Transcript: Daniel Pipes on Radical Islam and the War on Terror | Jun 11, 2005

Daniel Pipes stands behind a wooden lectern on a stage, and holds a microphone in his hand.
He's in his late forties, with short gray hair and a stubble. He's wearing glasses, a black suit, white shirt, and striped blue tie.

He says TRADITIONALLY
WHEN ONE LOOKED AT A WAR ONE
ENGAGED IN OBJECTIVE
ASSESSMENTS.
WHO CONTROLS WHICH LAND?
WHO HAS HOW MANY ARMAMENTS?
HOW WELL IS THE ECONOMY DOING?
BUT THOSE CRITERIA MAKE NO
SENSE IN THE CURRENT WAR.
THE POWERS OF THE WEST IN TERMS
OF CONTROL OF LAND, ARSENAL,
ECONOMY ARE FAR, FAR GREATER
THEN THOSE OF THE TERRORISTS.
THESE ARE OUTDATED CRITERIA.
HOW SHOULD ONE JUDGE THE WAY
THE WAR IS GOING?

A caption appears on screen. It reads "Daniel Pipes. The Middle East Forum. Radical Islam and the war on terror. Saint Michael's College. March 29, 2005."

Daniel says I THINK IT HAS
MUCH MORE TO DO NOW WITH
INTERNAL, SUBJECTIVE, CRITERIA.
SOLIDARITY, UNDERSTANDING,
COURAGE, MORALE, THESE ARE THE
KEYS.
SOFTWARE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT
I'LL MENTION TODAY, NOT HARDWARE.
AND SOLIDARITY HAS WEAKENED.
UNDERSTANDING ISN'T THAT GREAT.
MORALE ISN'T SO GOOD.
I AM NOT VERY POSITIVE ABOUT
THE WAY THINGS HAVE DEVELOPED,
ESPECIALLY IN THE LAST THREE
AND A HALF YEARS.
WHAT I'D LIKE TO FOCUS ON
HOWEVER IS POLITICAL COURAGE.
THE WILLINGNESS TO DEAL WITH
THE PROBLEMS, THE WAR THAT
EXISTS FORTHRIGHTLY,
EXPLICITLY.
I SEE THIS AS CRITICAL.
MY FAVOURITE ANALOGY IS THAT AS
A PHYSICIAN MUST IDENTIFY AND
NAME THE DISEASE IN ORDER TO
TREAT IT, SO A STRATEGIST MUST
IDENTIFY A NAME, AN ENEMY IN
ORDER TO DEFEAT IT.
AND MY PRESUMPTION HERE, IS
THAT WE, THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE
WEST, THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA,
ACADEMICS AND OTHERS HAVE NOT
NAMED THE ENEMY.
LET ME START BY NOTING THAT I
THINK WE'RE IN THE SECOND OF
THREE ERAS.
THE FIRST ERA BEGAN IN THE LATE
1970S WHEN THE FORCES OF
RADICAL ISLAM BEGAN, BEGAN
ATTACKING WESTERNERS AND MOST
NOTABLY THE SEIZURE OF THE U.S.
EMBASSY IN TEHRAN.
TIME AND AGAIN, WESTERNERS, BE
THEY TOURISTS IN KASHMIR, BE
THEY DIPLOMATS IN LEBANON, BE
THEY SOLDIERS IN KUWAIT OR BE
THEY WORKERS IN NEW YORK, BE
THEY SUBWAY TRAVELLERS IN PARIS
WERE ATTACKED OVER AND OVER
AGAIN, IN THE MAJORITY OF
MUSLIM COUNTRIES AND IN THE
WEST ALIKE.
THE GENERAL FEATURE OF THESE,
OF THE RESPONSE TO THESE
ATTACKS SAY FROM 1979 TO
SEPTEMBER 10TH, WAS TO SEE
THESE AS CRIMES AND NOT AS
WARFARE, TO MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO
DESTROY THE ENEMY FORCE, TO
MAKE NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN
POLICY AND NOT TO SEE THE
IDEOLOGY BEHIND THESE EPISODES.
I'LL GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE THAT
SHOWS IT VERY CLEARLY.
IN AUGUST OF 1998, TWO
EMBASSIES WERE BLOWN UP IN EAST
AFRICA.
THE RESPONSE WAS TO LOOK FOR
THE PERPETRATORS, TO CAPTURE
THEM, GIVE THEM -- PUT THEM ON
TRIAL AND CONVICT THEM.
