Comparing radical Islam with revolutionary anarchism is a dubious comparison. For one thing, radical Islam shares a degree of support or toleration in the Islamic world that anarchism did not share with the public in the countries that it was a problem in. Another major difference is that radical Islam does not seek to impose a purely theoretical system on society. Rather, there have been successful Islamic theocracies in the past, so there is an inherent seductiveness for many Muslims to the possibility that the goal of the Islamists is in fact attainable.
The Islamists enjoy popular support because they are not purely wild-eye zealots like the revolutionary anarchists, but rather they provide many services that protect the poor and at-risk members of their communities. There is a charitable face, a compassionate face that exists alongside the face that is capable of unleashing a horrific violence upon others. By doing so, they have muddied the waters and have introduced a question of relatvism into the conflict with them. It is not hard to see how they have often gained an almost Robin Hoodesque reputation, albeit one that trades tights for C4-strapped jackets.
It's common for conservatives to be so self-assured about the strength of the United States and other liberal democratic states, but there are critical differences that exist between the hayday of revolutionary anarchism and today. For starters, America and its allies--except a few of our Asian allies and Israel--are crippled with self-doubt and a loathing of their roots. Another thing, millions of common people are genuinely unconvinced of not only the importance of the war against all non-liberal manifestations of Islam, but the legitimacy of placing the burden of "human rights violations" on the enemy and those who even tacitly support them.
One need only look at the conflict that Israel is in right now to see what I mean. Here is a democratic state, that despite its flaws, provides a clearly liberal and tolerant atmosphere for virtually all citizens. Arabs enjoy more rights and potential for advancement in Israel than they do in any Islamic country. To be an Israeli citizen is the best hope for the good life that the vast majority of Arabs could ever achieve if they stay in the Middle East. Yet Israel is constantly condemned while brutal and backward states are defended by many of the people who should be defending Israel as a champion of modernity in the region. There is a real parallel between people who condemn Israel and those who would condemn say, Britain in World War II in its fight against Germany, because it had serious flaws such as an empire.
There is a lot of disingenuous rhetoric from those who claim that Islam is "one of the great religions," a "religion of peace" and that it is only a minority involved. Austin Bay's comparison (linked above) between Hezbollah and the KKK does hold up in one respect: both enjoy(ed) popular support where they held/hold sway. It is an unfortunate fact that such groups cannot operate on the level that inspires the terror that they have brought without systematic support from a large minority or a majority. A few percentage of sympathetic Shia would be insufficient to hide or defend Hezbollah from the Lebanese and Israeli armies. Hezbollah would certainly not hold a meaningful chunk of the Lebanese Parliament if it were supported only by a small minority of extremists.
Unlike anarchism, Islam contains inherent exhortations to violence. It is possible to be a genuinely peaceful anarchist and principly so without harboring the slightist bit of support for revolutionary and violent anarchism. I think that this is where the two fall apart. Islamism has its roots in Islam, a religion whose on scriptures contain passages that advocate persecution and violence toward non-believers. While other world religions have used violence against unbelievers, I do not know of a single world religion that contains passages in its scripture that advocate generalized violence toward non-believers. Even Judaism's violent passages are directed at a specific place and specific time, and all excuses for Judao-Christian terrorism and persecution are overridden by very clear and rigid passages against such behavior. To be blunt about it, when other organized religions do these things, they are typically betraying scripture. When Islamists act this way, they are being observant to at least a small degree.
Accepting Muslims as part of society because not all of them are violent is beside the point. No one is advocating the outlawing of Islam. However, multiculturalists in particular have been extremely dishonest about all of this. What matters is how many Muslims are willing to actually condemn these violent individuals and support efforts to eliminate them. Merely hypothetical support is worthless. You are either sympathetic on some level to the Islamist guerrillas and terrorists or you are not. It is black and white, for or against. Unfortunately, while we have made a lot of noise grandstanding about "he who is not for us, is against us," we (especially the Bush Administration) have been conspicuously uncritical of the Wahabi Lobby and infiltration within our own borders!
There is unfortunately no easy way to solve this. There is no morally satisfying method for modern elites that doesn't amount to self-destruction. If we continue the genuflection before the altar of multiculturalism and insist that it's a passing fad with little support a la revolutionary anarchism, we will be destroyed from within. That route will lead to a build up of supporters, emotional sympathizers and terrorists within our borders and we will be blind to that reality until it becomes painfully clear to the average citizen that terrorists cannot openly operate without popular support. By then, it'll be too late. The other options, involve soft or hard collective responsibility that could degenerate into outright bigotry as people are deported for merely being Muslim in an area known to harbor sympathies, even if they are very slight.
I don't think that Islamism is going away. It hasn't gone away for 1,400 years. For 1,400 years, Islam has waged a literal war against non-believers and it has shown no capacity for reform that transcends borders. And we shouldn't expect it to. One cannot ask the Islamists to rewrite scripture to washa way the passages that preach violence. It is too old as a religion for them to be simply washed away as though they never existed. Instead, it is time to face the fact that there are no convenient comparisons between past struggles and what we face with Islamism. For all of its similarities, it has many differences that are sufficiently fundamental to invalid old tactics.
The fact that Islam has carried a sword into non-Islamic lands since its beginning, and that that was nearly 1,400 years ago, should serve as sufficient proof that Islamism is not like Communism, Fascism, Anarchism or any other "ism." It won't be stopped through containment because it is first and foremost a religion at heart. Its utopia exists on both sides of eternity. Kill the one, and the other will still exist in the minds of many around the world. So please, enough with the triumphalist rubbish. America very well may lose this war because many other countries that were far more self-confident fell to Islamist expansion. Iran, the remains of the great and officially Zoroastrian Persian Empire, is proof of that.
To clarify, I am not asserting that being anti-war is being anti-G-d.
It is the rabid support of the "religion of peace" that is usually exhibited by the aforementioned foam flecked fanatic.
Silly Mike. You apply logic and reason to an emotional, irrational hatred of anything which is of G-d. Whether it's Hezbollah, Iran or the foam flecked screeching anti-war protesters on the street corner in Anytown, America.
However, I very much enjoyed this post. One thing that struck me in particular was your statement, "Hezbollah would certainly not hold a meaningful chunk of the Lebanese Parliament if it were supported only by a small minority of extremists."
In the same manner that holds true for Lebanon, it does indeed hold true for the rest of the Islamic world and the "terrorists" who do their dirty work.
Bravo.
As long as Islam itself is a viable world religion, it will continue to produce people who are willing to engage in unspeakable violence against those who disagree with them. This is something that is unique to Islam due to its valuing violence as a virtue in some cases.
The only way to fix it, as far as I can tell, would be to bomb the Ka'ba off the map so that every genuflection toward Mecca was one of defeat.
Works for me.
I'll contend it's a bit simpler still.
Islam is anti-G-d.
[Any comparison of the Word of G-d with that of the moon god will make the truth of that assertion clear.]
I think it should be pointed out Iran is also a glaring example of good intentions gone wild. Iran might resemble more of Norway today than the powder keg marked "WWIII HOBBY KIT", if we'd done differently.
Statecraft on the global stage is dirty shit, I fully contend. And no nation will ever walk off the stage of history with clean hands. But the fact News of the World foils plots to purchase red mercury is proof we have to tread more wisely.