Author: Lou Dobbs Moneyline
Publication: www.danielpipes.org
Date: June 13, 2002
URL: http://www.danielpipes.org/article/421
DOBBS: As we stated last week, we
believe that the "war on terror" expression does little to define the enemy
of this country in this battle, And we have asserted the language the "war
against radical Islamists" instead. We believe it is clear. We believe
it defines our enemies. Most of you-and by far the most of you-agree, but
significant numbers do not.
In the cause of seeking even greater
clarity in terminology and assessing its importance and the threat posed
by radical Islamists, we've asked three of the country's leading experts
to join us this morning.
Fawaz Gerges has spent the past
two years researching relations between Islamists and the West. Daniel
Pipes is the director of the Philadelphia-based Middle East Forum. And
Mary Jane Deeb is adjunct professor of international relations at American
University in Washington. I thank you all.
And if I may, Professor Deeb, begin
with you. What are your views on the use of the terminology "radical Islamists"
to describe and define those who would destroy this country and, indeed,
much of civilization?
MARY JANE DEEB, PROFESSOR, INTERNATIONAL
RELATIONS, AMERICAN UNIVERSITY: Well, I think there are Islamists and radical
Islamists. Their goal is the same. Basically, a community of Muslims headed
by a Caliphate and with a system of law which is called Sharia. Radical
Islamists believe that they can achieve this by violence, and other Islamists
believe they can achieve this through other means.
DOBBS: And, Daniel Pipes?
DANIEL PIPES, MIDDLE EAST FORUM:
First of all, I'd like to congratulate you on your new terminology. I think
it's very good. "War on terrorism"-meaningless term. "Terror" is not the
enemy. Militant Islam, as you're calling it radical Islamism, is the enemy.
It's very clear to all of us, and it's high time that someone like you
points it out. I think it's an excellent term.
DOBBS: OK. If I may turn to you,
Professor Gerges. Your thoughts?
FAWAZ GERGES, AUTHOR, "AMERICA AND
POLITICAL ISLAM": Well, I think there are two sets of differences. Those
of matter and doctrine between the mainstream Islamists who represent the
majority of Islamists and militant Islamists. I think while mainstream
Islamists have made a strategic decision to participate in the political
process and play by the rule of the game and have learned the hard way
that violence is counterproductive, militant Islamists use mainly force
to Islamicize society and politics and remain ambivalent about participating
in the secular political process.
DOBBS: Would you all agree that
the-part of the foundation here-and let's focus only on Islamists for a
moment, not radical Islamists-but the foundation for much of this rises-arises
from the fact that these Islamists take a system of personal belief and
convert it, in point of fact, to ideology and raise it to a political cause
that is the creation of an Islamist state. Is that...
PIPES: Precisely.
DOBBS: ... a fair statement?
PIPES: It is a transformation of
a personal faith into a radical utopian ideology. I would differ with my
two colleagues, though. They're both making distinction between Islamists
and radical Islamists. I note that some Islamists use violence and some
don't.
But I say it's circumstantial. The
person who doesn't use violence today will use it tomorrow. They're all
gunning for the same totalitarian goals, and which methods they're using
at this moment I don't consider very important at all.
DEEB: I think it is critically important.
The difference in methods is essential in defining who is a terrorist and
who is not. The fact that someone can believe in a Caliphate does not mean
by definition that that person is going to use violence, that he is against
the United States, or that he is against the values of other countries
and civilization, but...
PIPES: Fair enough, but believing
in a Caliphate is not the key. The key is believing this totalitarian-is
supporting this totalitarian ideology-that's the key. Some Islamists are
violent, some are not, but all want to impose a totalitarian ideology.
DEEB: Well, it depends. It depends.
It depends if you view the Caliphate or an Islamic state as a totalitarian
state. Many Muslims-many Muslims would argue with this.
PIPES: I'm not talking about Caliphate.
I'm talking about supporting ideas like those of Ayatollah Khomeini, Osama
bin Laden, which are radical, utopian ideas that want to change the way
we live. That's not talking about Caliphate. It's talking about...
DEEB: No. But both-yes, but both
have used violence. I mean, bin Laden and Khomeini have used violence,
and so I would put those in the radical Islamist group.
DOBBS: Professor Gerges.
GERGES: Well, I think that-I mean,
the focus here on the ideological underpinning of Islamic- Islamism is
crucial. I think that Islamism is more of an ideological constraint. I
think it has more to do with politics and society than religion per se.
I think we should not be deceived
by the, I think, flowery rhetoric of Islamists who tend to, I think, wrap
the ideological agenda with the moral trapping and, of course, the legitimacy
of Islam. I think, at the end of the day, their discourse and their agenda
is political.
And I think the distinction here-that
we should not confuse Islam, Muslims, and even mainstream Islamists with
what I call the fringe radical Jihadi variety of Ayman al-Zawahari and
bin Laden.
DOBBS: Excuse me. I'm going to ask,
if you would, to stay patient with us, and as-we'll continue this conversation
when we return.
(BREAK)
We're back with Fawaz Gerges, Daniel
Pipes, and Mary Jane Deeb. On the issue of radical Islamists, let me begin
with you, Fawaz. How serious the threat, in your judgment, is the ideology
of-and the action-of radical Islamists to this country, to civilization
itself?