THERE WAS, THERE WAS A CRIMINAL
MODEL HERE.
THERE WAS A FORENSIC SEARCH FOR
EVIDENCE.
LAWYERS, JUDGES, JAIL, WARDENS,
THAT WAS THE METHOD OF DEALING
WITH IT.
THERE WAS NO ATTEMPT TO GET TO
THE UNDERLYING PROBLEM.
NO ATTEMPT TO DEAL WITH THE
ORGANIZATION THAT HAD SENT
THESE PEOPLE.
NO ATTEMPT TO STOP THERE,
FUNDING.
NO FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE IN
POLICIES, IMMIGRATION, ANYTHING
ELSE.
NO, SHIFT IN BALANCE BETWEEN
LAW ENFORCEMENT, INTELLIGENCE
AGENCIES AND MILITARY
ORGANIZATIONS.
AND NO LOOKING AT WHAT WAS,
WHAT IT WAS THAT MOTIVATED
THESE PEOPLE TO BLOW TWO U.S.
EMBASSIES, KILLING OVER 200
PEOPLE.
ON SEPTEMBER 11TH, THERE WAS A
CHANGE AND IT CAN BE DATED TO
SPEECH THAT EVENING GIVEN BY
GEORGE BUSH.
HE DECLARED A WAR ON TERRORISM.
SO WAR, NO LONGER LAW
ENFORCEMENT, WAR.
AND THEN WITHIN A MONTH THE
U.S. AND ALLIED FORCES ATTACKED
THE TALIBAN REGIME IN
AFGHANISTAN AND ATTACKED AL
QAEDA AND SOUGHT TO DESTROY THE
UNDERPINNINGS OF THIS EMINENT
FORCE.
POLICIES CHANGED SOMEWHAT, LIKE
AIRLINE SECURITY.
IN MOST AMERICAN CITIES NOW IF
YOU GO IN A HIGH BUILDING YOU
HAVE TO REGISTER, SHOW HOW YOU
ARE.
IMMIGRATION LAWS CHANGED AROUND
THE WORLD, AROUND THE WEST.
BUT STILL THE IDEOLOGICAL
DIMENSION TENDS TO NOT BE PAID
MUCH ATTENTION TO.
WE ARE FIGHTING VIOLENCE NOT
IDEAS.
WAR ON TERROR SUGGESTS FIGHTING
VIOLENCE.
THE NON-VIOLENT IMAGES, THE
SOURCES OF THIS VIOLENCE TEND
NOT TO GET MUCH ATTENTION.
I BELIEVE A THIRD ERA WILL
BEGIN, I DON'T HAVE A DATE FOR
IT, WHEN THIS IDEOLOGICAL
DIMENSION IS FOCUSED ON.
THAT THE ENEMY IS NOT JUST
TERRORISTS, BUT ALSO ACTIVISTS,
ADMINISTRATORS, JOURNALISTS,
LAWYERS, PHILANTHROPISTS,
PREACHERS, RESEARCHERS,
TEACHERS, EVEN COMPUTER GAMING,
EVEN COMPUTER GAMES.
ALL THOSE ARE PART OF A
MOVEMENT OF WHICH TERRORISM IS
MERELY ONE PART OF THAT MOVEMENT...
THAT IS RADICAL ISLAM.
I'D LIKE TO DEAL WITH TWO PROBLEMS.
WHO IS THE ENEMY?
WHAT IS THE NATURE OF RADICAL
ISLAM AND WHAT SHOULD BE OUR
GOALS IN THE WEST?
NOW THIS IS AS
PROFESSOR GREEN NOTED A
DELICATE AND DIFFICULT SUBJECT.
ONE THAT ONE MUST DEAL WITH
SOBERLY, BUT YET FRANKLY.
LET ME START BY EMPHASIZING THE
ENEMY HERE IS NOT ISLAM, BUT
RADICAL ISLAM.
AND THIS IS A DIFFICULT POINT
TO GET.
INDEED CAROLINE ALPHONSO OF THE
GLOBE AND MAIL GOT IT ALL
WRONG.
SHE SAID THAT I STATE THAT
ISLAM IS THE ENEMY.
AS YOU HEARD FROM PROFESSOR
GREEN I SAID RADICAL ISLAM IS
THE PROBLEM, MODERATE ISLAM THE
FUTURE, IS THE SOLUTION.
I AM NOT SAYING THAT ISLAM IS
THE ENEMY.
