Pakistan and Islamic Radicalism

An article in today's New York Times caught my attention today.

Pakistan’s Islamic Schools Fill Void, but Fuel Militancy

Pakistan represents a unique problem for the United States. Newspapers and news programs churn out stories on a daily basis about the Pakistani government is deteriorating the Taliban and Al-Qaeda sympathizers are consolidating territorial gains in the western. More than a few western analysts speculate that the Pakistani and Afghan border and frontier could potentially be the new staging ground for future attacks. Furthermore, Pakistan's geopolitical standoff with India and its "membership" of the "nuclear club" complicates everything. Should Pakistan succumb to a tidal wave of Islamic radicalism and the government collapses and/or is overthrown, we'd be in some hot water.

This article, more generally, tries to address the roots of Islamic radicalism, and I think is raises some interesting arguments. General Zia Ul-Haq, with the help of an influx of Saudi money, is the man generally credited with pushing Pakistan off the Islamic cliff in an effort to rule over a tribal, factionalized country. But I believe the trend pre-dates his rule---the trend is more contemporaneous with the Islamic Revolution in Iran, albeit with a different flavor and color. Pakistan's relation to the to anti-Soviet mujahideen in Afghanistan is well known, including George Crile's great book Charlie Wilson's War. Also, Pakistan's role in creating the Taliban government in the aftermath of the Soviet retreat is well understood, and everyone knows that the Taliban became the eventual hosts of Osama Ben Laden and the Al-Qaeda terrorist network

Much thought has been given to where all this Islamism and jihadism is coming from. A few brief explanations:

1) Islamism is rooted in poverty. In a similar vein to the New York Times article, radicalism preys on the disaffected and less fortunate. Those who slip through the cracks of progress or capitalism are more to turn to radicalism and fundamentalism to achieve some degree of inner peace

2) Islamism is not related to poverty, but more of a way to restore the "lost glory" of Islam, which many see has been on the decline since the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Professor Bernard Lewis of Princeton University, perhaps the West's most prominent academic on Islam, supports this view. Islamism provides the Umma (Muslim world/community) with a sense of power and clout, particularly in the wake of the passing of pan-Arabism and Islamic nationalism

3) Islamism is a reaction to progressivism and modernity. The father of modern Islamic fundamentalism, Sayyid Qutb, is said to have been disenchanted with the moral vacuity and decadence of the Western world. This is sometimes described as "they hate us for who we are, not because of what we do" or "they hate us for our freedoms" argument. In many ways, reactionary Islamists fret over the absence of purity and devotion in current Muslim practice. Even the notions of gender equality or political freedom is seen as anathema to purer forms of Islam.

4) Islamism is rooted in geopolitcal grievances. This can also be described as "they hate us for what we do..not because of who we are" argument. The first one that jumps to my mind is the Arab-Israeli peace process, where many in the Arab world view the United States and Europe as too firmly on the side of Israel. Another might include the West's sordid relationships with politically illegitimate regimes in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan.

I should quickly mention a few things. Not points mentioned above are mutually exclusive. I have read compelling evidence both for and against these arguments. Secondly, Islamic leaders, e.g. Osama Bin Laden, Yasir Arafat, etc., certainly make references to more than one of these. It's far from clear that Osama Bin Laden spends his waking hours devoited to plight of Palestinians in the Gaza strip. Yet he has used that issue as a recruiting tool for his own cause: the eventual restoration of the Islamic caliphate.

Allow me to excerpt a section from the article:

"President Obama said in a news conference last week that he was “gravely concerned” about the situation in Pakistan, not least because the government did not “seem to have the capacity to deliver basic services: schools, health care, rule of law, a judicial system that works for the majority of the people.”

He has asked Congress to more than triple assistance to Pakistan for nonmilitary purposes, including education. Since the Sept. 11 attacks, the United States has given Pakistan a total of $680 million in nonmilitary aid, according to the State Department, far lower than the $1 billion a year for the military.

But education has never been a priority here, and even Pakistan’s current plan to double education spending next year might collapse as have past efforts, which were thwarted by sluggish bureaucracies, unstable governments and a lack of commitment by Pakistan’s governing elite to the poor.

“This is a state that never took education seriously,” said Stephen P. Cohen, a Pakistan expert at the Brookings Institution. “I’m very pessimistic about whether the educational system can or will be reformed.”"


The Obama administration is taking the position that the War on Terror (I will write separately about the proper definition of the War on Terror) must be fought through non-military means in conjunction with military means. He is absolutely correct to do this. The War on Terrorism is as much war of ideas than it is a war against terror-sponsoring regimes. Assisting failing states with economic growth and the provision of serivces, e.g. education, utilities, etc., will go along way towards depriving Islamism of valuable foot-soldiers. I am not suggesting that we bombard the country with pro-Western propaganda. But providing the populations with a desirable alternative will do as much to stem the threats from Islamic fundamentalism as will defeating their armies.

It's an absolute shame that Pakistan has been so poorly served by corrupt, feckless civilian governments and inept, politically illegitimage military governements throughout its history. Here's to hoping that the Obama administration can do something about this.