The Muslim Brotherhood for Beginners

[scribblet]

This is a good piece about the Muslim Bro. should we accept it or is it still an open question?

http://counterterrorismblog.org/2007/07/th...ood_for_beg.php

The Muslim Brotherhood for Beginners

By Jeffrey Breinholt

Those who follow counterterrorism commentary over the last several months have noticed a number articles -snip-

The Muslim Brotherhood was created in Egypt in 1928, out a desire to bring about a more pure form of Islam and to gather enough popular support to force it on the Egyptian government. Today, the Brotherhood is considered the world’s most influential Islamist organization, and there are Brotherhood franchises throughout the Middle East and in many Western countries, including the United States. Its age means that the Brotherhood has spanned across four generations. Although its founder, Hassan al Banna, has been dead since 1949, some of his contemporaries are alive. Although a relatively young social movement, its 80-year existence means that the Muslim Brotherhood has had a long time to perfect is message and its mode of communication. This message has attributes that jibe with liberal sensibilities; the Brotherhood preaches that Islam enjoins man to strive for social justice, the eradication of poverty and corruption, and political freedom.

The Muslim Brotherhood's charter describes its goal as the re-establishment of the Islamic Caliphate - an empire stretching from Spain to Indonesia. Although it claims to be non-violent, its charter describes “dying in the way of Allah” as the group’s highest hope. Its most infamous alumnus is undoubtedly Ayman Al-Zawahiri, the number two leader of Al Qaida. This does not mean that the Brotherhood is synonymous with Usama Bin Laden, for Zawahiri views himself as a Al Qaida member. The Brotherhood and Al Qaida are both Sunni groups, although they are distinct, with Al Qaida considered far more militant.

Assessing the Muslim Brotherhood as a single entity is difficult, because its attributes vary from country to country. These differences are used by its supporters to argue that the Brotherhood is worthy of official recognition (even encouragement) by Western governments. Those who argue that the Brotherhood is monolithic tend to argue that its manifestations reflect the host country's attributes: the Brotherhood is more free to be open in Europe and the U.S. than in, say, Egypt and Syria, where it has been fighting repression since the 1930s. Those subscribing to the “monolithic Brotherhood” view believe that the face it shows to the West arises from the fact that it does not have to spend resources living underground, and can instead perfect the communication skills of its members and pass them off as mainstream and moderate.

The question of whether Western governments should embrace or eschew the Muslim Brotherhood is a hot topic right now in foreign policy circles, as a result of several articles and at least one televised documentary. This issue is also informed by some geopolitical developments.

The recent debates became heated when Robert Leiken and Steve Brooke published an article in the March-April issue of Foreign Affairs entitled, "The Moderate Muslim Brotherhood," in which they argue that the Brotherhood has evolved into an entity that legitimately desires to participate in democratic politics, to the point where it represents an effective counterweight to violent Islamist groups like Al Qaeda, and one worthy of embrace by Western governments. This view apparently carried some resonance. On June 20, 2007, Eli Lake of the New York Sun reported that Leikin has been asked to brief the U.S. State Department on his views.

[ScottSA]

Quite frankly its the allegedly "moderate" Islamic groups, like Cair-can and the CIC who are far more dangerous. While they soft-soap their claims, they play the good cop to the terrorist's bad cop, declaiming terrorism whenever it's politic to do so, but linking the condemnation to demands in order to avoid further terrorist attacks. They have become masters of manipulation, working tirelessly to drag Islam further into our society at every opportunity.

I truly wish some of these lefties would set aside their hatred for western society long enough to take a good hard look at what they scorn and what they defend. Whatever machinations Bush has got up to in his "destruction of civil liberties" as absolutely nothing compared to what he is defending against. Here's Tony Blair, now freed from the curbs he once had on what he could say, talking about these types of "assaults of freedom." http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?en..._Terrorism&only

[jbg]

They all belong in the "dustbin of history".

[scribblet]

They all belong in the "dustbin of history".

We can only dream

[jbg]

They all belong in the "dustbin of history".

We can only dream

I'm so far left I even use Marxist language in this context.

[Mad_Michael]

This is a good piece about the Muslim Bro. should we accept it or is it still an open question?

The Muslim Brotherhood for Beginners

By Jeffrey Breinholt

...