I'M SAYING IT'S NOT ISLAM, THE
PERSONAL FAITH.
IT IS NOT TERRORISM, THE
MILITARY TACTIC, IT IS RATHER
RADICAL ISLAM, MILITANT ISLAM,
FUNDAMENTALIST ISLAM, ISLAMISM,
POLITICAL ISLAM, MANY DIFFERENT
NAMES, THE POLITICAL IDEOLOGY,
POLITICAL IDEOLOGY.
IT IS AS HERE TO IS SUPPORTED
BY A SMALL, BUT VERY ACTIVE AND
DYNAMIC PERCENTAGE OF THE
MUSLIM POPULATION.
MY ESTIMATE IS SOME 10 TO 15 percent.
MOST MUSLIMS DO NOT WANT TO
LIVE UNDER THE RADICAL ISLAMIC
REGIME.
THEY MAY BE PIOUS, THEY MAY NOT
BE PIOUS, BUT MOST MUSLIMS DO
NOT WANT TO LIVE THAT WAY.
AND INDEED IT IS STRIKING TO
SEE HOW IN THE COUNTRY, WHICH
HAVE LIVED LONGEST UNDER
RADICAL ISLAMIC RULE, IRAN,
THERE IS A WIDESPREAD
DISSENSION, PIOUS, NON-PIOUS,
ATHEISTS, BELIEVERS, DEISTS,
IRANIANS OF ALL OUTLOOKS, OF
ALL DIFFERENT AGES, BOTH
GENDERS ARE DISMAYED TO STILL
BE LIVING UNDER A RADICAL
ISLAMIC REGIME.
NOW, THE FACT THAT THIS
IDEOLOGY MOTIVATES THE
TERRORISTS IS IMPLICIT.
IF YOU GO TO THE FBI'S MOST
WANTED TERRORIST PAGE EVERY
LAST ONE OF THEM IS AN
ISLAMIST.
ALL 600 OR SO OF THE DETAINEES
IN GUANTANAMO ARE ISLAMISTS.
AND SO FORTH, IT IS QUITE CLEAR
AND INDEED IT HAS BEEN
APPROACHED EVEN BY POLITICIANS.
LET ME TAKE GEORGE BUSH AS AN
EXAMPLE.
BACK IN SEPTEMBER, 2001, ONLY
NINE DAYS AFTER THE ATTACKS, HE
SAID THE ENEMY IS A FRINGE FORM
OF ISLAMIC EXTREMISM THAT IS
HEIR TO ALL THE MURDERS,
IDEOLOGIES OF THE 20TH CENTURY.
AUGUST 2004, HE SAID FRANKLY
THE WAR ON TERROR IS SOMEWHAT
MISNAMED.
IT OUGHT TO BE CALLED THE
STRUGGLE OF THE TOTALITARIAN
POINT OF VIEW THAT USES TERROR
AS A TOOL TO INTIMIDATE THE
FREE.
I LIKED HIS SAYING THAT IT WAS
WRONG TO CALL IT THE WAR ON
TERROR.
I'M NOT PARTICULARLY TAKEN WITH
HIS LONG, SOMEWHAT EUPHEMISTIC
REPLACEMENT.
JANUARY 2005, GEORGE BUSH SAID
I BELIEVE WE ARE IN A GLOBAL
WAR AGAINST AN ISM, THAT CAN BE
DEFEATED AND MUST BE DEFEATED.
WELL, HE'S GETTING A LITTLE
CLOSER BUT HE'S NOT QUITE
THERE.
I THINK AND THIS IS WHAT I SEE
AS ONE OF MY ROLES IS TO SAY
RADICAL ISLAM IS THE STRATEGIC
ENEMY, NOT JUST OF CANADA, NOT
JUST UNITED STATES, BUT OF THE
CIVILIZED WORLD AS A WHOLE
INCLUDING THE ONE BILLION OR
SO, MUSLIMS.
IN FACT THE FIRST VICTIMS OF
RADICAL ISLAMISM ARE MUSLIMS.
IT IS VERY STRIKING TO SEE,
WHETHER IT BE SOMEONE FAMOUS
LIKE SALMAN RUSHDIE, OR 100,
150,000 DEAD IN ALGERIA AS A
RESULT OF AN ISLAMIST UPRISING.
