Deadly Deserts. By Ralph Peters. New York Post, February 2, 2013.
Peters:
Violence in Allah’s name in northern Africa
won’t end in my lifetime — and probably not in yours. The core question is: To
what extent can the savagery be contained?
From
the Atlantic coastline to the Suez Canal, struggling governments, impoverished
populations and frankly backward societies struggle to find paths to
modernization and to compete in a ruthless global economy. Religious fanatics
for whom progress is a betrayal of faith hope to block development.
Still,
if the only conflict was between Islamist terrorists and those who want
civilized lives, the situation could be managed over time. But that struggle
forms only one level in a layer cake of clashing visions and outright civil wars
bedeviling a vast region. Much larger than Europe, the zone of contention
encompasses the Maghreb, the countries touching the Mediterranean, and the
Sahel, the bitterly poor states stretching down across desert wastes to the
African savannah.
The
Sahel is the front line not only between the world of Islam and
Christian-animist cultures in Africa’s heart, but between Arabs and
light-skinned tribes in the north, and blacks to the south. No area in the
world so explicitly illustrates the late, great Samuel Huntington’s concept of
“the clash of civilizations.”
If
racial and religious differences were not challenge enough, in the Maghreb the
factions and interest groups are still more complicated. We view Egypt as
locked in a contest between Islamists and “our guys,” Egyptians seeking new
freedoms. But Egypt’s identity struggle is far more complex, involving social
liberals, moderate Muslims, stern conservative Muslims (such as the Muslim
Brotherhood) and outright fanatics. The military forms another constituency,
while the business community defends its selfish interests. Then there are the
supporters of the old Mubarak regime, the masses of educated-but-unemployed
youth and the bitterly poor peasants.
Atop
all that there’s the question of whether the values cherished by Arab societies
can adapt to a globalized world.
The
path to Egypt’s future will not be smooth — yet Egypt’s chances are better than
those of many of its neighbors.
. . . . . . . . . .
Two
years after the revolution, angry masses crowd the streets again, this time to
protest against the latest man-who-would-be-pharaoh, democratically elected
President Mohammed Morsi. Morsi rushed to pack as many senior government
positions as possible with fellow members of the Muslim Brotherhood without
worrying about competence. Now he heads an inept government and resorts to
heavy-handed means to quell unrest.
The
Muslim Brotherhood made a strategic error in grasping power too quickly,
instead of aping the creeping Islamization underway in Turkey. While the Brotherhood
had the Chicago-style organization to turn out the illiterate masses, it
utterly lacked the wherewithal to halt the economy’s downward spiral. And, in
the end, “It’s the economy, stupid.” Even fundamentalists have to eat.
By
overplaying their hand so eagerly, the Muslim Brothers have lost credibility.
Will they be able to hang onto the power they’ve sought for almost a century?
They won’t give it up easily, but Morsi has gone from confidence to fear in
record time. The action (or inaction) of the military may be the crucial factor
in determining Egypt’s future — which remains very much in question.
. . . . . . . . . .
The
bottom line? Unified international action, as in Mali (or Somalia), can push
back Islamist terrorists. But the fractured nature of local societies, low
levels of development, corruption and, not least, traditional hatreds guarantee
unrest for decades to come. We’ll be engaged, whether we like it or not.
Instead of defaulting to idiotic slogans like “Lead from behind!” we need to
think ahead.
