Obama and Islamists

From Wonk Room at Think Progress: Will Islamists be Part of the President's New Dialogue?

POMED report on Democracy in Egypt.

New report from POMED (Project on Middle East Democracy) entitled, "Looking Forward: An Integrated Strategy for Supporting Democracy and Human Rights in Egypt." Download it here.

New book on reformers in the Middle East.

Michael Gerson mentions a great new book that focuses on seven reformers in the Middle East in his oped on Ayman Nour, The Next Founders: Voices of Democracy in the Middle East.

EGYPT.

Wow, I picked a bad few days to go out of town. There are so many darn articles on Obama's speech in Egypt and on democracy in Egypt I can barely think straight.

First and foremost, here is the transcript of the speech. There are many many things I liked about the speech, but in the interest of time, I will recount them at a later time after I have caught up very briefly on all the great articles written while I was gone.

Marc Lynch's initial analysis of the speech.

The speech led to a flurry of articles on why Obama should NOT give up on democracy promotion in the Arab world, especially in Egypt. For those who were angry he chose Egypt because of its lack of democracy, this flurry might give them reason to pause because it seems to have brought democracy back on the agenda, if it was ever gone.

There has been a debate raging on whether democracy promotion should be part of foreign policy. And, if in fact it should, how to do it - direct funding of democracy groups, or through more indirect paths such as economic development. Egyptian activists and citizens seem to think it should be a huge part of our foreign policy - Ayman Nour and Saad Eddin Ibrahim to name just two of the most active and well known political opposition leaders.

Important to note:
- The US government recently stopped funding civil society organizations that the Egyptian government does not recognize (bad)
- The US government (Gates) publicly stated that there will be no 'conditionality' clause on defense aid to Egypt (bad)
- The Bush admin., after advocating major democratic reform in Egypt, abandoned democracy promotion after Islamist parties (many were Islamic democratic parties, but that didn't matter to them...) won an overwhelming number of seats in parliament in 2005

Obama In Egypt: A Vision for Democracy Promotion , in World Politics Review by Brian Katulis and Michael Cohen.

Don't Give Up on Egypt, in Foreign Policy by POMED (Project on Middle East Democracy) peoples.

Michael Gerson on Ayman Nour in the Wash Post. (Ayman Nour is a leading political opposition figure in Egypt, he ran for President in 2005.)

Realism May Not Play in Cairo from NYTimes Week in Review section.

Variety of opinions from bloggers and activists in the region from the NYTimes oped page.

Ditching Democracy in Egypt? from MESH (Middle East Strategy at Harvard) by Scott Carpenter. (I learned via Marc Lynch that Carpenter is responding to this article by in Newsweek by Steven Cook article on why fiunding democracy programs in Egypt is not effective.)

I would love to read and write on this for days, maybe I will at some point, but for now I am going to move on to list a few other important developments and articles from the past few days.

Kuwaiti women in Parliament.

Kuwaitis elected 4 women to the 50 seat Parliament yesterday! Women only received the right to vote in that country in 2006. Interestingly enough, all were educated in the US. All winner ran as independents.

Islamic parties dropped from 21 to 11 seats.

Marc Lynch has great analysis of the Kuwaiti elections.

Taking Back Islam.

Nicholas Kristof reported on an extremely important conference that took place last week at Notre Dame "Quran in its Historical Context".

Strict Islamic scholars have tried to remove the Qur'an over time from interpretation and meaningful discussion, 'protecting'/ prohibiting it from adapting and adjusting to the modern world. They do this because to interpret it literally justifies their own hunger for power and privilege, and also at times because they feel insecure, that Islam is under attack.

In fact, no religion's holy book should be (and is today by rational people - even religious figures) read literally. The Bible and the Torah are full of violence and contradictions. Karen Armstrong, who religion is lucky to have as a scholar, tells us that the only thing we CAN and should take away from every passage in the Bible, like from every Surah in the Qur'an, is compassion - the whole do unto others. (She spoke brilliantly about this on Bill Moyers a few weeks back.)