OR MOST DRAMATICALLY, WHAT IS
UNIVERSALLY CONSIDERED TO BE
THE MOST AWFUL HUMANITARIAN
CRISIS IN THE WORLD TODAY, THE
SITUATION IN DARFUR, WHERE IT
IS AN ISLAMIST GOVERNMENT IN
KHARTOUM OF SUDAN THAT IS
PERSECUTING AND KILLING THE
MUSLIM POPULATION OF DARFUR.
RADICAL ISLAM DEMANDS COMPLETE
ADHERENCE TO THE SACRED LAW OF
ISLAM, THE SHARIA.
THIS INCLUDES SUCH WELL, KNOWN
SPECIFICS AS A BAN ON USERY,
THE HAJUD PUNISH, PUNISHMENTS,
THE PHYSICAL, PHYSICAL
PUNISHMENTS, WOMEN'S AND
MINORITIES INFERIOR STATUS,
SEXUAL MODESTY AND DIETARY
LIMITATIONS.
BUT IT GOES FAR BEYOND THESE
SHODDY, THESE ISLAMIC LAW
REFORMANTS TO DEVELOP INTO AN
IDEOLOGY INTO SOMETHING
COMFORTABLE TO OTHER IDEOLOGIES
THAT CONTROL ALL OF LIFE.
SO THAT FOR EXAMPLE IN RECENT
YEARS THERE ARE MAJOR TOMES
THAT DISCUSS ISLAMIC ECONOMICS.
THIS IS NOT TRADITIONAL.
THERE ARE MAJOR INTERPRETATIONS
OF ISLAMIC FAMILY LIFE, ISLAMIC
GOVERNMENTS, ISLAMIC
MILITARIES, WHATEVER THE TOPIC
IS FROM WAR TO CONJUGAL
RELATIONS IT IS A SUBJECT OF
THE ISLAMIST INTEREST.
IT WAS MOST PERFECTLY REALIZED IN
AFGHANISTAN, WHERE FOR FIVE
YEARS FROM 1996 TO 2001 THE
TALIBAN REGIME RAN AFGHANISTAN
CONTROLLING EVERY ASPECT OF LIFE.
THE CREAM FROM THIS IDEOLOGY
WAS WHETHER GIRLS SHOULD GO TO
SCHOOL, WHETHER CHILDREN COULD
FLY KITES, WHETHER ONE COULD GO
TO MOVIES, WHETHER MEN HAD TO
WEAR BEARDS OR NOT, HOW WOMEN
HAD TO BE COVERED AND SO ON.
THIS IS A MODERN INTERPRETATION
OF ISLAM.
THIS IDEOL, IDEOLIGICALIZATION,
IF I MIGHT COIN A TERRIBLE,
NEO, NEO, NEOLOGISM, IS A
DEVELOPMENT OF THE 20TH CENTURY.
IN THE 1920S, WHEN THERE WAS A
WIDESPREAD BELIEF THAT
GOVERNMENTS COULD SOLVE HUMAN
PROBLEMS AND THE MORE POWER THE
GOVERNMENT HAD, THE BETTER THE
PROBLEMS COULD BE SOLVED, IT
WAS AT THAT POINT, AT A POINT
WHEN MUSSOLINI WAS MAKING
TRAINS RUN ON TIME.
WHEN THE TOTO GOVERNMENT WAS
MAKING THE JAPANESE ECONOMY SOAR.
WHEN THE NAZIS WERE APPROACHING
POWER IN GERMANY, WHEN THE NEW
ECONOMIC POLICIES WERE IN PLACE
IN THE SOVIET UNION IT WAS AT
THAT POINT IN EGYPT AND INDIA,
IN PARTICULAR BUT ELSEWHERE
TOO, MUSLIM THINKERS BEGAN
ADAPTING THESE TOTALITARIAN
IDEAS, THESE COMPLETE STATE
CONTROL IDEAS TO ISLAM.
AND IT TOOK SOME 50 YEARS FOR
THESE IDEAS TO REACH POWER,
FIRST MOST NOTABLY IN IRAN.
THESE ARE MODERN IDEAS.
THEY'RE NOT MEDIEVAL.
THEY HAVE ROOTS IN MEDIEVAL
ISLAM TO BE SURE, BUT THEY ARE
MODERN, THEY DATE BACK TO THE
1920S.
RADICAL ISLAM IS AN ISLAMIC
FLAVOURED TOTALITARIANISM.
IT'S ONE, SENTENCE SUMMARY IS
ISLAM IS THE SOLUTION, AN ISLAM
EVERYTHING REDUCES TO ISLAM.
