It isn’t often that someone manages to organize the thinking about the struggle with Islamism in a way that makes political sense. The usual foreign policy debates have centered on phrases like liberal vs conservatives, neo-cons vs progressives, right vs left, socialist vs capitalist, even good vs evil – any one of which comes up short in describing one’s foreign policy position in this struggle. But an article by Ross Douthat, an associate editor at the Atlantic Monthly, brings the problem into sharp relief.
Douthat proposes a way to organize this foreign policy debate in terms of what year you think you’re living in. You may be a 1938sit, a1942ist, a 1948ist or a 1972ist. Which one are you?Find out at The Gathering Storm.
2 comments:
I first saw this a couple years ago (at The Gathering Storm, I think. I've kept a copy of the entire article since). Back then I was a solid 1938ist. The more we've dillied and dodged the Iranian problem, the more I have become a 1914ist. And, as someone somewhere noted, Mugniyeh (sp?) may have been the final Archduke Ferdinand catalyst. A very thought provoking article.
1907thist.
We've an earned ideological hegemony that we refuse to advance or defend. While in military control of Iraq and Afghanistan, as Britian was in control of Egypt, we make common fantasy, with pragmatic muslims, to believe that "islamism" is just a quaint allusion to past glory. In post liberation Afghanistan our moderate allies have offered death to a Christian convert and a young journalist.
Islam hasn't even mobilized yet. Our timidity in dealing with this lead element of jihad will be costly for both sides.
Post a Comment