GERGES: Well, Lou, I think most
of us really underestimated the power and the strengths and the reach of
the jihadi elements. I personally did not really expect in my wildest estimation
that Ayman al Zawahiri and Osama bin Laden would be able to unleash the
terror that took place on 9/11.
But let's keep in mind that it's
crucial that the United States does not fall into bin Laden's trap and
confuse Islam, Muslims and even mainstream Islamism with the fringe Islamist
movement. I think the overwhelming number of Islamists are mainstream Islamists
who represent basically, while willing to play by the rules of the game,
to participate in the political process, who have renounced violence, that
the fringe Islamist elements, although they represent a threat to American
national security, I think they represent a bigger threat to their own
societies.
Let's remember, Lou, that militant
Islamists have bled their society dry. The main victims of terrorism have
not just been Westerners and Americans. The main victims of terrorism have
been Muslims and Arabs.
DOBBS: That's a fascinating point.
Daniel Pipes?
PIPES: Professor Gerges makes a
distinction between the mainstream Islamists and the fringe ones. I would
say that's like making a distinction between mainstream Nazis and fringe
Nazis. They're all Nazis, they're all the enemy.
To answer your question directly,
Lou, I think what Nazism or fascism was to World War II and Marxist/Leninism
was to the Cold War, militant Islam is to this war. It is the ideology
that lurks behind the states, the organizations, the individuals. All the
people who are fighting us now in this war are devoted to a single set
of-broadly speaking, a single set of ideas. These are ideas which are extreme
extremely inimical to our own, and they are very aggressive. They want
to impose their ideas on us through violent means or peaceful means.
They are our enemy very clearly,
and they're a long-term, determined, devoted enemy. I'm surprised that
Professor Gerges is surprised by the intensity of their attack on us, because
they declared war on us in 1979. Ayatollah Khomeini came to power in Iran
and said "Death to America."
You know what? Hundreds of Americans
died as a result of that. It is nothing new. It's been going on now for
two decades.
GERGES: May I add a footnote, though?
DOBBS: Please.
GERGES: Well, I think the critical
questions are the following-is it in our interests to make an enemy of
the entire Islamist camp? Is it in our vital interests to lump all Islamists
together and ignore the many shades of colors and view between and within
Islamists?
Let's remember there are enlightened
Islamists and reactionary and fascist Islamists as well. And I think that
up until 9/11 American policymakers made a clear distinction between mainstream
and moderate Islamists and fringe Islamist movements who use violence and
force. I hope that this particular distinction remains in place.
PIPES: It is not particularly in
our interest to have them all be our enemy, but they are our enemy whether
we-whether you recognize it or not. They're our enemy.
DOBBS: Professor Deeb, let me bring
you in, if I may.
DEEB: Yes. Well, my knowledge of
the region makes me raise an eyebrow, if I may say so, about the assertions
that Islamists are the enemies of the United States.
I would say that basically, Islamists
are afraid of the United States. They're afraid of the power, military
and cultural power of the U.S. and of the West. And they are reacting out
of fear. They're not reacting in order to impose their own ideologies or
their own views on the United States.
I don't think anyone in their right
mind would believe that the ideas of bin Laden would actually transform
the United States or would convert Americans. But Islamists are afraid
that American ideas, American ideals of democracy, of openness, of inclusiveness
will change the hearts and minds of many in the region.
DOBBS: Is it your judgment that-we're
really out of time, but I would like to just as succinctly as you can,
whether you agree or disagree with our definition of the enemy as radical
Islamists? If I may begin with you, Professor Gerges.
GERGES: Let me put it this way.
Let me end on a positive note. I think that militant and radical Islamists
have been defeated in almost every single Arab country. I hope they're
also defeated in Afghanistan, coupled with the ramification of 9/11, would,
I suppose, expedite the process of soul searching on the part of Islamists.
And I think this process, the echoes of this particular soul searching
appear to emerge, in particular, in Egypt in the last two months.
DOBBS: So you would agree with our
characterization, professor?
GERGES: Well, absolutely. As I said
before, I think militant Islamists represent a direct threat to their own
society and, of course, an indirect threat to some aspects of U.S. national
security and American citizens as well.
DOBBS: And Professor Deeb?
GERGES: Radical Islamists are a
danger to everyone, to themselves and to Muslims in general. And certainly
to the West, but we must remember that they constitute a very small minority
of people among the 1.2 billion Muslims around the world.
DOBBS: And I think that is clear.
As a matter of fact, we've had a number of people, professor- Muslims,
who are saying that they appreciate the definition because it is a way
in which to segregate those who practice peacefully and righteously the
Islamic religion from those who are extremist and violent, that is, the
radical Islamists. Daniel Pipes, you have the last word.
PIPES: Thank you. Two points. First,
I would say that militant Islam is the problem. Moderate Islam is the solution,
not moderate radical Islam, but moderate Islam, really moderate Islam.
Secondly, I would note that Professor
Deeb said you had to be crazy to think that Osama bin Laden's ideas would
be attractive here. Let me just recall the home videotape when he took
pride in all those conversions that were taking place in the United States
and Holland, I think he said, as a result of his actions. He does want
to impose his idea here. He may be crazy, but he wants to do it.
DOBBS: Fawaz Gerges, Daniel Pipes,
Mary Jane Deeb, we thank you very much. We hope you will rejoin us again
as we continue this examination of a very important topic to all of us.
Thank you.
