Interesting. I did not find it dull. Different strokes . . . on this one.
Since I tossed off an answer to you without any details, I thought it would be interesting to go back and see why I had that impression, and then detail it.
During my first read, I did not like his classification the new Muslims into three groups, "Urban Poor," "The Pious Middle," and "Islamist Intelligentsia." This came off as too "cute," and turned me off. I felt he was trying too hard to pigeonhole these people.
But after re-reading the piece, I got over that negative reaction and realized that I had been too hasty with my first read, and that the article was really worth while. It is not badly written at all, I had just been put off by my first impression. The part that really struck me was the following passage.
>>>The people who started these movements were fascinated by the Afghan experience. They thought it unnecessary to waste one's time and energy building charities that could reach out to the grassroots. Theirs was a fantasy of the Afghan jihad, where it seemed violence was enough. It was enough to strike a military blow at the regime, which would cave in, and the local population would then welcome the new Islamic state. But it did not work out<<<<
What hit me was, "wait a minute, there is a terrorist group that has not made that mistake. It is Hamas! They have built up an infrastructure, using charities, et al, in Palestine."
And I realized that they are the natural successor to the PLO in Palestine. A much stronger one than the PLO has ever been. We are actually doing them a favor by getting rid of the present PLO structure, which has never been anything more, at it's heart, than terrorist bandits. |
