At the invitation of the Department of Political Science and the Program of Middle East Studies at Fordham University in New York, Professor Walid Phares, author of the book Future Jihad presented a lecture on "Future Jihad: Can it be avoided?"
Dr Phares, a senior fellow with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies in Washington and a professor of Comparative Politics was introduced by Professor John Entelis, Fordham Middle East Studies director. The lecture was well attended by students and faculty on campus.
Phares introduced his new paperback Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies against the West, published by Palgrave, which is being released this week in the United States. Phares said "the most challenging issue in the War on Terror today is to understand the global nature of the Jihadi movement and the strategic objectives of its adherents." Reviewing the historical development of the Jihadists, both Salafis and Khumeinsts in the 20th century, Phares described the movement as capable for long term thinking process. "The Jihadists are not a reaction to US Foreign policy as many in academic described them since the 1990s. These movements have survived WWII, the Cold War and the 1990s, so that they will have their own time in world politics."
Phares summarized his thesis on the "road to 9/11" and described his projection of Jihadism into the end of this decade. "In the international version of Future Jihad, I cover more areas of interests to the Jihadists such as Europe, Africa, Latin America, and Asia. I try to show how global the ideology and main strategies are." Phares will be lecturing on campuses to introduce his new book and interact with students and faculty.
Notes and Comments
BROUHAHA: What a curious quarrel: President Bush, in Israel, describes the policy of appeasement that led to World War II and the Holocaust, and Senator Barack Obama and his supporters take umbrage, claiming he has been viciously insulted.
Instead of protesting that Bush has implied that Obama would be soft on terrorist masters (because Obama has said he would meet - personally and without preconditions - with Iranian terrorist master Mahmoud Ahmadinejad even as Ahmadinejad's regime is killing Americans in Iraq, squashing freedom in Lebanon, developing nuclear weapons and threatening Israel with genocide), Obama might simply have said: "On this one point, Bush and I agree. I, too, would oppose a policy of appeasement. I, too, look not to Neville Chamberlain but to Winston Churchill as a model."
Politics aside (if we can manage that for a minute), the key issue is not whether you talk to terrorists, despots and tyrants. The issue is what you say - in particular (1) what you are willing to offer and (2) what you are prepared to threaten.
A president who doesn't know is a president who isn't ready to negotiate. A president should sit down with a sworn enemy only when it's clear that a deal - beneficial to our side - is not merely possible but imminent. Anything else is diplomatic malpractice that can only lead to diplomatic defeat.
Also, while everyone is by now familiar with Bush's controversial snippet, how many have taken the trouble to read the passage in context? Do so. It's below. Then decide whether you think these lines were "outrageous" (as Sen. Joe Biden said) or "disgraceful" (as Sen. John Kerry said) or "reckless and reprehensible" (as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said) or "beneath the dignity of the president" (as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said) or "a cheap political attack" (as DNC chairman Howard Dean said):
Continue reading "Notes and Comments" »
Posted by Blog Editor at 07:34 AM in Notes and Comments | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)