The question of whether Western governments should embrace or eschew the Muslim Brotherhood is a hot topic right now in foreign policy circles, as a result of several articles and at least one televised documentary. This issue is also informed by some geopolitical developments.

...

I vote in favour of "embrace". No doubt about it.

Engagement and recognition is always a good policy in such situations. Engagement, of and in itself, reduces tensions and acts to improve communications and can act to improve relations over time. Engagement between any two parties always causes them to 'move toward' a middle ground between them.

No matter how you want to approach this "hot topic" or according to whatever bias you may have, engagement is always a good tactic for the stronger side since they always have the most to lose (by definition of being the stronger party).

From a Western perspective...

If you seek to defeat 'islamofascism', 'jihadism' and/or 'dirty A-rabs' then Western political engagement with the Muslim Brotherhood is a good policy.

If you seek to maintain 'US-led Western hegemony', then Western political engagement with the Muslim Brotherhood is a good policy.

If you seek to reduce tensions between Islam and the West, then Western political engagement with the Muslim Brotherhood is a good policy.

If you seek to build better relations between Islam and the West, then Western political engagement with the Muslim Brotherhood is a good policy.

If you seek to support the idea of moderate Islam, then Western political engagement with the Muslim Brotherhood is a good policy.

If you seek to maintain and improve 'world peace', then Western political engagement with the Muslim Brotherhood is a good policy.

On this basis, I don't see how any intelligent and rational Western government could possibly refuse the opportunity.

That being said, there are those who definitely oppose all of the above. They are usually the ones who profit from the high level tensions between Islam and the West (oil interests, US military-industrial complex, Arab dictatorships, Russia, discussion forum trolls, etc.).

Personally (and for what its worth) my bias is always towards application of the principles of realpolitique and/or the strategies of Sun Tzu in all matters of international politics and foreign affairs.

[jbg]

On this basis, I don't see how any intelligent and rational Western government could possibly refuse the opportunity.

How do we know that anyone we're "negotiating" with involved with an illegal, terrorist group has any authority to strike a deal or any ability to make a deal stick?

[Mad_Michael]

On this basis, I don't see how any intelligent and rational Western government could possibly refuse the opportunity.

How do we know that anyone we're "negotiating" with involved with an illegal, terrorist group has any authority to strike a deal or any ability to make a deal stick?

We don't. And it doesn't matter. And life, like politics and war, does not come with guarentees.

And the Muslim Brotherhood can say the same. What is some low level State Department functionary anyway? What's their word worth? Do they have any ability to strike a deal?

One meeting isn't going to give us an 'Accord' that is binding on all parties and bring world peace in one afternoon. Expecting this is absurd. Rejecting the opportunity because it won't guarentee world peace tomorrow is equally absurd.

The point is engagement. Time, dialogue, negotiation, meeting of common interests - eventually, there may be positive results.

But engagement is the first and necessary step.

[ScottSA]

This is a good piece about the Muslim Bro. should we accept it or is it still an open question?

The Muslim Brotherhood for Beginners

By Jeffrey Breinholt

...

The question of whether Western governments should embrace or eschew the Muslim Brotherhood is a hot topic right now in foreign policy circles, as a result of several articles and at least one televised documentary. This issue is also informed by some geopolitical developments.

...

I vote in favour of "embrace". No doubt about it.

Engagement and recognition is always a good policy in such situations. Engagement, of and in itself, reduces tensions and acts to improve communications and can act to improve relations over time. Engagement between any two parties always causes them to 'move toward' a middle ground between them.

No matter how you want to approach this "hot topic" or according to whatever bias you may have, engagement is always a good tactic for the stronger side since they always have the most to lose (by definition of being the stronger party).

Would that it worked that way.

If I show up on your doorstep and announce that I'd like to rape your sister, are you in favor of negotiation? If I show up on your doorstep and announce that I'd like to set up a church on your front lawn, and that oh, by the way, I'm going to eventually want your house too, are you in favor of negotiation? Would you be in favor of "reducing tensions" and having "peaceful dialogue?"

Assuming the answers to these questions is "no," then why, when someone shows up and announces that they are going to destroy your form of government and supplant it with a theocracy, force your sister and everyone else in your family to abide by the laws created in 5th century Arabia and redeveloped by a 6th century psychopath, do you want to negotiate?

