Alt er usikkert ved den arabiske revolusjon, og for å understreke dette bør man åpne seg for perspektiver som peker i forskjellige retninger.
Michael J Totten skriver om de uforutsigbare:
We should all resist trying to predict what will happen next in the Middle East because so much of what happens makes no sense at all in advance of it actually happening.
Who would have thought two months ago that France would lead a Western military coalition, that the United Nations would pass a Chapter VII resolution authorizing the use of force against a country that was elected to its own Human Rights Commission, that Barack Obama would fire missiles at an Arab country when less than thirty percent of Americans approve, and that Qaddafi loyalists would burn Lebanese rather than American or Israeli flags in the capital?
No one could have predicted any of this. It’s too weird. Don’t ask me what happens next. I give up.
Et amerikansk uttrykk heter «making the world safe for democracy». Alle synes enige om at den arabiske revolusjon er en variasjon på dette tema og derfor bør støttes, også med Vestens militære overlegenhet. Men Diana West har et helt annet perspekiv. Hun undres på om ikke resultatet vil «make the world safe for sharia».
Hun mener Vesten med forfatningene i Irak og Afghanistan har kodifisert islam som bestemmende og lovgivende, og frykter at støtten til den arabiske revolusjon vil resultere i det samme.
Det er et «vilt» perspektiv, men ikke helt uten relevans.
«Making the world safe for sharia» is the perversion of the Wilsonian ideal that bedevils our time. It came about in air-conditioned tents and conference rooms where Americans worked with Iraqis and Afghans to write their new constitutions, both of which enshrine sharia as the highest law in those respective lands. I don’t think these Americans had (have) any idea of what this meant, not really. For these deeply irresponsible, see-no-Islam policy-makers, then, making the world safe for sharia was an unforseen and even still unseen by-product of nation-building in the Islamic world, as noted many times in this space. I wouldn’t be surprised if these same officials and consultants are still scratching their heads over why it is that the introduction of ballot boxes into these outposts of the umma didn’t automatically and instantly extend the Enlightenment for all — if they think about it at all.
That was then.
Something else is happening with the new war in Libya (can I be writing those words?). Just as time has marched on, so, too, have events. Barack Hussein Obama, without even perfunctory consultation with Congress, has committed US forces to military action against Libya at the behest of the UN and the Arab League (the latter has already changed its mind). But it is not sharia we are unwittingly making Libya safe for, as fatuous enablers of the democratic process in Islam; this time, we — US, British and French forces — are making the world safe for jihad.
We are openly fighting on the side of Islamic jihadis: Al Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood, off-brand jihadists, complete unknowns (and culturally inculcated Jew-haters).
Men man kan spørre Diana West om hun da ikke ender opp på samme side som Muammar Gaddafi og Hosni Mubarak eller Tunisias Ben Ali? Er det et levedyktig alternativ? Tror hun virkelig at det bare er islamister som marsjerer i gatene? Og om så var, skulle man gå til krig mot dem på diktatorenes side?