IT RESEMBLES FASCISM AND
COMMUNISM MORE THEN IT
RESEMBLES OTHER RELIGIOUS
EXTREMISTS, IN THAT IT HAS THIS
ALL, ENCOMPASSING, WORLDWIDE
AMBITION.
THE DETAILS ARE OF COURSE ARE
VERY DIFFERENT FROM FASCISM AND
COMMUNISM.
BUT THE GOAL OF TAKING OVER
GOVERNMENT, IMPOSING WAYS ON
THE SUBJECTS, EXPANDING, USING
BRUTAL MEANS AND ULTIMATELY,
ENGAGING IN A CONFLICT BATTLE
WITH THE WEST OVER THE FUTURE
COURSE OF HUMANITY, ALL OF THIS
IS FAMILIAR FROM THE FASCIST
AND COMMUNIST EXPERIENCES.
AS ONE IRANIAN AUTHOR PUTS IT,
AZAN NAFISI, AUTHOR OF "READING
THE WEAKER IN TEHRAN," RADICAL
ISLAM IS A MODERN PHENOMENON IN
THE SAME WAY THAT FASCISM AND
COMMUNISM, BOTH PRODUCTS OF THE
WEST ARE MODERN.
IT TAKES LANGUAGE, GOALS AND
ASPIRATIONS AS MUCH FROM THE
CLASS FORMS OF MARXISM AS IT
DOES FROM RELIGION.
ITS LEADERS ARE AS INFLUENCED
BY LENIN, SARTRE, STALIN AND
PINO AS THEY ARE BY THE
PROPHET.
NOW THE ISLAMIST WORLD DIVIDES
HUMANITY INTO TWO PARTS, THOSE
WHO ARE BELIEVERS IN THEIR
VIEW, THOSE WHO ARE FELLOW
ISLAMISTS AND THOSE WHO ARE
NOT.
INDEED, THE FELLOW MUSLIMS WHO
DISAGREE OR REPUDIATE THIS
DOCTRINE ARE LOOKED UPON
SOMEWHAT EVEN MORE UNFAVOURABLY
THEN NON-MUSLIMS.
THERE'S AN ATTEMPT TO INJECT AS
MUCH AS POSSIBLE INFLUENCES
FROM THE OUTSIDE, TO REJECT
ANYTHING FROM NON-MUSLIMS.
RADICAL ISLAM IN SHORT DERIVES
FROM ISLAM, BUT IS A
MISANTHROPIC, MISOGYNIST,
TRIUMPHALIST, MILLENARIAN,
ANTI-MODERN, ANTI-CHRISTIAN,
ANTI-SEMITIC, TERRORISTIC,
JIHADISTIC AND SUICIDAL VERSION OF IT.
THE CONSEQUENCES OF ISLAM, OF
ISLAMIST SUCCESS CAN BE SEEN IN
IRAN, SUDAN, BANGLADESH, THERE
ONE FINDS A TYRANNICAL AND
BRUTAL BEHAVIOUR TOWARDS THE
SUBJECT POPULATION.
INTELLECTUAL -- ECONOMIC
RETRACTION, THE REPRESSION OF
WOMEN AND NON-MUSLIMS, ETHNIC
CLEANSING, ARMS PROLIFERATION
AND MILITARY AGGRESSION.
THIS IS NOT A SINGLE
PHENOMENON.
THERE ARE DIFFERENT STRAINS.
THERE ARE THE WAHHABI IDEAS
COMING OUT OF SAUDI ARABIA.
THE MUSLIM BRETHREN IDEAS
COMING OUT OF EGYPT, KHOMEINI
IDEAS COMING OUT OF IRAN, THE
DEOBANDI IDEAS COMING OUT OF
INDIA.
BUT I THINK IT IS USEFUL TO USE
AN UMBRELLA TERM LIKE RADICAL
ISLAM.
IT'S ALSO NOT SINGULAR AND THAT
THERE ARE VIOLENT AND NON-
VIOLENT DIMENSIONS.
AND IT IS IN MY VIEW,
ULTIMATELY MORE THE NON-
VIOLENT, THE LEGAL SIDE OF
RADICAL ISLAM THAT IS MORE
DANGEROUS THEN THE VIOLENT, AND
PARTICULARLY FOR US IN THE
WEST.
WE KNOW ABOUT WARFARE.
WE KNOW ABOUT ILLEGALITY.
WE KNOW ABOUT VIOLENCE.