Dr. Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd, highlighted in Kristoff's article, encourages moving away from literal interpretations of the Qur'an. He correctly argues that at the core of Islam's holy book, is that lesson of compassion: social justice, human rights and women's rights.

It is up to Muslims like Dr. Abu Zayd and Fatima Mernissi (Islamic feminism) and Islamic democrats - to take back their religion through conferences and discussions as such, and books and articles, but it is up to all of us to not fall into the trap of blaming Islam for violence and oppression of women. Those conditions are not there bc of Islam, rather they have political, social and economic roots. As non-Muslims, our attacks on Islam only lead to further protectionism and insecurity which serves the purpose of corrupt, dictatorial Muslim scholars.

Here I wrote about a similar conference in Turkey last year.

Here is a truly excellent analysis of various verses of Islam's holy book entitled "Taliban's Coercion Betrays the Qur'an" by Aloysious Mowe, International Visiting Fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center, Georgetown University.

Troubled Argument.

In an oped today in the Wash Post, "Kurdistan's Troubled Democracy" Scott Carpenter and Michael Rubin make a shockingly troubling and inaccurate argument about elections.

(Not all that shocking, though, when one notices that they are from Washington Institute for Near East Policy and AEI.)

I could barely get past this line:

In Iraq, elections are critical. They improve security by legitimizing power relationships while allowing people to vent frustration. In the Jan. 31 provincial elections, Iraqis chose for the most part to "throw the bums out," selecting candidates who they thought would abandon narrow sectarian objectives and best address their problems at the local level. The question now is whether a similar degree of freedom will exist in Iraqi Kurdistan.

My response: In the past elections in Iraq, like 2004, legitimized and cemented detrimental, not to mention formerly nonexistent, sectarian identities, not 'power relationships,' whatever that means. Yes, in the January provincial elections of this year, there were steps away from this as many Iraqis chose candidates proven to deliver services or who supported a national identity over sectarian.

I do not know the intricacies of dealing between the two Kurdish political parties, the KDP and PUK, but I haven't heard great things. I hope to learn more about this when I am over in northern Iraq next year.

But in general, what we should NOT do now is push, or rush, elections like we did in 2004, in areas where there are volatile unstable relations between parties - in this case the PUK and KDP - like they were in 2004 between Sunni and Shii in 2004.

I don't know, again, I am not en expert on the KDP and PUK wranglings up there, but we shouldn't jump to elections as the solutions for political instability.

Paul Collier would love to argue with these guys. His argument is also mine here in response to Rubin and Carpenter. Please see my post on it here Paul Collier's argument - which he put forth in his recent book Wars, Guns and Votes: Democracy in Dangerous Places - is that elections do not mean democracy and even are detrimental to democracy building if conducted at the wrong time, like when other democratic institutions do not exist. And, by the way, he came to this conclusions through an empirical study - he is an economist and he collected a ton of date for this. I've said this before, but I'll say it again, I believe democracy is worth pursuing in the region, just not a la Bush.

Sweet sweet Somalia.

First of all, Somali pirates are ballsy. Thy hijacked ANOTHER US owned ship today with 16 crew members. (Both sides are sending more ships to the scene, making me think the world is about to witness people walking the plank a la Goonies.)

More importantly, a disturbing debate is starting about what to do about Somalia. The solution is NOT military involvement.

Please, please please do not further militarize our foreign policy. (See my post below...) COIN (counterinsurgency) and/ or military campaigns and/or targeted strikes will not only NOT solve our problems with Somalia (we think there might be extremists hiding out there), but it will also serve to WORSEN Somalia's problems - which are political economic and social - and are widespread and need to be addressed with long term policies that address the state in a comprehensive way.

COIN people have said that they never want to fight COIN campaigns, this is their chance - Abu Muqawama - to prove it by arguing against this.

First of all, every time the US has gotten involved in Somalia it ends up badly for different reasons. We all know about the 1993 Mogadishu disaster.

More recently, the US backed Ethiopian troops in their overthrow of the Islamic courts, plummeting Somalia into deeper anarchy and chaos and and conflict and contributing to the radicalization of the Al Shabab movement. They were angry they had been ousted from power, especially by the the US and Ethiopia.