This relativist tendency in the west to assume, out of hand, that the "middle way" between two points is automatically the best is insane. Even worse is the neo-liberal tendency to adopt "peace" as the ultimate good. It's not. Sometimes compromise is foolish and dangerous, and sometimes peace is the very last thing one ought to be striving for. You say we're the stronger side? Where's the strength? Following your prescription is ensuring that our side has no strength at all.

[jbg]

We don't. And it doesn't matter. And life, like politics and war, does not come with guarentees.

And the Muslim Brotherhood can say the same. What is some low level State Department functionary anyway? What's their word worth? Do they have any ability to strike a deal?

One meeting isn't going to give us an 'Accord' that is binding on all parties and bring world peace in one afternoon. Expecting this is absurd. Rejecting the opportunity because it won't guarentee world peace tomorrow is equally absurd.

The point is engagement. Time, dialogue, negotiation, meeting of common interests - eventually, there may be positive results.

But engagement is the first and necessary step.

Engagement with who, about what, and with that person having what authority?

A low-level State Department functionary is usually quite open about their lack of binding authority. You know, the 2/3 vote of the Senate to enter into treaties? I don't think most low-level State functionaries make much of a secret of that.

[Mad_Michael]

Engagement with who, about what, and with that person having what authority?

A low-level State Department functionary is usually quite open about their lack of binding authority. You know, the 2/3 vote of the Senate to enter into treaties? I don't think most low-level State functionaries make much of a secret of that.

Right. We send a low-level State department functionary who doesn't have any binding authority over anything.

And you are demanding bullet-proof credentials from the Muslim Brotherhood that they have binding authority over Muslims?

Sounds like you are trying to raise a rather hypocritically high bar here.

Why don't you just drop that charade and offer your real reason for opposing such engagement?

[Bonam]

Would that it worked that way.

If I show up on your doorstep and announce that I'd like to rape your sister, are you in favor of negotiation? If I show up on your doorstep and announce that I'd like to set up a church on your front lawn, and that oh, by the way, I'm going to eventually want your house too, are you in favor of negotiation? Would you be in favor of "reducing tensions" and having "peaceful dialogue?"

Assuming the answers to these questions is "no," then why, when someone shows up and announces that they are going to destroy your form of government and supplant it with a theocracy, force your sister and everyone else in your family to abide by the laws created in 5th century Arabia and redeveloped by a 6th century psychopath, do you want to negotiate?

This relativist tendency in the west to assume, out of hand, that the "middle way" between two points is automatically the best is insane. Even worse is the neo-liberal tendency to adopt "peace" as the ultimate good. It's not. Sometimes compromise is foolish and dangerous, and sometimes peace is the very last thing one ought to be striving for. You say we're the stronger side? Where's the strength? Following your prescription is ensuring that our side has no strength at all.

Good post.

[Mad_Michael]

Would that it worked that way.

If I show up on your doorstep and announce that I'd like to rape your sister, are you in favor of negotiation? If I show up on your doorstep and announce that I'd like to set up a church on your front lawn, and that oh, by the way, I'm going to eventually want your house too, are you in favor of negotiation? Would you be in favor of "reducing tensions" and having "peaceful dialogue?"

No, I'd be calling the police to have you arrested.

The alternative, the one you apparently propose is that I'm supposed to fight with some violent idiot on my doorstep. That of course would only land ME in jail. I'd prefer to put YOU in jail.

Assuming the answers to these questions is "no,"...

It isn't.

You seem to have a problem with "assuming".

This relativist tendency in the west to assume...

And apparently a problem with 'projecting' too!

[Bonam]

Would that it worked that way.

If I show up on your doorstep and announce that I'd like to rape your sister, are you in favor of negotiation? If I show up on your doorstep and announce that I'd like to set up a church on your front lawn, and that oh, by the way, I'm going to eventually want your house too, are you in favor of negotiation? Would you be in favor of "reducing tensions" and having "peaceful dialogue?"

No, I'd be calling the police to have you arrested.

The alternative, the one you apparently propose is that I'm supposed to fight with some violent idiot on my doorstep. That of course would only land ME in jail. I'd prefer to put YOU in jail.