WE HAVE LAW ENFORCEMENT,
INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES AND
MILITARY FORCES TO DEAL WITH IT.
WE DO NOT KNOW...
WE HAVE NO MUSCLES DEVELOPED FOR DEALING
WITH A GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO
BELIEVE THEY HAVE A
CIVILIZATION THAT IS SUPERIOR
TO OUR OWN.
AND WHO ARE READY TO USE...
INFLUENCE IN
THE SCHOOLS, LOBBYING IN THE
CAPITAL, WORKING THE MEDIA TO
REACH THEIR END.
THE CAUSES OF RADICAL ISLAM'S
SUCCESS ARE OFTEN ATTRIBUTED TO
ECONOMICS, U.S. FOREIGN POLICY,
ISRAELI DECISION-MAKING, BUT
THIS IS VERY SUPERFICIAL.
WE'RE, THE ISRAELIS CAN ACT
DIFFERENTLY.
THE UNITED STATES CAN ACT
DIFFERENTLY, WERE THE ECONOMIC
SITUATION IN THE MUSLIM WORLD
WERE, BETTER I THINK RADICAL
ISLAM WOULD STILL BE THERE.
THE UNDERLYING PROBLEM IS MUCH,
MUCH DEEPER.
IT HAS TO DO WITH QUESTIONS OF
IDENTITY AND THEY GO BACK
BASICALLY DATE BACK THAT A
THOUSAND YEARS AGO THE MUSLIM
WORLD WAS THRIVING.
IF THERE WERE NOBEL PRIZES OR
OLYMPIC PRIZES GIVEN OUT IN
1005 MUSLIMS WOULD HAVE HAD A
DISPROPORTIONATE SHARE OF
WINNERS.
TODAY IN 2005, THEY'RE NOT
DOING SO WELL AND THE GREAT
PROBLEM IS TO ANSWER THE
QUESTION OF WHAT WENT WRONG AND
HOW TO FIX IT.
THESE ARE ISSUES OF FRUSTRATION
AND ENVY.
THE MUSLIM WORLD, THE UMMAH, IS
NOT IN GOOD SHAPE.
NOT MILITARILY, NOT
TECHNOLOGICALLY, NOT
ECONOMICALLY AND SO FORTH.
WHAT WENT WRONG AND HOW TO FIX
IT, AND THERE HAVE, BEEN A
SERIES OF SOLUTIONS OFFERED
OVER THE PAST TWO CENTURIES.
THE LAST OF WHICH, THE MOST
RECENT OF WHICH IS RADICAL
ISLAM.
IN OTHER WORDS THE INDIVIDUAL
CIRCUMSTANCES OF ANY INDIVIDUAL
ARE NOT THAT IMPORTANT.
WHAT COUNTS ARE THE GLOBAL
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE MUSLIM,
WORLD.
MY SECOND POINT HAS TO DO WITH
WAR GOALS.
WHAT ARE WE TRYING TO ACHIEVE?
IT'S QUITE STRIKING TO NOTE
THAT NO GOVERNMENT LEADERS OF
WHOM I'VE READ OR LISTENED TO,
HAVE ACTUALLY DEFINED WHAT THE
WAR GOAL IS.
WHAT ARE WE HOPING FOR?
FOR EXAMPLE EARLY ON SECRETARY
OF DEFENSE, MARSHALL SAID THE
GOAL IS TO MAKE, MAKE TERRORISM
GO AWAY AND TO REVERT TO THE
WAY THINGS WERE.
THAT'S NOT A GOAL.
YOU CAN'T HAND THAT TO THE
GENERALS AND SAY, ACHIEVE THIS.
THERE HAS TO BE SOMETHING MORE.
AND I WOULD ARGUE THAT THIS WAR
HAS TWO GOALS, AND THE FIRST IS
DEFEAT RADICAL ISLAM.
NOW, TO USE MY EARLIER
ANALOGIES TO FASCISM AND
COMMUNISM THERE ARE DIFFERENT,
VERY DIFFERENT WAYS IN WHICH
THIS MIGHT BE ACHIEVED.
FASCISM WAS DEFEATED IN BLOOD
AND IRON IN TOTAL WAR IN 1945,
AND NEVER AGAIN WAS A MAJOR
WORLD FORCE.
IT BECAME MARGINAL.
COMMUNISM DISAPPEARED QUIETLY
AND NON-VIOLENTLY.
IN CHINA A SHIFT TOOK PLACE
AFTER THE DEATH OF MAO.
