Day by day it is becoming clearer that the most important question facing the world today is whether or not the Muslim world can join the family of nations who have adopted Modernity or whether they will remain trapped in their violent, Jihadist mentality, permanently at war with the rest of the world. There are several important points to keep in mind when considering how things are likely to develop over the next several years.
The first important point is that both of the primary supporters (and exporters) of Islamic fascism, Shia Iran and Sunni (Wahabi) Saudi Arabia, require high oil prices indefinitely if they are going to be able to support their growing populations without precipitating violent uprisings at home.
Secondly, if oil stays at high levels indefinitely, the magic of the market place is guaranteed to find alternative supplies. $60 a barrel oil makes recovery from the oil shale and tar sands economical. Further, while the details may differ, we are likely to see more and more stories like this one from David Foster at the Chicago Boyz, Sweet Energy, Sour Politics:
Barbados has developed a new breed of sugarcane which is specifically intended for use as fuel. "Developed" is probably not the right word, though...selective sugarcane breeding has been conducted on the island for generations in an effort to improve the crop's value for sugar production. Happily, intermediate breeds have been kept in a museum, and one of them turned out to be excellent for its fuel value.
Primary use of the "new" sugarcane will be boiler fuel for an electric power plant; it is also usable for ethanol production.
Make sure to check out the follow-up post here, as well as How to Beat the High Cost of Gasoline. Forever! from Money magazine, which a commenter helpfully linked.
What this means is that as soon as we have the capacity to replace the oil from unstable producers (not only the Middle East, but Venezuela, Nigeria, et al) our involvement with the producers will become discretionary rather than obligatory.
This suggests the most likely scenarios for the West and Islam all depend on the actions of the Islamic world over the next several years. In other words, before too long, they will need us more than we need them.
If the Islamic world makes the decision, unlikely as it might seem at the moment, to enter the 21st century, they will have to confront the irredentist elements within their own societies. There is no way the Saudi ruling family or the Mullahs of Iran, not to mention the minority Alawites of Syria, can survive such a confrontation. It is also unlikely that many of the other authoritarian states of the Islamic world would be easily able to make the transition. However, the likelihood of this outcome is increased exponentially if Iraq can successfully evolve into a multi-ethnic democracy. The current unrest may make it seem as if Iraq is descending into civil war, and the MSM certainly seems to be facilitating such an outcome by their unbalanced and inflammatory reporting (do they even realize they are active participants in an information war?) For a more balanced view, Scott Johnson quotes Haider Ajina, an Iraqi who reads Powerline, and offers translations of some Iraqi news reports. Civil War is not inevitable and we will all know much more after Friday night prayers and sermons.
Even if Iraq succeeds, the odds are against much of the Islamic world, especially since their ruling elites recognize how dangerous it would be for them if their people gained democratic freedoms. This implies that they will continue to support the most reactionary and fundamentalist elements within their societies. That way lies disaster for them.
Michael Totten writes from nearly-independent Kurdistan:
Iraq may not survive in one piece. The overwhelming majority of Iraqi Kurds are packing their bags. Most have already said goodbye. Erbil (Hawler in Kurdish) is the capital of the de-facto sovereign Kurdistan Regional Government. Baghdad is thought of as the capital of a deranged foreign country.
In January 2005 the Iraqi Kurds held an informal referendum. More than 80 percent turned out to vote. 98.7 percent of those voted to secede from Iraq. Not only have the Kurds long dreamed of independence, when they look south they see only Islamism, Baathism, blood, fire, and mayhem.
Robert Avrech has been touring the mind of Ariel Sharon:
It is impossible to know when it happened, at what point Ariel Sharon realized that the conflict with the Palestinians no longer mattered.
.... Ariel Sharon realized that the Arab-Israeli conflict had changed from a local terrorist movement, with ties to various other Arab terrorist groups such as The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and Hizbullah in Iran, into something far more dangerous, something even more virulent.
....
In truth, its only interest is in destroying The Jewish State.
With the rock n'roll-like popularity of the homicide bombers and their proud, ululating mothers and boasting fathers, Sharon must have recognized a truly perverted new stage in this ancient war.
Pansurgency.
....
To seal off Israel from the homicidal culture next door, Sharon understood, was the only way--short of a Carthaginian Peace.
This must be a high-tech wall, not a fence, let us be honest. The foundations must go deep into the earth so terrorists cannot dig tunnels. Whatever culverts are built under the foundations to allow for rainwater should be fitted with alarm systems, again, to guard against terrorist incursions.
....
As a student of war, Ariel Sharon was aware that there is no such thing as an impregnable barrier. But, history shows that to prevent terrorists from crossing by using lethal force whenever necessary, walls can be amazingly effective.
Both posts are long and rich (and Robert's is just the third of a four part series that should be read in its entirety) and both describe two peoples who have come to the conclusion that their next door neighbors are irredeemably disturbed and can neither be reasoned with nor tolerated any longer. Separation is reluctantly seen as the best option.
Europe remains trapped in uncertainty, trying to weigh the danger of confrontation against the illusory short term peace of appeasement. When Europe reaches the tipping point they will decide to finish the wall(s) they have already started. Europe has literally put up walls to keep Muslims out and have a half constructed, metaphoric wall keeping Turkey from coming into their living rooms. Turkey's current behavior is unlikely to help Islam come to terms with the modern world and the West:
Turkey on Collision Course with Europe, Demands Danish Apologies
One wonders whether the Turks still want to become EU members. Ankara is demanding an official apology from Copenhagen for the twelve Muhammad drawings published last September in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. Unless the Danish government of Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen distances itself from the cartoons ... and apologizes to Muslims worldwide, no bridge-building with the Islamic world is possible, said Namik Tan, the official spokesman of the Turkish Foreign Ministry.
[Update: Apparently, there is some dispute now as to whether or not Turkey actually ever demanded an apology. This is from the Brussels Journal:
Yesterday the Danish press reported that Namik Tan, the spokesman of the Turkish Foreign Ministry, demanded an apology from Denmark, making it quite clear that Turkey would not mediate in the cartoon crisis if Copenhagen did not apologize first. In the Hurriyet article, however, Mr Tan denies ever saying this to the Danish press. He stresses that everyone should already know Turkey would not demand an apology. The article also quotes Mr Rasmussen as saying there is no Turkish government demand for apologies from his government.
Make of this what you will.]
Interestingly there is a major split between the European elites, much of the American elite, and the overall population. The elites have been unable to transcend their ingrained political correctness and multi-cultural spawned cognitive deficits. They are inadvertently worsening the problem for their cultures and for Islam by pandering to the extremists, denigrating the voices of reason, and refusing to stand up for the core values of Western civilization. In countries where the elites are able to maintain power, the future is extremely bleak; one way or another they are certain to become more authoritarian as the violence and threats escalate. Countries that are more democratic have a chance of repudiating their rulers (which will involve the accelerating dissolution of the EU) and establishing more equal relationships with the Muslim world. In the United States and Australia (and in Israel) the soft-left elites have already been repudiated. They can still cause problems. (The opportunistic opposition to the ports deal by some, suddenly security conscious, democrats is instructive in this regard, as are the almost non-stop efforts by the MSM to support a narrative that suggest only Islamic fascists and their apologists are accepted as representatives of Islam.)
There are two major developments that could accelerate this process, and that is the subject for another day.
Recent Comments