That's nice if you live in a place where you have police to call that will promptly come and arrest the person in question. Now how about if you're living in a place where there are no police, or at least none that will actually do anything? You know, kind of like the real world, where a violation of international law may at most draw a condemnation from the UN, but will very rarely bring on any actual intervention. Basically, all you're saying is that rather than taking action yourself, you want someone else to take action, but you do agree that action needs to be taken. Well, when there's no one else to take action, you have to do it yourself.

[Mad_Michael]

That's nice if you live in a place where you have police to call that will promptly come and arrest the person in question. Now how about if you're living in a place where there are no police, or at least none that will actually do anything? You know, kind of like the real world, where a violation of international law may at most draw a condemnation from the UN, but will very rarely bring on any actual intervention. Basically, all you're saying is that rather than taking action yourself, you want someone else to take action, but you do agree that action needs to be taken. Well, when there's no one else to take action, you have to do it yourself.

If you want to draw an analogy, use one that is predicated upon international situations then.

Otherwise, I'll just treat with the unseriousness it deserves.

[Sulaco]

Would that it worked that way.

If I show up on your doorstep and announce that I'd like to rape your sister, are you in favor of negotiation? If I show up on your doorstep and announce that I'd like to set up a church on your front lawn, and that oh, by the way, I'm going to eventually want your house too, are you in favor of negotiation? Would you be in favor of "reducing tensions" and having "peaceful dialogue?"

No, I'd be calling the police to have you arrested.

The alternative, the one you apparently propose is that I'm supposed to fight with some violent idiot on my doorstep. That of course would only land ME in jail. I'd prefer to put YOU in jail.

Assuming the answers to these questions is "no,"...

It isn't.

You seem to have a problem with "assuming".

This relativist tendency in the west to assume...

And apparently a problem with 'projecting' too!

And that's the crux of the problme. Mad Michael believes there is a "policeman". Thus the negotiated treaties will be enforced by some policing body. And "unreasonable" (who defines reasonablness) demands will also be dealt by that very same body. Who is the policeman?

[Mad_Michael]

And that's the crux of the problme. Mad Michael believes there is a "policeman". Thus the negotiated treaties will be enforced by some policing body. And "unreasonable" (who defines reasonablness) demands will also be dealt by that very same body. Who is the policeman?

As I've noted many times, this forum seems overrun with people making things up about what I believe in or support.

Apparently, if people perceive that I don't agree with them, it is automatically assumed that I agree/love/support the opposite.

Interesting phenomena. Not very original, but interesting.

Anyway, just to make one point clear, I consider the idea of an international policeman to be little more than a ruse or justification for US hegemony.

I look forward to finding out what else people have decided that I believe in.

[Bonam]

You said it yourself, if someone was on your property demanding to do something that you did not approve of, you'd call the police. You knew full well that the analogy was referring to international politics when you made that statement.

[Peter F]

Talk about pulling teeth...

I agree with MadMicheal. Engagement is always to be sought and should never be avoided.

I confess I don't understand the idea that engagement is to be avoided. What is gained?

What is risked by engagement?

[Bonam]

I confess I don't understand the idea that engagement is to be avoided. What is gained?

What is risked by engagement?

- Legitimization of a ridiculous cause that in reality should not be negotiated over.

- Exposure to temptation to give into demands that should never be considered.

- Demonstration to other groups that you are willing to negotiate when pressed.

- Physical risk to the negotiators.

- Monetary expense of negotiation.

There's a reason why most stable governments have a policy of not negotiating with terrorists.

[Mad_Michael]

You said it yourself, if someone was on your property demanding to do something that you did not approve of, you'd call the police. You knew full well that the analogy was referring to international politics when you made that statement.

Bemused giggles.

The analogy was unserious and I treated it accordingly.

And it seems that not only do you make up things about what I believe in, you also like to make up things about why I post what I post. You are on a roll. Please don't stop. It does provide some mild form of entertainment.

[Mad_Michael]

There's a reason why most stable governments have a policy of not negotiating with terrorists.

The US government is apparently discovering this the hard way.

[jbg]

Right. We send a low-level State department functionary who doesn't have any binding authority over anything.

And you are demanding bullet-proof credentials from the Muslim Brotherhood that they have binding authority over Muslims?

Sounds like you are trying to raise a rather hypocritically high bar here.

