Muslim street smarts

James Kirchik in the LA Times writes Don’t bow to the ‘Muslim Street’

America’s firebombing of Dresden during World War II surely “angered” many Germans, and our bombing of Belgrade during the Kosovo war perturbed Serbians. Did the fact that we (and our allies) antagonized people during these military actions make those interventions unjust? And while it’s true that the overthrow of the Baathist regime in Baghdad has angered Muslims around the world (many of whom, it ought to be noted, cheered Saddam Hussein and ignored his crimes against their fellow Muslims out of a cruelly misplaced sense of Arab nationalism), it has also delighted the Kurds, the Marsh Arabs, Iraqi trade unionists and the many other victims of Hussein’s regime.There are lots of things that “anger” the “Muslim street:” Women not wearing burkas. Adults drinking alcohol. Homosexuals. But virtually no one seriously suggests that we make America less free in order to suit the tastes of the Muslim world. So why should we let something as nebulous and reactionary as “Muslim opinion” get in the way of preventing genocide in Sudan?

The context of Kirchik’s argument is the mass killing in Darfur. Should the ‘Muslim street’ dictate American actions in Darfur?

This question is especially pertinent considering that the United States is enormously popular in Africa. A Pew Global Attitudes poll released during the summer revealed that the majority of people in eight out of 10 African countries believe that the United States is their “most dependable ally.” More important, the poll found that most Africans fault the United States for not taking a more active role in Darfur. Continuing to avoid intervention there to please the “Muslim street,” therefore, will make us less popular with Africans. You cannot please everybody all the time, and in the case of Darfur, intervening will endear us to the people actually living in the region.

Barry Rubin applies the question more generally (and in slightly different terms).

Indeed, there are four main arches critical to the Middle East’s dominant ideology:* That its problems arise from Western and Israeli oppression.
* That the struggles and violence of radical Arab nationalists and Islamists are based on genuine grievances.
* That the West behaves wrongly because it is hostile or ignorant about Arabs and Muslims.
* And that Arab and Muslim society is vastly superior to the West which justifies their rejection of it and ultimately will pave the way for their victory over it.

The first three are too commonly accepted in the West; the last is largely ignored altogether. But the key to understanding the Middle East is not “Islamophobia” in the West but the region’s own “Westphobia,” “modernityphobia,” “secularphobia,” “democracyphobia,” “freedomphobia,” “femaleequalityphobia,” and “JudeoChristianphobia.”

The bottom line is that change is needed not in Western policies and perceptions but in the Middle East itself. After all, the West succeeded precisely-as Arab liberals well understand–because its societies pit a priority on internal change: education and honest inquiry; productive virtues; better social infrastructure; more human and civil rights; and a freer culture.

In other words, the West ought to ignore what’s widely called the “Muslim street” and appeal to Muslim moderates. (I assume that he’s not talking about the Muslim brotherhood that Jackson Diehl portrays as “moderates.”)

In this regard, a British student who lived in Syria has written a personal account entitled “Syrian Journal,” which reduces prevailing myths about the region to rubble. It brilliantly portrays a dictatorship using repression, demagoguery, and modern public relations’ techniques to stay in power.
…
Then compare this to a New York Times article on precisely the same topic, “Students of Arabic Learn at a Syrian Crossroads,” which falls for every regime trick and generally portrays Syria as a pretty good society.

All too often in the West those supposedly devoted to liberalism and enlightenment are those who seemingly respect the anti-Americanism (and generally the anti-liberalism) of the Muslim street. PostGlobal has a feature that I discovered yesterday, How the world sees America by Amar C. Bakshi. A quick look at the titles and you start to realize that series ought to have been titled “How negatively the world sees America.” The author isn’t looking for Africans or British students in Syria who appreciate America and the West, but rather for those who hold hatred of the West as one of their primary political beliefs.

Take for example How the world sees Jack Bauer.

Though he’s outrageous, Bauer is inevitably intertwined with America. He fights for it, after all, and embodies some of its stereotypes: multiple love affairs, an affinity for pyrotechnics, fierce patriotism, and most of all these days, a go-it-alone attitude. After the unilateral invasion of Iraq, America’s belief in the individual, once embodied by on-screen heroes like Rocky Balboa and The Terminator, increasingly reads as a political mantra.As Australian journalist Antony Loewenstein writes, Bauer’s use of “torture and the whatever it takes mentality is precisely why the U.S. is so despised right now.” From India, student Akshay Bawa writes: “Jack Bauer is James Bond on coke.” The cool, cosmopolitan imperialism of Britain’s 007 is replaced with the brutish patriotism of Bauer.

I will not pretend to be an expert on “24,” being a recent discoverer of the series. However as we’re approaching the end of the second season, barring any more unforeseen twists, the theme of the second season – clearly visible despite being obscured by all manners of violence – is “Why can’t we just get along?” It seems to be a plea of understanding to the Islamic world, not an indictment of that world.

If Bakshi – who seems to admit enjoying “24” – finds critics of America who use “24” as an excuse to hate America, it reflects on him too. Like those who give too much credence to the ‘Muslim street’ he sees a value in hating – or at least criticizing – America.

The United States ought to look to its interests first and not worry about how others react. In many cases the objection to America is not well thought out, but a posture that is celebrated as “sophisticated” by those who ought to know better.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.