Militant Islam Is the New Communism

During the Cold War, the United States was willing to align itself with any political group that was ideologically opposed to communism; in addition to assisting legitimate freedom fighters, our government befriended despots, death squads, and drug lords. As long as these despots, death squads, and drug lords hated commies, they were OK.

Fifteen years after the end of the Cold War, our foreign policy hasn't really changed. Communists have just been replaced by Islamic extremists. Any political group, no matter how shady, that wants to fight Muslim fundamentalism gets our support. But while these Islamic militant groups are indeed dangerous—being a good liberal, I should also point out that these groups are not representative of Islam as a whole—our policy for containing and defeating them is nonetheless flawed. Our enemies' enemies should not necessarily be our friends; and sometimes our enemies' enemies are just as violent and corrupt as our enemies are.

Two recent stories illustrate why we need to be more discriminating when choosing allies:

From Harper's, May 24:

A year ago this month,security forces in Uzbekistan killed hundreds of protesters in the town of Andijan. Human rights groups and journalists reported that the crowd was overwhelmingly unarmed and had come out to protest corruption and poor economic conditions. . . . The regime of Islam Karimov sought to justify the carnage by saying that the demonstration was organized by Islamic militants seeking to overthrow the government.

Karimov's apologetics are supported by S. Frederick Starr, once an advisor on Soviet affairs to Presidents Reagan and Bush (the first one) and now a professor at Johns Hopkins' Central Asia Caucasus Institute (CACI). CACI works closely with the current administration, for whom the institute helps justify relationships with despotic regimes in Central Asia. (Read more.)

Meanwhile, in Somalia (Reuters):

A top U.S. official handling Somalia has been transferred from his job after criticising payments to warlords that are said to be fuelling some of Mogadishu's worst-ever fighting, diplomats said on Tuesday.

In this case we are supporting war lords simply because they oppose radical Islam. Unfortunately, backing these war lords has not been fruitful:

At least 320 people, mostly civilians, have been killed in the anarchic city since February in battles between the warlords, who dubbed themselves the Alliance for the Restoration of Peace and Counter-Terrorism, and Islamist militias. . . .

Various other diplomats involved with Somalia, including those from Washington's allies, have expressed frustration at U.S. aid to warlords which they say has undermined Somalia's weak interim government, seen as the best hope for peace there. . . .

Analysts say Washington's widely believed links with the warlords have had the contrary effect of rallying Islamist groups and increasing support for them among Somalis, who are not usually strong supporters of radical Islam.

The world today is too complicated for nations and political groups to form alliances based solely on common enemies. A regime or militia may be eager to help us fight our never-ending war, but that same regime or militia could, in the future, become our primary enemy. (Consider, for example, Saddam Hussein or the Taliban.) A black-and-white globe (or one of those Cold-War-era red-and-blue maps) cannot be the basis of our foreign policy. "With us or against us" is just not a viable political philosophy in our complex world. We need to see the world in full color and in four dimensions; we need to introduce more variables into our foreign policy equations. Otherwise, we will inevitably end up supporting those who fiercely oppose the values we claim to cherish.