Why don't you just drop that charade and offer your real reason for opposing such engagement?

No I'm not setting a "hypocritically high bar". The difference is that if the "low-level State department functionary" works on something with his counterpart, and it eventually turns into a treaty ratified by the US, the US normally honors its treaties. The problem is that the "MUslim Brotherhood" (or someone purporting to speak on its behalf) can agree to almost anything, but there is no ratification process binding on anyone, except perhaps the negotiator himself and perhaps his clan.

Far from opposing such engagement, if there were a way to make it happen I'd be all in favor. I could imagine the power that an alliance between petrodollars and either Western or Israeli know-how would have. It would be a wonderful sight to behold.

[Mad_Michael]

No I'm not setting a "hypocritically high bar". The difference is that if the "low-level State department functionary" works on something with his counterpart, and it eventually turns into a treaty ratified by the US, the US normally honors its treaties. The problem is that the "MUslim Brotherhood" (or someone purporting to speak on its behalf) can agree to almost anything, but there is no ratification process binding on anyone, except perhaps the negotiator himself and perhaps his clan.

The US does not "normally honor treaties". They have a notable history at renegging. President Bush has done so with several.

And the US Congress has a long track record of not ratifying negotiated treaties. And a change in Administration changes everything.

Thus, the US is in precisely the same position as the Muslim Brotherhood here. Neither side is able to speak authoratively or 'bindingly' on behalf of their respective side. Any agreements made may be ignored by both sides - indeed, that is highly likely.

So, again you try to defend your 'hypocritically high bar' of opposition. So I repeat, please tell me what your real reason is for opposition. Your 'technical' objections keep backfiring on you (and exposing a hypocritical judgement standard).

Far from opposing such engagement, if there were a way to make it happen I'd be all in favor. I could imagine the power that an alliance between petrodollars and either Western or Israeli know-how would have. It would be a wonderful sight to behold.

To paraphrase Rumsfeld here, 'you don't get to make treaties with the opponent you wish for - you have to make treaties with the opponent that actually exists'.

Indeed, it looks to me like the Muslim world must re-establish the Islamic Caliphate before you'd be willing to talk to them.

Like I said, you keep raising hypocritically high bars against any engagement here.

[jbg]

The US does not "normally honor treaties". They have a notable history at renegging. President Bush has done so with several.

Yes, treaties with withdrawal mechanisms such as the ABM treaty.

There wasn't a chance that treaty would have been ratified without such a mechanism.

And the US Congress has a long track record of not ratifying negotiated treaties. And a change in Administration changes everything.

Thus, the US is in precisely the same position as the Muslim Brotherhood here. Neither side is able to speak authoratively or 'bindingly' on behalf of their respective side. Any agreements made may be ignored by both sides - indeed, that is highly likely.

No, non-ratification means it never was a treaty. In fact, in the most prominent of these situations, Kyoto, the Hegel-Byrd (or maybe the other way around) resolution was passed, before Gore went, telling him, in effect, "don't bother bringing back a treaty that doesn't cut GHG emissions in India and China. Granted, a parliamentary country is different, especially in a majority government. The government can instruct MP's how to vote. Even if the vote is designated as "free" there are consequences to not siding with your party. The way the US is built as a practical matter, treaties may often go down to defeat. That's different from the situation with non-governmental groups (read, terrorists) like the PLO or Muslim Brotherhood, where the leaders will represent that they possess authority that they do not have.

So, again you try to defend your 'hypocritically high bar' of opposition. So I repeat, please tell me what your real reason is for opposition. Your 'technical' objections keep backfiring on you (and exposing a hypocritical judgement standard).

See above.

To paraphrase Rumsfeld here, 'you don't get to make treaties with the opponent you wish for - you have to make treaties with the opponent that actually exists'.

Indeed, it looks to me like the Muslim world must re-establish the Islamic Caliphate before you'd be willing to talk to them.

Like I said, you keep raising hypocritically high bars against any engagement here.

Who says you have to make treaties? You make treaties that are likely to be honored and in mutual interest. Do you think the US and Canada really need treaties, for example, to prevent a shooting war across the border? On the other hand, treaties like Versailles were worthless scraps of paper almost on signing. Treaties are not good for the sake of treaties.