Churchill on Islam
I attended a talk the other night by my teacher Clifford Orwin hosted by the Churchill Society in Toronto: Churchill's Islam problem--and ours.
The original edition of Churchill's "The River War" has long been out of print--although many abridged editions are in circulation. A new complete edition is about to be published. Churchill was probably persuaded to shorten his book simply to make it more readable, and sell more copies, but he also chose to cut some criticisms he had made of Lord Kitchener, and some comments on Islam in the modern world. Orwin's paper is based largely or entirely on passages that have long been out of print.
More tomorrow.
Update: In one long passage, which is not really repeated or elaborated anywhere, Churchill says something like: Islam itself is a dangerous force; it subjects its believers to dangerous indolence, and even slavery in the case of women; the only real break between periods of indolence is likely to be an episode of fanatical violence; and the West will have a hard struggle to save itself as Islam spreads. Churchill suggests that Christianity used to be at least roughly comparable to Islam, but it has been made a truly progressive force by the victory of science, which Christianity used to oppose as Islam does in 1900 (as Churchill wrote).
What is striking here is that it is not simply one dangerous version of Islam, or radical extremes limited to the margins of Islam, that are the problem. Islam itself is a big problem. The West is in a war for survival, like it or not. Churchill spoke from experience in that the River War in Sudan was fought against Dervish fanatics, who had been brutalized by Egyptian rule; he also gained experience in the North-West Frontier--now Afghanistan.
There are other passages, however, where Churchill suggests that Islam is a "normal" phenomenon. Churchill clearly believed that the West had become a great example of progress--moral, political and spiritual, as well as material. Different societies or cultures will achieve modernity in different ways. Often there will be an early or intermediate stage which is characterized by fanaticism and oppression, but if the population in question is managed correctly, real progress is still very likely if not inevitable. Churchill gives the example of the Brits "managing" Muslims as well as Hindus and others in India. This suggests that not even Islam requires an all-out war to the death of one civilization or another. Only firm and consistent handling is required--of a kind that a true world-wide empire might administer with a combination of force and diplomacy.
The first, more troubling interpretation of Islam would tend to support the Perle/Frum view of the present war on terror. The U.S. must lead the West in attacking many governments, and many examples of Islamic society, in order to weaken the forces that led to 9/11. Radical Islam, which has deep roots in much of the Muslim world, must be changed quickly and drastically from without, or the terrorists will win.
The second interpretation--progress is desirable and even necessary, but it can be achieved by diplomacy as much as by force--might support the conservative realists such as Kissinger and James Baker. (Of course many will ask: is this the whole political spectrum?) Instead of all of Islam being seen as a threat, there may be a need to "cut off the heads" of the worst offending groups, while offering material progress and democracy to sizable parts of the Muslim population.
Of course, Churchill assumed that the Brits would continue to have a real Empire--something that was virtually destroyed by World War I, and the remnants of which were eliminated by World War II. Whatever one thinks of the U.S. today, they don't have that kind of empire. Their plan in Iraq is to stay a fairly short time, and set up a democracy as quickly as possible. Orwin I think came close to saying this is an awkward combination of approaches. The problem is supposedly imbedded in Iraqi society deeply enough that massive force is required to eliminate it; yet it can be solved within 6 months or a year, and a democracy can be established where there has never been one.
I don't think Orwin is a neo-con. I seem to recall him saying in the 80s that he wasn't a neo-con, but he would be excluded from the same parties the neo-cons would be. He described himself during the talk as a "Thucydidean" who believes all human beings strive to be free, and then to expand. This always works against believing that any one group is evil, or has some kind of intention or tendency of soul that is worse than that of others.
On the other hand, it is clear that 9/1l has made Orwin think seriously about the neo-con agenda. Even the points that Michael Lind probably believes are often taken out of context--Churchill was "the greatest statesman of the 20th century," and he "saved democracy"--are present. The thought that it is always 1939--at least as long as Islam is growing in the world--was not far from the surface. The idea that the late British Empire that Churchill grew up in was more or less progressive and glorious seems very powerful, and it leads to the thought that the U.S. may have a "duty," like it or not, to set up something which in some ways resembles that empire, and then defend it with great determination.
Do the attacks on 9/11, and the deaths of thousands of U.S. civilians on U.S. soil, lead to the thought that Islam is a growing and intractable problem, as Churchill, at least at some times, believed?
Sudan, in the hundred years after the events Churchill describes, became a safe haven for Al Qaeda. Afghanistan continues to be Afghanistan. The Muslims in India became Pakistanis, and are still a source of terrorism, and the distribution of nuclear weapons to rogue states. The Saudis and others have oil money so that their (undeniable) indolence and fanaticism can acquire weapons from the West.
On the other hand, even the Dervishes may have fought as much because of their previous oppression as anything else. Peter Russell spoke about Sudan the other evening, and he said that while things are terrible there, it is not really Muslims against everybody else; it is an autocratic government fighting all its enemies by brutal means.
|
