Which is preferable? A failed, anarchic state, such as we see in Somalia, Afghanistan, and Iraq? Or an Islamic, possibly anti-historical state? Is it better to use military force to collapse fundamentalist regimes, resulting in chaos, or is there a better way?
There is a better way.
In the cases of Somalia, Afghanistan, & Iraq, foreign nations have used military force to invade, hoping to set up situations more friendly to western nations. In Somalia, the predominantly Christian Ethiopian military has routed the Islamic Court Union. The US led an overthrow of the Taliban. In Iraq, we face the very real possibility that the Sadrists will take control.
Is military power the best reponse?
We need to rethink our entire approach. Stable regimes which restore order are preferable to failed anarchic states. This means putting up with some very odious, anti-historical governments; disregard for Human Rights will be a given.
However, we need to have confidence in the sheer, overwhelming power of our most important strength- not military, but the strength of our Soft Power, our economic strenth, the attractions of our culture, with its origins in bedrock values such as liberty and freedom. Globalization, for lack of a better, even more encompassing word, works. Given time, our values will be assimilated by such regimes. We will find common ground on matters of Human Rights; but with this approach, stable Islamic regimes produced by an organic political process will integrate with the west in their own way, rather than reject the rest of the world.
We must believe in ourselves, reject militarism, and be confident in our true strengths, as presented by John Quincy Adams in his speech on foreign policy. The anti-historical governments cannot survive our close embrace.
John Quincy Adams in his speech on foreign policy