliphate OR LIVING UNDER ISLAMIC LAW) implicitly reformed and bowing to Western-style enlightenment thought?

My real question: don't you think Osama et al are fighting so viciously because they feel they are under attack (culturally and religiously) and losing?

And aren't they right?

Farmer, Yes, I do think that Osama and company are fighting so hard in part because they perceive the seriousness of the threat to Islam that Western culture presents. I am not so sure that Osama and the Wahhabism of Saudi Arabia can be explained entirely in terms of reaction to the West, however. Islam, especially in its "revivalistic back to the Quran versions" has its own inner dynamic and motivation of being "true to Allah," in other words it also has a positive motivation to "Win the World for Allah." As a Southern Baptist you surely can appreciate that a religious group has both negative (reacting against) and positive (acting because) motivations. And, I am not convinced they necessarily will lose.

A quibble with the entry on the length of Empires above: Richard Nixon began his analysis and explanation of Kremlin policy by starting with the expansion of Muscovy leading eventually to the Tsars--same imperial dynamic, different players and different languages of rationale. I think the same thing applies to the Chinese: the Chinese Empire did not start in 1949, it revived under new management. Geopolitical power goals have a life of their own.

George F. Kennan agreed with Nixon in re "Russian expansive tendencies." I wonder what Kennan would say about Putin?

My guess on Keenan is: next verse, same as the first, . . .

Gardener:

In re Osama and his motivations:
I certainly wasn't arguing monocausality. I certainly agree that the Islamists have multiple motivatons--but they weren't trying to win the world for Allah on 9-11. They were punishing the Great Satan; they were also sending a message: get out of our part of the world.

As I have said before, 9-11 is a lot like Pearl Harbor in that it was not the first step in a plan to conquer America; it was a calculated plan to dislodge American influence in a certain part of the world so that a particular entity would have free access to obtain hegemony in that part of the world.

Osama is a local. We are relevant to him because we are in his locale.

Farmer, in regard to Muslims and assimilation, what do you make of the recent Dutch elections and the work of theTurkish government to influence them?
http://www.brusselsjournal....
(Lots of Turks in the Netherlands) One of the reasons given by the Turks to vote for a particular candidate was to oppose assimilation policies by another party

Farmer, from what I have read out of Osama and al Qaeda, the positive and negative motivations mix.

Gardener: I am not good on Dutch politics. But in my mind, this story reinforces the need for Americanism as our cultural glue.

Our tradition is assimilation. Our tradition is political and cultural unity.

As I said above, the USA has a much better chance of surviving the horrors of the coming decades than our European cousins. But we have to be us--not them.

Farmer, Amen. English language, respect for the rule of law, republican/democratic institutions, tolerance, basic freedoms. Don't move to our house unless you are willing to become part of the household.