COIN (counterinsurgency) v. Reform

Professor Marc Lynch (GW, blog at Foreign Policy), academic - activist/student - advocate of legitimate indigenous sustainable political reform movements in the Middle East made a great point about how to wind down the war and violence in Iraq, countering somewhat many of the COIN (counterinsurgency)/ military people. I tend to agree with Lynch, while security is crucial, this cannot be solved by the military or even COIN.

Lynch:
"I think that it's hard for a lot of American commentators to really internalize this, because they are so firmly anchored in a U.S. military centric concept of the war where American strategy, troop levels, and will are what matters most. That, I suspect, is what animates the steady drumbeat of pessimism from my colleague Tom Ricks and many others. They have lived this war from the American side, embedded with American troops and American politicians and American debates in which Iraqis are viewed too often as passive recipients of American strategy or as problems to be managed. I understand it, but it seems evident that Obama really is thinking differently."

I have mixed feelings, for example, on talk on Abu Muqawama's blog of things like an 'iTough' (posting by an intern where Muqawama works (CNAS) cultural training for soldiers) which enables soldiers to have access to pertinent cultural information to assist in their war fighting.

I am so conflicted here. I understand that there were major improvements in Iraq (for Iraqis and the US troops) when soldiers stopped kicking in doors and started protecting homes. That soldiers are there providing security to the local population which is a good thing. But the long terms sustainability of this is questionable. I fear a military uniform might counteract any prowess the iTough provides; a gun detracting from a greeting said in the local dialect. I don't know.

I have discussed before (below) how COIN and military peeps seem to be taking over problem solving in the region; maybe it just seems this way bc Afghanistan and Pakistan are at the forefront of FP (foreign policy) right now.

Don't drop the D!

Recently Middle East Strategy at Harvard (MESH - mentioned in the below post) had a forum of responses to Obama's speech in Turkey - I found Michelle Dunne's (of Arab Bulletin at Carnegie, former State dept.) response most interesting on Obama not mentioning the 'D' word (Democracy) in the part of his speech concerning Arab states - he only talked about it relating to Turkey. Maybe he did this bc US and Democracy's reputation are tainted there and anything we suggest will also be tainted. But the US definitely should not give up on encouraging growth of democratic insitutions in the region just bc Bush did it the wrong way.

"What was peculiar about Obama’s speech, however, was his strong emphasis on democracy (mentioned at least eight times) as the tie that binds the United States and Turkey in friendship, and yet his unwillingness to apply the same principle in the latter part of the speech to U.S. relations with the Muslim world. There, the “D” word was banned. Aside from the usual platitudes about “mutual interest and mutual respect,” Obama promised to promote the welfare of people in the Muslim world only in socioeconomic terms: education, health care, trade and investment. No objections to that, Mr. President, but what’s the plan for working with countries where the state stands squarely in the way of citizens getting those things? And that would apply to quite a few states in the Muslim world."

new book - Bullets to Ballots: Violent Muslim Movements in Transition

This book sounds terrific: Ballots to Bullets: Violent Muslim Movements in Transition. Reviewed here.

From the author, David Phillips:
My book is a post-mortem of George W. Bush’s counterterrorism policy. It is also intended as a guide for the Obama administration. Part of it consists of case studies of groups that are at various stages of abandoning violence and seeking their goals through political means: the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Kurdistan Worker’s Party, Free Aceh Movement, and the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front. Some of these groups are making progress; others are back-tracking; while some groups are dividing into various factions. These case studies are considered within the context of world affairs since Bush declared his “Global War on Terror,” of which the book is deeply critical.

Goes well with what Rami Khouri (Daily Star) said the other night on 'On Point' with Tom Askbrook which I posted on here. Paraphrase of his statement:
As civil rights strugglers, MLK, turned to religion, as Desmond Tutu did for anti apartheid movement, so do Muslims turn to religion to frame and support their struggles for rights, justice governance and freedom.

Might be a nice compliment to another book that came out recently Wars, Guns and Votes: Democracy in Dangerous Places which I posted on here; included is a link to the review in the NYTimes.

