Blogs > Liberty and Power > Islamo-Fascism and U.S. Intervention

Feb 5, 2006

Islamo-Fascism and U.S. Intervention




David M. Brown at Blogcritics.org writes,"Whatever the full explanation may be, anyone who reads these stories and continues to claim that murderous Islamo-fascist antipathy toward the West and America is all or mostly about foreign policy, and would evaporate if only the governments of the West never acted militarily overseas, is not being altogether honest."

Impugning the honesty of those of us who see U.S. foreign policy as the chief instigator of Islamic violence against the West doesn't seem the best way to launch a debate salvo. But there you are. Brown contends that threats across the Middle East and Europe against the countries in which newspapers have published negative cartoons about Muhammad prove that the problem is Islamo-fascist culture, not merely Western intervention in the Middle East for the past 50 years.

"So, it's all about foreign policy? Tell it to the recipients of the latest Islamo-fascist death threats," Brown writes

A few points. Threatening violence against cartoonists, newspapers, and whole populations is monstrous, entitling potential victims to be on heightened guard against efforts to carry out such threats. Religious people who were really confident about their beliefs wouldn't  react that way to satire. Why is it not enough to believe that their just god personally will inflict divine retribution in the afterlife, if not sooner? I guess that's why they call it"faith."

But Brown has not proved his point. This inexcusable response to the cartooning comes against a backdrop of decades of war, bombings that killed innocents, and intervention at times openly on behalf of tyranny. Wars currently rage in two Muslim countries, and threats loom against others. Can we really be so sure that in fact it's not largely about foreign policy? It would be naïve to suggest that ending intervention in the Middle East would overnight bring the evaporation of anti-Western violence. Geniis are not returned to bottles so easily. But that does not mean that Western intervention has not been the chief factor in the origin of that violence.

Maybe Brown's right. But he'll have to do more to demonstrate it.

Hat tip: Kn@ppster.

Cross-posted at Free Association.


comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:


Mark Brady - 2/6/2006

Oops! Thank you, David and Sheldon. I guess I had conflated David Brown, formerly of IHS, with David M. Brown, now of Laissez Faire Books. My sincere apologies to David Brown, formerly of IHS.


Roderick T. Long - 2/6/2006

Why doesn't the burden of proof lie with those who claim, in effect, that invading and bombing people doesn't significantly increase their hostility? Because it seems to me that anyone who says most of their hostility doesn't stem from the bombings/invasions is thereby saying just that. See my post here:

http://praxeology.net/unblog07-04.htm#05


Gary McGath - 2/5/2006

The onus of proof is on those who claim that the West's policy is the cause of these attacks. By many statements from the Islamic world, the issue is a religious taboo which they wish to have enforced even in non-Muslim countries. The rage is aimed (for once) not at the United States, which is the main prosecutor of military action, but against Denmark, whose involvement is minimal at most -- that is, against the country which failed to suppress the publication of the cartoons.

Islamic culture has been going through a decades-long shift towards fundamentalist barbarism. Islamic religious tyranny has been exercised not just to attack Israel and the West, but to suppress native Muslims. Western attempts to intervene have only made things worse, but they didn't force the Muslim countries to follow the course they've taken.


Sheldon Richman - 2/5/2006

I think David is right. This is the David (M.) Brown who reviews books for Laissez Faire Books.


David T. Beito - 2/5/2006

Could you be confusing David Brown with another David Brown (now in the private sector) who worked for IHS in the 1980s?


Mark Brady - 2/5/2006

Thank you, Sheldon, for bringing David Brown's post to our attention, and for your perceptive comments. (I see David posted it at his own website, The Webzine, as well as Blogcritics.)

I don't know David well (he left IHS about the time I joined that organization) and I haven't followed the evolution of his thought. I just find it rather sad that, like so many self-identified libertarians, David seems happy to employ the intellectually incoherent catchword "Islamo-fascism" as justification for at least some of the nefarious activities of the American hegemon.


William Marina - 2/5/2006

I see demonstrations against such cartoons, providing they are peaceful, as part of the democratic process.
Some of the cartoons did involve in pictures references to bombing.
Bombing has become a major tactic of those opposing the Empire.
The Empire uses, of course, a different kind of bombing, often much more massive.
The tragedy is that the Empire thus far has shown an unwillingness to reconsider its Grand Imperial Strategy, only tactics to oppose the Insurgents.
The Insurgency is spreading beyond Islam, and will continue to do so in the present circumstances.


Sheldon Richman - 2/5/2006

Freely elected Hamas wasn't too crazy about the cartoons either. Thanks for the historical perspective, David.


David T. Beito - 2/5/2006

Who knows? Possibly the demonstrations would have happened in any case.

There is little evidence from history one way or another, however. Biting insults against Muhammad (for example, the wide use of the The Divine Comedy in college courses) can be found before the rise of U.S. intervention....yet demonstrations of this scope never happened. On a related note, those who try to use these demonstrations as justification for the war to bring democracy and liberty to Iraq should think twice. Our Shi'ite allies in Iraq (including Sistani) have also called for banning the handes.