Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Thomas M. who wrote (2711)	7/6/2003 7:17:13 AM
From: epicure	Respond to of 20773

This sounds like an interesting book" 'After Jihad': A Delicate Balance By JONATHAN D. TEPPERMAN he question bound to preoccupy readers of Noah Feldman's ''After Jihad'' -- the only reason most readers will pick it up in the first place -- is to learn what kind of future the author envisions for Iraq. The reason the answer matters, and that Feldman himself is suddenly so newsworthy, is that he has just been tapped by the Bush administration to help draft Iraq's new constitution. His selection stunned most observers: although Feldman is extremely accomplished and has a background in Islamic as well as United States constitutional law, he's very young (in his early 30's), was raised an Orthodox Jew and worked for Al Gore during the Florida vote recount. Nonetheless, he's already been to Baghdad and back. For good or ill, however, this slight book doesn't reveal much about how Feldman plans to handle his new responsibilities. He devotes just a few pages to Iraq: it's only one of the many op-ed-length chapters that make up this somewhat disjointed work. Feldman's project in ''After Jihad'' is to focus on a more general question: how can political Islam and democracy be reconciled? The answer matters, he writes, because Islamism is one of the few vibrant intellectual movements alive today in the Muslim (especially Arab) world. Repressive governments have found it much harder to shut down mosques than political parties. Canny clerics have tapped into widespread anger while providing much-needed social services that corrupt governments have failed to offer. As a result, political Islam now seems the only alternative to autocracy for many of the planet's 1.2 billion Muslims. Should elections be held in their countries, Islamists of one stripe or another could dominate. According to Feldman, however, such a result needn't worry us. On a theoretical level, he finds nothing irreconcilable between Islam and democracy, and argues that they actually have a lot in common. As ''mobile ideas,'' both view everyone as equal; both are flexible (adaptable to different cultures and circumstances) and relatively simple. True, Islamism's image may have been tarnished in the West by extremists. But that savagery was the work of a few fanatics. ''Sept. 11, and the sporadic attacks which have followed,'' he writes, ''are the last, desperate gasp of a tendency to violence that has lost most of its popular support.'' In contrast, Feldman points to reassuring counterexamples like the rise of moderate Islamic parties in Indonesia, Jordan, Morocco and Turkey, and to the writings of reformers like the Tunisian exile Rachid Ghannouchi to show that fusions of Islam and democracy are not only possible, but inevitable. With these arguments, Feldman has thrown himself into the center of an unruly brawl now raging in policy circles over what to do with the Arab world. One faction consists of the cautious staff members of the State Department, pessimists (or ''realists,'' as they prefer to be called) for whom culture is destiny and the Middle East an unredeemable mess. Another camp is represented by thinkers like Bernard Lewis and Fouad Ajami, who are almost as critical of Arab states as the pessimists but advocate a new American imperium to remake the region. Still a third faction includes scholars like Graham Fuller and John L. Esposito, who have so much faith in Arab reformers that they oppose outside interference. And now Feldman has staked out territory squarely in the middle. On the one hand, he joins with Lewis and company in pushing for America to intervene on the side of democracy. Feldman is unabashed about his support for Western activism: ''If these methods sound interventionist,'' he writes at one point, ''that is because they are.'' Such language makes him sound at times like one of Donald Rumsfeld's wild-eyed neoconservatives. Where he parts company with the right, however, is in his unflinching insistence that democracy in the Arab world should be Islamic in character (although he hedges on just what that will mean). 2nd part on NY Times website nytimes.com