I wish I had been at this meeting.

I assume my invitation was lost in the mail, David.

In an oped in the Wash Post David Ignatius writes up a meeting between Amb. Holbrooke and Gen. Mullen and tribal leaders in and Paktia province in Afghanistan.

His description of the meeting gives me the chills; can someone please invite me to one of these? (Read: Please give me a job on a PRT!)

Whether this will work or not, it's a darn good try. During the get together Holbrooke and Mullen asked tribal leaders questions like this:
"What attracts the people to the Taliban?"
"Give us advice on reconciliation with the Taliban."
"What other suggestions do you have?"

These questions reminded me of what David Kilcullen was saying at his conversation last week which I went to with the author of this oped about his strategy in general and his new book Accidental Guerrilla. Kilcullen stated that one reason the surge/ new COIN strategy was effective against AQI was because soldiers started asking the people what would work.

General McKiernan's Afghanistan strategy

Walter Pincus had an article today in Wash Post on McKiernan's Afghanistan counterinsurgency guidance paper. (And it's a manageable 3 pages.)

Here are some points that Pincus highlights in McKiernan's report:

1. Focus on development and governance, not just security
2. Do not clear an area unless Afghan forces can hold it
23. Legitimize the Afghan forces - so people will trust them and choose their side not Taliban
4. Understand the nuances of Afghan culture
5. Learn what governance means to local population
5. enforce rule of law - support the shura (local council) do not choose side, pick outside power players
6. Build relationships with local population and Afghan security counterparts
7. Be visible; give Afghans credit
8. "Win battle of perception"
9. Encourage moderates
10. De-legitimize insurgents and extremists

Protests, or lack thereof, in Egypt.

Here are some reports on the April 6 protest in Egypt -apparently it wasn't all that, but there were still some people (100 or so, yikes) out in the streets.

Good analysis from a LA Times blog Babylon and Beyond. Were people not out in the streets due to fear of being arrested? Complacency/ lack of interest/ doubt in change? Excerpt:

The emerging April 6 youth group, naming itself after last year’s strike by textile workers in the Nile Delta, were the first to call for a national strike in protest of a vast array of political, social and economic maladies. In a statement circulated online, the group made several demands, including a minimum monthly wage of 1,200 Egyptian pounds (about $215), political reforms to put an end to Mubarak’s mandate and the halt of gas exports to Israel.

Today, the group organized a number of protests on Egyptian campuses, which authorities sought to thwart by arresting activists and holding concerts and sports contests to distract students.

A police source told Agence France Press that they were ordered to arrest anyone taking part in demonstrations and to deploy forces in sensitive spots around the country. Police had been reportedly deployed in the delta town of Mahalla, where labor protests culminated in riots last year.

Cordoned by riot and plainclothes police, protesters chanted anti-Mubarak slogans in front of the Egyptian Journalists Syndicate building in Cairo. They seized the opportunity to reiterate their vehement opposition to the looming possibility that Gamal Mubarak will succeed his father, shouting: “Gamal, forget about hereditary succession, and go ask your father to be more sensitive.”

From the Arabist. Arabist mentions criticism from Hossam Tamman of Al Ahram on lack of MB (Muslim Brotherhood) participation - their no show reveals the key contradictions and problems with the organization. Here is Tammam's full article.

In a replay of events last year the MB has declined to take part in the 6 April strike, although it says that it supports strikes as a form of political action guaranteed by the law and the constitution. Justifying its refusal to participate the MB said that as the country’s largest opposition group it should have been consulted. This is more or less what the MB said last year. The excuse is starting to wear thin.
The MB is not known for its ability to maintain alliances outside the circle of Islamic activists or to perform as part of a broad political front. This is a result of the indoctrination that goes on in a closed organisation run through a strict hierarchy and which demands blind obedience to its leaders.
Another reason that prevents the MB from cooperating with other groups is the self-importance it has acquired since it started outperforming other opposition groups in elections. The MB has developed a habit of lecturing others about the great sacrifices it has made over the years.
Even if this were true, harping can only alienate other parties, if not the public as a whole. The fact is the MB’s long history of suffering sometimes makes it act in an isolationist manner, as if it were a closely-knit clan, not a group seeking allies on the local political scene.