IN THE SOVIET UNION SOMEHOW IT
DISSOLVED THROUGH ECONOMIC AND
OTHER PRESSURES, ALMOST WITHOUT
A SHOT BEING FIRED AND IN OTHER
EX-COMMUNIST COUNTRIES SIMILAR
DEVELOPMENTS HAVE TAKEN PLACE.
SO, ON THE ONE HAND YOU HAVE 1945.
ON THE OTHER HAND, YOU HAVE THE
DISSOLUTION OF COMMUNISM.
THE EFFECT WAS THE SAME.
NEITHER OF THESE MOVEMENTS IS
ANYTHING LIKE THE WORLD SHAKING
FORCE IT WAS IN DECADES PAST.
WHAT THE STRATEGY MUST BE WITH
RADICAL ISLAM I DON'T KNOW.
BUT THE GOAL IS TO MARGINALIZE
IT AS FASCISM AND COMMUNISM HAS BEEN.
IS TO DEFEAT IT.
IS TO MAKE IT CLEAR.
THIS IN FACT HAS TAKEN PLACE
ALREADY IN IRAN AS I MENTIONED
BEFORE.
BUT IT, IN IRAN IT TOOK PLACE
EXPENSIVELY.
EXPENSIVE FOR THE IRANIANS WHO
HAD SUFFERED UNDER THIS REGIME.
EXPENSIVE FOR THE OUTSIDE
WORLD, WHICH HAS BEEN AGGRESSED
UPON.
NOW THE IRANI GOVERNMENT IS
SEEKING TO BUILD ATOMIC
WEAPONRY, MANY PROBLEMS YET TO
COME.
HOW CAN ONE DEAL WITH THIS
TOTAL, TOTALITARIAN TEMPTATION
WITHOUT ACTUALLY HAVING TO GO
THROUGH 25 OR 50 YEARS OF IT
BEING IN POWER.
THAT'S THE CHALLENGE WE FACE.
AND THE SECOND GOAL IS TO
STRENGTHEN MODERATE, ANTI-
ISLAMIST, ISLAM.
RADICAL ISLAM IS THE PROBLEM.
MODERATE ISLAM IS THE SOLUTION.
THEIR, VOICES, THEIR,
INTERPRETERS.
IN FACT, I WOULD SAY THAT PER
CAPITA THERE ARE MORE SUCH
ANTI-ISLAMIST MUSLIMS IN THIS
CITY THEN ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE
WEST, QUITE STRENGTHENING.
PEOPLE, SOME OF THEM, SOME OF
THEM ARE VERY, WELL, KNOWN LIKE
IRSHAD MANJI.
OTHERS HAVE A SMALLER PLATFORM,
BUT ARE NO LESS INTENT ON
GETTING OUT A MESSAGE OF
MODERATION, IDENTITY AND GOOD
NEIGHBOURNESS.
ANTI-ISLAMIST MUSLIMS NEED
SUPPORT, NEED SPONSORSHIP, NEED
MONEY, NEED AUDIENCES, NEED
ENDORSEMENT, NEED PROTECTION
FROM THE RADICALISTS OF THE
ISLAMIST THREAD.
IN SHORT, I SEE THE PROBLEM
ULTIMATELY AS IN SHORT, IN
SHORT, MUSLIM.
IT IS BETWEEN MUSLIMS WHO WANT
TO BE MODERN, MODERATE AND
GOOD, NEIGHBOURLY AND THOSE WHO
DON'T.
WE WHO ARE NOT MUSLIMS ARE IN
THE END, ONLY AUXILIARIES TO
THE MODERATES.
WE HAVE THE GUNS.
WE HAVE THE ECONOMY.
BUT IN THE END IT IS THEY WHO
MUST FORMULATE AN ALTERNATIVE.
IT IS NOT WE WHO CAN DO IT.
NOT SECULAR, WESTERN
GOVERNMENTS OR OTHER, SECULAR
WESTERN, NON-MUSLIM
INSTITUTIONS.
IT IS MUSLIMS WHO MUST ARGUE
AMONG THEMSELVES AND COME TO
THE CONCLUSION THAT THIS
RADICAL ISLAMIC, MESSAGE AND
IDEAL IS FORLORN, CANNOT WORK
FOR THEM.
MUSLIMS IN THE END MUST
CONVINCE EACH OTHER THAT
THERE'S ANOTHER WAY OF DOING IT.
