Qutb in America

Qutb

A reader writes:

I have not read D’Souza’s latest, but if reviews are accurate, I am very disappointed in him. Barnett notes that D’Souza discusses Sayyid Qutb and how his disgust with American culture helped lead us to where we are now. According to Barnett, D’Souza fails to note that Qutb lived in the US in the late 1940s, before hippies and sexual liberation and the rest. What Barnett failed to mention was that what apparently pushed Qutb over the edge was a church dance in Greeley, Colorado (a city that at the time was dry).

The Denver magazine, 5280, ran a story in 2003, detailing Sayyid Qutb’s encounter with small-town Colorado in 1948. It’s a fascinating article, not least because it reveals Qutb’s first reactions to America and the West. He is repelled – by the apparent joylessness of post-war suburban America. His critique is reminiscent of many left-liberals of the time:

"This small city of Greeley, in which I am staying, is so beautiful that one may easily imagine that he is in paradise. Each house appears as a flowering plant and the streets are like garden pathways. As one observes, the owners of these houses spend their leisure time in toil, watering their private yards and trimming their gardens. This is all they appear to do …"

Gomorrah anyone? Qutb goes on:

"I stayed there six months and never did I see a person or a family actually enjoying themselves, even on summer nights when breezes waft over the city as if in a dream. The most important thing for these people is the tending of their gardens, much in the same way a merchant spends time organizing his store or a factory owner his factory. There is nothing behind this activity in the way of beauty or artistic taste. It is the machinery of organization and arrangement, devoid of spirituality and aesthetic enjoyment."

Yep: Qutb was a liberal snob, condescending to small-town American life. No doubt small towns in Egypt were saturated with profundity at the time. Then there’s the infamous dance. Not exactly a circuit party:

The dance began after an evening service, and was led by the church’s pastor, who, according to Qutb’s breathless account, lowered the lights and put a recording of "Baby, It’s Cold Outside" on the turntable in an effort to get the few remaining wallflowers out on the dance floor. "The dance hall convulsed to the tunes on the gramophone and was full of bounding feet and seductive legs," Qutb later wrote. "Arms circled waists, lips met lips, chests met chests, and the atmosphere was full of passion."

Qutb never mentioned the incident to [contemporary Arab student Saeed] Dajani, so neither he nor scholars know exactly when or at what church Qutb’s dance took place. Such events were common, often drawing hundreds of students. Dajani, however, had a similar experience, albeit with a bit of a twist.

"I do not know if this is the same one that Mr. Qutb wrote about, but I went to a dance at the Methodist church. And I thought, ‘This is outrageous, seeing boys and girls dancing together.’ You have to understand, we had a Moslem background where the sexes were kept apart, in schools, and in most other ways, until marriage. So this was shocking to us."

It may be, of course, that Qutb’s Islamism, metastasized into bin Laden’s Islamism, is indeed shocked beyond measure at the thought of women’s equality, gay dignity and the more lurid aspects of American popular culture. But the shock goes far deeper than anything that has happened in America since the 1960s. The social conservatism of the Islamic fundamentalist did indeed see small-town America of the 1940s, even in a dry county, a repository of evil. That’s our problem. That’s how deep their fundamentalism goes. The president is right: they do hate us for who we are. And for daring to reach for a freedom that their version of Allah would never allow.

Warner Balks

He’s the senator I’ve been using as my rough guage of whether this president truly has lost his own party on the conduct of the war. So we have a verdict. "Mr President, go back and look at all the options," is Republican for "You’ve got to be kidding." His position is a completely intelligible one:

"The American G.I. was not trained, not sent over there ‚Äî certainly not by resolution of this institution ‚Äî to be placed in the middle of a fight between the Sunni and the Shia and the wanton and just incomprehensible killing that’s going on at this time. We don’t lessen importance of that mission, but it should be performed by the Iraqi forces and not the coalition forces."

The last thing the United States should be doing is entering into a centuries’ old theological dispute in the Middle East. No amount of face-saving, rationalizing, or wishful thinking can erase that fact.

Ace of Smears

Here’s a post that deserves a quick response:

Andrew Sullivan can’t be so excused – he was supporting "more troops" virtually up to the moment Bush began signalling support for the idea. Coincidence? He just happened to stop bashing Bush for not supplying more troops to stabilize Baghdad at the very moment he decided to bash Bush for doing precisely that?

People can have differing opinions on the surge, but one person can’t possibly have so many positions, all of which seem to be suspiciously driven by an automatic gainsaying of whatever Bush might be doing this week.

Er, my position has long been that this occupation was under-manned, from the first months on. That’s still my position. My worry about the surge is that it is too little and too late. I wanted more troops all along, and deemed 50,000 to be the minimum needed to make a real difference now. No gainsaying; no positioning; a clear principle maintained consistently, applied to shifting circumstances on the ground. I agree with Fred Kagan and John McCain that an insufficent surge for too short a time is the worst of all worlds. But unlike Kagan and McCain, I haven’t abandoned that view for short-term partisan purposes.

Will “Plus Up” Work?

One reader is guardedly optimistic:

Just this weekend I had a very interesting conversation with a grad school friend of mine who recently came back from 12 months working in the US Embassy in Baghdad.  This guy studied insurgency extensively for years before shipping out, so I trust much of what he says.

My friend believes the surge has a chance of working.  He asserts that most of the violence in Baghdad is happening in a relatively small area of the city, such that an extra 20,000 has a real chance to solidify control. 

He told me something very important about the nature of the sectarian violence, which is that being Sunni is only one of a number of ‘profiles’ used by Shi’ite militiamen to select targets for torture and execution. They believe that they are being selective in going after ‘terrorists.’ While he (and I) believe that profiling is highly inaccurate, it does suggest that improvements in government control needn’t necessarily lead to genocide of the Sunni population. According to my friend, the presence of American forces is essential, because it acts as a constraint on the militiamen, forcing them to be more careful, more selective, and less violent overall.

My personal objection to this analysis is that Baghdad is simply the tip of the iceberg. There is no doubt in my mind that consolidation of control in Baghdad will lead Sunni insurgents to shift location to less densely occupied areas.  What then?

Indeed: what then? But we need to hope for success for Petraeus even if we don’t expect much. Wars are dynamic things.