Women protesting in Pakistan.

Good for all of us to see women out in the streets protesting in Pakistan, in veils.

On Point conversation on local (Middle Eastern) feelings on Obama's US FP (Really excellent chat)

Really EXCELLENT conversation tonight on On Point with Tom Askbrook (listen here) of the following experts on regional (Middle East) feelings toward of Obama's foreign policy and some fp advice:

Ayad Allawi , former Iraq PM
____ Ali Reza, CSIS Turkey Project Director
Rami Khouri, Editor Daily Star (Lebanon newspaper)

Here are some points that stuck out in my mind on moderate Muslims, Shariah, and how Islam is used as a political tool.

On Moderates:
Moderate Muslim does not mean pro America or that that person is happy in their current state. Moderate Muslims actually have very similar grivances to extremists - social, political, economic - but do not use similar tactics. The US must reach out to them by changing out policies that in places support dictators and hence extremist agendas, if not terror groups will continue to prey on these moderates due to shared grievances.

On Shariah:
When Muslims say they want shariah, they mean they want justice, governance, a standardized system of law. Shariah has received a bad name here (mostly bc media here who know nothing about Islam #1 confuse it with tribal law which is really the body which sanctions honor killings and other horrific punishments and #2 because many pervert real shariah and media here accept this as the real shariah instead of questioning its legitimacy.)

****Key point on Islam in political movements:
As civil rights strugglers, MLK, turned to religion, as Desmond Tutu did for anti apartheid movement, so do Muslims turn to religion to frame and support their struggles for rights, justice governance and freedom.

When social and political systems don't address grievances, people turn to religion for help.

Khouri's advice for Obama: Don't just talk about common ground, talk about what average Muslim talks about on a daily basis - what they want: system of law, good governance, civil and political rights, rights as citizens.

Who you calling a moderate Islamic state? - Turkey

I read a couple articles that give Turkish perspective on Obamas visit. One was "Turkey in Full", an oped in the NYTimes.

The biggest deal to the Turks was that Obama did not call Turkey a 'moderate Islamic state' which it is not. This was basically what Bush and others called the state to support their own misguided foreign policy goals.

Turks HATE being called a moderate Islamic state - they consider themselves a secular democratic state.

COIN v. academic activist reformist regionalist Arabists

Interesting debate going on between COIN (counterinsurgency) people (CNAS, Nagl, Small Wars Journal, Kilcullen, military folk) and the Bacevich (professor BU, ex military) type crowd - the academic-activist- regionalist/Arabist-advocates for nonmilitary reform.

Michael Cohen (State dept...academic...writer) writes about it here and here. (I found this on Abu Muqawama's blog - he is kind of in the middle of this - ex military, COIN strategist, works at CNAS, but also has understanding of the region, working on PhD on Hizbullah.)

Like myself, I think the latter category (academic reformist activists from first paragraph) feels that the COIN industry is taking over the region! I know this is an exaggeration and totally dramatic, but I think it's kind of funny to put out there.

I mean check me out: I bought Kilcullen's Accidental Guerrilla and went to his talk the other night at the Willard on it and read Small Wars Journal. I also respect Kilcullen and Patraeus for playing a role in ending the civil war in Iraq.

They seem to me to be military humanitarians - COIN strategy being first and foremost about protecting the population. And these COIN folks only want to wage these COIN wars when they have to - no one is looking toward COIN to solve problems, but when you need it (Iraq, Afghanistan) you need it. I say the following as someone who wants to go work at State and /or USAID (looking to work on a PRT and do capacity building and governance work and eventually public diplomacy): No USAID worker is going to defeat the militant extremist Taliban/ AQI (maybe in the long run with economic, political and social development), they might coax the moderates out of the battles but not the extremists.

But I do understand/agree with what Professor Bacevich is saying:
"If counterinsurgency is useful chiefly for digging ourselves out of holes we shouldn’t be in, then why not simply avoid the holes? Why play al-Qaeda’s game? Why persist in waging the Long War when that war makes no sense?"