WE, WHO ARE OUTSIDE THE MUSLIM,
THE MUSLIM COMMUNITY CAN ONLY
HELP THOSE WHO ARE TRYING TO
ACHIEVE THIS.
BUT ALSO NOTE THAT THIS IS
PROBABLY THE MOST RADICAL
MOMENT IN SOME 1,400 YEARS OF
ISLAMIC HISTORY.
AND IT'S QUITE STRIKING HOW
MUCH THINGS HAVE CHANGED.
AND HERE I'D LIKE TO CAUTION
THE, AGAINST THE TEMPTATION OF
SEEING WHAT IS TODAY AS HAVING
ALWAYS BEEN THE CASE.
I BEGAN MY CAREER OF STUDYING
ISLAM AND ISLAMIC HISTORY IN
1969, 35 YEARS AGO, 36 YEARS AGO.
IT WAS NOTHING LIKE THIS.
THERE WERE NO SUICIDE BOMBERS.
THERE WERE NO JIHADIS.
THERE WAS NO RADICAL ISLAMIC
MESSAGE COMING OUT LIKE IT IS
TODAY.
THAT WAS AN ERA OF ARAB
SOCIALISM AND OTHER MOVEMENTS,
BUT IT WASN'T RADICAL ISLAM.
I WATCHED IN -- SOMETHING,
WHICH WAS MINOR THERE IN THE
MIDDLE -- BUT VERY MINOR, NOT
POLITICALLY INFLUENCED, TURN
INTO SOMETHING HUGE.
AND IT IS MY HOPE THAT I CAN
ALSO WATCH IT DECLINE.
IT'S NOT PERMANENT.
WE ARE IN THE THROES OF THIS.
IT WOULD BE A GREAT MISTAKE TO
TAKE WHAT IS TODAY AND ASSIGN
IT PERMANENCE.
THIS ESSENTIALISM IS A DEEP
MISTAKE.
ALSO POINT OUT THAT RADICAL
ISLAM THRIVES ON SUCCESS.
911 WAS, A HIGH POINT.
WHEN IT'S NOT DOING WELL
MUSLIMS WHO MIGHT BE MORE
ATTRACTED TO IT ARE LESS
ATTRACTED TO IT.
SO THE GOAL HAS TO BE THAT WE
CAN CRUSH THIS RADICAL
MOVEMENT.
IN CONCLUSION, I AM CONFIDENT
THAT WE THE CIVILIZED WORLD
WILL WIN THIS WAR.
I AM NOT CONFIDENT THAT WE WILL
DO SO EFFICIENTLY AND WITH
MINIMAL LOSS OF LIFE.
I NOTE THAT THERE'S A PROCESS,
WHICH I'VE DUBBED EDUCATION BY
MURDER, WHEREBY WE LEARN WHEN
PEOPLE GET KILLED.
MY HOPE IS THAT WE CAN BE SMART
AND LEARN BEFORE THERE ARE
DEATHS.
THE SECOND CONCLUSION IS THAT
THIS IS A WAR IN WHICH EVERYONE
CAN BE ENGAGED.
THERE'S AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF
RESEARCH NEEDED.
ORGANIZATIONS CAN DO THIS.
INDIVIDUALS CAN DO THIS.
THERE ARE MANY INSPIRING
STORIES OF PEOPLE GETTING
ENGAGED.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE A COUNTER-
TERRORIST.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE A, A
SUBMACHINE GUN TO BE ENGAGED IN
THIS.
THERE'S A HUGE AMOUNT OF WORK
TO BE DONE.
LET ME CLOSE WITH THE WORDS OF
A STRATEGIST BY THE NAME OF
ROBERT STRAUSZ-HUPE WHO LIVED A
VERY LONG LIFE FROM 1903 TO
2002.
HE WAS BORN IN AUSTRIA AND
ENDED UP, ENDED UP IN THE CITY
WHERE I LIVE, PHILADELPHIA.
AND HIS FINAL PUBLIC WORDS CAME
JUST AFTER 911, JUST BEFORE HIS
DEATH, I HAVE LIVED LONG ENOUGH
TO SEE GOOD REPEATEDLY WIN OVER
EVIL, ALTHOUGH AT A MUCH HIGHER
COST THEN WE HAVE BEEN PAYING.
THIS TIME WE HAVE ALREADY PAID
THE PRICE OF VICTORY.
IT REMAINS FOR US TO WIN.
THANK YOU.

[Audience applauding]

Watch: Daniel Pipes on Radical Islam and the War on Terror