I have noticed it is difficult to discuss some topics on this forum without being accused of something. Religion usually qualifies as such a topic. My intention is to inspire open discussion on a hypersensitive topic. If you are offended, instead of labeling me some adjective that may have 4 letter word implications, please politely tell me how I am incorrect. I welcome wisdom.
Christian convert Abdul Rahman has taught the west a lesson it would be wise for America, and the West, not to dismiss easily. Since 2001 many things have been lost in translation, and at the top of that list is the differences between Islam and Christianity. In 2005 over 75% of Americans considered themselves Christian, while less than 15% believed they were Nonreligious/Secular. With the exception of Judaism, no other religion in America polls higher than 1% of Americans, with Islam coming in just behind Judaism at .6% of Americans polled.
What is interesting though is what it means when Americans define themselves as Christian. From a member within the religious establishment, Christian takes on meaning in relation to theocracy, however it is unrealistic to say 85% of Americans are theocratic Christians. What does it mean then? It means the definition of Christianity in America has changed in the 21st century, and no longer does Christianity represent a right wing faith establishment, today Christianity represents culture as a reflection of larger society, and among different races that make up American Christian culture, the more appropriate word might be peoplehood.
I believe Spengler summed up the differences between Christianity and Islam when he said:
Islam differs radically from Christianity, in that the Christian god is a lover who demands love in return, whereas the Muslim god is a sovereign who demands the fulfillment of duty. Christian prayer is communion, an act of love incomprehensible to Muslims; Muslim worship is an act of submission, the repetition of a few lines of text to accompany physical expression of self-subjugation to the sovereign. The People of Christ are pilgrims en route to the next world; the People of Allah are soldiers in this one. Contrary to all the ink spilled and trees murdered to produce the tomes of Karen Armstrong and John Esposito, Christianity and Islam call forth different peoples to serve different gods for different reasons.
I believe Christianity has influenced many aspects of American culture, aspects that can no longer be ignored in the Global World America appears to be dedicated to. Among the top influences of Christianity is how Americans see other cultures, and how our ideals are displaced upon them in drawing expectations. Example, Americans see the best of other countries, and as a result we raise our expectations when attempting influence over other countries, as is the case in both Afghanistan and Iraq, with the American expectation of idea change. I believe this is a flawed value of American political perspective, and at every opportunity, the flaw is exposed.
Today's politic bases this expectation on past experience. In the case of Germany in 1945, this worked, because Germany was a Christian culture at the time able to identify with the ideas being spouted. In Afghanistan and Iraq, Christian values are not compatible with Muslim values, the foundations are different, the expectations are different, and the definition of acceptable and unacceptable behavior is different, and those core beliefs are drawn from society which doesn't change simply be replacing the system of government. Society changes only occur internally, not externally, and in general no society change occurs without struggle.
There are some who make the argument that the struggle we see on TV in Iraq is a reflection of the struggle for Iraqi society changing from within. I am not convinced, because for it to be a true society issue, the scope would have to be bigger than what we see, instead of centralized, and the struggle would have to be based from within, not outside. If creating that struggle is indeed the purpose of American policy, the logical solution is to leave the country and let that struggle occur. Is that wise to do? Depends on how much faith you have in the Iraqi's.
Either way, while Iraq is the present issue at large facing the United States, the greater question facing future administrations is lessons learned, and dealing with future problems. While Americans may see the best in others, the opposite is far from true, and whether we like it or not, reality confronts true possibilities of further potential problems similar to 9/11, expansion seeking dictators like Saddam Hussein, and outrageous human rights violations by people in fervor religious belief they carry the sword of ethnic cleansing for their god.
How then does America deal with this in the future? Incompatibility between American ideals and non-American ideals removes the expectation that democracy is the solution. If Democracy is the will of the people, all it does is tell us the truth. I didn't need elections to know Palestinians dislike America, that the people of Afghanistan overwhelmingly believe that Sharia Law is the only path for a true believer to live, and that the majority of Iraqi's have many scores they intend to settle with the Sunni who ruled so violently over the last 30 years.
The debate regarding future policy, how America deals with countries that may require a military solution needs to happen, because waiting until later to have this discussion could be too late. If Afghanistan is a failure, how should America respond next time? There are real dangers yet to be confronted due to the failures of recent US foreign policies, and top on the list is the evaluation of options for next time. After all, 1 more attack like 9/11, with a country like Iran, Syria, or North Korea accused, or even proven, then what? This whole mutual assured destruction nonsense doesn't work if one side actually pulls the trigger, unless you really are ready to kill millions.
I for one am not sure I am ready to go down that road.