Turkey time.

Obama's speech to the Turkish parliament was a real piece of diplomacy. He spoke at length on many topics - shared goals, shared history (of atrocities), shared values. He discussed the country's potential to be a bridge between Europe (and the US) and the Muslim World. While it faces hurdles - welcoming the Kurds into the governing structure, pushing out hard line military figures and extremist nationalists, confronting the role Turks had in orchestrating and carrying out the Armenian genocide - Turkey seems on a path to being an industrialized state with economic opportunity, civil society institutions, civil and political liberties and a majority Muslim population.

Here is a video of the speech and here is the transcript.

By extending a hand to the Muslim World, Obama continues to isolate extremists, making it difficult for them to rally moderates under the banner of anti Americanism.

"America's relationship with the Muslim world cannot and will not be based on opposition to al-Qaeda"

"Our partnership with the Muslim world is critical in rolling back a fringe ideology that people of all faiths reject," Obama told the assembly. " . . . The future must belong to those who create, not those who destroy. That is the future we must work for, and we must work for it together."

Article in the Wash Post on Obama's visit.
Article in Independent by Robert Fisk on whether Obama will fulfill campaign pledge and push Turks to recognize the Armenian genocide.
Article in Financial Times.
Juan Cole analyzes diffeent sections of the speech.
Report by Steven Cook of Council Foreign Relations, "The Evolving Role of Turkey in Mideast Peace Diplomacy."
Brookings Turkey reports/ articles archive.
Oped by Roger Cohen in NYTimes on a conversation he had with PM Erdogan.
I like this section from Cohen's article:
I asked Erdogan if Islam and modernity were compatible. “Islam is a religion,” he said, “It is not an ideology. For a Muslim, there is no such thing as to be against modernity. Why should a Muslim not be a modern person? I, as a Muslim, fulfill all the requirements of my religion and I live in a democratic, social state. Can there be difficulties? Yes. But they will be resolved at the end of a maturity period so long as there is mutual trust.”

The problem is, of course, that Islam has been deployed as an ideology in the anti-modern, murderous, death-to-the-West campaign of Al-Qaeda. But Erdogan is right: Islam is one of the great world religions. Obama’s steps to reassert that truth, and so bridge the most dangerous division in the world, are of fundamental strategic importance.

Synthesis begins with understanding, which is precisely what never interested his predecessor."

Muslim Brotherhood leader decides not to seek another term

Interesting post by Marc Lynch (Abu Ardvark) and an article in The National that Muhammad Mahdi Akef, leader/Supreme Guide of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB), will not seek a second term.

Here is another article on this in Cairo's Al Ahram.

This potentially opens the door for a reformist leader for the MB, the largest, longest running Islamic democratic reform party.

This is exciting also bc the MB actually has a democratic process of selecting a Supreme Guide, as Marc Lynch tells us:

"This announcement by the 81 year old Akef creates an extremely interesting and important moment in the history of the Brotherhood. The change in leadership has potentially wide-ranging implications for moderate Islamist movements throughout the Middle East. Will he be replaced by a politically-oriented reformist or by a religiously-oriented conservative? Will he be replaced by an Egyptian or by a non-Egyptian from the global Brotherhood movement? And will his successor retain Akef's strong hostility to al-Qaeda style jihadism and commitment to participation in the political process?

It may surprise people to realize that Akef will be replaced in an internally democratic process. As I understand the process, the Supreme Guide is elected by the Brotherhood's Shura Council, which has 100 members -- 80 of them elected by the membership of the organization and 20 of them holding ex officio membership (i.e. current and former members of the Guidance Council). Since the Muslim Brotherhood remains by far the largest and most politically significant mainstream Sunni Islamist movement, this internal election may be one of the most significant in the Middle East's so-called "year of elections."

I have posted on this before, but I see the Muslim Brotherhood (Islamic Democrats) as a potential beacon of hope for democratic rule in the region, specifically in Egypt. They have consistently participated in elections...well, when Mubarak doesn't arrest them all that is.